Results 21 - 40 of 74
|
||||||
Results from: Notes On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Theo-Minor Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Why ask Why? Why ask Where? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126244 | ||
IBLONG2GOD ... Are you trying to criticize the quote I just quoted? This thread was not about keeping the letter of the law, but an expansion upon keeping the spirit of it. Please read the whole thread beginning with the post by docTrinesograce. The quote I quoted happens to be very good. This discussion was more or less started because kalos was making sure I knew what I was talking about and not just spouting drivel that I don't understand. Do you know what you're saying and why? Do you know what it means to keep the spirit of the law versus keeping the letter of it? Or are you just repeating what you've read without thoroughly comprehending it? (no criticism intended. It's a genuine and sincere question). Theo-Minor |
||||||
22 | WAS MY IMPORTANT DIVORCE A SIN | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126249 | ||
Hey Doc ... Listen brother, you're a wonderful fellow. Your posts have always been very polite and well thought out. I want to discuss something with you that is off this particular topic since the subject has come up. I'll try to be a brief as I can with it. You said this: "If this thing was a sin, it was probably only one of many -- and my own list of sins is assuredly far longer than yours!" In truth, brother, you are deceived in believing you are still a sinner. There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus. To believe that you have sin is to put yourself in a state of condemnation. I am genuinely and sincerely not trying to be critical. If you do a study on sin, you will find that in the New Testament, there isn't a single passage that says we must still be sinners. This is a teaching of self abasement that stemmed from the 2nd-3rd century church, and it has no foundation in a spiritual walk with Christ. The perception comes from two significant sources. 1. Romans chapter 7. I'm sure you're familiar. "What I don't want to do, I do. What I want to do, I don't do," etc. "But I realize it is not me, but sin that dwells in me." The sin dwelling within is as according to the old man, identified by the laws of sin and the flesh. Continuing on to chapter 8, it states that we are now free from the laws of sin and the flesh, subject now instead to the law of the spirit in Jesus Christ. God, because of sin, condemned sin in the flesh. It's dead. 2. The other significant passage is 1st John 1:8-10. Again, I'm sure you're familiar. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. Therefore, confess your sins to God, and he is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. This passage, despite the usuage of the pronoun "we" is talking about people that come to Christ, not those that have already come. If you take this passage as a static statement that applies to all Christians for all time, you have two major problems with it. First, if Christ is the lamb of God, come to take away the sins of the world, and we still have sin, he failed miserably in his mission. Second, to view this 1st John passage as a static statement creates a paradox. We all have sin, so let's confess together, and he'll forgive and cleanse us. Now, we've confessed. So do we have sin? If we say no, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, so we need to confess again. If we say yes, then God was not faithful to do as promised. How many times do we need to confess before he does what he promised to do? This passage is clearly talking about new Christians. After removing those two passages from the repertoire, there doesn't remain any passage to suggest we still sin. On the contrary, all the passages pertaining to sin and Christians admonishes us not to commit any, not to live in it, to flee from it, etc. There is even the controversial passage from 1st John 3:6-9 that says that we do not, will not, and cannot sin because we are born of God. References or implications to "habitually" or "practicing" are a direct result of scrutiny over the tense of the word "sin." Because of it's present perfect tense, it reads: "All those abiding in God are not sinning." Sin[ning] implies an ongoing action according to certain words studies, but in their journey to discredit a passage they can't comprehend, they fail to appreciate the appropriate syntax of present perfect tense. Sin[ning] means that you are not sinning "right now." As a static statement that projects into the future via Greek grammar, the idea here is this: "Those abiding in God are not sinning [from one moment to the next]" Please read my posts from your question yesterday. I explained "not under the law" well, I think. It is the key to understanding how not to sin. I'd love to discuss this with you further, but I don't want to be any more pushy on the matter than I've already been. I love you and all other brothers in Christ, and I want to see you free from your condemnation. Theo-Minor |
||||||
23 | Why ask Why? Why ask Where? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126262 | ||
IBLONG2GOD ... I wasn't the least bit offended brother/sister. I think I did the same thing days ago (I've only been on here a few days myself). You just have to be careful to read the full train of thought so you know what's been said, and why it has reached its current point. It's not impossible or uncommon for your (or my) point to have already been made and reasonably disputed by someone else in a sound and competent manner. Correcting what you believe to be wrong is absolutely a good thing. Iron sharpens iron. If we don't correct each other, using the tid-bits of knowledge and understanding God has given each of us in turn, we would never grow. There are things people show me all the time that I either didn't see, or didn't think about. To: do you know what it means to walk by the spirit of the law versus the letter ... I'm asking a sincere question. Do you know the difference? You say, "I do have some insight," but also say, "I don't have absolute knowledge of it." Thus the question reiterated. At the bottom of the screen where you answer to a post, you'll see a highlighted line in a tree of posts. The highlighted post is the one you're looking at/answering to. Follow the line up to the post in this line of posts beginning with DocTrinsograce. Follow them systematically and you'll see the whole discussion. I did three full-page posts on the subject of the spirit of the law, and what it means to say that we are not under the law. Keep sharpening! Theo-Minor |
||||||
24 | WAS MY IMPORTANT DIVORCE A SIN | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126265 | ||
Hey Tim, You missed part of what I said. It's present perfect in English (unless my grammatical terms are screwy, which I will not deny is possible. *laugh*). Regardless of the English term, the use is still the same. I said this: [As a static statement that projects into the future via Greek grammar, the idea here is this: "Those abiding in God are not sinning [from one moment to the next]"] Projecting into the future, "similar to" future perfect of a secondary indicative, but imperfect (future perfect being closer to "will sin" and very rare in Greek usage [Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek]). I'll do a post on the subject from a fresh question thread. We can discuss it. I'll experiment and see if there isn't a way to get the Greek letters onto the post. It'll be fun, entertaining, and hopefully educational. Seems you have a little Greek under your belt. Look for my post. I look forward to the discussion. Theo-Minor |
||||||
25 | A possible translation error? (Lk 2:2) | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126277 | ||
In short, it could be that the translation should read "... before Cyrenius was governor of Syria," or it could be that he had a second term of office, the first of which was within the bounds of the 8 BC lustrum. Translation seems to me most likely the problem. It's not logical to try to date an event on the governorship of another country. The 6 AD census of Cyrenius was a notable event. Jews would have remembered that because of the trouble it brought, as evidenced in Acts. But would the Jews have know, short of the political people, who was who as far as governorship goes in other parts of the country. To me, that would be like trying to write literature to Americans, dating the assassination of President Kennedy by the current ruler of Canada. I don't know who the ruler of Canada is right now! *laugh* The Queen, I guess. Hence, if it CAN be translated the alternate way, I think it's much more logical that he was using Cyrenius as a fixed point in time to relate the appropriate census. Thanks for you input and help. Theo-Minor |
||||||
26 | Order of occurance | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126414 | ||
Hey Doc ... I know I'm sometimes controversial in what I say. I believe in a great number of doctrines that defy the standard beliefs, and though many often can't see what I'm saying for one reason or another, I have sound reasons for believing them and love to express challenging points of view to others. If [I] am the one that is causing you distress, I sincerely apologize. Please don't restrain yourself on my account. All opinions are worthwhile, even if they are disputed. How can we ever discover truth if we don't consider possibilities? Again, I'm sorry if I'm the one causing you to be reticent because I'm controversial. Sound doctrine should be able to stand up to scrutiny and stand unshaken when challenged. If a doctrine begins developing enough holes as to appear to be a wheel of swiss cheese, such should be discarded in favor of the more sound position. All my love to you, Theo-Minor |
||||||
27 | Order of occurance | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126430 | ||
[In what position would you place regeneration on the list? : New Creature] You have to die, and be brought up in the image of the resurrection in the newness of life. The regeneration would be, in my estimation, at the time of your salvation. You can't be saved while you're dead. It is the new life that is the salvation so to speak. So I would say that regeneration happens simultaneously with grace/salvation/sanctification/purification, etc. Theo-Minor |
||||||
28 | Order of occurance | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126432 | ||
Doc ... Doc ... Doc ... My dearest brother ... I agree with you. Your Grandfather's quote is genius. If someone has agreed within themselves to disagree with you no matter what, there will be no convincing them. We have a friend that comes to Bible study on Thursdays. He is a great guy, but loaded with strange doctrines. The first several conversations, he went home, saying, "I just disagree." Such a statement is, in my opinion, just a cop out. We are to be of one mind and one accord. If you both disagree with each other because neither person has solidly presented his case, then so be it. You have no right to expect someone to bend unless you prove what you are saying irrefutably. But if you have presented the truth, shown credible examples, shown credible plain statements in scripture, and made a solid case for its continuity with the teachings of Christ, they need to concede if they are functioning according to the wisdom of God. Over time, he has changed some of his perceptions, but this only came about (through God) because of time, consideration, patience, and repetition. Barring that, the only way to finally bend him on some of the issues was to pin him down with some yes or no questions and put him on the spot. *laugh* We won those, of course. The words may be thick with pride on their tongues when you do that, but you still cut through the pride. In any case, I just wanted to make sure I hadn't caused you offense, and to make sure it wasn't me that had you wary of speaking freely. I state my points as soundly as I can, but love does not seek its own and is not puffed up. The last thing I would want is to deliberately or knowingly offend someone that has been polite to me without just cause. Theo-Minor |
||||||
29 | Do you believe in being chosen? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126099 | ||
I'm getting the impression from these posts that you are discussing "pre-destination." I'll throw in my two cents. God is willing that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance. If God predetermined everyone's outcome, then he is willing to let some perish. Second, is it possible the "pre-destination" passages are saying something akin to: "God predetermined man in general for salvation to those that would believe?" Thus, by this example, people are predestined. Not predestined to a choice they are going to be compelled to make because God made his decision ages ago, but predestined for salvation through the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world, so long as they should choose to answer the calling. I don't really agree with pre-destination myself. I think the passages are misinterpretted that leave people concluding that some were created and born with no hope at all because they were not amongst the elect chosen by God before they were ever given an opportunity to accept or reject. This defies the idea that God is willing that none should perish. Food for thought ... Theo-Minor |
||||||
30 | Do you believe in being chosen? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126111 | ||
Why do you insist on playing symantics? Wish, will, want ... it amounts to the same thing and doesn't change the point. God doesn't want anyone to perish. God doesn't will that anyone perishes. God doesn't wish for anyone to perish. If he doesn't want it, wish it, or will it, but proceeds to make a decision for the eternal well-being of an individual before they are ever given an opportunity to make a choice, then he is ultimately condemning people without a chance. This is contrary to his will, wish, or want. He doesn't want anyone to perish, but he's going to harden some hearts so they will regardless? He doesn't wish anyone to perish, but he's going to see to it that they do anyway? He doesn't will anyone to perish, but that's just too bad, because He's not going to choose everyone? Some are just out of luck? My point is based on sound logic, and also based on sound scripture. At this point, I choose not to look up all the relevent passages because I get the feeling that they are just going to be disseminated in turn by symantics and opinion, and a valid point is going to be dismissed yet again. I won't lie. I'm getting irritated. I've made valid points on several subjects, and it seems like I'm talking to myself. As soon as a topic comes close to a conclusion that isn't what someone likes, the topic gets restricted. Is it because I am being argumentative, or is it because someone else is being stubborn and unbending? I really don't believe I'm being argumentative. I'm ready to leave this forum. I feel like everyone just wants to hear what they want to hear, and that's a waste of time. If we aren't going to take things to conclusion, concede when someone presents a better point, and otherwise seek the truth instead of individual points of doctrine, why bother discussing this stuff at all? Theo-Minor |
||||||
31 | Country Girl: Scripture...or Opinion? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126117 | ||
What does length of time on this forum have to do with anything Hank? Because I have been on this forum for three days does not mean I've been a Christian for three days. Ugly is ugly. Your comments to her were less than nice, and you should have worded it better. You could have accomplished the same thing in a nicer way. I've had to moderate myself as well. I'm guilty of the same thing to Leslie. I was harsher than I should have been, and also presumptuous. I own my ugliness. I'm not so full of myself as to leave no room for God. In responding to me the way you did, you have rejected reasonable correction by being ugly to me also in turn. I corrected myself. Can you not do the same? Are you so offended because someone thought you were being harsh? I meant well. My intention was bring down the insult level. Perhaps you didn't see it as insulting, but I promise she did. I don't have to be her to know it. I'm human, and I would have been insulted right down to my toes. One of the very first questions ever asked in the Bible ... Am I my brother's keeper? The answer is yes. We are each other's keepers. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. Harsh should be reserved for obstinate people, not for the well meaning. I've followed a number of Country-Girl's posts. She has expressed a great number of valid, reasonable doctrines, statements, and opinions. She may not be able to back them all up, but I can. I find no fault in what she's saying on the majority of her posts. Instead of criticizing her lack of scriptural use, why don't you politely correct her with your use of scripture. Now, please, don't be nasty to me again. I'll reiterate that I was trying to be helpful, not to beat up on you. You were not going to bring about any good whatsoever by criticizing her. If she won't hear sound and credible arguments, by all means, criticize her. But in either case, you were unreasonably harsh to her; it's very much my business as she is my sister, and you have now been nasty to me for pointing out that you were being nasty. And I'll say again, how long you've been on this forum makes no nevermind to me. For all I know, that same amount of time is the length of your Christian walk. I don't know. I can tell you that I have been an active Christian since September 19th, 1988. I'm not a babe, and I won't tolerate someone rebuking me for trying to calm them down in regard to someone else. Be offended by this if you please. Or better yet, restrict it like some of the other topics that didn't go the way someone wanted them to. Ban me as well if that's where your heart leads. It doesn't change the fact that you were wrong. Theo-Minor If this fellow decides to make me disappear, keep the faith Country Girl. You are absolutely on the right track. |
||||||
32 | Freewill before the fall? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126119 | ||
Agreed, 1000 percent. Freedom of choice, but not always of circumstance. Theo-Minor P.S. I had a long night. I didn't mean to blow at you. For whatever reason your last response to me struck a nerve. Please forgive. |
||||||
33 | Do you believe in being chosen? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126123 | ||
Grrrr, kalos! *laugh* semantics over semantics. I'm just going to laugh and leave this be. Thanks for the spelling correction (I didn't actually know how to spell it). Theo-Minor |
||||||
34 | Do you believe in being chosen? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126132 | ||
I really am sorry guys. At present, my friend and I are in a debate with some head-strong "elders" that refuse to see reason after sending him a horribly ugly letter that had no hint of love whatsoever. They'll argue over pronouns and turn off their heart radars. SOMEtimes, semantics can be a bad thing. It is definitely important to understand exactly what is being said in a passage, but sometimes arguing semantics ends up being nothing more than splitting hairs, fostering the continuation of an argument that someone can't win (no direct implication intended to anyone here). For example, there was once a discussion with a fellow that insisted we still can't eat pork. We showed him Mark 7:19: "... because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated? (Thus He declared all foods clean.)" Now, it's clear as day that Jesus declared all foods clean, so it's okay to eat pork. He wouldn't hear it. Instead of answering what was plain, he found a way to spiritualize it, defy it, ignore it, and ultimately walk away from it because he didn't WANT to agree with what it said. It defied his opinion. Semantics, while good if used properly, has perverted a great number of passages and derived meanings that were never intended. The 1st John 3:6 passage (which I'm not trying to bring back up and argue) is a prime example. Does it say "habitually" or any other such word? Or is that a matter of semantic scrutiny to make a plain passage suit a doctrine because they can't understand the mystery? This is my problem with semantics. I use them to seek truth, not to argue a doctrine. My doctrine has changed a number of times because I refuse to be right (if that makes any sense). I WANT someone to prove me wrong (key word being PROVE). If someone has a more sound argument than I do, fantastic. I'm more interested in becoming wiser, smarter, better informed, and more completely built upon the rock than I am in being right. As you say, "everyone may not always agree with me ..." I'm really not seeking agreement, but acknowledgment if I make a valid point. Know what I mean? I'm not so full of myself as to leave no room for God. If I'm wrong, I want to know it. But by the same token, if we are practicing humility, if I'm right, I expect it to be acknowledged. I guess, in short, what I'm getting at is that knit picking over individual words when it doesn't really change the meaning of the passage when read in context and continuity with the Bible as a whole is derisive. It just creates confusion. I don't really WANT to leave. I want to share the hard years, months, weeks, days, and hours of study and knowledge I have. But there has to be fruit in the discussions. I've already seen two discussions get restricted because it got touchy, and no resolution was ever made. Why in the world would we want to kill the thread before all those observing can see the outcome based upon solid discussion by people with good, credible knowledge? That seems silly to me, however controversial the topics. Additionally, I was harsh to someone. It was wrong. Someone corrected me. I stopped, apologized, corrected my behavior, examined myself, and recognized my own hypocrisy. I'm grateful for the correction. kalos is good about that sort of thing, but others have had more pride than I think a single individual can swallow. How can we have good, edifying, Christian conversations that lead to the furthering of the Kingdom of Christ if we aren't able to examine ourselves? I guess I'm just too critical. I'll try harder to be understanding, patient, and longsuffering. Theo-Minor |
||||||
35 | Country Girl: Scripture...or Opinion? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126545 | ||
I appreciate that Country Girl. I'm tying up loose ends right now. I intend to leave. The mob beat me mercilessly last night with their opinion sticks over another controversial topic, so I'm going to tend to my stripes and move on. It was good to know you. Theo-Minor |
||||||
36 | Country Girl: Scripture...or Opinion? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126553 | ||
With all due respect, there were 29 posts to a topic last night. Not one of them solidly refuted me with scripture. A great number of people on here are guilty of opinionated answers, and the "men of reputation" are amongst them. Don't be a hypocrite 'Torah believing, anti-antinomian, anti-idiocy believer' And by the by: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgent: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Any possibility this has application, Mr. anti-idiocy believer? No one likes a hypocrite. I'm out. |
||||||
37 | Country Girl: Scripture...or Opinion? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126586 | ||
I don't think he's ashamed of us all. You're a better person than I am, and you haven't done anything wrong. Nor do I think I've done anything wrong. These topics have all been bible-based, and as such, opinion CAN sometimes play into it. Remember that his laws are written on our hearts and minds. The Spirit teaches us the things we need to know. The problem isn't the behavior so much as it is the source of the behavior. Pride, arrogance, vanity ... these are things that are not of God. When our discussions begin with a genuine question, get answered with a sound answer, then the answers are disputed with doctrine and opinion instead of sound, contextual scripture, there is no way we can ever accomplish anything. And to add insult to injury, people that are backing up what they say have to tolerate insults from the people in control who contradict with opinion. If you prove them wrong, they restrict the topic. Hence, the reason I posted a statement that this is not a bible forum. It's an opinion forum. For all that they say it's for bible based questions to be answered with bible based answers, it's more an exchange of opinions than anything else ... ranging in topics from premillenium/preterist discussions in favor of their opinion, to discussions of sin and law, in favor of their opinion. Anything that comes too close to home gets restricted, lest they be forced to concede a point they don't want to concede. May I have your email Country Girl? I'd love to talk with you, and just you. Is that something you'd be okay with? Theo-Minor |
||||||
38 | Guidelines on rebuking | Matthew | Theo-Minor | 125799 | ||
It is not a matter of discernment I speak about. I speak directly concerning judgement leading to condemnation. I'm well aware of the passages you've noted. Keep in mind the contexts and meanings. Most of your examples are in reference to examination. This I do not disagree with. We should judge (examine) things and judge (determine) what we should do about them after careful judgement (discernment) of the options in the matter. We should not, however, pass judgement (determine guilt) on others. We will some day judge both the world and the angels (determine guilt), but we are not yet standing before the judgement seat in new and perfected bodies, glorified and in the image of the ascended Christ, that we might pass said judgements. The Corinthians were taking each other to court over trivial matters. Rather than this, it was a better resolution to solve the dispute internally, judging (discerning) the matter amongst brothers in Christ instead of before secular magistrates, thus judging (determining a resolution) in the matter. It's fair to contend that a person that is not saved is not yet a "brother," but we must be ever mindful that God is willing that none should perish, but that all should come to repentence. (2 Pet 3:9) To say that "it is necessary to discern dogs and swine from one's own brethren" is not really a matter of judgment. Such a thing is readily apparent when you actually confront such a person. I do not lightly choose to relagate the personna of dog or swine to anyone. That referred to me once upon a time, but God found me, cleansed me, and made me his own. Remember that Christ died for us while we were yet sinners. I choose not to judge another, and it is my opinion that no person that recognizes the doctrine of the New Testament will choose to do so either. We are to love one another. It has been my experience during my younger Christian years that judgment usually required a measure of anger, hatred, envy, jealousy, or some other emotion that is contrary to the spirit of the commandment of Christ which is to love one another as he loved us. If I'm angry at someone, it is my responsibility in the spirit of love to forgive them. If I'm jealous, it is my duty to bring that thought into the obedience of Christ. When the moment comes to judge another, if all things contrary to love have been brought into obedience, I find that all I want to do is love them and show them Christ. Recognize this, that if you are guilty of any sin, you are guilty of all. (James 2:10) To judge someone else, you judge them by the law, and to do so, you have to put them under the law, and simultaneously yourself as well. If you judge (determine the guilt of) someone else when you are guilty of an equal offense, you are a hypocrite and will be judged by the same standard you judge that other person. Matt 7:1-2 Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged: and with what measure you mete, it will be measured to you again. This, in addition to Romans 2:1 "Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whosoever you are that judges: for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you that judge do the same things." I'm honestly not entirely sure why you contradicted me. I advised that he should pray for the person, love them, cast no judgment on them, and trust in God to bring them around. You wrote in with what seems the intention to instruct him to judge and condemn. I do not understand this. It is our goal to make disciples of all men. The world is condemned enough on its own without us passing judgment on it. God will judge the world in righteousness. Instead of wasting our time judging what is lost already, should we not instead take the time to show them love, that they might come to the truth? I promise that more people will come to Christ through love and hope than through judgment and condemnation. Please consider these things. Theo-Minor |
||||||
39 | Guidelines on rebuking | Matthew | Theo-Minor | 125804 | ||
kalos ... brother/sister? All my love to you. I wasn't angry or anything ... just confused as to what you were trying to get at. I wondered if perhaps we were on different pages. I don't disagree with what you said at all. What you seemed to be saying just didn't appear to have any application to what I was getting at, which was, "don't rebuke anyone for any reason if you don't have the knowledge to understand what you are doing or why." I supported some of your other arguements, by the way. You strike me as well read. I hope to see a bunch of good topics come up. Theo-Minor |
||||||
40 | Guidelines on rebuking | Matthew | Theo-Minor | 125819 | ||
NATALYI "Judging someone to see where they're at in order to help them" is what kalos was originally talking about. This would fall into the category of "discernment." As you say, if you don't know where their troubles are, how can you meet them on their own level? We should be all things to all people, and that's an impossible thing without observation (i.e. judgement/discernment). As for talking to people about OTHER people's problems ... that's called gossip, otherwise known as "backbiting." Such a thing is in defiance of "love your neighbor as yourself," and Paul clearly tells us that backbiters will not inherit the kingdom of God. If you need to talk to a person directly about THEIR problem, just consider the simplicity of the situation. If someone is murdering, you tell them, "you are murdering. Stop." This is not "judgment." This is a fact. As you say, you'll know them by their fruits. The difference, I think, between statement and judgment is like the proverbial vine. You can't tell if the vine is good by looking at the vine. You can't see the sap. You have no idea how strong it really is. You know absolutely nothing until the vine brings forth fruit. Thus, you should not chop up the vine, assuming that it is no good. Once it bears fruit, you can see if the fruit is good. If it is not, you are not making a judgment on the vine to say, "It has brought forth bad fruit." Such a statement is simply that; a statement. Just remember that if you do all things with a spirit of love, you do well. Sometimes people will be offended when you try to help them. Do what you can, and otherwise pray. Theo-Minor |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |