(TMC) @ H. Von Bun A word of caution on Hislopâ€™s â€śTwo Babylonsâ€ť. If you look up the the footnoted books he sourced his facts from, you will find that he distorted what those authors were actually saying on multiple occasions to fit his narrative. Donâ€™t take my word for it, look those books up- Archive.org is very helpful.
If the world is flat and all the continents radiate out from the North Pole, then the conventionally displayed distances between continents would actually be shorter above the equator and longer below. To test the curvature of the earth, simply buy a stopwatch and book flights from Tokyo, Japan to Washington D.C. (6,737 miles/ avg. 12 hrs. 37 min.) and from Melborne, Australia to Santiago, Chile (7,016 miles/ avg. 13 hrs. 15 min.). All four of those cities are within 39-33 degrees latitude north and south of the equator. The fact that the Melborne- Santiago flight isnâ€™t vastly longer than the Tokyo-Washington D.C. flight conclusively proves the flat earth idea to be wrong. Again, donâ€™t take my word, look up the flight times and distances yourself!
(TMC) This guy invested a ton of money and risked his life to only reach 5% of the total altitude needed to see the curvature of the earth! If the world is flat and all the continents radiate out from the North Pole, then the conventionally displayed distances between continents would actually be shorter above the equator and longer below. This guy could simply have bought a stopwatch and booked flights from Tokyo, Japan to Washington D.C. (6,737 miles/ avg. 12 hrs. 37 min.) and from Melborne, Australia to Santiago, Chile (7,016 miles/ avg. 13 hrs. 15 min.). All four of those cities are within 39-33 degrees latitude north and south of the equator. The fact that the Melborne- Santiago flight isnâ€™t vastly longer than the Tokyo-New York flight IMO conclusively proves the flat earth idea to be wrong.
Here is a link on what it truly means to be Pro-Life: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/mean-pro-life/
Just out of curiosity- are Black people who oppose UHC racists too? Because if your saying that opposition to UHC is only racisim in people of a certain melenin count- then you yourself are a racist. Youâ€™ve been doing an awful lot of broadbrushing of late, and that type of argumentation is the crummy base you will find under every type of racism in world history.
(TMC) @John Yurich Yikes! Thatâ€™s some faulty theology right there:
â€śAnd as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.â€ť ~ Hebrews 9:26-27
The Lord has determined the span of our lives before time began, and EVERYONE, including your Pastor, has rebelled against God. â€śAs it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.â€ť ~Romans 3:10-12
This is what makes Godâ€™s Grace so Amazingly undeserved- â€śBut God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.â€ť ~Romans 5:6-10
If we are saved then Christ has endured ALL of Godâ€™s just wrath towards us, and ALL of our past, present, and future sin has been forgotten and cast as far as the east is from the west
...As I quoted in my first post- â€ś...(makeup) must be applied with modesty, discretion, taste, orderliness, and gender distinction.â€ť It is much like the Internet- you can use it to feed lust and self-glorification or you can use it to serve others and bring Glory to God! Blessings!
@ Carol I agree 100%! If a woman is defying her God-given Spiritual Authority then she is missing the most important adornment of all!
Hello! The answer to your question is no, there are two very clear Biblical commands that address that: Deuteronomy 22:5 and 1 Thessalonians 5:22.
God commands that menâ€™s and womenâ€™s fashions be distinct. The heart of this command is also seen in the NT in 1 Corinthians 11. Exactly how this looks will vary from culture to culture. For example, in Ancient Egypt men wore a form of eyeliner to protect their eyes from the glare of the sun off of water and sand, and even today there are instances where a man may have to use products as part of his job. But for a man to do so in a feminine way gives the appearance of sexual perversion and is a violation of Godâ€™s clear commands for distinction and abstaining from the appearance of evil.
Some women take off their makeup at night- my Mom actually puts it on in the evening specifically for my Dad. Some young ladies do use it as bait- I use it because my family appreciates it when I try to look nice for the day, even if we have nowhere to go. As for newlyweds, well, I think much more is revealed (on both sides) at that time of life then simply what the bride looks like without a dab of mascara and eyeliner!
(TMC) â€śFor the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;â€ť ~ 1 Corinthians 1:22-27
...Charges of â€śfakeâ€ť and â€śimpersonationâ€ť can be leveled against deoderant, dentures, and prosthetic limbs. In creating extra-biblical censures of amoral objects you create an arbitrary standard- not a truely Biblical one. Blessings!
Over half my post was Scripture- based. (Ezekiel 16, 1 Corinthians 10:31, Romans 14:3-8)
If you feel that wearing makeup would cause you to break godly principles and stumble, then please donâ€™t wear it! Of course, a Christian Spirit is the highest adornment- But it should be recognized that a meek amd quiet spirit will shine even through lip balm and maskera; while a proud and self-centered expression looks just as sinfull without blush or eyeliner. Shamefacedness and sobriety are character-traits more evidenced by the muscles of the face, then by what is applied to the skin. (1 Samuel 16:7)
The style of argumentation used so far could be used on a host of other things that are not directly commanded or forbidden in Scripture. I.E.- Pharaoh drove fast chariots and the Kings of Israel were commanded not to keep horses, Psalms juxtaposes trusting in chariots with trusting the Lord, and we are also supposed to cultivate Patience. Think of the road-rage, and peoples vanity about how cool their car looks. Shouldnâ€™t we say then that cars (and even buggys) cultivate a spirit that violates godly principles? Or is it actually the heart of the user that is at fault? Charges of â€śfakeâ€ť and â€śimpersonationâ€ť can be leveled against deoderant, dentures, and prosthetic l
...While Jerimiah 4 lists the ways Godâ€™s people misused her beautifying things- Ezekiel 16 tells us where she got them. In her natural, un-enhanced state she was filthy, bloody, naked, and ugly. She had nothing and there was nothing about her to make Him want to take pity on her. Yet He loved her because He loved her. So He raised her up, washed her, and beautified her. Everything she had was not her own, but His good gift to her. Her fine clothes, her jewelry, -even the paint mentioned in Jerimiah, all could only have come from Him. But instead of using these things for His glory and pleasure- she used them to entice adulterers to her side. The sin was not in the beautiful tools God gave her, but in enticing other lovers. Makeup (or Cosmetics if you prefer) are legitimate tools if used rightly. Those who use it should do so to the Glory to God, and those who donâ€™t should abstain to the Glory of God. Each should be convinced in her own mind, knowing that we are our Masterâ€™s servants! Kind Regards to you as well!
(TMC) @B. Mc. According to the Oxford Dictionary a cosmetic is â€śa product applied to the body, especially the face, to improve its appearance.â€ť The listed synonyms are: makeup, beauty products, beauty aids, war paint, and maquillage. Also â€śgiving subtilty to the simpleâ€ť is one of the listed purposes of the Book of Proverbs. But, moving on from the linguistics of the matter, what must be addressed is the heart. Often, my Mom takes time out of her busy day to get gussied up so she will look nice for my Dad when he walks through the door or before he leaves for the day. She doesnâ€™t do it to impersonate someone she isnâ€™t, but because she knows it pleases him! Our Godliness is by no means â€śnaturalâ€ť and our Justification is due to the imputed Righteousness and substitutionary death of our Lord. ...
My earlier comment is simply a quote from a book I have on Biblical Womanhood. The atribution at the end was cut off and had to be posted seperatly, so perhaps you didnâ€™t notice. What I posted is only a snippet of a much longer section, but it was the part I felt was most relevant to the discussion.
That said, I do agree with the quote, or I wouldnâ€™t have posted it. There is certainly a way of using makeup that says â€śhardâ€ť, â€śrebelliousâ€ť, and â€ślook at meâ€ť; just like peopleâ€™s clothing, hair style, and demeanor can. But there is also a subtle way of using makeup that says â€ślady-likeâ€ť, â€śsoftâ€ť, and â€śthoughtful-of-othersâ€ť.
Like anything else, makeup and a proud self-image can become idols- but I know from my own sinful heartâ€™s history that not wearing it can contribute to a sinful feeling of â€śspiritualâ€ť pride and superiority over those that do. The tool of makeup is amoral- it is the heart with which it is used or avoided that counts.
This pagan idea has taken hold in several areas of American culture. In contrast, the Christian mindset is that the natural man and the natural world meed to be civilized and cultivated- in short, to be taken dominion of.â€ť ~â€ťShe Shall Be Called Womanâ€ť by Victoria Botkin
(TMC) â€śWhen the use of cosmetics is mentioned in the Bible, it is as part of a beautification routine that included bathing and the putting on of clothes amd jewelry. It was done by godly women, and even God Himself used the routine to beautify His bride. The Bible doesnâ€™t specifically command or forbid the use of makeup, but it does mention anointing the skin with oil, which was done to enhance the appearance, â€śto make [the] face shine.â€ť (Ps. 104:15)
Makeup appears to be a legitimate tool of beautification. And the same principles we use for clothing and jewelry must apply: it must be applied with modesty, discretion, taste, orderliness, and gender distinction.
Enhancement is a biblical idea. The pagan ancients were the first to protest against makeup and anything that wasnâ€™t completely natural. Their thinking tended toward glorification of the natural man, and of the natural state of things. This worship of the natural was revived during the hippie movement, when American women threw away their makeup and started admiring everything in its most natural state. This pagan idea has taken hold in several areas of American culture. In contrast, the Christian mindset is that the natural man and the natural world meed to be civilized and cultivated- in short, to be taken domini
(TMC) @Everyone Thanks again for the prayers! I would have responded sooner, but it's been a packed couple of days. It seems like the Chemo went really well. The treatments are every three weeks, so after this it will just be praying and waiting for awhile.
(John 8:32) From a physics perspective, Hawkings assertion doesn't work. He states that the laws of physics applied before the existence of space time. (https://world.wng.org/content/big_hype_about_the_big_bang) Yet his theory about space time just popping up into existence defies several laws of physics, including the Law of Conservation of Matter and the Law of Conservation of Energy, since space time is matter and energy. Nothing can't magically turn into something. He also stated: â€śOne wouldnâ€™t have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began." This is absurd because he's now claiming the Universe created itself, which is another problematic argument. Nothing doesn't become something, and nothing surely can't turn itself into something because nothing is void of any matter or energy, and it most certainly can't do so from a big bang. Not only does the big bang defy the Laws of Conservation, it also defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics which makes it very clear that disorder (such as a destructive, disorderly force such as the big bang) cannot create order. Despite whatever the secular science community thinks about Hawking's theories, they clearly can't purport with the laws of physics. However, as a Christian, the solution i