Search results

Greetings, John. Since P_rehbein hasn't returned yet, what would be your response to Post #7; particularly regarding what Law Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians 14:34.

By "and he will rule over you," the Lord was laying down a judgment, upon Eve and all who would come after her. That judgment is still in force, just as it is still in force that wives experience pain in childbirth, the ground still bares thorns and thistles, and we all return to the dust of the...

Ok no, Lol. Paul was not referencing secular Roman law. If he were, he would have been citing the Law of pagan society as the basis for Christian doctrine, which is a truly bizarre position for Clarke to take. Stick with your own arguments. They are better here. This is a more valid...

Yes. This is one argument used. Its weakness is that they can argue from context that Paul was not talking about not speaking entirely but simply not teaching men. The argument I use is stronger, as it is not even in reference to unmarried women at all; nor is it really about a married woman...

Sure. That she would now be in submission to her husband. 16 To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” 17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have...

Amen. I hate to say it, but too many "men of God" aren't really true men, IMO. Instead of having some sort of perception about the word of God they keep hammering away at women's submission and not in a godly way. The focus isn't on glorifying Christ through marriage, but only on subjecting...

Agreed. What greaves me is the thought of women of God having to read through a piece like that. P_Rehbein, I'm gonna let you in on some things about your "commandments" here. They are not what you think they are. In every single passage where such things are discussed, it is not discussing...

Exactly. Discuss amongst yourselves... Actually, that would be a fun one. His are usually just...

Well, I mean they engage him thoughtfully, as if they are taking him seriously. I'll give you another example. There is this one guy who shows up semi-regularly at another forum, and we are talking a troll's troll. One time he went by the title "Lord of the Seven Spirits," and DARED everyone to...

And the trouble is that people will engage him like he is all there sometimes. It makes me wanna make them aware of what they are getting themselves into.

Well, for instance there is one member at another forum who is pretty clearly off his cracker. He posts all the time, and is a big thread starter, but some of it is just nuts. I can't remember specific things atm, but a few mild examples would be starting threads like. - "Chickens are powerful...

I suppose the possibility is worth taking into consideration, Laura. But in the end, if they present themselves as teachers of the word, until proof can be established that they actually are mentally challenged in some way, they have to be taken at face value and addressed as such. There is a...

LoL! I have nothing against him, but I'm starting to realize why "Hated For No Reason" may be somewhat disliked. Statements like "God is the one who gave me the words to write the true gospel"... Smacks of a Calvinist version of Joseph Smith or something. "No TV, and do as the man of God...

Service to God is to engage in the spiritual war, and no soldier can war non-stop without ever needing sleep, or rest, or to be relieved. It's illogical to assume the spiritual war is any different. Fatigue sets in in the spiritual life as much as in the natural.

Thou shalt not idolize Charlton Heston. He's a reprobate and an imposter, saith the Lord.

A Calvinist. That explains some things, Lol. When you received the Holy Spirit, was it evidenced by speaking in tongues, or maybe prophetic utterance?

Can't say as I agree with this position. I spend all day focused on the Lord and serving Him, and I need things to enjoy to take a break from time to time. So I play some video games or watch football, or a movie with my wife when I need a break from my spiritual work. If I didn't have those...

The text clearly states, "To the angel/ messenger at the church of Ephesus, write..."This means the angels (if they were indeed angels) were being written to. The text does not say, "They were to convey the written messages." The text says they were very specifically written to.

I'd simply say I think you are holding to the more illogical position, though that doesn't make it impossible. But that men would need to be written to makes perfect sense. That angels need to be written to by a man is... not, IMO, unless they were present in each of the seven churches and then...

Greetings, Nehemiah. The problem with this position for me is that Jesus says to John, "To the messenger of the church of Ephesus write...", and if they were indeed angels, why would they need to be written to? When it's an angel, for one thing God would just inform them Himself. For another...