attacking another denomination are included in this rule.

[Dan Clarkston]

......and so your replies indicate you do not understand/ know the Godman.

What you do know is a cerebral assent to cobbled information which has no form that resembles the Creator.....a bit like a computer which has no real connection with anything living.

Yeah satan tells lies like this all the time.

Those that know the Lord understand that He is all powerful and is not personally vulnerable in any way

Now the devil goes around lying about God claiming God tried to save lucifer and God is in danger of being destroyed (vulnerable) and other such nonsense

This is because satan is corrupt and he believes his own lies and thinks he will win in the end and over throw God and those that have satan as their father actually believe this nonsense

Interesting question. I guess we aren't told.

God's word teaches satan and his demons go to hell.

We need to reach the end of the story to see satan's redemption.

satan has deceived some in to believing that he gets redeemed
<<---- satan is their daddy!

Yes. But will the Logos fail?

satan and those believing his lies... think God will fail and that God is vulnerable to failing

That's hilarious! Only people under the influence of demons would believe it's possible for God to be over thrown

If that was the solution, it certainly seems like overkill. (global genocide) ???

God did cause the flood... to wipe out the nephilim

That's not genocide as these creatures came about by demons having sex with human women crating giants... like King David fought in his time.

 

[Brakelite]

If what you are sharing is the Truth of God's Word why not let it speak for itself? But if you are correcting others based on a church doctrine then you should leave it alone. Every denomination has a doctrine of faith that defines what they believe. The simple Word of God cannot be disputed when taken straight from the Bible. The interpretation can get misconstrued and that's when it needs to be addressed.

When I quote Revelation 13, what comes to mind, and how do you know you are correct?
In Revelation 14 the warning concerning the mark of the beast is also life and death matter. How many different opinions are there within the church as to what the MoB actually is, let alone the identity of the beast.
Without referencing history, and explaining the connections, 90% of Christendom will continue to be deceived by thinking the antichrist hasn't come yet, while all along history and prophecy harmonises perfectly in identifying the real antichrist using the criteria laid out in scripture. There are over 10 specific characteristics that can pertain to only one institution. This cannot be understood without commentary. Why is that? Because for 1500 years prophecy wasn't understood. Just reading it wasn't enough. Jesus told us how to understand prophecy. He said,
“Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he. ”
John 13:19 KJV
Unfeigned Bible

“And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. ”
John 14:29 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

For 1500 years only parts of the prophecies were completed, but at the time of the Reformation, much much more had come to pass, the Holy Spirit awakening Christendom to the reality of prophecy, which historically nearly saw the end of Catholicism, which needed to take steps to counter the accusations of the reformers... accusations which couldn't be denied by scripture, unless the way to look at prophecy was radically changed. And this they did. Hence instead of looking at history as an unfolding revelation of prophecy, they invented futurism, which over the ensuing centuries has turned the historicist hermeneutic on its head, and as I said above, we now have the vast majority of Christendom looking in all the wrong places, deceived by the very antichrist they think isn't here yet. How can simply presenting scripture counter such deception? It cannot, as i said, without commentary, historical references, and explanation. Such things demands naming names.

 

[St. SteVen]

Climate change. Seriously. Next question, who caused the climate change???

I thought it was the other way around.
The Flood broke the vapor canopy atmosphere and temperatures plummeted.
That's why "woolly" Mammoths were found in the Tundra, flash frozen with undigested tropical plant vegetation in their stomachs.

But I am interested to hear your view. Who caused the climate change?

[

 

[St. SteVen]

This is an anthropomorphism, ie attributing to God characteristics of fallen man.
Genocide is a man made devil inspired activity. It is foreign and opposed to the revelation of God in Jesus.

Wow. Does God live above his own law?
If "Genocide is a man made devil inspired activity.", God would never do that. IMHO

I believe that God lives ABOVE the standard He set for us.
He doesn't have LOWER standards with the excuse that He is God and can do as He pleases. (tyrant) ???
What is godly behavior? Subhuman?

As far as the weather goes, the flood was also a result of fiddling with the elements.

Wow. We are struggling (me too) to make the biblical narrative fit with science.
Never seems to work. Always a glitch somewhere.
If the antediluvians caused the Flood, what is the rainbow a symbol of?

[

 

[MatthewG]

Wow. Does God live above his own law?
If "Genocide is a man made devil inspired activity.", God would never do that. IMHO

I believe that God lives ABOVE the standard He set for us.
He doesn't have LOWER standards with the excuse that He is God and can do as He pleases. (tyrant) ???
What is godly behavior? Subhuman?


Wow. We are struggling (me too) to make the biblical narrative fit with science.
Never seems to work. Always a glitch somewhere.
If the antediluvians caused the Flood, what is the rainbow a symbol of?

[

It seems that Yahavah, regretted for making mankind.

Genesis 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. 6 And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”

Why was he grieved? Yahavah seen all that was upon the thoughts of man, evil. All the time.
Yet he saved something like 7 or 8 people, didn't he?

He wanted to try to start over (perhaps?), however man continued to be evil, and it seems that he would show forth a solution. It also shows that we are in need of washing of our own hearts, at least in my opinion because I know I will never be righteous, only Yeshua whom took away the sins of the world, was. He is now the one whom we believe on and he become our righteousness, our wisdom, our santification, in renewing our hearts and minds, concerning the things of Yahavah. There is a reason why this story is told.

It's a contrast for what Yahavah desires, compared to what man desired, which in that time was evil continually, and Yahavah desired for them to look towards him, and there was a man named Noah whom did so.

 

[MatthewG]

It seems that Yahavah, regretted for making mankind.

Genesis 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. 6 And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”

Why was he grieved? Yahavah seen all that was upon the thoughts of man, evil. All the time.
Yet he saved something like 7 or 8 people, didn't he?

He wanted to try to start over (perhaps?), however man continued to be evil, and it seems that he would show forth a solution. It also shows that we are in need of washing of our own hearts, at least in my opinion because I know I will never be righteous, only Yeshua whom took away the sins of the world, was. He is now the one whom we believe on and he become our righteousness, our wisdom, our santification, in renewing our hearts and minds, concerning the things of Yahavah. There is a reason why this story is told.

It's a contrast for what Yahavah desires, compared to what man desired, which in that time was evil continually, and Yahavah desired for them to look towards him, and there was a man named Noah whom did so.

I find Hannahs prayer to Yahavah, all revealing as well, when she had prayed.

1 Samuel 2:
6 “Yahavah/The LORD brings death and makes alive;
he brings down to the grave and raises up.
7 The Lord sends poverty and wealth;
he humbles and he exalts.

 

[amadeus]

Do you think he is seeing a good return on his investment?

I would guess that he already knows he is bankrupt.
In that case he might consider being restored and redeemed.
Does he have a better option?

[

Does anyone like pain? Does anyone like to inflict pain on others? Have any of these lovers of pain had their minds changed through redemption? Have any retained their love of pain? God does not change, but are not men changeable? When is it that men have changed completely [if ever] to be like God?

1jo 3:1	Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1jo 3:2	Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Pr 29:18

Where there is no vision, the people perish

Does anyone remain blind? What does Jesus mean here?

Lu 6:39

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?

And what did Jesus mean here?

Joh 9:39	And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
Joh 9:40	And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
Joh 9:41	Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

And what was it that Paul was inspired to write?

Ro 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

And what does it mean to be dead?

Ec 9:5

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

And who are these dead if not those who are buried without Life?

Mt 8:22

But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Was Jesus not speaking of those who did not take hold of that which He brought?

Joh 10:10

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

 

[quietthinker]

Wow. Does God live above his own law?
If "Genocide is a man made devil inspired activity.", God would never do that. IMHO

I believe that God lives ABOVE the standard He set for us.
He doesn't have LOWER standards with the excuse that He is God and can do as He pleases. (tyrant) ???
What is godly behavior? Subhuman?


Wow. We are struggling (me too) to make the biblical narrative fit with science.
Never seems to work. Always a glitch somewhere.
If the antediluvians caused the Flood, what is the rainbow a symbol of?

[

I find it helpful when I understand the perspective Moses wrote from. Unaware there was a devil and their' God is one' mantra, they attributed everything that happened (both good and bad) to God. So this being the case, (in Moses's mind) of course God caused the flood.
Jesus reveals to us there is a power opposed to God (Satan) and that he is responsible. (steal, kill and destroy)

 

[MatthewG]

Does anyone like pain?

Sadistic people.

Does anyone like to inflict pain on others?

Sadistic people.

Have any of these lovers of pain had their minds changed through redemption?

Don't know.

Have any retained their love of pain?

There are some people whom just don't give a rats rear end about how God does things.

God does not change, but are not men changeable?

I believe God constantly changed, in how he dealt with the nation of Israel. Now with sin paid for, and Satan, and hell done away with. Just like people in that day some chose (noah) to have faith, and today people choose to have faith on the son whom had faith in his Father. I can't change a man. Only God can truly change a person when they turn their heads toward him. But who could say they love God, if they don't love their neighbor who has a choice to look towards the same God that one chooses to serve. People make God in their own image, don't they?

When is it that men have changed completely [if ever] to be like God?

Only by and through the renewing of the mind by the holy spirit and looking faithfully towards the God whom chose to create mankind as it is. My question is does God even owe us life? I don't think he does, but he chooses every day to give it to us.

1jo 3:1	Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1jo 3:2	Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Pr 29:18

Where there is no vision, the people perish

Does anyone remain blind? What does Jesus mean here?

Lu 6:39

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?

And what did Jesus mean here?

Joh 9:39	And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
Joh 9:40	And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
Joh 9:41	Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

And what was it that Paul was inspired to write?

Ro 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

And what does it mean to be dead?

Ec 9:5

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

And who are these dead if not those who are buried without Life?

Mt 8:22

But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Was Jesus not speaking of those who did not take hold of that which He brought?

Joh 10:10

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

 

[St. SteVen]

I find it helpful when I understand the perspective Moses wrote from. Unaware there was a devil and their' God is one' mantra, they attributed everything that happened (both good and bad) to God. So this being the case, (in Moses's mind) of course God caused the flood.
Jesus reveals to us there is a power opposed to God (Satan) and that he is responsible. (steal, kill and destroy)

That's an interesting idea.
But Moses wrote Genesis. (supposedly)
What did the serpent represent to him?
Or "sin crouching at the door" for Cain?

[

 

[BarneyFife]

When I quote Revelation 13, what comes to mind, and how do you know you are correct?
In Revelation 14 the warning concerning the mark of the beast is also life and death matter. How many different opinions are there within the church as to what the MoB actually is, let alone the identity of the beast.
Without referencing history, and explaining the connections, 90% of Christendom will continue to be deceived by thinking the antichrist hasn't come yet, while all along history and prophecy harmonises perfectly in identifying the real antichrist using the criteria laid out in scripture. There are over 10 specific characteristics that can pertain to only one institution. This cannot be understood without commentary. Why is that? Because for 1500 years prophecy wasn't understood. Just reading it wasn't enough. Jesus told us how to understand prophecy. He said,
“Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he. ”
John 13:19 KJV
Unfeigned Bible

“And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. ”
John 14:29 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

For 1500 years only parts of the prophecies were completed, but at the time of the Reformation, much much more had come to pass, the Holy Spirit awakening Christendom to the reality of prophecy, which historically nearly saw the end of Catholicism, which needed to take steps to counter the accusations of the reformers... accusations which couldn't be denied by scripture, unless the way to look at prophecy was radically changed. And this they did. Hence instead of looking at history as an unfolding revelation of prophecy, they invented futurism, which over the ensuing centuries has turned the historicist hermeneutic on its head, and as I said above, we now have the vast majority of Christendom looking in all the wrong places, deceived by the very antichrist they think isn't here yet. How can simply presenting scripture counter such deception? It cannot, as i said, without commentary, historical references, and explanation. Such things demands naming names.

I think it's an inevitable hazard of community discussion, whether virtual or local, that any rules imposed besides the law of Christ are bound to impede Gospel discourse.

The Gospel is foolishness to the world, and those who will not be bound by the laws written on the heart by it will always pose a myriad of difficulties to those who are trying to communicate it.

I don't suggest that administrators should relinquish their administration—only that the wheat and tares grow together until the harvest, and that tares create necessary work that should never have to be performed.

Communicating the Gospel in such an environment requires serpent-like wisdom and dove-like harmlessness that most of us are not willing to put in the work to attain.

I can only speak for my own lack of willingness, obviously. I am chief among sinners.

:)

 

[BarneyFife]

Wow. We are struggling (me too) to make the biblical narrative fit with science.
Never seems to work. Always a glitch somewhere.
If the antediluvians caused the Flood, what is the rainbow a symbol of?

Funny, I'm struggling to make science fit with the biblical narrative. Not too much, though. Science will come around soon enough.

:)

 

[BarneyFife]

Wow. Does God live above his own law?
If "Genocide is a man made devil inspired activity.", God would never do that. IMHO

I believe that God lives ABOVE the standard He set for us.
He doesn't have LOWER standards with the excuse that He is God and can do as He pleases. (tyrant) ???
What is godly behavior? Subhuman?

God's law is a transcript of His character—not the other way around. The law is a verbal, human expression of a character far more complex and wonderful than can be fully expressed by humans, which is why He decided to come to Earth as a man and exemplify His character by example.

The word "genocide" doesn't really apply to the deluge at all, since it's a technical term that's been used in modern times to denote racism or xenophobia, to very much successful, worldly, ideological and political effect.

God virtually always has more than one reason for doing the things He does—especially the big ones.

He isn't really capable of murder in the human logical sense, since He doesn't participate in the human variety of malice. He has enemies—people who hate Him—but He always works with the good of all His creatures in mind. And, yes, that includes the God depicted in the Old Testament.

The act of the Creator in killing millions of super-sinners is not genocide. It is merciful. If God had allowed things to continue as they were, it might have taken 40,000 years of human misery instead of merely 4000 for the "fulness of time" that heralded the Saviour's first Advent, and 60,000+ for Him to put an end to all of this milieu in which we now find ourselves.

I do admit that arriving at this conclusion requires a little more than a surface-reading of Genesis 6-9, but I tend to search Scripture as for hidden treasure (Matthew 13:44). The post-flood human diet effected a marked decline in human longevity which, in turn, attenuated greatly the tide of human evil.

I don't find the use of large numbers to impeach the character of God held by those who don't subscribe to a universalist view very compelling.

For instance, it's been suggested that it's unjust to save a small portion of mankind compared to the large number that may be lost.

But that 'large' number may very well pale in comparison—putting it mildly—to the countless unfallen intelligences that are looking on from corners of the universe that are invisible to us.

I don't think we should be so terra-centric in our view of the Atonement. After all, "we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men" (1 Corinthians 4:9).

:)

 

[BarneyFife]

I thought it was the other way around.
The Flood broke the vapor canopy atmosphere and temperatures plummeted.
That's why "woolly" Mammoths were found in the Tundra, flash frozen with undigested tropical plant vegetation in their stomachs.

But I am interested to hear your view. Who caused the climate change?

[

I'm not sure it matters, does it?

God says He's coming to destroy those who destroy the earth (Revelation 11:18), so if we aren't destroying it with our waste, we're doing it some other way.

Of course, I'm not suggesting we should be irresponsible in our stewardship of the world in any way preventable.

:)

 

[quietthinker]

That's an interesting idea.
But Moses wrote Genesis. (supposedly)
What did the serpent represent to him?
Or "sin crouching at the door" for Cain?

[

I guess he saw the serpent as a serpent ....just as the Jews still do today. As for 'sin crouching at the door', I guess he figured that if Cain didn't get a handle on his attitude towards Able, matters were going to escalate.

I have no doubt God spoke with Moses yet Moses filtered what he heard through his own paradigm.....no different than what happens to us today. Moses's paradigm was primarily shaped from being raised in Pharaoh's value structure which was basically, do or die.

Today everybody has the same scriptures yet look out how many different interpretations are put forth from the same words.

We can ask the question, whose and what paradigm do we require to see and hear well? I think Jesus is a clear witness to how to see healthily. It is also clear Jesus did not go along/ approve of all the conclusions drawn in the OT writings and manifest in their cultural practices.

I believe we fall into the very thing we hope to negate when we insist that the written text is without question, definitive of 'the word of God'
In truth it is inspiration filtered through man's experience, programming and pen.
It is Jesus who is 'The Word of God'. John 1 is unequivocal about this. I behooves us to hear it.

 

[St. SteVen]

I think it's an inevitable hazard of community discussion, whether virtual or local, that any rules imposed besides the law of Christ are bound to impede Gospel discourse.

It seems that the law of Christ (?) is the societal standard in civilized western community discussion.
Transgressors are obvious and usually corrected.

I'm making an assumption about what you mean by the phrase "the law of Christ".

[

 

[St. SteVen]

The word "genocide" doesn't really apply to the deluge at all, since it's a technical term that's been used in modern times to denote racism or xenophobia, to very much successful, worldly, ideological and political effect.

God virtually always has more than one reason for doing the things He does—especially the big ones.

He isn't really capable of murder in the human logical sense, since He doesn't participate in the human variety of malice. He has enemies—people who hate Him—but He always works with the good of all His creatures in mind. And, yes, that includes the God depicted in the Old Testament.

The act of the Creator in killing millions of super-sinners is not genocide. It is merciful. If God had allowed things to continue as they were, it might have taken 40,000 years of human misery instead of merely 4000 for the "fulness of time" that heralded the Saviour's first Advent, and 60,000+ for Him to put an end to all of this milieu in which we now find ourselves.

I do admit that arriving at this conclusion requires a little more than a surface-reading of Genesis 6-9, but I tend to search Scripture as for hidden treasure (Matthew 13:44). The post-flood human diet effected a marked decline in human longevity which, in turn, attenuated greatly the tide of human evil.

That's an interesting view.
I still find myself at 180 degrees the other direction, but it's certainly worth consideration.
If you have more compelling argument, bring it. Maybe a challenging question?

[

 

[St. SteVen]

The word "genocide" doesn't really apply to the deluge at all, since it's a technical term that's been used in modern times to denote racism or xenophobia, to very much successful, worldly, ideological and political effect.

God virtually always has more than one reason for doing the things He does—especially the big ones.

He isn't really capable of murder in the human logical sense, since He doesn't participate in the human variety of malice. He has enemies—people who hate Him—but He always works with the good of all His creatures in mind. And, yes, that includes the God depicted in the Old Testament.

Why wouldn't this same logic (anti-logic?) apply to Satan?

[

 

[Heart2Soul]

When I quote Revelation 13, what comes to mind, and how do you know you are correct?
In Revelation 14 the warning concerning the mark of the beast is also life and death matter. How many different opinions are there within the church as to what the MoB actually is, let alone the identity of the beast.
Without referencing history, and explaining the connections, 90% of Christendom will continue to be deceived by thinking the antichrist hasn't come yet, while all along history and prophecy harmonises perfectly in identifying the real antichrist using the criteria laid out in scripture. There are over 10 specific characteristics that can pertain to only one institution. This cannot be understood without commentary. Why is that? Because for 1500 years prophecy wasn't understood. Just reading it wasn't enough. Jesus told us how to understand prophecy. He said,
“Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he. ”
John 13:19 KJV
Unfeigned Bible

“And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. ”
John 14:29 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

For 1500 years only parts of the prophecies were completed, but at the time of the Reformation, much much more had come to pass, the Holy Spirit awakening Christendom to the reality of prophecy, which historically nearly saw the end of Catholicism, which needed to take steps to counter the accusations of the reformers... accusations which couldn't be denied by scripture, unless the way to look at prophecy was radically changed. And this they did. Hence instead of looking at history as an unfolding revelation of prophecy, they invented futurism, which over the ensuing centuries has turned the historicist hermeneutic on its head, and as I said above, we now have the vast majority of Christendom looking in all the wrong places, deceived by the very antichrist they think isn't here yet. How can simply presenting scripture counter such deception? It cannot, as i said, without commentary, historical references, and explanation. Such things demands naming names.

I agree, it is necessary to lay a foundation of history to help us understand events in chronological order. Without the history we never understand how Jesus came to be the Messiah.

 

[BarneyFife]

Why wouldn't this same logic (anti-logic?) apply to Satan?

[

Well, you might have a point if Satan were the Sovereign of the universe and made himself a man to suffer and die for the sins of the world.

If I didn't know you better, I'd think you were trying to test me as to whether I'd be reduced to a pearl-clutching fit.

:)