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


Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
Parenting and Family Life Forum / Re: Parental titles
« Last post by MeMyself on Today at 01:05:01 PM »
I'm pretty much like Red. My grandkids call me Papa, but they do say yes sir and no sir. Which makes me proud of them. I wasn't hard on them about it, but their parents drilled that into them and I think that is good. I'm not only old, but old school as well.

Not a thing wrong with that, Jaime!  I appreciate the grace with which you spoke of your preferences, though.

I truly meant no harm when I brought it up.  I was just trying to show that there are real cultural differences in how people view certain phrases and to tout one as righteous and a MUST or else you aren't godly or following God's Word is over the top, IMO, of course.  ::smile::
32
Theology Forum / Re: Unpopular
« Last post by MeMyself on Today at 12:59:25 PM »
Negative, MM. God does not over look the false ideologies that you may have in your theology, He does not cover it over...if that was the case, salvation would be universal.

As as example, according to John 8:24, if you don't believe that Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh, then you can't be saved. JW's nor Mormons can ever get saved as long as they believe what they are taught by their spiritual leaders...and God will not overlook or cover that nonsense over.

Obviously, I was speaking to the different theological beliefs in mainstream Christianity, since that was the context in-which we were speaking.


What I said still applied, because there are a number of false doctrines, particularly within Reformed and especially within Calvinism, that are sadly considered "mainstream Christianity" that are decidedly unbiblical.

but, what of those that say the exact same thing of your theology, Sword?  Because people have.  You can't possibly think you know everything, can answer for everything, have perfect understanding, so that God's grace isn't necessary, can you?


Your playing games, MM.

No, I am actually not playing games. I understand why you'd wish to dismiss me as such though.  Better to ignore what someone is saying than actually think about a position you take on a matter.

Quote
What matters is that one's theology is aligned with Scripture, says what Scripture says...and when we interpret the Scriptures not only according to the Greek (which most here do NOT do), and utilize a complete Biblical hermeneutic in their interpretation process (which most here do NOT do), then one's theology will be as accurate as it can be - assuming that such a person is not allowing any contorting attitudes and bias' to color and distort their interpretation process.

I never stated that I know it all, and have frequently confessed that I don't know much about some Biblical subjects because they just are not that important to know, from my point of view. But what I do know, I know because - unlike most here - I have spent the years studying, and not just studying according to what I think, but according to what the Scriptures as a whole clearly state.

The difference between us, MM, is that you only seem concerned about what you have been taught, and defend that bias to death.

Actually, you are wrong again.  I don't know where you get off being so sure you know the motive of me, but you are wrong wrong wrong.

Quote
I don't care for what I have been taught in the past - truth is the ONLY thing that counts to me, just as my signature says, I hate every false thing, because if its false it only has one end, eternal flames. You don't seem to place the premium upon truth like I do...in so many words, you appear only to be a bias defender, not a truth seeker.

It is fine to be a bias defender AND a truth seeker, but that isn't the lot here...and anyone who spends enough time here can clearly see that.

Quote
what of those that say the exact same thing of your theology, Sword?  Because people have.


Quite so...and quite expected, too. What do you think the catholics were saying about Luther and Calvin in their day? And you think that because you follow their doctrine that you have it right? THAT is funny...

NO!  I don't even try to pretend that I have all the answers or perfect understading.  That is the whole point of this conversation, NONE of us do!

Quote
I will say to you what I have always said...you (all of us) need to throw away what we have been taught, learn how to CORRECTLY and FULLY study the Scriptures for ourselves, and then take the time necessary to develop your theology according to the Scriptures, not the false teachings of dead men long gone. That is the difference between us...I have done it and still continue to do it, and by all appearances, you do not...and don't seem to care to.

No insult intended anywhere in that exchange.

Oh, yeah...not insulting at.all.  ::eatingpopcorn:
33
Parenting and Family Life Forum / Re: Parental titles
« Last post by chosenone on Today at 12:50:54 PM »
My 12 year old son calls me either Dad or by my first name depending on the situation.  My 10 year old daughter only calls me Dad.  My wife only wants to be called Mom by both kids.  In public/church, I prefer to not be addressed as Mr. under any circumstances and always tell people to please use my first name.  I teach religious education at our church to 5th & 6th graders.  I am the only instructor that the kids do not have to address as at Mr./Mrs.

I respect that you are willing to teach at the 5th and 6th grade level at church. I tried that once and vowed never again. I would rather teach in a room full of pious elders and deacons and their wives than try to convey anything to 5th and 6th graders. My teaching methods involve spurring discussion, but with that age group, they seem to be so self conscious that they clam up pretty soon. Me lecturing is a pretty sad sight. But I love to banter back and forth as most here know!.  ::smile::

I'm pretty much like Red. My grandkids call me Papa, but they do say yes sir and no sir. Which makes me proud of them. I wasn't hard on them about it, but their parents drilled that into them and I think that is good. I'm not only old, but old school as well.
 

Different countries and parts of countries vary in things like this and have their own names and ways of addressing others. 
34
Theology Forum / Re: Unpopular
« Last post by SwordMaster on Today at 12:50:23 PM »
Quote
I think the message is distorted in the fact that it seemed to be promoting the idea of substitutionary atonement, in the sense that humans are all just sinful pieces of crap, so Jesus died to "cover " us. This is something I disagree with,

Why would Jesus have to die, if not to atone for us and cover us in His righteousness?
Also, why is it so terrifying to admit that we are sinful and in desperate need of our Savior?


This is where your lack of understanding the purpose of the atonement comes into play, MM.

The purpose of the atonement is to provide those who so desire, cleansing and forgiveness so that we can enter into the Holy of Holies - the very presence of God - so that we can engage Him in personal relationship. The idea that Christ was our substitute is no where to be found in the NT Scriptures (unless I missed it somewhere). The idea of Christ being a substitutionary sacrifice, I believe, comes from the law of substitution of one animal for another in the OT law...but we are not an animal.

Under the OT law of atonement, the animal did NOT die in place of the sinner, the animal died because blood is required to make atonement, or propitiation, for the sinner's sin. Christ did NOT take our place on the cross, however much Reformed theology likes to tell us all that He did. His death was the replacement of animal sacrifice, it was not a replacement of us.

That just looks like semantics to me.

Interesting to read your understanding though, Sword. Thanks for sharing.


I believe that this is part of the problem here...people use the word "semantics" when they don't apparently have a clue about what semantics are.

Do you ever use a word in such a way as to fill it with a definition that is not part of its dictionary entry? Yes, you do...we all do, and deciphering what you actually mean (whether a dictionary definition, or a meaning all your own) is what semantics is all about. If you understand what the word means, and really honestly study the Scriptures, you will find that semantics is necessary because John, Jesus, Paul, etc...all use semantic meanings unique only to themselves in specific words and phrases that they use.

It's not just semantics, and when you say that, you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about.



35
Parenting and Family Life Forum / Re: Parental titles
« Last post by chosenone on Today at 12:48:48 PM »


We do that too!  "Aunt so in so" or "Uncle whats his name", and I never thought anything of it.  My in-laws find this practice to be *highly* and I mean *highly* offensive. Its first name only with them, no negotiations! ::shrug::   ::giggle:: No idea why, but I abide by it when we are swimming with the dh's family.  Its interesting to me how differently we all do things::smile::

That's so true. I was raised in a family of huggers. We hug hello and good-bye. Sometimes a light peck on the cheek, but most of the time, just a little hug. When I got married, all my in-laws kissed on the mouth for their hello and good-bye greetings. No hugs. No touching whatsoever except for lips. Didn't matter if the person was my teenage brother-in-law, the 80 year old grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins...big wet kiss on the mouth when saying hello and good-bye. I thought that was weird, and I didn't like it at all. (I also wondered if it was a Texas thing)

Oh dear, no kisses on the mouth for me thanks, apart from my husband.  I do hug my family and a few close friends, but no lip kissing thanks.  ::eek::
36
Theology Forum / Re: Unpopular
« Last post by SwordMaster on Today at 12:46:06 PM »
Negative, MM. God does not over look the false ideologies that you may have in your theology, He does not cover it over...if that was the case, salvation would be universal.

As as example, according to John 8:24, if you don't believe that Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh, then you can't be saved. JW's nor Mormons can ever get saved as long as they believe what they are taught by their spiritual leaders...and God will not overlook or cover that nonsense over.

Obviously, I was speaking to the different theological beliefs in mainstream Christianity, since that was the context in-which we were speaking.


What I said still applied, because there are a number of false doctrines, particularly within Reformed and especially within Calvinism, that are sadly considered "mainstream Christianity" that are decidedly unbiblical.

but, what of those that say the exact same thing of your theology, Sword?  Because people have.  You can't possibly think you know everything, can answer for everything, have perfect understanding, so that God's grace isn't necessary, can you?


Your playing games, MM.

What matters is that one's theology is aligned with Scripture, says what Scripture says...and when we interpret the Scriptures not only according to the Greek (which most here do NOT do), and utilize a complete Biblical hermeneutic in their interpretation process (which most here do NOT do), then one's theology will be as accurate as it can be - assuming that such a person is not allowing any contorting attitudes and bias' to color and distort their interpretation process.

I never stated that I know it all, and have frequently confessed that I don't know much about some Biblical subjects because they just are not that important to know, from my point of view. But what I do know, I know because - unlike most here - I have spent the years studying, and not just studying according to what I think, but according to what the Scriptures as a whole clearly state.

The difference between us, MM, is that you only seem concerned about what you have been taught, and defend that bias to death. I don't care for what I have been taught in the past - truth is the ONLY thing that counts to me, just as my signature says, I hate every false thing, because if its false it only has one end, eternal flames. You don't seem to place the premium upon truth like I do...in so many words, you appear only to be a bias defender, not a truth seeker.

It is fine to be a bias defender AND a truth seeker, but that isn't the lot here...and anyone who spends enough time here can clearly see that.

Quote
what of those that say the exact same thing of your theology, Sword?  Because people have.


Quite so...and quite expected, too. What do you think the catholics were saying about Luther and Calvin in their day? And you think that because you follow their doctrine that you have it right? THAT is funny...

I will say to you what I have always said...you (all of us) need to throw away what we have been taught, learn how to CORRECTLY and FULLY study the Scriptures for ourselves, and then take the time necessary to develop your theology according to the Scriptures, not the false teachings of dead men long gone. That is the difference between us...I have done it and still continue to do it, and by all appearances, you do not...and don't seem to care to.

No insult intended anywhere in that exchange.



37
Parenting and Family Life Forum / Re: Parental titles
« Last post by chosenone on Today at 12:44:43 PM »
Wow ::eek:: I think you are rather prejudiced.  ::eek::
Personally, I truly do not care what you think of me based upon my religious convictions. I'm not out to gain friends by saying what they want me to say. My convictions are based upon God's word, not what the world or religious people think I should say, or not say. I do not try to be different just to be different~and I certainly do not mold my thinking or way of living to please the youth, for that's impossible. Foolishness is bound in their hearts and they know nothing about righteousness, but must be taught, for every one of us were born like a wild ass's colt. Our youth are out of control, even to a point that there are almost no return and whose the blame? Well, I will let you and others answer that. If our forefathers were here today, they would point their fingers at the parents of the twenty-first century who operate under an "buddy relationship" with their children and grandchildren. I refuse to do so.
Quote
Where in the Bible does it say how we must address people or that we must stand up when someone older than us comes into the room?
Well, if you would read my post, then you would not have asked that question:
Quote
Leviticus 19:32~"Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD."
I have more  if you care to know what God said, instead of leaning unto your own understanding, and the world's view of honouring children above parents and the hoary head. Is sir used in the scriptures toward parents? You answer that question and if you cannot, then I will.

No one has said that we should honour children above old people. However the way you responded to memyself was uncalled for, just because we all have different ways of addressing each other, it doesn't make one wrong or one right.
God doesn't specifically tell Christians how we should address aunts, uncles, friends of our parents or even our parents.   
Its not about names or titles, its about our behaviour towards others, and children learn that from seeing how we behave.
38
General Discussion Forum / Re: Apple's New Female Only Product
« Last post by chosenone on Today at 12:36:56 PM »
There is nothin' like slipping into sheets dried on a line, I miss that.

What I find amazing is the many laws enacted that make hanging laundry illegal.  Thankfully many of these have been struck down, but some still exist.

As for ironin', I don't see the point, shortly thereafter things get all wrinkly again unless one stands stoically.  Our iron sees most of its use waxing skis and covering my model aircraft.

laws to stop hanging laundry out ??? ::pondering:: ::headscratch:: ::headscratch:: ::shrug::

39
Theology Forum / Re: Matthew 12:40
« Last post by SwordMaster on Today at 12:34:55 PM »
Gerhard Ebersöhn said...

Quote
Quote
Swordmaster~~It was so common in Jesus' day that Matthew and the other gospel writers simply wrote it in the understanding that their original audience well understood it. The argument is pretty much settled for those who understand Jewish feasts and the timeline beginning with the night that Jesus sat down and ate the Passover meal with His disciples - there were two Sabbaths that week, one right after the other, the yearly and the weekly. The yearly sabbath was what is called in the accounts as "the high sabbath" or "the high day," and taking the events from there, Jesus died on Friday afternoon and was buried the same day...was in the grave all day Saturday, and rose the third day in the morning (and Sunday began at sunset Saturday night).

Three days, just like He said.

To me, when someone questions how many days He was dead, even after He Himself clearly tells us.~~Swordmaster


<<just like He said>>?

Jesus did not say, <<the third day in the morning>>.

You are taking things a little too verbatim, GE. I didn't say that Jesus said, "the third day in the morning." Does my words look like a quote to you?

Quote
And the Scriptures nowhere say, <<Jesus died … and was buried the same day>>.

On the contrary, John – in fact the four Gospels Jn19:31 Lk23:50 Mk15:42 Mt 27:57 – make it clear the body of the crucified dead must, as commanded in the Law Dt21:23 Js10:26,27, be removed after sunset when the next day had begun, and “must not stay on the tree ALL, night”, but must “before sunrise be removed and that same day (after sunrise) must be buried.”

Your mistake, like everybody else’s, is that you place death and burial on the one day, the first of the “three days”. But the “three days” were as in 1Corinthians 15:3,4, “according to the Scriptures”, “first…when Christ died; next, when He was buried; next, the third day when He rose again according to the Scriptures.”


I think you fail to understand the question involved here...it doesn't really matter when He was buried, the question has to do with how many days He was dead. That is the focus of the question.

Technically, you are correct: Jesus was arrested at Thursday night after sunset, meaning according to the Jewish calendar, Friday morning.

All that night practically He was questioned, by the Sanhedrin, and "When morning came" (Mat. 27:1) He was taken before Pilot - that's Friday morning after the sun had risen.

Jesus was crucified "on the third hour" Jewish time, 9 AM our time...and died on "the ninth hour" Jewish time, 3 PM our time...Friday...the same day.

The Sabbath began at sunset on Friday night, most scholars agree that at that time of the year, it would have been around 6 pm our time, and like you said, and the NT Scriptures support, the Jews wanted His body down before the Sabbath began. So Pilot allowed Joseph of Aramathea to take His body and bury it...before sunset Friday night. Joseph had three hours (from 3 pm to 6 pm) to take Jesus' body off the cross and place Him in his own tomb, I am sure that he managed it, particularly since the Scriptures tell us so.

Therefore, He was dead Friday, all day Saturday, and "after the sabbath, in the morning" which was Sunday morning, the first day of the week, after the sun had risen, He resurrected.

3 days according to the Jewish calendar.

Again, it doesn't matter when He was buried, really, because the question was concerning how many days He was dead...and according do the Jewish calendar, the answer to that question is 3 days.





40
Theology Forum / Re: Baptism of Water for Babies and Children
« Last post by bel on Today at 12:28:25 PM »
4WD, Baptism, as in dunking oneself in water, was a ritual "law" imposed upon people as a requirement of salvation. I'm not understanding the logic.  If you agree that this is not what saves you, then why do you think it is still necessary? If we say it is required, then we might as well argue about all the other ritual requirements such as circumcision( cutting the male organ), growing hair or not growing hair, wearing head coverings, the foods we are allowed or not allowed to eat, etc. etc. the list goes on and on. Romans 2:28-29 says this : "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly and circumcision is that of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter..."The same goes for baptism. It is not the cleansing of the outside of a person that matters it is the cleansing of the inside. Matthew 22:37-40 says this: ALL the Law and the prophets hang on these two commandments...." Again it is said, "The ENTIRE law is fulfilled in keeping this one command, 'Love your neighbor as yourself'."
I suppose on this subject, we will have to agree to disagree. ::smile::
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10