Results 321 - 340 of 801
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jlhetrick Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | Can one who commits suicide be saved? | Ex 20:13 | jlhetrick | 186733 | ||
God is just. And He is sovereign too. | ||||||
322 | Can one who commits suicide be saved? | Ex 20:13 | jlhetrick | 186672 | ||
Hello Heir, The problem with your theology is that it requires a lot of assumption and a lot more in the way of disregarding plain scriptural teaching. Although I am personally convinced that it is impossible for you to support your argument with Scripture (which you haven't really even attempted to do)the call still must go out requesting that you do attempt to do so. Either that or refrain from teaching what the Scriptures do not teach. This is a forum dedicated to bible study, not opinion trumpeting. You might start with pointing to the place in Scripture where suicide is revealed to be the unpardonable sin. Nothing more really need be said on the matter until that single point is established. Perhapse it's better to let this thread simply rest, afterall, it originated over six years ago. Just a suggestion. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
323 | Is lifestyle change proof of salvation? | Matt 7:21 | jlhetrick | 186589 | ||
Good point Steve :) Jeff |
||||||
324 | Who is Jesus? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 185947 | ||
Hello Minister, Great job. That's over a month of actual time and 44 translations more than necessary but no matter, you came up with the right answer. Might I add though that 1000,000,000,000,000,000,00.1 hours and 46 translations would not begin to be enough without the truth being revealed by God himself as your quoted passage teaches. Thanks for the response. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
325 | Why do some believe while others do not? | NT general Archive 1 | jlhetrick | 185860 | ||
Hello CDBJ, Thanks for the response and question, however, I still fear this may turn into yet another debate on the doctrine of election. In any case, I have always understood the statement of Christ “…many are called, but few are chosen” in very simple terms. That is, while many hear the message of salvation not all are chosen by God for inclusion to His family. In the context of the passage as a whole it is interesting that many were called (Matt 22:1-6) and never attended the wedding feast, while others were not said to be called at all but instead “gathered”. And the one not properly dressed is as the five virgins with no oil for their lamps (Matt. 25) And these are like those to whom the Lord will say “And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” Matthew 7:23 (ESV) As with all but the “elect” of Israel “failed to obtain what it was seeking” (Romans 11:7) that God’s mercy might be extended beyond, so too those who already had the promise of invitation to the feast failed to come. If we agree that these parables and Paul’s teaching in Romans 11 refer to the same thing (as I do), it is an easier thing to understand that God will be gracious to whom He will be gracious and show mercy to whom He will show mercy (Ex. 33:19) and then to finally believe that “…it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. (Rom 9:15) KJV God bless, Jeff |
||||||
326 | A church that does not practice tongues | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 185740 | ||
Well said brother/sister, Who knows how many crowns we might lay at the feet of our Lord as a result of our participation here on the Forum alone. With that in mind, let our posts always be to His glory and a reflection of the truth of His word and nothing more. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
327 | A church that does not practice tongues | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 185722 | ||
Hello God's-elect, It's unfortunate that you would exclude yourself from any part of God's word, His plan for the Church, or His very own gifts that He has given. I guess the tragedy I see in this is that brother Tim has clearly pointed you to Scripture and you reject it. Have you ever been in church or any other gathering where someone praying was very wordy and very obviously talking to the congregation instead of truly communicating with God. Nothing Spiritual about that and as I'm sure most of us have experienced, it's all about the man or woman jibber jabbering. Well, he or she has their reward in full in their prideful or pointed so-called prayer. I'd say that finally ends up being between them and God. But I would also say that the end result for the church should not be to disregard prayer and/or even rule it out of the church. Same with Tongues, healing, prophecy, teaching, etc. etc. If God gives you a very special gift from His own Spirit, use it to glorify Him. But certainly you should never call the gift given to another as not glorifying Jesus Christ. No matter how "gently" you might think your presenting it. Regarding tongues, if it's of God, your in opposition. If it's not, well, that's between that brother/sister and God. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
328 | They are married,is it sin to have oral? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 185255 | ||
bless you brother John. And yes, it's a difficult thing to truly get the fullness of what another is trying to say simply from reading text. A lot is left out in the communication. Which reminds me. Isn't it awesome that our Lord gives His own Spirit to ensure that those who truly wish to understand His word have more to go on than just the text. That is, the truth of what is written can only be truly discerned as it is given to us by Him. John 14:26 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (KJV) God bless, Jeff |
||||||
329 | They are married,is it sin to have oral? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 185173 | ||
Hello John, I hesitate to respond because it seems as though you have gone on the defensive and, as with brother Tim's post, I'm afraid you have misrepresented my previous post as well. There is no need for that and no need for referring to my position (argument as you call it , "childish"). An apology will be appreciated but not expected. You write that: "And it is my intention to do the redirecting." Well, brother, direct on my friend.. The arrogance of that statement speaks for itself. But since you mention it, please do direct us to the Scriptural teaching that "sex" between a husband and a wife is "for procreation only". You made the statement and it was challenged; it is incumbent upon you to reconcile that with Scripture. When you find that you are unable to do that you will better appreciate my comment that such an argument is a misrepresentation of Scripture. I don't blame you, I had the same fallacy at one point though it's too far in my past to remember where I came across the teaching. In any case, by the time you have discovered, through study, that Scripture does not teach that sex is only for the purpose of procreation you will likely have also discovered that God intended it to be a special relationship between a man and a woman. I believe that a purpose for sex that is just as important is that it is the act which "consummates" a marriage. If we are to believe sex is only for procreation, then we must also believe that each and every couple who marries will conceive a child upon consummating the marriage through the sexual coming together as one. We both know it doesn't happen that way (though it does for some). I also believe that a husband or a wife who may have a defect (due to birth or accident) and is unable to "procreate" continues to have the experience of sex with his/her spouse as a legitimate and God intended component of the marriage relationship. furthermore, you "categorically" disagreed with my statement which pointed you to Song of Solomon. You follow that by asking "Where in the story of creation do you find the song of Solomon? I ask you my friend, what at all does that have to do with the discussion? Questions like that really do injustice to the dialogue and turn it more into a tit-for-tat type of transaction. It would be equivalent to my asking "where in the story of creation do you find sex?" Answer, you don't. You finally do agree though when you write: "The purpose of the song of Solomon, is to teach us that sex, the way that God intended it, is a beautiful thing, and nothing els" Exactly my point. The book clearly teaches that sexual relations between a husband and a wife is more than a simple act of procreation. The remainder of your post does seriously concern me as it is a recognizable tactic that really begins to discredit you as a responsible participant. You did the same thing with Brother Tim. To start with, I never even suggested that there was: "something wrong with respect, sensitivity, and decency"; we should "not tell children to pray"; and I certainly did not hint at "Are you saying God made sex just for fun?" Another apology for misrepresenting me would be appreciated, again, not expected but appreciated. As for the comments on one spouse "forcing" another regarding a sexual act, that was in response to one of brother Tim's highlighted points and you seemed to be disagreeing with his entire approach. If my comments to you on that issue were misguided and/or inappropriate in any way, I owe you an apology and sincerely offer one. I'm sorry brother, sincerely. After going back over the posts I agree that my comment on that issue was out of place and not relevant to our exchange. Again, John. Your participation on the Forum is a breath of fresh air for me and probably others. It's not my intention to be contentious or argumentative on any level. I, like you, can become defensive about responses to my posts. We both must make the effort to not allow that to distract us from the points being made. You know what they say: "If your at the point where you can't learn from others, you need to go back to square one and start all over, you missed something." Or did I just make that up? Oh Well, I love you because your my brother. I look forward to continuing to read your fine posts and to the opportunities to learn from each other. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
330 | They are married,is it sin to have oral? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 185158 | ||
Hello stj, First of all let me say I appreciate your participation on the forum. While I don't agree with everything you write, it's nice to have a fresh "voice" posting regularly. And by the way, there are very few who I do agree with everything they write and that's only because I haven't yet read the thing that I and they will disagree on, so no offense I hope. Regarding your declaration, however, that "In no way is sex in the marriage bed sin" I would have to start there with disagreement in your most recent post. That said, I will simply refer you back to brother Tim's post. I'm sure if I were to force sex on my wife she would believe it to be sin and so would God according to His word. I would have violated not only the vows of marriage, but the principals set forth in Scripture concerning a husbands responsibilities to his wife (see Eph chapter 5) Another point that requires redirection is the statement that "But God, after all, invented sex for one reason; procreation." This argument is a misrepresentation of Scripture (please read the entirety of Song of Solomon). To be sure, among the blessings of marriage is the enjoyment a husband and wife find in the physical enjoyment of one another. Furthermore, your comment seems to contradict your later statement " The union of a loving couple, is one of God's most beautiful creations, and where man and woman are made one physically. and adds to spiritual union as well." I do, by the way, fully agree with that statement. Hope this is helpful, God Bless, Jeff |
||||||
331 | Do homosexual tendencys constitute sin? | Lev 20:13 | jlhetrick | 185124 | ||
Hi Steve, I believe your understanding of the manifestation of sin is right on the mark. If we are to believe that we have not sinned until we have touched the unholy thing then we are in fact, at that time, guilty of tempting ourselves. As you point out, it is that unholy nature, the sinfulness of our inheritance, through which we do tease ourselves to believe that we can dance around that forbidden thing without having sinned unless we touch it. It is certainly sin when we do touch it; but as you have pointed out, our sin is already counted against us when our hand only begins to reach out for it, nay, even at that point our mind has agreed with the hand to reach out. Ps 44:21 (ESV) 21 would not God discover this? For he knows the secrets of the heart. Deut 29:16-19 (ESV) 16 "You know how we lived in the land of Egypt, and how we came through the midst of the nations through which you passed. 17 And you have seen their detestable things, their idols of wood and stone, of silver and gold, which were among them. 18 Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or clan or tribe whose heart is turning away today from the Lord our God to go and serve the gods of those nations. Beware lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit, 19 one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, 'I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.' (emphasis added) Scripture is clear that there is a progression toward and a progression of sin. (Isaiah 30:1-2, Jer 9:3, Jer 16: 11-12, Hos 13:1-2, etc.) As it is said in 2 Tim 3:13 …evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (ESV) Praise God for His mercy, praise Him for His grace: Heb 9:11-12 (ESV) 11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent ( not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. Thank you for your posts that are always thoughtful and well grounded in Scripture, Jeff |
||||||
332 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | jlhetrick | 185008 | ||
Steve, very excellently put. While I very much appreciate Mark's post (as I always do) I do disagree with any who would argue that Christ was capable of sinning OR that the word of God does not make that perfectly clear. To believe that Christ had the potential to sin is to say absolutely that God has the potential to sin. This argument disagrees with everything I have come to understand about the nature of our Creator. I believe that's why it is important to distinguish between His being sent in the "likeness" as you pointed out. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
333 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | jlhetrick | 184875 | ||
Coper, I can appreciate that you did not anticipate the types of responses you are getting on the forum. We see many come and go that jump in with both feet attempting to push their biased views. Less frequently do those initiate the dialogue under the pretense that they 1) have little understanding regarding the topic of their question when they truly believe they do, and 2) comment that they are off track and want to be redirected "back to Scripture" when they really don't believe they are off track; and in fact the goal is to pull others into their view. So you will have to appreciate that as you began to reveal yourself, your credibility quickly became questionable. Furthermore, you continually accuse others, including myself, of "abusing" and "misusing" Scripture. All the while you continue to use Scripture loosely to support your own ideas while rejecting any possibility that ALL of those responding to you might have a point. You wrote: "Unless one has studied the events of 70AD exhaustively, and been able to rule it out definitively, he is not qualified to rule out a first century coming as at least a possibility." DONE and ruled out definitely; thus, the realization that Christ has not yet returned "on the clouds of Heaven with power and great glory". I do appreciate your enthusiasm and as you have studied up on the issue for all of a year now (according to your words) I hope you will follow your own advise and continue with your research. As for your less than relevant remark about reading Abraham Lincoln the answer is no. We have a very accurate collaboration of historical information to verify the Civil War has occurred. It's in sticking to the topic that we find that there is not that same type of reliable information to support the history that you wholeheartedly teach. In all honestly Coper, the short time you have spent looking into this subject really only begins to qualify some good guessing; hardly sufficient to position yourself as a teacher of the topic. In the mean time keep in mind. In speaking of His return, Jesus said no man knows the hour or the day. In speaking of His return Jesus also said that when it does occur it will be obvious to everyone and "all the tribes of the Earth" will see it. That, being the grandest and most obvious reality of the prophecy should be what you are looking for. If you corroborate that with history, please, bring it to our attention. As for my blessing in allowing you to continue on the forum, you don't need it but you certainly have it. With that said though, I won't be responding further to this this topic as I see it unfruitful and plenty divisive. And know, I don't place all the blame for that on you. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
334 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jlhetrick | 184851 | ||
Coper, You wrote: "Matt. 28:16-20 is called the great commission. To whom was it addressed? Verse 16 says explicitly that it was to the eleven remaining disciples. Was it written to us? No. It is history. And, they proceeded to do just as Christ commanded them. If one chooses to apply that to themselves and others, I believe that they are misusing the direct command of Christ to the eleven. If one does not use this hermeneutic they open themselves up to all the abuses that we've all seen." Respectfully I must say that your standard that others must use "this hermeneutic" in other words, Your interpretation then they "open themselves up to all the abuses that we've all seen" is perhaps the most telling of anything you have written thus far. You have essentially stated that any interpretation other than yours (specifically concerning Matt 28:16-20) is an abuse. WOW! You have just declared yourself an authority. I'm afraid that, based on your teachings, I can't accept that. However, as a self-declared authority (in my opinion) can you please explain a couple of things regarding Matt 28:16-20. Was Jesus' command to the eleven as you assert, or was it to the Church of which He is the head? If we are to believe your hermeneutics then we must absolutely accept that the eleven failed to fulfill the command of Christ. After all, we know from record that they did not in fact reach every nation with the gospel. We also know absolutely that every nation still has not been reached with the gospel. So my concern is that if the rest of Christendom was to accept your interpretation and belief on the issue, the church would not be continuing to do the work of the Kingdom. I can appreciate that viewing the "Great Commission" as a "principle" instead of a command would lend convenience to many who wish not to take seriously the responsibilities of reaching the lost. But I would seriously caution calling the position the majority of Christians take on this command as being an "abuse". Still hoping to shed light, Jeff |
||||||
335 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | jlhetrick | 184847 | ||
Hello Coper, forgive me if you have already been directed to this passage of scripture. since you have continued your preterist teaching in more than one thread now I just haven't had the time to read all the posts though I am aware of the strategy. You write that you "believe that every word of Scripture is true". Then considering the very words of our Lord regarding the issue at hand. While I agree that eschatology is a secondary issue, the Lord spent a significant amount of words and gave a significant amount of "detail" so that we would at least not be confused to the level that you currently are. Matt 24:15-31 15 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place ( let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, 18 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. 19 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! 20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. The Coming of the Son of Man 29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. ESV Absolutely nothing close to what Christ Himself described has been recorded in any source of history and I confidently say that such events could not possibly occur and not be recorded and discussed world-wide. I mean, the "Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with POWER AND GREAT GLORY". And lets not forget the "loud trumpet call" and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people instantly being gathered up and taken away. Even the much more quiet, local event of Christ's resurrection couldn't be kept from the historical records by the political powers of the day. How much more obvious, to the saved and unsaved alike, will be the tremendous event that will be witnessed by "all the tribes of the earth" In your original post on this issue you presented as though you were wanting the Forum to "...shed some light on this subject and redirect me back to a more proper understanding of Scripture". Well of course that statement is more than suspect at this point and it seems clear that your intentions were actually come to the forum and shed some light for those of us that just don't get it. Personally, I would rather see the Forum's "Terms of Use" more closely adhered to. Since you have shielded yourself from the light that has been shed, perhaps it's time to move on to a different subject and thus gain some benefit from forum participation. Jesus said "Matt 24:26 26 So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it." (ESV) I take those words to heart and caution others that if anyone should say "look, he came in 65AD, or 90AD, or 95AD"; do not believe it. for when He comes He will come "on the clouds of Heaven with power and great glory." God bless, Jeff |
||||||
336 | Jesus getting the keys to hell | Rev 1:18 | jlhetrick | 184782 | ||
Hello follower, Welcome to the forum :) Did you wish to ask a question or make a statement? |
||||||
337 | Clearing up philosophical confusion | 1 Cor 10:20 | jlhetrick | 184678 | ||
Hello Lon, thanks for the reply. It doesn't appear that you got much past my comment "You sound like you might be young and impressionable." It was an honest remark though and certainly not meant to be insulting. Sorry if you took it that way. The impressionable part still concerns me though and it sounds like there are a lot of people close to you with the same concerns. I pray that this time of apparent struggle will strengthen you as I believe God intends. If you care to go back and read my previous post to you I would ask that you skip over the third sentence and see if the rest of the post offers any help at all. Blessings, Jeff PS. Disclosure is always at the discretion of the person, but too much personal information on a public forum may not be a good idea. |
||||||
338 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jlhetrick | 184613 | ||
Jonp, First, I can appreciate feeling the need to respond to every post made to you. Second let me say that a quick lesson to learn regarding the forum is to not expect to respond to every post made to you. It may seem rude, but it's the reality of it. Very often the multiple responses are addressing the same issue and a response to the first questioner should be sufficient. In addition, there are others who can competently answer questions as well freeing you up from some of the responsibility. As for your response to the "angles" issue, I consider your response "spin" (and long-winded to state it truthfully) and will stand by my previous statements. You seem very intelligent and I'm sure capable of understanding my earlier point. Never mind getting into a NEW debate about the translations, that is, was the writer saying God incited David, or God's anger incited David. With the right understanding, the "angles" are easily disregarded. You will never find in Scripture the teaching that God is the cause of sin. I don't expect you to respond to that point, just consider it. I certainly have not suggested that the event times, culture, characters, and writer's personalities, etc. are not important and do not show up in what we read. None of it effects the truth as that has always been safe-guarded by the Author (Isaiah 55:11). You wrote: "So I can't quite agree that there are no angles in Scripture, even if we ignore the different angles from which we approach them." Fine, hold strongly to it if it pleases you. And it's your right as well to ignore my pointing out that the different angels are in how we approach the scriptures and not the other way around. Perhaps most revealing of yourself is your statement that "Eastern minds will interpret them very differently from us,.." Well, I can only say that you may be far more misguided than I had originally believed. The truth of Scripture is the truth of God and is not open to any interpretation other than that of God Himself. It's never changing. It is not influenced by time and certainly not geography. If I interpret Scripture in one way and someone in China interprets the same Scripture in another way, well friend, one of us is wrong. What your teaching is better known as relativism. It's not Scriptural. Please don't feel compelled to respond to this post. It is intended to help not hurt. Take from it what you will and throw out the rest. I do encourage you to be more careful in what you are teaching and at least consider a bit of the barrage of negative feedback you are getting from others. Otherwise, you risk presenting yourself as a "know-it-all" and unteachable. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
339 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jlhetrick | 184604 | ||
Hello brother Jonp, I believe what I have observed happening on the Forum regarding you, is very much the same as what happens with a lot of new forum members. However, your excess of posts (147 in 22 days) makes the issue seem bigger than perhaps it truly is. I haven't kept statistics but I'm guessing that your posts make up a significant percentage of the postings in the past 22 days. And all that with the rest of us knowing very little about you. Your user profile is more of an advertisement for your website (no offense). Perhaps what's most important is that, while a lot of what you present is very well explained and supported by Scripture, some of the things you have presented are questionable at best. For example, you have mentioned more than once that the truth of the word of God "comes to us from many angles. I truly do not know what you mean by that. I would agree that the differences in our own histories and presuppositions causes each of us to approach the truth of the word of God from "many angles", but it is our angles that require straitening. Honestly though, I just can't position you from the way you present your statement. There are certainly no angles on the truth and as I believe we both agree, the truth of Scripture is never changing. Time, circumstances, culture, nor anything else has any effect on truth. God's truth is absolute. And while we agree that there is symbolism in the bible, I don't agree that "obtaining a balance" is what we're to seek, but the truth verified with Scripture and not going an inch further than that. Jonp, in finding this forum my guess is that you must have run across at least a few different forums that were mostly chaotic and anything goes types. Most of the regulars here work hard to keep SBF from becoming such a place. All types come here, saved and unsaved I'm sure. I'm fairly sure too that many of those don't actually read the "Terms of Use" that they agree to when registering. So you can imagine that those of us who have found SBF to be less tolerant of unsupported "winds of doctrine" and focused on the truth of God's word would like to keep it that way. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
340 | Clearing up philosophical confusion | 1 Cor 10:20 | jlhetrick | 184584 | ||
Hello Lon, I might be able to add something helpful here. I'm working from the assumption that you are a Christian. As a professional in the field I can honestly say that you appear to be pointed in the wrong direction and taking the wrong approach. I mean that sincerely and write it with Christian love. You sound like you might be young and impressionable. I remember well how difficult it was to get through those classes (philosophy, anthropology, sociology, biology, etc.) and keep my faith. Had it not been for the grace of God, I might not have kept it. Many who confess to be Christians go to college only to be firmly indoctrinated into the religion of secularism. As a Christian, my loyalties are first and foremost to the Lord and obedience to His word. As a psychotherapist my loyalties are first and foremost to the Lord and obedience to His word. As a psychotherapist I'm not responsible to know the religions of the world. Though we are taught and take an oath to treat the "whole person" (mind, body, and spirit) I absolutely never provide spiritual guidance and encouragement from the perspective of any religious position other than Christianity. To do that would be to compromise my own moral position and commitment to the Lord and His word. I'll give a quick example to help illustrate my point. On any give work day I might do as many as five or six "couples therapy" sessions. Notice the "couples". You don't bill for "marriage therapy" anymore. It's "couples therapy". Anyway, I never do "couples therapy" with homosexuals. Why? Because it violates my religious beliefs and moral position. I do provide individual therapy to homosexuals but I never participate in repairing and nurturing their homosexual relationship. My wife is a operating room nurse. She never participates in an abortion "procedure". The point is, if we can't perform the duties of our jobs without compromising the truth and teachings of Scripture, it's time to quit and look for another job. I offer this feedback with sincere Christian love. I truly hope it's helpful. I had to draw these conclusions on my own, over a very long time through stress and struggle. Mark 4:18-19 They are those who hear the word, 19 but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. ESV 1 John 5:19 - 2 John 1 19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. 20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. ESV God bless, Jeff |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [41] >> |