Well stated, Frank. All those tight with the faux pa, however, including leaders close to us, are all just the other side of the same coin...all doing what they do in the name of "common good". Distractions and deception have always proven to be very effective.
John, please respond.Perhaps you missed it (I was responding to Dolores' Scripture for an acceptable reason for divorce but understand it to not be license to remarry. Correct? : It would look, Dolores, as adultery would be the only acceptable reason for divorce but I don't see it as license to remarry. Of course, then we have many people who have remarried out of naivete or ignorance. I'm guessing that they should remain married and do follow what Scripture says from that point on...not divorcing and remarrying unless their present partner dies? Input again please. I'm glad that someone is listening, John. It seems so easy for us to go our own way as along as the church approves or condones without being diligent and obedient to Scripture.
It would look, Dolores, as adultery would be the only acceptable reason for divorce but I don't see it as license to remarry. Of course, then we have many people who have remarried out of naivete or ignorance. I'm guessing that they should remain married and do follow what Scripture says from that point on...not divorcing and remarrying unless their present partner dies? Input again please. I'm glad that someone is listening, John. It seems so easy for us to go our own way as along as the church approves or condones without being diligent and obedient to Scripture.
This megachurch pastor has only himself to blame. If he leaves behind that in which he had placed his "faith", he would do well. As an aside- I read in the Bible that one is to not remarry another if the spouse which they divorce or have been divorced from is still living. I never hear this preached. Input is welcome. It would seem that the church has been allowing for that which it shouldn't have.
You're welcome,Frank.I meant it too. I pray for you all. If she wasn't turning tricks, she certainly was advertising. ...keep her in prayer too. If she knew the One who loves her, she wouldn't want any counterfeits.
For those who don't know better and claim to know the Truth and love Jesus- maybe it's time to consider the sources of these day of obligations,including the national day of prayer. Milk is fine but we can move on to meat in our walk. For those who are praying to a "god",your prayers are in vain unless they are for salvation. For those who do know God, we,of course, are doing what we do the other 364 days of the year. We have a God who never sleeps and hears us always, not just one designated day.
Frank-in regards to your walmart account- if the naked woman didn't get paid for her nakedness,she probably just does what she does for free...sorry you had to see the mess. Gay Allen, yes! This is probably why we have to hear about those male enhancement products on our local am radio stations in the middle of the day. Man has so corrupted sex that people are incapacitated from the overwhelming assault of nasty images ad nauseum. "Immodesr" to some is actually "naked" in Scripture. We like to have it our way though. If we saw some pervert ogling our wives, sisters and daughters while they are "just" wearing shorts,we might reconsider.
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Vogue has been pushing prostitution for a very long, long time just by their covers- a reason why many stores have often put covers over them in their racks. Women who get paid to present their bodies in a sexual way are basically prostitutes,
Christopher, always appreciate your gentle approach. No one is saying that someone will go to Hell for doing so but, on the other hand, Scripture ought not to be compromised. God clearly told us how are to remember Him. Churches celebrate easter because Rome does and pagans do. Christ is our Passover. God told the Jews when to have Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread. It was a specific time Leviticus 23:5. The RC church at Geneva dictated when Easter would be observed (first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox). Easter in Scripture is not easter observed in church today. It was either the Jewish Passover or a pagan celebration. If it was the Jewish Passover and we wanted to look back at the shadow, then we may as well drop easter and do the Jewish Passover as outlined in Scripture...but, of course, Paul had a rebuke for those who were doing similarly- (Galatians) 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
The concern is when we decide or follow along with something that man chose to chan
There is NO way one can use Easter as it is in the Bible to support an ever changing day to "celebrate the resurrection of Christ" EVEN if one would concede that it was the Jewish Passover. He is our Passover but we are not Jewish. We are not pagans. Do we celebrate the other Jewish feasts? No. These things were a shadow of what Christ fulfilled. We have the substance.
There is no biblical support at all to celebrate what is and was easter and, whether you acknowledge it or not,in so doing, you attack the Bible making it open to interpretation. Unlike others who depend on an erroneous liturgical calendar, we have Scripture and Truth. Anything else is adding to or using that which is vile to uphold it. It is very clear in reading the Bible that there are many, many instances of god and goddess/idol worship. It is very conceivable that easter was one among them. ...and, of course, Herod was a pagan. You have no excuse for going along with "holy days". Truth and error do not mix well. You may mean well but deviating from even with good motives are no light matter.
And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he went further to seize Peter also. (And they were days of Unleavened Bread.) John- Peter was preaching Christ. The Jews shouted "crucify Him" in regards to Jesus. What pleased the Jews in regards to Peter? Herod, more likely than not, celebrated easter.He was an Edomite and the OT is full of gods, includong, the queen of heaven,etc. I read the aig article. They basically suggest that even if easter was about a goddess and fertility that today it is of no effect if it means something else to Christians. Never mind that it is, as all RC holy days, observed base on a date which is erroneous. Aig is a very good ministry but they are way off when it comes to holidays. Easter is in the Bible and we don't have the liberty to celebrate it, especially, if it was indeed a pagan celebration then...here's a clue: it is today. Much confusion for unbelievers and children and just makes a case for subjectivity to rule over objectivity. Dolores- truth matters more than feelings. Easter,however, is a good barometer as to that which people care for most. Truth doesn't need to be sweetened up. Those who are hungry and thirsty for it will joyfully receive it as is.