GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
General Discussion Forum / Terrible experience in a Christian chat room
« Last post by Kevin397 on Today at 02:22:22 PM »
I was in a Christian chat room, and I brought up a topic that was apparently too heavy for people, involving sexual boundaries and staying pure as a Christian). Now, non of the moderators were around at the time, so someone jumped in and started going off on me.  They told me to stop talking about it, and when I told them my side, they said some things that really stung.  They said things such as "You obviously have little respect for young people", when in reality, I had no idea that young people visited the chat room.  They don't even know me.  Then when I kept arguing back by trying to get them to see how they were judging me by saying the hurtful words, they said that people like me are concerned about deliberately violating boundaries for their own benefit. 

Stuff like this makes me want to never go back to the chat room again.   
12
Theology Forum / Re: Three baptisms?!?!?!?
« Last post by Thaddaeus on Today at 01:50:18 PM »
AVZ.

Quote
You are not answering the question.
Your position is that the aborigine who does not has faith, and who does not repent, professes, confesses and who does not appeal to the blood of Christ...can be saved.
If that is true than his salvation will be by works only. Why don't you explain that?

You wrote in post #380
"If one does not enter into the New Covenant by water baptism, then he isn't in the New Covenant, and he doesn't have eternal life, no matter what he claims."

You wrote in post #377
"We have to repent in order to get saved, we have to believe in order to get saved, we have to walk in obedience to the tenets of the Faith in order to get saved, we have to be water baptized in order to get saved (Mark 16:16), and then we must continue walking in faith and obedience to God in order to maintain our stand as having eternal life in a living relationship with God."

You wrote in post #379
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

You wrote in post #381
"Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple"


Then tell me, how does all this apply to the aborigine?

I thought SM explained it quite well.  There are three basic times or ways in which God revealed Himself to man throughout history.  SM cited Rom 2. It started with man being created in God's image with a knowledge of God built is by his conscience.  Then came the law to guide assist in guiding man in living a life as God desired for us and created us to do.  However, that was never sufficient as God already knew that Christ would come in the flesh and redeem mankind from the fall.  He also gave us a whole new and better way to know Him and to live In Christ with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

So, unless an oborigine is actually listening to you then nothing of the former matters and he also falls under the current dispensation.  As for you, you have all four aspects which is why you will be given a greater punishment in rejecting Christ.  All men will be judged according to the grace that was given to each.
13
Theology Forum / Re: Three baptisms?!?!?!?
« Last post by Thaddaeus on Today at 01:43:46 PM »
Swordmaster,

Quote
Negative, you are now grasping for straws. Circumcision of the New Covenant comes to a person once, and after, they have entered into the New Covenant. You don't get anything that God has made provision for through the New Covenant until AFTER you enter therein...through water baptism. Again, what has God provided for in the New Covenant?

salvation
eternal life
redemption
imputed righteousness "kimp
imputed holiness
atonement in Christ
reconciliation
the indwelling Spirit of God
the gifts of the Spirit
etc...etc...etc...

This may be some fine points on your list but I feel that clarification is needed.

If by salvation you actually mean eternal life, OK, but salvation is what Christ accomplished by His Incarnation, death and resurrection for mankind.  It provided for eternal life to those who would choose to enter therein, a relationship with Christ.

Thus eternal life is part of the covenant, not salvation as such.

Redemption is also what Christ accomplished outside of the covenant for mankind. Redemption provides for eternal life or the covenant.

The word "Imputed" has an external meaning.  This is what Christ also did by His Incarnation, death and resurrection. He made all men righteous, by giving them life.

However, believers cannot be "imputed righteousness" unless you also believe that they are external or outside of Christ.  Therefore the correct term is "imparted rightousness" which has an internal meaning, or being part of the source, not external to it.

Atonement is also a gift of Christ by His Incarnation, death and resurrection.  It is part of the universal salvation of mankind.  What it provides is forgiveness which is given to those within the covenant and to those who desire to enter.  It is repent and be baptised.

The rest sre all part of the covenent, or also known as the Church or the Body of Christ.
14
Repub voters aren't necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Now the truth emerges. You are either a democrat, wishing that Hillary will win, or you are admitting that you , yourself, are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Since you do not appear to be ultraly dim witted, I will suggest the first.

It will come as no shock if it also costs congressional seats.

That was a given long before anyone threw their hat into the ring.   


" Secure the border" is vastly different from 'build the wall". I don't think it was an oversight that the new phrase was presented yesterday.

I have a plan you will like...... ::nodding:: Since a wall will take time to build. AND LONGER STILL IF WE USE UNION LABOR... Since you, Crowcamp, do not like the idea of securing the border... I suggest that we send each and every border patrol agent to somewhere else and
just let whoever wants to come over come over until the wall is built.

Is this a good idea to you?

No?

What would you, Crowcamp, do until the time of completion?

First, I am registered as Independent, but rarely vote other than Republican as that party tends to (or at least used to) conform closest to my personal views. Obviously I am dim witted or I wouldn't be wasting my time in inane discussions with you.  ::smile:: Finally, your never ending accusations of me being a lair has grown quite old. After a time, it becomes juvenile.

Second, if it was a given going in for you that Trump's nomination would cause losses in the senate, then I am at a complete loss as to why you would have supported him. With the limited chances of any Repub beating Clinton, holding on to the senate was and is a must. You have noted many, many times the risk involving SCOTUS appointments, but are still willing to lose control of the senate, the only thing standing in the way of liberal justices, to, what, prove a point?

Third, I have never once indicated I "do not like the idea of securing the border". That is nothing more than you creating a false narrative to fit your personal dislike for me. Now, as for "what would I do", for starters, not declare 10 thousand times that I will build a wall then two months before the election start back pedaling on my far too often made declaration. For many of the die hard Trump supporters that was the one and only issue. For many other Trump supporters their support centered on him not being a typical flip flopping politician, yet now that appears to be exactly what he is.

Forgetting Trump, the answer to our illegal immigration problem does not require an unaffordable, unnecessary, unworkable wall. What it requires is a crack down on those that employ the illegals and heavy pressure on the Mexicans as a whole to set things right in their own country. It's a standard falsehood for folks to say the illegals come here looking for work. No, they come here because work is waiting for them. There has been a pipeline in place for decades. You need farm workers, you put in an order for X amount of farm workers. Same with many other industries. Sure, there are bad people coming here to do bad things and there are those coming here to take advantage of the welfare system, but by and large, most are coming here for a better life than the one they had and because they have been sought. The immigration mess is no different than the drug epidemic. With drugs, we go after the users because they are an easy target, but don't put the hammer down hard enough on the dealers. With immigration, we focus on the illegal immigrants when the real problem is American employers taking advantage of folks for their own gain and a Mexican government that is corrupt beyond corrupt. You want this immigration mess to end? You want a secure border? Start focusing on the real problems, the real criminals here, and the mess goes away. And no, it won't be perfect, but the southern border can be every bit as secure as the northern border, and no wall required.

Simple answers do not cure complex problems. They might get folks all in a twitter about some politician, but they don't solve problems.
15


Without party incumbency, Republicans haven't won the national popular vote since 1980 (36 years ago) and Republicanism is far weaker now than then.  GW Bush won the electoral vote in 2000 by the skin of his teeth, but lost the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.



Proof that the electoral system is not for the people. It rigs the outcome.

You are in error and drew the incorrect conclusion.  It doesn't rig the system.  It is the system.  And it gives the smaller states some voice in the national conversation.  The founding fathers were correct.  If we did away with the electoral college, the eastern and western seaboards would control the whole conversation.
16


Without party incumbency, Republicans haven't won the national popular vote since 1980 (36 years ago) and Republicanism is far weaker now than then.  GW Bush won the electoral vote in 2000 by the skin of his teeth, but lost the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.



Proof that the electoral system is not for the people. It rigs the outcome.
17
Repub voters aren't necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Now the truth emerges. You are either a democrat, wishing that Hillary will win, or you are admitting that you , yourself, are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Since you do not appear to be ultraly dim witted, I will suggest the first.

It will come as no shock if it also costs congressional seats.

That was a given long before anyone threw their hat into the ring.   


" Secure the border" is vastly different from 'build the wall". I don't think it was an oversight that the new phrase was presented yesterday.

I have a plan you will like...... ::nodding:: Since a wall will take time to build. AND LONGER STILL IF WE USE UNION LABOR... Since you, Crowcamp, do not like the idea of securing the border... I suggest that we send each and every border patrol agent to somewhere else and
just let whoever wants to come over come over until the wall is built.

Is this a good idea to you?

No?

What would you, Crowcamp, do until the time of completion?
18
Sabbath 8/27/16 Seventh Day Baptist Church Pastor Wray sermon “Burdens” Luke 13:10-17



When I see people with good posture, standing or sitting straight, I admire them. I used to have good posture as well when playing basketball as a kid. I got fairly good at basketball at school and in the neighborhood. I spent hours shooting baskets and I was the best basketball player in middle school. When I started playing with the high school teams, I wasn’t the only good player anymore. I got bullied because I was younger and I got anxious and lost my confidence. I began to slump my shoulders because I was anxious and I haven’t had as good posture since.

One day Jesus was teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath and a woman came in that was bent over and she couldn’t stand straight. Was she at church every Sabbath or had she just come to see Jesus? Had she heard that Jesus cared and had a special concern for the lost, sick and hungry folk? What doctors and medications had she already tried? Had she read self-help books or spent money at seminars to get healed? I think this woman’s problem was more mental, more spiritual than physical. The scripture says she has a “spirit” of infirmity. What had made her back to bend? Had she been bullied as a kid? Did she get this way suddenly or did it happen over time?

Some people today are working in cubicles, sitting on city buses and are burdened with many years of suffering. A divorce, loss of a loved one and financial worries can cause someone’s back to bend. Spiritual anxiety and being alone can cause someone’s back to bend. We never know what people are going through. People are in church because they hurt. The woman in our text went to church to hear God’s Word. She was surprised when Jesus saw her. Jesus sees beyond the façade, the pleasantries and He sees the real deal. He saw the woman’s hurts, struggles and her pains.  Jesus saw her who had been bound by Satan in her pain for 18 years. Jesus saw and loved her with Agape love.

This Agape love is the same love Jesus has when He looks at you. Jesus loves people who are in need. He calls us to himself and if we come, we straighten up. We stop doing crime, smoking dope and stealing. We straighten up and do right. This only happens when Jesus calls us and we run into His arms. Then we can and will stand straight. We will become a completely different person. Our outlook will change and we will have confidence. Jesus will give us this confidence. The only way to live is to stand in the embrace of the one who love me no matter who I am.  Jesus!!

There is a lot of hate in this world and how people make it without Jesus, I don’t know. There was a severely beaten 4 year old child that was asked by her social worker, what was her name. The child had a swollen black eye. The 4 year old child said her name was “idiot” because she was called idiot for so long by her mother and the mother’s boyfriend. We need to pray for the child and pray for her mother and the boyfriend too. Hurt people will hurt other people. Not being able to stand up straight is a learned behavior. Basking in the love of Jesus is a learned behavior. The Bible says if the Son of God sets your free, you will be free indeed. I’ve found that to be true, have you? May the experience of having the Son set us free, so we will be free indeed, be unto all the people.
AMEN
19

There is no sense in going through and addressing all the points of the article at the link provided. The premise it is built upon is false. Loraine Boettner’s book is not at all the primary source of so called anti-Catholicism today and never was any such thing at any time.


My premise is not false. I was replying to Hobie's "history" list and the primary source of that is Lorraine Boettner's book.


The premise of the article is false, when it claims Boettner's book as the source of modern anti-Catholicism.


The premise is correct.  If you look at Hobie's list it doesn't reference the Bible at all.  If you were on the receiveing end of as much of this stuff as I have been you would recognise the source - Boettner's book and Alexander Hislop's "Two Babylons".

Anti-Catholics on forums are regularly coming up with lists of supposed Catholic errors.


Yea, OK Winsome, I leave you with that which you have chosen. If it weren't for Boettner's and Hislop's books everyone would be alright with the teachings of the church of Rome, and there increased political clout and influence. The following link though, is to a much older list than Boettner's. No doubt it is quite a bit more accurate, coming from a Catholic priest himself.

http://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html

20
Computer Assistance / Re: Vistas to windows
« Last post by Texas Conservative on Today at 10:45:58 AM »
Quote
Again, why are you giving anyone tech advice?  Windows 7 is not "fully supported".  Microsoft hasn't released any new software for Windows 7 since 2014, other than security updates.  No modern Windows software (UWP) runs on Windows 7.  And, third party developers will stop legacy Windows 7 support relatively quickly.

It is fully supported.  You can't change the definition to fulfill your argument.

Quote
Quote
The reason for recommending 7 over 10 is purely based on the age of his machine, in my experience (yes, experience) 10 has more compatibility issues with older machines than does 7, and finally the GUI of 7 will be much more familiar for a Vista user than that of 10.

You've been informed by two people that Windows 10 compatibility can be checked by a software tool.  Sorry, I'm not going to put any weight on your experience, especially when it's not necessary.  And, Windows 10 works just about as much like Vista as Windows 7 does.  See Icon.  Click Icon.

It is true that 7 will be more familiar than 10, and Linux Mint with Gnome will be more familiar to a Vista user than than of 10.  I would never suggest upgrading to a Windows OS on a Vista machine.  I would recommend buying a new machine if a change is needed or installing a lightweight linux distro if you don't want to buy new hardware.


Quote
Quote
Really? It's the processor architecture that determines whether an X86 or X64 OS should or can be used, in X86 trim Windows will only see 3.5GB of RAM but that has nothing at all to do with whether a 32 or 64 bit OS should be used.

You need to find another job and you need to stop giving people computer advice.   Processor architecture has nothing to do with with choosing x86 or x64, as any Vista computer has a 64-bit processor.   32-bit Windows works better on computers with less than 4GB RAM (because 32-bit Windows has significantly lower memory requirements) and 32-bit Windows is compatibility with practically all windows Software.  64-bit Windows is not compatible with lots of older Windows software (anything with 16-bit code, which includes a lot of XP era software).  So, you see, techie, the amount of RAM is the only relevant question.

Processor architecture does matter, as does whether the motherboard BIOS has support for PAE, as does OS limitations.  A 32 bit linux distro with a machine that has PAE and more than 3.5 GB or RAM can use the entire amount of RAM.  Even with PAE, the licensing policy of Windows for many of the 32 bit Windows OS options limits the amount of RAM to be used to 3.5 GB, and that includes Windows 10. 

Quote
Quote
$30-$40 is much cheaper than purchasing a new PC, a fresh install of a proven OS will breathe some new life into the machine.

Wrong.  Any new copy of any version of Windows is over $100 (upgrade, OEM).  And, $200 for retail, full-version.  And, I wouldn't even sink $30 into an old Vista machine, not when you can get a new Windows 10 computers so cheap.
 

I agree here.  I would get new, live with it, or go with a Linux distro.  Linux is free, the software is easy to use if you are just doing the facebooks or googles. Driver support for printers is not always fun.

Quote
Quote
Mint, or any *nix OS still isn't the best choice for novice.

*nix?  What's that asterisk stand for other than "Li".  You thin Unix is even a remote consideration?   Anyone who can manage an OS upgrade can manage Mint.  Find another line of work.

For a novice, I wouldn't recommend Windows or Linux, for the average user that just uses the machine for internet, pictures, and word processing.  I would recommend a Chromebook.  It has a greater degree of simplicity.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10