Results 1 - 20 of 28
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: nimrod2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 24 hour days are based on what? | Gen 1:2 | nimrod2 | 62472 | ||
The answer was so nice he posted it twice! | ||||||
2 | is selling in a church building fine? | John 2:13 | nimrod2 | 59941 | ||
Sorry Ed, we will have to agree to disagree on the issue of selling in the church. Whether my position on that issue is right or wrong, it was egregious for me to take it this far on a personal level. It was my fault, I realize it and I apologize to you for that. |
||||||
3 | is selling in a church building fine? | John 2:13 | nimrod2 | 59939 | ||
It's closed as far as I'm concerned and thank you for your concern as well. | ||||||
4 | is selling in a church building fine? | John 2:13 | nimrod2 | 59919 | ||
Dear Ed You seem to have some issues. None of them are really worthy of my time and effort because I don't foresee you as someone with a compassionate heart(especially based on the "freeloader" comment) but rather someone who likes to argue. Which is a shame because we probably have more issues we agree upon than disagree. Quote (of yours not mine) : You said my understanding of this was wrong and I'm just trying to find out what scripture you are basing that comment on. Where did I say that Ed? That we have a difference of opinion, I did likely imply that. I never once said you were wrong. In fact early on I said that I do not think "merchandising" the church is okay. I never condoned selling on Sunday. I never condoned profiteering. I have never condoned retail thievery. I do not condone the desecration of a house of worship. You demand scripture, for what? For your personal satisfaction? For your personal condemnation of another? You have surely read the scripture for yourself. John 2:13-22, Luke 19:45-46 Jesus cleansed the temple twice, once at the beginning of his ministry and once towards the end. Jesus protested the turning of his Father's house into a market. He did not protest the sacrificial system itself. His protests were against abuses. The abuses were many. The religious leaders made money off the sale of animals for sacrifices, people were also taking shortcuts through the temple and the money changers were also basically just profiteers. A den of thieves. Abuses have existed and do exist, one could learn a lesson from the examples of many televangelists and preachers (Jim Bakker comes to mind). If you care to go back through any of my replies to you on this entire thread and point out where I said it was okay to be a profiteer or condoned the commercialization of Jesus Christ, just point it out. Otherwise, the only abuse going on is your attitude towards me. I have nothing further to add of any constructive use. Do you? |
||||||
5 | is selling in a church building fine? | John 2:13 | nimrod2 | 59903 | ||
Well Ed, you're so busy with terse replies you didn't even realize the opening sentence I replied to you with were your own words. Look in your message titled "NimRod2 Where did you get the opinion I...." and look at the last paragraph. Quote, "Nimrod I thank you for your concern about me but you seem to jump to many conclusions about me of which you have no concept. If you have something to add to this discussion either pro or con then by all means let us hear it. But please stop putting words in my mouth." That doesn't seem to be the problem here, the problem is you want to make your words my words. before you get angry, I have something to add Ed. LIGHTEN UP! Jesus was referring to the den thieves in Luke. Not Christians who love God so much they'll make up for the 80 percent who don't tithe by holding a bake sale or a carwash. But in any case, agree or disagree, this was an interesting dialogue. I do respect your opinion and I am sure your heart is for the Lord. Blessings and big honking humorous laughs to you. |
||||||
6 | is selling in a church building fine? | John 2:13 | nimrod2 | 59875 | ||
EdB "you seem to jump to many conclusions about me of which you have no concept" Other than the fact you dislike any type of selling within or near the church structure, I have not come to any conclusions about you Ed. Frankly, I respect your opinion to a certain degree and I definitely agree with you on the photographers issue, who I think try to exploit a vulnerable situation. Had I not been in church when they made their pitch to me I would've given them a good tongue-lashing for their price gouging. "please stop putting words in my mouth" Could you elaborate on that, I don't know what you mean? Are you referring to the "freeloader" comment you made a few posts back? I'm really not following you here. My only point is this. People like to go to my church. It isn't a Sam's CLub or a Costco. We have a few fundraisers now and then. The youth group may do a car wash once a summer. Certain other small groups do their thingy, whether it be a bake sale or something else. When someone or some group shares their God gifted talent on our stage, we make sure the glory goes to the Lord. We don't market them, I guess in a sense we market the great commission. Even though we may have tapes or CDs, books or cookies, most people still come here for one purpose only. To speak and listen to the Manager. The Manager of All Creation. |
||||||
7 | is selling in a church building fine? | John 2:13 | nimrod2 | 59840 | ||
Apology accepted. I pray that you might understand that some people are devoted to the Lord but may not have the same ability to excercise monetary giving. Giving is important. Therefore, if they serve in another capacity, meaning, they have a giving heart and that they serve willingly and freely, they are no different than somebody who tithes 15 or 30 percent of their income. I for one don't believe God loves us any less if we don't write a check every Sunday. We absolutely should if we can. Getting back to the selling issue. This is another example. Betty may not have a lot of money but she can sew or bake. Linda may not have a lot of money but she loves kids and babysits while moms and dads go to praise and worship. Dan was bankrupt a year ago, but he loves Jesus and mows the Church grounds regularly. Bob is mechanic who lives in a trailer, he can't give much money-wise, but he can fix a car. I think diversity is the beauty of Christianity. Rich and poor. Remember, as the Lord said, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God! Are you a person who sees the glass half-empty or half-full? |
||||||
8 | is selling in a church building fine? | John 2:13 | nimrod2 | 59750 | ||
ED states: "we have churches full of free loaders" Oh Ed, I really can't believe this is how you feel! What shall we do? Have an auction and sell the free loaders to the Muslims? |
||||||
9 | is selling in a church building fine? | John 2:13 | nimrod2 | 59668 | ||
EdB states: "I’m also baffled why churches resort to worldly ways to raise funds instead of being blessed by sacrificial giving." I think when someone gives their used automobile to the church instead of trading it in and the church then either gives it away to a needy family or sells it, that's sacrificial. Then again, for some folks, anything anybody else thinks or does that is not completely inline with the way they were brought up in the church is wrong. Kind of like some people thinking dancing is a sin. In answer to your question Ed, no I don't consider it okay to "merchandise" the church. |
||||||
10 | is selling in a church building fine? | John 2:13 | nimrod2 | 59429 | ||
That's odd you'd say that Ed. We allow for love offerings when someone comes to speak at our church or play music that glorifies God. Afterwards, meaning after the service, if someone wishes to purchase a book or CD, they can do so. We don't hold auctions in our sanctuary on Sunday. The few times we have had these events the church has given ALL the proceeds to missionaries. We also have aerobics classes, basketball, volleyball and variety of events like dinners there. Why? Because our sanctuary is our gymnasium on certain days other than Sunday. Believe me, when we invite someone to a concert or dinner, or to any event, we plant seeds. Their first reaction is they're amazed what we do for others. All for the glory of God. If that's wrong tell me why. |
||||||
11 | Why carry on like a playground dispute? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 45833 | ||
I don't want to sound like I don't care about this interesting debate, because I do, but I feel like I am on a never ending conveyor belt whenever I discuss the age issue with any literalist young earther. I am trying to spend less time on this issue and more on scriptural studies. First off. Where did I ever say anything about evolution in the larger sense of its meaning? I believe in "Creatio Ex Nihilo", in other words the supernatural creation of life by God. I don't believe in Ussher's chronology as any reason to require belief in a young earth. It isn't a requirement to believe it in order to become saved. Adam and Eve were created as exceptions to the subsequent natural rule. God's own report says that Adam and Eve were created as adults. Where does God tell us that the universe was created with the appearance of age? On the contrary, God said "Let the earth bring forth vegetation" and that He "made to grow" a garden in Eden, events which take long periods of time. Do you really think Adam had to speak like one of those radio announcers when he named all the animals? He would have had to speak at a phenomenal rate, naming animals within milli-seconds of each other. You may counter argue that Adam was able to perform these tasks at superhuman speed, since he was without sin at this point. However, Scripture makes no connection between intelligence and sinfulness. Additionally, Jesus was without sin and did not perform tasks at a superhuman rate. "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned..." says Romans. This text is commonly interpreted to mean that there was no animal death before the fall of man, since this would place death before sin instead of after sin. Therefore, only a small period of time could have passed between the creation of the first life forms and the fall of man. Otherwise, the world would have been severely overpopulated with animals. However, this verse says nothing about animal death; it only says that death came to men--human beings. Romans 5:12 cannot be used to support the position of no animal death before sin since it does not even mention animals. When Paul writes that "sin entered the world" he is most likely using "the world" in the same way as it is used in John 3:16, where world obviously refers to mankind, not "planet earth." "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son..." does not mean that God gave His Son for planet earth out of His love for it, but that He gave His Son for the world of mankind out of His love for them. Also, animal death is not related to sin, as man's death is. Only man can experience "death through sin," since animals never sinned. You may feel strongly that to believe in a universe which is more than 6,000 is an unsound Christian doctrine, that is your perogative. I could spend all day replying to your inquiries but I do not feel a need to rationalize my perspective on science and the Bible any further. I hope you find peace and security in your own heart and that God guides you to understanding that His plan is big enough for all of us, the young earth and the old earth believer. |
||||||
12 | Why carry on like a playground dispute? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 45591 | ||
Hmmm. Quote: "PLEASE. DO NOT just reply out of impulse. This gets nowhere. Spend 3 years researching first. Order books. Etc. Then come back with your reply." I have been studying the origins debate in depth for over 4 years. So I qualify according to your standards. Quote: "No reason to doubt the Bible or to bend it to our understanding." I agree. No reason to doubt or bend any truth for all truth originates from God, whether it be scientific or scriptural, unless you believe God is a deceiver? It is the literalist who is required to produce evidence of a young earth which not only flies in the face of honest science but actually requires more evolution than the most die-hard atheistic scientist would propose. I've read dozens of books on all kinds of origins theories and perspectives, including some very persuasive ones from the young earth perspective. To date, the young earth perspective is the least valid scientifically and scripturally. You may agree with Ken Hamm and the others at AIG but you do so not because the science makes sense to you but because it conforms to what you were taught to believe and is neccesary to fit with your interpretation of Genesis. I don't fault you for it. I have many friends and a dear pastor who also shares your perspective. You have to deal with the fallout as each tenative "evidence" falls. Paluxy River fossils are but one example. Dr. Carl Baugh? Nice of him to disappear after his credentials were questioned. Ken Hamm is very critical of Hugh Ross. You'll note the recverse isn't true. Dr. Ross has never said an unkind word about Mr. Hamm. Dr. Ross has presented the view of long creation days in front of the faculty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and not one of them was willing to dispute the conclusions. In fact they were enthusiastically endorsing the conclusions. This issue was also debated by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy and again they refused to say that the Bible requires six consecutive twenty four hour days. |
||||||
13 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 44787 | ||
Hello again Tim, No offense taken. Regarding your concerns: 1. Yes I do. Again many of the details of this process are left out. I don't claim to know the supernatural abilities God used. I would say this however. Take away the water from a human's body, take what is left over, and you basically have minerals...aka....dust. The rib bone, I believe contains all the DNA and RNA needed would be found in the marrow, not that God couldn't create without it, but the processes that occur in the body at the micro-cellular level are still vastly unexplored. Rib periosteum has a remarkable ability to regenerate bone, perhaps more so than any other bone. Add to that the complexity of things like reproduction, it is amazing. One thing is dislike about science is reductionism, meaning how we tend to discount how amazing life is and how everything (almost) perfectly meshes together. I see God written all over it. 2. Yes. Why not? Some things I'm not sure about to be honest. The question of hominid fossils etc. I believe Adam, at the very least, was the first human with a spirit and a soul. 3. I would not disagree with scripture in any case regarding location because it is remarkably accurate in its historical and archealogical descriptions. Again I would revert back to my earlier post. Ultimately all truth is God's truth. Any apparent conflict between true science and scripture is human error. You say: "Current scientific thought would make Genesis a total lie. God did not create in order He says. God did not create where He says. God did not create how He says. Regardless of the time issue, it makes Genesis dishonest. I trust Scripture, but I don't trust, at least to the same extent, the changing views of man." We agree on much more than we disagree on. God is unchanging. Man has constantly tried to usurp God's authority, it started when we became aware-- when man's mind became like that of God, aware of good and evil. As for the chronology of Genesis and the fossil record. I'd say it is open to one's interpretation. It is known that events like the "Cambrian Explosion" of life and the "Burgess Shale" harmonize because it clearly indicates life exploded on to the scene. If you look at Genesis chapter one, the fifth day seems to read very much like the fossil record we see now because it talks about all the creatures teeming in the oceans. Now, to me that sounds like the Cambrian explosion. But I don't recommend you try to use scientific findings as evidence to support Biblical creation. All science does is begin to tell us what happened, the little tantalizing bits and pieces. I agree man's beliefs about the world around us change all the time, we ought not let it interfer with our faith. |
||||||
14 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 44635 | ||
Bravo, well stated my brother. | ||||||
15 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 44634 | ||
Dear Tim Don't assume....you know what happens! I believe Adam and Eve were the creation of God. However, I don't recall reading anywhere in Genesis where it states Adam was created at a specific age, do you? My thinking is this: You believe I may compromise scripture to accommodate science whereas I believe you may compromise reading the scripture for what it is because of a preconceived notion of what someone else told you it is saying. In other words, someone told you the world is young, and now you feel any interpretation outside of that will cause the entire message of salvation to come tumbling down like the walls of Jerihco. It hasn't happened to me. 2 Corinthians 13:11 |
||||||
16 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 44581 | ||
Dear Tim, My second attempt at a reply. The first was rejected because it exceeded 5,000 characters! Whoops! Live and learn I guess. That hurt because I couldn't retrieve any of it by clicking my "back" button. A discussion of the interpretation of Genesis would be too long a digression here. I will just say that I have come to believe that the main message of the parts in question is simply that God created everything, including humans. The vehicle by which that message is delivered is an account that the original audience could relate to, but which does not try to be a scientific account of origins any more than the parable of the Good Samaritan tries to be an account of road conditions in ancient Palestine. The line attributed to Galileo is relevant: "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go." It is worth mentioning what the Bible does tell us about creation. The primary teaching is that everything, including us, owes its existence to God. The Bible also teaches us that the creation reflects God's own nature. One thing I take from that is that God made an "honest" universe that will not give us false answers if we ask it the proper questions. This means that, while science (like all human endeavors) is not infallible, it does not have to worry about getting false results because God is playing tricks on us. For example, while we can question the interpretation of fossil evidence, it is not a Biblical option to say that God is deceiving us by putting the fossils there to testify to a history that never happened. Christians through the years have affirmed that God has given us "two books": the Bible and his creation in nature. Since God is the ultimate Author of both, we need not fear that either revelation, properly interpreted, will lead us into falsehood. If there seems to be a conflict, it means that either our interpretation of nature (science) is wrong, or our interpretation of the Bible is wrong, or possibly both. There can be no warfare between "scientific truth" and "Biblical truth," because both come from the one truthful God. What we often find instead of conflict is that the "two books" offer complementary insights into a single God-given reality, like pictures taken from different angles. The insights of science may be of less eternal significance, but they are no less valid.* (*source Allen Harvey) Peace and blessings to you Doug aka nimrod2 |
||||||
17 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 44325 | ||
Hank I respect your right to believe in a young earth. In fact i would be willing to fight and die to protect that right. But I do not respect anyone who suggests that I would falsify or distort scripture because of my position on the age issue. It should not be a big issue. I usually don't get this torqued over it. I do get wound up by a couple of things, specifically, bad science, like moon dust arguements, bad logic, arguements from incredulity, straw man arguements and bad theology, meaning believe what I believe or you're not really a Christian. This boy don't play that game. As for ICR, I visited there and Answers-in-Genesis. Frankly, you don't want to know what I know about their "science". I don't mean that disrespectfully either. Thanks for your input and Christ be with you. |
||||||
18 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 44245 | ||
Another good example of how an individual's interpretation of "day" and "night" are skewed by what they have been exposed to and not what may or may not have actually occured in the pre-solar days of creation. It is a hot topic. One that threatens some literalists so badly they'll not only question your motives but your integrity too. Don't ever stop thinking, looking and exploring. See you around the message board. Blessings to you, Doug |
||||||
19 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 44187 | ||
Dear Steve Thank you for clarifying your position on the age issue. I have no qualms or arguements with you. This may sound kind of cheezy but I have many friends who are also Young Earthers, including my Pastor. We discussed the issue early in an open and forthright manner. The conclusion? It has no bearing on a person's salvation which is secured only through trusting Christ. We have learned to repsect each others position on the issue. Someday, we will find out exactly how God did it. When we do, you will owe me a double mocha latte! Until that day, keep your eyes fixed on Christ. Blessings, Doug (aka nimrod2....a mighty warrior for God!) |
||||||
20 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 44099 | ||
Thank you Steve You might also want to consider is that your conception of what the Bible reveals about the creation account is skewed more by your own opinion than it is correct hermeneutics. A host of impressive Biblical scholars feel the same way I do and a host feel the same way you do. Specific biblical examples of evidence for long creation days include: 1.The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time. 2.Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." 3.The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the ___ day." 4.In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long: For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11) 5.The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalms 90:4). 6.The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8). 7.The events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow, and put man in it, with instruction on its care and maintenance. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. This job, in itself would take many days or weeks. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. It is very unlikely all of this could take place in 24 hours, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God. 8.The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalms 105:8). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Man Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology). Do you believe in the Appearance of Age arguement? God does not deceive. If you have seen the stars being born (Hubble Space Telescope) in the distant universe you would realize it is not a deception. There are clear evidences from God about the age of His creation. I have done a great deal of citing my opinions and reasonings for long creation days and an old earth, how about you cite some evidences for a 24 hour creation day and a young earth? |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |