First Abraham Lincoln said this:
We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.— Abraham Lincoln, April 30, 1863
Then James Garfield said this later on:
"If the next centennial does not find us a great nation ... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."
— President James Garfield, 1876
I'm thinking maybe they were onto something. I believe God never takes away first without warning the people. The Jews know this firsthand. But do we? We have ignored many wise voices of the past. Are we smarter than they? The National Day of Prayer is next week. I think it behooves us to get on our knees and pray. Pray for our nation, our leaders and our military.
I'm curious about this one. I never heard this come up as a contradiction. So if you would please...enlighten me?
I'm getting busier and busier lately and have to start writing a research paper on vibrio vulnificus, a flesh eating bacteria, this weekend, so my replies are going to be less and less frequent. Just a heads up.
Yes, there is a contradiction about marrying unbelievers. The very first one says go for it; the second says not to. "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." How can that be taken any other way but "Yeah its fine, stay with them"?
Riches. Luke 6:24: "Woe to you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation."James 5:1: "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you."
The implication in both of those is that being rich is an earthly reward that will do you no good. Additionally, the quotes I brought up regarding wealth being a reward for piety imply that it's a universal reward for being pious. "In the house of the righteous is much treasure."
You took me the wrong way about Ona. I understand and agree with -your- interpretation about it; however I brought it up as an example of how different interpretations can bring totally different meanings: it has been used by many as an argument against masturbation, that's all. Wasn't a slam on you.
Once again I'm getting the "you aren't looking at this right" argument. For what it's worth, I read it in its entirety, old and new testament, at the age of 14, without expectation or foregone conclusion. This -is- the result of my unbiased view; arguably it was biased FOR the bible though because I attended catholic grade and high schools, and you can guess what light it was cast in. Upon actually reading it, I was disgusted. Sorry.
I'm still not understanding why God chose to love one nation more than another of his own creations. If he happened to get into another jealous mood, I guess that's too bad, he himself should (well, would) know we are built with limitations he himself put there. It's like beating up a child for not doing something the right way after not teaching them, except it's not just a spanking, it's wholesale slaughter of nations. That is why I find it repugnant. If I found you, as a parent, breaking a childs limbs, you can bet I would be disgusted regardless of how "loving" you were.
What do you mean, what the jews did against Christ? His death was completely necessary for his story, just like Judas' betrayal. He can't very well be the sacrifice for mankind if he dies of old age. On that note, why does god have to kill his kid to change a rule? And how much of a sacrifice is death if you know you'll rise back up and ascend to paradise? And again, no, jews do not suddenly go "ohhhh wait yeah ok im down with jesus now". At most you have what -some- jews did against christ.
Job was also the victim of god taking a dumb bet with the loyal opposition. Job suffers immensely and his entire family is slaughtered not due to mere circumstance, not due to impeity, but because god wanted to prove a point, one he should, as an omnipotent being, already know would be true. I guess the devil really is powerful, if he outright tempted god into a test when the bible does say elsewhere not to test your lord.
The last words of Jesus are, as I said, something I feel to not be terribly important and as contradictions go, really not something to care about at all. John 19:30 says his last words were "It is finished"; Luke 23:46 says it was "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit". Matthew 27:46 says "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
ok, good luck on your paper. Sounds interesting.
You previously asked me if I believe a believer should marry an unbeliever and you quoted scripture that was clear the answer was no. This scripture you gave above does not contradict this. This is a total diff scripture. This is a situation when two unbelievers marry and one becomes a believer. The question is.....does the believer now leave the marriage? The answer is no. The believer in the marriage will sanctify the marriage. Do you know what that means? That means in an unbelieving household there is a believer that is "set apart" for God and will be a good witness to her/his family. If they separate there's no light/witness in the home. There's a greater chance now that the unbeliever will come to the faith as well as any children in the house.
Besides all that, God hates divorce. He says that once man and woman join they should not separate but stay together. I've known lots of these mixed marriages over the years and have seen some wonderful things come out as a result of them with the unbelieving spouse coming into the faith with his wife who first became a believer and vice versa.
So no contradiction here.
I've heard that there's more about riches or finances than any other subject in scripture. There are some who are rich and doomed and some who are rich and blessed. You're right that our earthly riches are not going to save us. As long as we understand that and do good with how God blessed us we should be ok. When we look at our riches as being above others and put our trust in them instead of God, we're not in a good place. There is a wealth and health gospel floating around that is totally bogus. Wealth is not a universal reward for being pious. Some of the most Godly people thru the centuries didn't have two cents to call their own......like the poor old widow who gave all she had. Jesus didn't have a place to lay his head and he came from two complete nobodys.
Being rich or poor has nothing to do with our salvation. Riches or material possessions are not the problem. The love of these things can be a big problem if they get in the way of your love for God.
and I had a hunch where you got that from. The Catholics love this verse and love to use it for prohibiting birth control. Like we agreed on it has to do with rebellion against God and nothing more. Rebellion to God is like the sin of witchcraft he says. It's like we've been seduced or hypnotized by the opposition.
All you had to say was Catholic and I completely understand. But reading the bible once at 14 is not really how you read this book. That was good and a start but it's truly a lifetime of study. I've been reading this for over 40 years and I keep finding new information. It's like finding another puzzle piece. You seem to know more than most so I'm thinking you've either put these things to a test on others or you've been contemplating them for a while now. Well....either that or you've got some bible hating site that's feeding you...... Not like there's a shortage out there.
These other nations were very very evil. If you go back in history and read about these nations you'd understand why God did what he did. The Assyrians for instance did some pretty horrific things that make the Jeffrey Dalmers and Mansons of our days look like kindergarteners. God looked down after the flood and lovingly picked a nation to be a light to other nations. This rag tag group of Jews that God picked were a minority compared to some of the other nations out there. But it all goes back to Gen 12 and God's promise to Abraham anyhow. That's why he did all those miracle in Egypt to prove that the God of Abraham was the true God. Many Egyptians were convinced and went with the Jews during the Exodus out of Egypt. God was all for the other nations coming into the faith of the Jews. That was also a promise to Abraham, that many nations would be blessed as a result of him and his descendants.
well it may look like that from our perspective but God knew that Job could handle this. I would think it an honor if God thought me strong enough to take such a situation. (but I think God knows I'm a wus!). Testing is not unbiblical. Tempting is. We can test God and he says he tests us. God does test us, but not for his benefit....for ours! Yes God knew the outcome with Job. But did Job? Testing of our faith is a good thing really. It's not pleasant when you're in the thick of it, but the outcome shows the evidence for your faith. They say you only know what a teabag is made of when it gets into hot water right? Same with us. I don't know how I will react to a situation until I get into it. It's good spiritual building character to be tested once in a while. Just like being in school and being tested on what you've been taught. You don't know what you've really retained until you've been tested on it. Right?
I know alot of Christians over the years who took great solace in the book of Job. I'm thinking what Job went thru has helped millions of Christians over the years. God richly rewarded him afterwards. Did you know that God doubled all that was taken from him but his children? The reason for this is because he would be reunited with his children.....all of them eternally. For me, if I thought God was going to do that for my kids, I would gladly suffer as Job did.
oh, ok. There were seven sayings of Christ on the cross total. We piece them together by looking at all the gospels. The gospels remember are four eyewittness accounts from 4 diff perspectives. The fact that they agree and can fit together but are not copy cats speaks well for the case against collusion. To get the total picture of these 3 1/2 yrs you have to piece all the gospels together like a puzzle. Quite often there is repetition and other times one says what another leaves out.
There is no contradiction here just three diff accounts of what Christ said on the cross. I'd have to look up but I think the first two you gave me were the last two (of 7) statements he said before he died.
Are you actually reading my posts? I posted first the "yeah its fine to be with an unbeliever" scripture, alongside the one saying it wasn't. The point was to illustrate how radically different both are. Are you just skimming through or what?
In regards to the cross, differing accounts are still contradictions, but as I said, ultimately minor and irrelevant ones. And where are you getting the idea that I haven't read the bible since I was 14? Wouldn't the whole "god sending bears to maul children" quote alone, as it's rather obscure, be enough to signal "hey this guy probably read it more often than 11 years ago"?
And I don't care that these other nations were (supposedly) evil; two wrongs don't make a right and while I understand that historically what the jews did was fairly standard for the era, it doesn't make it civilized, nor were the jews ragtag. If they can kill off 3000 of their own people for worshipping a golden calf, odds are their population is plenty large enough for nation. And you and I both know there are plenty of sequences in the OT wherein Israel murders man, woman and child.
Children. Already your god had forsaken children? Let us not forget the ol' "run your sword through their bellies" in regards to pregnant women. I guess abortion is only wrong if you're not heretical.
Catholic mis-education?....Is that truly from where all your questions stem? Did you get a good Catholic education otherwise?...it seems you did by your writing and critical questioning here on JU.....and writing a research paper on flesh eating bacteria isn't chump change either. Good going on that.
It was His Way (salvation plan) of dealing with sin....Original Sin transmitted by Adam and Eve and actual sin....pride being the #1.
when you said this:
that's the only indication you've given me so that's all I can go on.
no not necessarily because I've answered this exact quote by atheists before who got it from one of those bible bashing sites. So just putting an objectionable quote up tells me nothing. I can only go by what you reveal to me. Throwing up a quote doesn't tell me anything about your bible reading habits. I'm not a mind reader. Sorry.
not necessarily. They can just be differing accounts. It would only be a contradiction if one said something to the effect that Christ ONLY uttered "it is finished" while the other account said that Christ ONLY spoke the words, "Into your hands I commit my spirit."
It's like this: if you and I saw an accident and then recounted it to a reporter we might say something diff but not be contradicting each other. For instance if you said there was a fireman, a policeman and a paramedic who rushed to the scene immediately but I told the reporter later that in the rush of things I saw a fireman and a paramedic there but didn't mention the policeman......is that a contradiction? No. It would be a contradiction if I said ONLY a fireman and paramedic showed up and there wasn't any police on the scene.
yeeeesss I am. But as you're posting you're also speaking about contradictions. So I'm reading you as saying that there's a contradiction here. You put both sides down with an objection. I was just trying to answer you.
They are both radically different because they are two diff animals. One has to do with choosing a mate BEFORE marriage and the other has to do with coming to Christ AFTER the marriage and what to do with our partner at that time.
Yes, and there are reasons for this. God says to us many times that his ways are not our ways and our ways are not his ways. Remember this same God died on a cross in an excruciating way that he didn't have to. He did it for us, even though we were yet his enemy.
Remember from God's vantage point he sees it all. We are looking only thru a knothole in a fence as the parade passes by. We can only see what is directly in front of us and what has been revealed to us. Are you going to judge God for his actions on the little you know?
Yes and no....Depends what you mean by "necessary".
Yes, as long as you realize that both Christ and Judas employed their free will...Christ in dying for us as He did and Judas' free will in betraying Him.
Just to be clear Lula. Judas was chosen for his role. Christ even said so.
"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name those that you gave me I have kept and none of them is lost BUT the son of perdition that the scripture might be fulfilled." John 17:12
"Have I not chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil?" 6:70
He said this way before Judas exercised his free will. Which brings us right back to election again.....ooops another thread.
Of course I'm going to judge god by "what little" I can see, given that "what little" we can see in the Old Testament is wholesale slaughter of nations for his "plan", rules which have no place in a modern, and/or moral society, and his New Testament appearance is suddenly so much gentler (until of course you hit Revelations, along with many other passages prior). Add on to that that apparently he'll gladly damn us simply for using logic based on "what little" we've seen, instead of gently explaining and rehabilitating.
Consider. In some countries in Africa, the adult infection rate for AIDS is 40% and up. The Catholic Church still forbids the use of condoms and actively dissuades these people from using them. That's lunacy, pure and simple. And in regards to the Unbeliever spouse thing, both are referring to marriage.
Look at it this way. In the old testament god saw people working together peacably (tower of babyl). So God destroys the tower, scrambles everyones language, and later goes on to order a series of wars. I don't care what "plan" a parent would have; if they made one child beat up the rest of his children, that's just... disgusting. Let's not forget his wholesale murder of the entire planet except for one family, with a rainbow being his reminder of mercy. Come on.
Now for the record, I consider the Old Testament to be by and large simply legends with only some points rooted in something historical. I don't think the entire earth flooded, or literal giants getting taken down by slings.
New Testament is certainly an improvement, given Jesus decides his father's rules such as stoning someone to death for wearing linen and wool in the same outfit, stoning someone to death for eating bacon-wrapped shrimp, stoning someone to death for having sex on their period, and sending women out into the wilderness to live in huts made of sticks when they're on the rag, and sacrificing an animal for every other minor infraction you'll commit ten times a day are outdated and unnecessary. That having been said, if you don't get the memo that Jesus died for you you're screwed anyway, which is what I find injust.
If there is a god claimed to be one of love and mercy who is genuinely concerned with human affairs and has an afterlife prepared, I find it much more logical that he would discuss the things you did in life with you, (briefly) punish and rehabilitate in the case of murderers or the massively bigoted (for example), and then just chill out. That's a relationship - not being forced to follow orders on pain of eternal torment.
God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He says this countless times. Jesus mourned over Jerusalem on the way to the cross because they rejected Him. God repeatedly, forgave the Jews after they went against him. Read the book of Judges sometime and get the whole cycle they would go thru. They would rebell against God. God would punish them, they would cry out. God would forgive. They would rebell and it started all over again.
God is a God of love, forgiveness and mercy. He says Mercy truiumps Judgment. That's not the God you're describing but that's the God the bible depicts. God never ever moves against us without first issuing plenty of warning. His desire is that we turn away from evil and towards Him. He understands how sin spreads quickly and contaminates like a disease.
Yes, let's consider the book of Revelation. That's been around for how long? How many people thumb their noses at it? Yet God will be the bad God because he carries out this prophecy? Come again?
Just like Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah issued warning after warning of the impending judgments in the OT, so too will Revelation be our warning of the end times. Back in the prophets' time they were laughed at mocked, and persecuted for following God and delivering the warnings that if they didn't turn around God would send them into exile. That's exactly what happened.
God doesn't just slam us with no warning. Believe me.....you know enough even now. You will have no excuse when you stand before a loving and merciful but also a just God.
He set up a standard from the get go. There is no remission of sin without blood. It's either yours or His. You decide. We either can accept his "cure" for our ills or we can reject it. Now you have to decide if "your cure" is better than his.
I could spend all day on this one. I actually wrote a blog on this so it'll be better for you to read what I wrote. But the Tower of Babylon was the beginning of false religion. They were working against God and like I said....there's more to this story than what you are seeing. It's actually quite interesting...the whole thing. This was not a good peaceable thing. And this will be similar to when the Anti Christ comes on the scene. The first thing he's going to do is bring "peace." But it's not real peace. This is a warning and all the Christians are watching for this even now.
Do a check sometime on Nimrod.....the mighty hunter. He was the ruler/leader of this rebellion.
Here are the two articles I posted about this. The second article deals more specifically with Nimrod and His Tower of Babal.
http://kfc.joeuser.com/article/337204/This_Woman_is_a_Whore
http://kfc.joeuser.com/article/337310/The_Birth_of_The_Whore
Nephilim_X posts
LULA POSTS:Yes and no....Depends what you mean by "necessary".Yes, as long as you realize that both Christ and Judas employed their free will...Christ in dying for us as He did and Judas' free will in betraying Him.
kfc posts:
God's postive will and permissive will is linked to our free will.
Judas being chosen doesn't make God the cause (force) of Judas' evil. Judas was evil of his own free will and God permissive will permitted it.
KFC POSTS:
Christ being God foreknew what Judas would do however, His foreknowledge of it doesn't force or compel Judas to do so....Foreknowledge of an event doesn't mean forecause of the event. Becasue I have foreknowledge that a train is going to arrive at the station at 4PM doesn't mean I caused the train to be there at 4PM.
In the Passion and Death of Christ many things were due to God's positive will, but many, were due to GOd's permissive will. That God merely permitted Judas to indulge an evil and did not positively inspire his action is evident from the Gospel itself.
Look at it this way.....Had Judas been compelled to act as he did against his own will, he would not have been morally responsible for his actions. Yet, the very Gospels which tell us of the fact that he did betray Christ, tell us also that he was morally guilty in doing so. Therefore he was free not to do so. Christ reproached him, "Judas dost thou betray the Son of Man with a kiss?" Our Lord did not say, Judas you have to do this so that I can sacrcely blame you. Read Acts 1:25, we are told that "Judas hath by transgression fallen"...It obvious therefore from Scripture itself that Judas was freely responsible for his evil action.
I've also heard this argued from the fact that God had predicted through the prophets that Judas would betray Christ. But that doesn't prove compulsion. It was not predicted that Judas "must" betray Him. The prediction was based upon the fact that Judas would do so by his own free choice. Judas did not do so becasue it had been predicted.
More expressly, we are certain that God's will was not impelling Judas becasue we are clearly told by God's Word that "Satan will enter Judas" and that he then went to the chief priests. Now the will of Satan is radically opposed to the will of Almighty God. But this leads to a 2nd possible difficulty. If not compelled by the will of God was Judas compelled by the will of Satan?
Again, it's obvious that he was not since the Gospels hold him to be personally responsible. If Judas did the will of Satan it's becasue he freely consented to do so. There was no need for him to do so, and if he obeyed the suggestions of Satan, he did so voluntarily.
We know too, for Scripture tells of Our Lord's own efforts to win Judas to better dispositions prior to the crime. Judas refused the grace offered.
nephilim_x posts:
The high incidence of AIDS is happening for a reason... what is it? Sexual contact. Why is the adult infection rate of AIDS so high? Is it becasue of married couples who practice fidelty....God's absolute standard?
or is it becasue of people going against God's standard ...and engaging in fornication, in extra marital sex, in homo sex, in in prostitition, in rape, etc?
Please consider this:
UNAIDS, the international agency which coordinates research and treatment for AIDS around the world, is a strong supporter of condoms. Its official position is that: “The male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.” Note the stress on the word “technology”. The condom is just a technology. And technology is not much good for changing behaviour. The West is addicted to technology as a substitute for free will and moral effort. If you eat too much, you get gastric banding surgery. If you’re depressed, you take Prozac. If you’re a smoker, you wear nicotine patches. Here in Africa, this fantasy has collided with the reality of the AIDS crisis. There is no technology to tame sexual desire. There is only self-restraint and faithfulness to your partner. These will eventually rein in AIDS; condoms won’t. Chinwuba Iyizoba is an electrical engineer in Enugu, Nigeria
Besides it's long time medical knowledge (but kept politically quiet) that condoms don't prevent the transmission of STDs and HIV.
A. Granted, kids who engage in “unprotected” sex are vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and unwanted pregnancies. But this raises another crucial question: How much protection do condoms provide? Studies have found condom failure rates in protecting against pregnancies for teens to be as high as 22.5 percent. As for protecting against STDs, in 2001 several government health agencies together released a report on condom effectiveness. The report found evidence that condoms are about 85 percent effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. (Is 85 percent good enough in protecting your child against a deadly and incurable virus?) The report also found condoms to be somewhat effective in protecting men (but not women) from gonorrhea. But the prominent scientists who prepared the report found no conclusive evidence that condoms protect against any other STD, including HPV, the primary cause of cervical cancer, which kills more women than AIDS does. Sixty-eight million Americans now have an incurable STD. Many caught those incurable STDs while using condoms. No one has ever caught AIDS or any other STD from being abstinent.
I think Pope Benedict is very wise in his admonition to stop using condoms and I'm not saying this becasue I'm Catholic, but becasue I understand that God knows best and He gave us His commands for a good reason....He wants us to be happy in this world and supernaturally happy with Him in the next.
No, it's never lunacy when you're thinking with God.
I'll be writing a full response later but if you genuinely think all the cases of AIDS in Africa are because of sexual choices made willingly then ffffffffffffffff
I mean, it's just astoundingly ignorant not only of how the real world works, but how the disease itself can be transmitted
You're aware that babies are raped in South Africa because of the belief that sex with a virgin will cure it, right? Or that you can get it from a blood transfusion? Or from breast-feeding from your mum if she has AIDS? Are you not grasping the massive stigma against the infected, or the fact that poverty can lead people to do desperate things like become prostitutes? Or that if a child is orphaned due to AIDS, even if they do not have the disease themselves, they end up ostracized as well? That people with AIDS have a hard time procuring medical care at all due to a lack of understanding? What someone stays abstinent, gets married, and discovers a bit too late that their partner is actually infected because said stigma prevented the truth from coming out?
That you would rather see many people suffer extraordinarily than live a life that doesn't line up with your beliefs is very telling.
I'm also astonished at your depiction of technology as a crutch and that everyone here in the West uses it to replace hard work and moral integrity. You can't just bootstrap yourself out of depression if it's caused by, for example, the neurotransmitter seratonin entering the reuptake phase too early for it to actually do its work. You cannot physically control that by yourself, and it can cause extremely severe depression. Would you consider a diabetic who uses insulin to be morally weak? And between a patch and trying to quit cold turkey, hey, go for the patch. It makes the transistion incredibly easier and increases success rates and means you don't end up in (as much) emotional turmoil, which is a very good thing when you work. Are you morally weak if you take an aspirin to get rid of a headache? If you take a painkiller after surgery?
Condoms do work most of the time. Good job looking at wikipedia and then taking things out of context. Of course the condom isn't perfect, but if you're seriously looking at an 85% reduction in transmission and scoffing at it, then I don't know what to tell you because that is an incredible gain, in a simple, affordable way. Oh, you know that condoms have existed for centuries and are not inherently western, right?
Condoms are not going to work for those who think raping babies cures their AIDS. Condoms are not going to work for those raping period.
What's needed over there is Christ......and that makes a big diff...the other thing needed over there is education on exactly how and why all this is happening.
Fixing the outside only, with condoms, is like putting a small band-aid on a gaping hole. That's why they haven't been able to stop the bleeding over there. It really has little to do with condoms. Education both in the physical sense and spiritual is what's really needed.
Just to be clear....I have no problem with the condom usuage but Lula does bring up some good points.
We always reap what we sow....in fact you always reap more than what yu sow. To see small children affected, it breaks my heart. But the fault isn't with God. The fault lies with man.
Now this is the freewill that we've been talking about so much on the other sites. Man is much more prone to use his freewill for evil than for good.
I agree with much of what you had to say on this Lula....but from a diff perspective. We are all blind and dead to God until he regenerates us. Yes, God looked down into the hallways of time and knew Judas wasn't going to be one of his. It's clear even from those scriptures. Why? Because he was not chosen to be so. Back to Romans 9. There Paul says that....and this is a hard concept....that God makes some for honor and some for dishonor. What does that mean? This is where the Sovereignty of God comes in.
We all are like Judas before God opens our eyes. We were at one time enemies to God. Why? Because the flesh wars against the Spirit. It's a battle. Remember the scripture that says we "all have gone astray?" Or "there is none righteous, not one?" Judas, was blind and dead spiritually even though he just spent 3 1/2 years with the believers and with Christ himself. This is no diff than those who sit in church week after week with an unregenerate heart.
You've heard the saying....there but for the grace of God go I.
That's what grace is all about.....unmerited favor. I like to say Grace is God's Riches at Christ's Expense.
Of course, I know that HIV/AIDS in Africa, as well as other parts of the world, comes from things other than sexual contact.
I do think though that the majority of cases comes from sexual transmission such as I detailed. So, since contracting HIV/AIDS is behavior based...why not use common sense and control the behavior....The solution is teaching and practicing self control not birth control by condoms or anything else.
And btw, while there may be a stigma for having HIV/AIDS in Africa, there sure isn't one here in the US...it's a politically protected incurable disease and we still are passing laws that attempt to force acceptance of homo-sex as just an alternate (healthy) lifestyle. When in truth, it's a deathstyle and anyone who denies this is lying.
It wasn't my depiction, it's a quote from Chinwuba Iyizoba is an electrical engineer in Enugu, Nigeria. I agree 100% with his analysis. He made his point.."Here in Africa, this fantasy has collided with the reality of the AIDS crisis. There is no technology to tame sexual desire. There is only self-restraint and faithfulness to your partner. These will eventually rein in AIDS; condoms won’t."
For those who push and sell condoms, people are just commodities, units, it's a utilitarian type of thing, they are never considered as made in the image and likeness of God having great dignity....condoms are about money...check out Planned Parenthood if you don't believe it....that's why they are sexualizing our children in schools through their sex education classes. Schools teach smoking is bad, but sexual relations (that can potentially kill) is OK as long as the child uses a condom. Go figure! Woe to them...St.Matt. 18:6 comes to mind. God will not be mocked.
Maybe so...but who in their right mind wants to take a chance with their health and life? I am a mother and I think this question is paramount...(Is 85 percent good enough in protecting your child against a deadly and incurable virus?).
I'm teaching them in accordance with God's law and with the Church....practice chastity before marriage and fidelty afterwards.
I'm glad and I figured you would becasue I came from a biblical perspective to make my case.
Lula. The point was that even when abstinent you could still catch aids. And 85% protection is a damn sight better than 0%, and you both know just as well as I that up and expecting everyone to just stop having sex is about as likely as me not being repulsed by everything you've just said, particularly given the socioeconomic troubles of Africa.
Of course rapists aren't going to use condoms, but if they were permitted to use condoms in the first place, it's more likely they wouldn't be raping babies because they wouldn't have had AIDS in the first place. Additionally, abstinence only education is a hilarious failure even in the first world. Furthermore as far as sex ed goes, I don't know about how yours went but youths had experimented a fair bit well before sex ed was even touched in my classes. Tell a child not to do something and you end up driving them to do it half the time.
As far as Christ "helping" situations and him being oh so needed in Africa, I say unreservedly HEY FOLKS THERE WAS SOMETHING HERE WITH A SWEAR BUT NOW THERE ISN'T, and I've been trying to be polite most of the time. This is the same claptrap that was used against natives in North America and Australia; was used again in Africa, parts of the Middle East and Asia. People still suffer today from the philosophy of "white mans burden". Look up the Congo Free State sometime, read about how disgustingly low people sank, and ask yourself if the victims deserved it because they weren't Christian anyway.
I'm done with responses to Lulu. Between repeated calls for the exclusion of non-Christians, an extreme amount of cognitive dissonance (and sudden dropping of issues such as evolution once the church's stance no longer matched Lulus), and the utterly inhuman stance that widespread disease and social ruin is better than wearing a condom because you believe your god wants it that way... I quite honestly feel nauseous. Many nations have had excellent success in reducing infection rates thanks to condoms... but then why do I bother to say any of this when you refuse to budge, even when proven wrong?
Lulu, I do not wish you any ill will, but yeah. I'm done with responding to you. Have a nice day.
And so do I as using profanity is unbecoming a gentleman to a gentlelady, which I am. Bye.
"No way, this woman would rather see aids flourish than people use condoms... I feel sick..."
"HE SWORE AT ME!"
Nephilim,
So far I've enjoyed my conversation with you but I do have to please ask you to change your wording on Post #69. This is a swear free zone and I'd like to keep it that way. In the past those who have violated that by repeating vulgarity I usually just delete immediately but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know that here.
I'll give you until tomorrow.
And then be free to carry on!
You were actually polite and I get the impression that you would actually acknowledge the need for practical solutions before spiritual ones can take root, particularly in a continent as large, diverse and turbulent as Africa, so wording changed.
And again, I apologize for the delay in getting to you, KFC. Just as I've said, priorities have to be in place, and right now that's focusing on my education. I just read your two entries right now, and while I understand the perspective from which you're writing, I still have to question the issue of Babyl. As you noted earlier, God knew Judas would do what he did, and let it happen (as I understand, it was essential for it to happen). So why does God interfere with Babyl? (This of course is assuming a literal, rather than metaphorical take on the situation) Both are men using their free will for evil actions (Judas, clearly; Babyl, debatably since the sun isn't quite as close as ancient Babylonians might want) As I've mentioned I find it odd for Gods character to change through the Bible, but that comes down to literalist interpretations (which are usually what I'm stuck arguing against).
As I've said earlier, I feel that if there is a god, he acts more as a spectator - letting people live their lives as they would choose to live them. Where we disagree, obviously, is the aftermath of such a life, and ultimately I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree.
you actually bring up a good point. When Christ met a need he did so both in a physical and a spiritual way. He met the physical need first, and then would say "go and sin no more" or something to that effect. He never withheld physical healing to them on a condition they make a spiritual committment first. I'm thinking about the 10 lepers which he helped but only one, came back to him. Or the blind man in John 9 etc.
I like to support programs like Compassion or World Vision who meet both physical and spiritual needs of children and their families. I support a little boy in Africa who just turned 7. His name is Lucky.
Thanks for the change of wording......I appreciate that.
Because this had world wide implications. And if you read those two pieces you can see a bit where the whole thing is heading. That and the timing wasn't right. Satan was trying God's hand as he was the real mastermind behind this tower (Read Isaiah 14). His goal has always been to ascend higher than God and be worshipped as deity.
I imagine God thwarted this the same way he messed with Hitler during WWII. This is all about spiritual warfare. Satan had been told in the garden that he was doomed....that the seed of the woman would someday destroy him. The first prophecy of a Messiah is found in Gen 3:15. Repeatedly (as in the case of Hitler and others) he used many opportunities to either eradicate this seed or spoil the line. His goal was to make sure this Messiah never saw the light of day. Since he couldn't stop the Messiah from coming he turned his hatred and rage against those whom the Lord died for.
Have you ever heard of C.S. Lewis? He' wrote a good book called "The Screwtape Letters." If you haven't read that, put it on your future reading list. It's a classic. It helps describe, using biblical thoughts, the motives behind Satan's warfare.
God on the other hand was all about keeping the line pure. The Messiah would come down thru the line of Judah and it was very important that this line stay pure and clean. That's why the geneologies are so important in the whole scope of things. If you remember Luke and Matthew open their gospels with the lineage intact. Jesus lineage was never ever a question because it was so well kept and recorded.
This tower of Babel (so to speak) is going to rise again under a different name. This time it will be called the New World Order. We are already seeing this happen before our very eyes. This was never mentioned when I was growing up. It's a fairly new concept to our world but not to the many Christian writers thru the centuries who warned us to watch for this day to come. The day is here.
Many tyrants over the years tried to take over world domination by force like Nimrod, Alexander the Great, and Hitler etc. What they failed to do as individuals will be done successfully (albeit brief) thru peace with the whole world just falling into place. They will be following someone who is to be Christ like (seemingly peaceful) who in all reality will really be the Anti-Christ. Rev 6. The MO has changed but not the goal.
Oh, I believe God is very active and attentive to our every moves. Sometimes he does step back and let us fall into what he thinks we must to come back to him. But he's always there when we need him and always faithful to us even when we are not so faithful. Just like a parent is. Sometimes he let's us burn ourselves to show us that there are hot spots out there to watch out for.
I have three boys in their mid 20's. Sometimes their father and I say what needs to be said, and other times we sit back and watch them fall even though we know they're going down a dead end road. They need to live their own lives but we're always there to help if needed and if they call. It's hard not to do for them and I imagine it's hard for God to see us sin and stray because he wants the best for us.
The aftermath? Meaning? That's ok to agree to disagree. I just want you to have the correct meaning of scripture if you're using that to make your determinations. Then you can make up your mind on what the facts really are instead of all the error that's floating around out there.
I disagree regarding New World Order; there have been several times throughout history that the End Times have been declared, to no result. We here in Canada can barely even keep Quebec as a part of the nation; the US has been divided sharply by politics with "real americans" defined by whatever they see themselves as. Africa is utterly ravaged by war; Israel is pretty much never going to get along with the rest of the middle east for a huge variety of reasons; China and the Koreas are not terribly fond of Japan (to put it lightly); the Koreas themselves hate each other (and good luck dislodging the communist government in NK, as awful as it is).
I would honestly put mankind running out of resources as a much more pressing affair than a NWO. For example, current estimates place us at 13 more years of Indium supply. Indium is used in electronics, medical technology, and nuclear engineering. This is among a variety of different issues, and I see us running out of higher technology long before world peace is even a possibility. Not that life was completely awful in the old west, but I quite enjoy having high end medical technology and communications available.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
