Why We Are Losing

[Dave Lucas]

Jesus Himself said, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law---a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household’” (Matthew 10:34-36).

This is not fighting either. This is how his words will tear people apart cause THEM to fight with each other because his new way will fight the old way.

“From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it” (Matthew 11:12).

Again NOT a call to physical violence. Here he is saying that the old way to get to Heaven was with GREAT effort. Work. Not by his new way that John was spreading. Though peace, though love, through faith and through trust upon Jesus.[/QUOTE]

“Those who hate Him He will repay to their face by destruction; He will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate Him” (Deuteronomy 7:10).

Old wine, no longer applies.

“While people are saying, ‘Peace and safety,’ destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape” (1 Thessalonians 5:3).

This is about false hopes. Thinking that people WILL be peaceful when they are unsaved, drinking old wine. A warning that not everyone will be as loving as we would.

In raising the moral consciousness of the world, God must take the people as He finds them and introduce principles of righteousness within the moral framework with which the people can identify. We can be assured though, that it is always with justice that God judges and makes war (Revelation 19:11).

“For we know Him who said, ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ and again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:30-).

And this after Jesus' coming to give his life away.

This is dealing with final judgement when he WILL repay, he WILL be violent.

But when he came as a man, he was not. He never raised a hand against anyone to smite them down.

He could have if he wished. With word all the world could have perished.

But that was NOT his job. NOT his mission. He was not like the Maccabees. That is what the Jews wanted. A war leader. He was not. Not yet.

 

[calvin]

Now, to try and say that Christians,( ME) who stand on the Bible as the Word of God and disagree with you, and then make the attempt to link us (ME) with the Muslim terrorist who killed 3000 innocent men, women and children is an absolute abomination unworthy of anyone to say much less a Christian. It leads me to ask you.......Are you in fact a Christian believer???

We were having a simple conversation and now your tone and accusations have for some reason become very personal.
Would you can to apologize and explain or wait for the mods to close down yet another really good thread because of your comments?

Sadly Major the conclusion seems to be unavoidable.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

But God is perfect and would never be a hypocrite! Therefore it would make no sense for him to not follow his own rules as this would mean he is not perfect and certainly not our messiah! And that is blasphemy! Blessed be O blastemopher!

Consider this...
There is no verse that says thou shalt not kill. There are many, many verses that say thou shalt not murder or thou shalt not kill the righteous and innocent.

Don't twist this as me saying we can now do what we want and kill if we think it is right, because we don't necessarily have that moral authority. However, if God, who is the ultimate level of perfection and doesn't even need the slightest of change and is also the pinnacle sanctuary of justice, then when a life dies due to God's plan, this is not murder because murder, by definition, is unjust. But if we decide to take killing into our own hands, it IS murder by default because it is unjust.

You're right that God is not a hypocrite, but there are some things that need to be noticed in our differences to God.

For instance, we are commanded by God to worship Him, but ONLY Him, which means we cannot worship ourselves. However, God CAN and DOES worship Himself. Is He breaking one of His rules? Of course not. He worships Himself not because he is arrogant, but because He knows His worthiness. After all, we don't worship Him for His benefit -- He doesn't need us, but He knows we need Him.

 

[Huntingteckel]

His whip was for the animals.

Look at verse 15 and the context.

He did not hurt the people physically.

You don't know whether they were hurt physically or not.

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.
(Mat 21:12 ESV)

Again, He could have slapped each of them. We don't have enough information to know.

 

[calvin]

PeaceLikeaRiver..........please consider what you have done in post #76. By altering the quoted text that Major used in his post, you have born false witness against him. What would happen to you if you placed that post into an affidavit and tabled it in a court of law??........that is right, you would 'go for a row'. Indeed what does the Scriptures say about those who give false testimony?

Think about it.

 

[Huntingteckel]

PeaceLikeaRiver..........please consider what you have done in post #76. By altering the quoted text that Major used in his post, you have born false witness against him. What would happen to you if you placed that post into an affidavit and tabled it in a court of law??........that is right, you would 'go for a row'. Indeed what does the Scriptures say about those who give false testimony?

Think about it.

He didn't alter anything. He quoted the specific parts he wanted to respond to and quoted them exactly. If he took something out of context I'm sure it was on accident since anyone can just read the original post.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

You don't know whether they were hurt physically or not.

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.
(Mat 21:12 ESV)

Again, He could have slapped each of them. We don't have enough information to know.

We don't know, down to the letter, what physically happened to the people in the temple, but it's reside the point. It's reasonable to conclude that no one was hurt.

 

[Huntingteckel]

We don't know, down to the letter, what physically happened to the people in the temple, but it's reside the point. It's reasonable to conclude that no one was hurt.

I agree. It's reasonable but it can't be stated as if it's fact. I don't think He hurt anyone over maybe a bruise from falling or from being grabbed.

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

What it actually comes down to is that YOU do not accept the Bible as the Word of God. It is just that simple and you in fact said exactly that.

I neither said that nor believe it.

I know what you said about terrorist and you meant what you said as YOU placed all Christians in the same boat as Muslim terrorist. You can back track all you want but that is exactly what you said and meant.

No, and I know I had said I was done with all this but I REALLY have to speak up here. What I said was, quote: " those attitudes can also make people fly airplanes into buildings. I'm sure they thought they had God on their side too." And what I am talking about is religious fervor. The point being made was that people of any religious stripe can convince themselves they've got God on their side, and that conviction CAN cause people to do unreasonable things. Now, please, tell me what is incorrect about that.

 

[calvin]

He didn't alter anything. He quoted the specific parts he wanted to respond to and quoted them exactly. If he took something out of context I'm sure it was on accident since anyone can just read the original post.

On the contrary.. Look at the font used as being a quoted word from Major. It is one thing to emphasize your own words by using colour or different font, it is entirely different to alter the quoted word of another to represent their words other than as they presented them. There was no accident it was a deliberate misrepresentation of Major's post. Indeed when I read post # 76, I had to scroll back to make sure Major had not disgraced himself by posting as quoted. seriously.....if you want to scream or use colourful metaphores or whatever...fine, but don't alter another's post to achieve maximum deception.

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

PeaceLikeaRiver..........please consider what you have done in post #76. By altering the quoted text that Major used in his post, you have born false witness against him. What would happen to you if you placed that post into an affidavit and tabled it in a court of law??........that is right, you would 'go for a row'. Indeed what does the Scriptures say about those who give false testimony?

Think about it.

What are you talking about? I bolded a word he used. That's all. No text was altered. The bolded text was bolded because that's the area I wanted specifically to address.

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

On the contrary.. Look at the font used as being a quoted word from Major. It is one thing to emphasize your own words by using colour or different font, it is entirely different to alter the quoted word of another to represent their words other than as they presented them. There was no accident it was a deliberate misrepresentation of Major's post. Indeed when I read post # 76, I had to scroll back to make sure Major had not disgraced himself by posting as quoted. seriously.....if you want to scream or use colourful metaphores or whatever...fine, but don't alter another's post to achieve maximum deception.

Maximum deception???? I BOLDED a single word in a quote to show he used a word that did not exist when the Bible was written! I'm not deceiving anybody!

 

[Huntingteckel]

On the contrary.. Look at the font used as being a quoted word from Major. It is one thing to emphasize your own words by using colour or different font, it is entirely different to alter the quoted word of another to represent their words other than as they presented them. There was no accident it was a deliberate misrepresentation of Major's post. Indeed when I read post # 76, I had to scroll back to make sure Major had not disgraced himself by posting as quoted. seriously.....if you want to scream or use colourful metaphores or whatever...fine, but don't alter another's post to achieve maximum deception.

People underline others posts all the time to show which specific part of the post they are talking about. I think you're being a little quick to assume Peace was trying to be deceptive here when, as far as I know, he has no history of it.

 

[Huntingteckel]

Maximum deception???? I BOLDED a single word in a quote to show he used a word that did not exist when the Bible was written! I'm not deceiving anybody!

I don't think that is deceptive either. I think it would be once thing if you slipped italicized word in there and then didn't bring it up but you obviously were trying to draw attention to the word. And you didn't try to just pass it off as they wrote it that way anyway.

 

[calvin]

There are way too many posts that are showing a complete lack of respect for the word of God in this thread
IMNSHO.

People underline others posts all the time to show which specific part of the post they are talking about. I think you're being a little quick to assume Peace was trying to be deceptive here when, as far as I know, he has no history of it.

Huntingteckel posted "I think you're being a little quick to assume Peace was trying to be deceptive here when, as far as I know, he has no history of it" There are many honorable ways of quoting someone. There are many 'not so honorable' ways too.
But enough of this as it really does not matter what you think he meant or didn't mean....does it. He is free to answer for himself.

So now back to a few germane scriptures.
Is there really a difference between having homosexual desires and acting on them??? Perhaps in the eyes of fallen man, yes there is but in the eyes of God?
Consider :Matt. 5:28 Yeah OK so the topic here is heterosexual lust, but how is that going to be not OK yet homosexual lust is going to be OK in God's eyes??

Are we, the Church losing???? Absolutely not!!!...else Jesus is a liar or at best somewhat incompetent....why?? Consider Matt. 16:18.
We are told elsewhere that before the end there will be a falling away. It is part of the plan, it is not dependent on us.
Of course that doesn't mean we throw the towel in, but we don't whip ourselves either. We work while it is still day, knowing night is fast approaching.

 

[Huntingteckel]

There are way too many posts that are showing a complete lack of respect for the word of God in this thread
IMNSHO.

Huntingteckel posted "I think you're being a little quick to assume Peace was trying to be deceptive here when, as far as I know, he has no history of it" There are many honorable ways of quoting someone. There are many 'not so honorable' ways too.
But enough of this as it really does not matter what you think he meant or didn't mean....does it. He is free to answer for himself.

Well, @Mike Flanaganmenstein started the thread so that isn't surprising.

I'm just wondering why you don't do this with everyone that edits people's posts when they quote it. I know he's more than capable of answering for himself but I will defend him the same way I'd defend you if someone said you were being deceptive when it wasn't so.

 

[calvin]

I don't think that is deceptive either. I think it would be once thing if you slipped italicized word in there and then didn't bring it up but you obviously were trying to draw attention to the word. And you didn't try to just pass it off as they wrote it that way anyway.

But that is just the point. It was passed off as being posted with large font.......the very fact that it was contained within the quote marks. If you quote or rather I should say misquote some one by altering there quoted post, you are altering what they posted.
Well, I do think it is deceptive. See how I have used your word, but I have not altered anything within your quoted word/s in doing so.

 

[Huntingteckel]

But that is just the point. It was passed off as being posted with large font.......the very fact that it was contained within the quote marks. If you quote or rather I should say misquote some one by altering there quoted post, you are altering what they posted.
Well, I do think it is deceptive. See how I have used your word, but I have not altered anything within your quoted word/s in doing so.

Okay.

 

[calvin]

Well, @Mike Flanaganmenstein started the thread so that isn't surprising.

I'm just wondering why you don't do this with everyone that edits people's posts when they quote it. I know he's more than capable of answering for himself but I will defend him the same way I'd defend you if someone said you were being deceptive when it wasn't so.

The reason is because I'm neither a moderator nor a wannabe moderator. I don't have time to read every post. Besides can you point to any other posts containing a similar misquote?? Not saying that there are none, but I mean ones with such confrontational bolding?

 

[Huntingteckel]

The reason is because I'm neither a moderator nor a wannabe moderator. I don't have time to read every post. Besides can you point to any other posts containing a similar misquote?? Not saying that there are none, but I mean ones with such confrontational bolding?

I see quoted posts with underlines quite often. I don't see how it's confrontational, but maybe that's just me.