Joshua

Yeah, I think he missed a lot of shots though and they were just trying to get him the ball, make it or not. Me, I don't mind seeing basketball going downhill since it means more people will watch or play baseball, right? Also, I read this article a while back about how Michael Jordan is very content and happy with his new sport... dirt bike racing Seriously, apparently he raced as a kid and got into it again, he is more of the guy who funds racers but will race himself from what I heard.

Your whole first paragraph is answered in Hebrews chapter 11. And as far as I'm concerned, if God isn't the one to always tell you what to do, then who is? Concerning the desert, God's advice of course

Np, I don't mind answering. People seem to get this weird idea that I'm trying to push an agenda or tell them how to live. Frankly the simple fact of the matter is that the Bible is what I live my life by. I've found everything meaningful or worthwhile in my life because of the truth in it. Every time I've held it up to the accusations people throw at it it's proved itself utterly reliable to me. So I guess it's both because it's what I live my life by and because I look to it as the ultimate authority and rule for my life. God promised that He would make a new covenant unlike the Old Testament (Hebrews 8:9) and that He would put His laws into their minds and write them in their hearts. And that nobody will have to teach them since they'll all know Him. This is what happens when one trusts in Christ as their Savior, this is the new covenant, and this is what's happened to me. In short, the Bible and its teachings are ingrained in my heart and my mind, they're more a part of me then perhaps anything else. The person I once was is dead, and God has been making me a person who will have His laws written in my heart. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't get me without getting the Bible too, because its words are engraved in my heart, my mind, and in my soul. Hope that helps, Jz

Hmm... I have a theory... suppose two people fell in love but being torn apart managed to remain so bound to each other that they didn't get involved with other people? Patience can shape a person I think... However, the ultimate person-changing factor in my experience is knowing Jesus Christ, He's in the business of changing lives. Scoff or laugh at what I'm saying, but I can tell you that many (if not all) of the most happily married people I know are those who serve Christ together. I know a lot of pastors and those involved in my church who have been happily married for 30 or 40 years. It's really heart-warming to see their loving familiarity with each other and how they can joke with each other and be a constant source of joy for each other I think that's the true key however, you have to have love in your heart to both be able to receive it and to give it. And love is one of the attributes which God defines, and which Christ exemplified in His life. Having a relationship with Christ in which He dwells in you and shapes you to become more like Him so that you love as He does greatly increases the love which will be in a marriage relationship, in my opinion. And the other factor that may play a part I think is that patience which waits for the other person and foregoes other opportunities for the sake of the one you love. It's hard to fall away from what you've sacrificed for and dedicated yourself to. But of course in this society we're told to just go with whoever's available and the idea of dedication to anyone person is scoffed at and ridiculed. People no longer even save their virginity for the person they will marry, how much less anything else? I guess what I'm saying is that the dedication, commitment, and patience is a big part of what will both endear you to the other person and keep you from leaving them.

Interesting that you didn't seem to mind BuffaloHelp talking about how it related to "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" but then get offended when I talk of how it relates to the Bible, isn't it?

Well, don't get me wrong, I consider Sunday the first day of the week, AND the day on which to rest. I see Saturday as that 7th day God rested on but He spoke of another day to come and in honor of Christ's resurrection we rest instead on the 1st day. However, I think what matters is that you set a day off to rest and honor God (although you should every day, this just means no work and devoting all time to Him). I'm just discussing this concerning which day of the week should be considered first. *shrugs*

Maybe sheep follow the mutton industry like people follow the stock market -_-But instead of the great stock market crash it's the great mutton industry boom Oh well, to be serious, I guess this just goes to show how little you can trust earthly riches and how your fortunes can change in an instant. You can place all your focus upon riches that can be taken away from you in an instant. *shrugs*

And yet you refuse to look into anything simply because it's related to Christianity, correct? It's like my refusing to look at anything giving evidence for evolution because evolutionists are making the argument. That's EXACTLY what you are doing here. It's hard to "adapt and absorb" if you refuse to listen. I believe my faith completely and utterly grounded in logic, Acts 17:11 makes it quite clear that the Bible calls noble those who genuinely question what it says, so long as they do so with an open mind and an earnesty to find truth rather then to be just proven right. Ravi Zecharias says in Jesus Among Other Gods on pages 49-50: -On page 58: Concerning what doesn't allow for competing worldviews, here's some more from that book: -page ix of the introduction: You had your questions, now for mine Can you answer the questions these scientists could not? -page 64: I asked them a couple of questions. "If the Big Bang were indeed where it all began [which one can fairly well grant, at least to this point in science's thinking], may I ask what preceded the Big Bang? Their answer, which I had anticipated, was that the universe was shrunk down to a singularity. I pursued, "But isn't it correct that a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down?" "That is correct," was the answer. "Then, technically, your starting point is not scientific either." There was silence, and their expressions betrayed the scurrying mental searches for an escape hatch. But I had yet another question. I asked if they agreed that when a mechanistic view of the universe had held sway, thinkers like Hume had chided philosophers for taking the principle of causality and applying it to a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Causality, he warned, could not be extrapolated from science to philosophy. "Now," I hadded, "When quantum theory holds sway, randomness in the subatomic world is made a basis for randomness in life. Are you not making the very same extrapolation that you warned us against?" Again there was silence and then one man said with a self-deprecating smile, "We scientists do seem to retain selective sovereignty over what we allow to be transferred to philosophy and what we don't." There is the truth in cold, hard terms. The person who demands a sign and at the same time has already determined that anything that cannot be explained scientifically is meaningless is not merely stacking the deck; he is losing at his own game.

Well, serves the shepherds right for bungee jumping where the sheep could watch, I say :lol:If someone had taped it, I bet Budweiser or some stupid beer company would have many some even stupider commercial out of it... *sheep see beer ship crossing ocean* "Look, free beer!"

Agreed, I've seen several smokers here saying its their right and for non-smokers to not tell them what's wrong with it. However, as with freedom of speech, a right should stop when it interferes with the rights of others. When you start saying derogatory insulting things that negatively affect others, that's when your "rights" begin encroaching on the rights of others, and where the boundary should be. Likewise with abortion, women want to say its their right, but your rights should stop when they encroach upon the rights of others... Even before Roe vs. Wade, abortions were allowed in the rare cases of rape or endangerment of the mother's life, using such as arguments for abortion are just straw man tactics.

So far the only person wanting to hate here that I see is you wanting to hate Christians. I don't know about anyone else here, but I certainly never said anything about hating homosexuals. On the contrary, I stressed that they, like all of us, are sinners who are under the bondage of their sins and lusts and not free to escape them. And even if they could live a life free of homosexuality they would still not be good enough to enter Heaven, none of us are. As I stress continually, what they need is rather to find mercy in Jesus Christ, and, repenting of their sins, to let Him change them as He makes them new people. Even as He has done for me.

Alright, the question I want this topic to be on is what kind of empire will Christ's kingdom be of? I read this fascinating excerpt from "Jesus Among Other God's" where Napoleon Bonaparte speaks on the type of empire Christ came to build: Whatever else one may say in response, it is difficult to explain this away as mere eloquence. In fact, it was to counter mere eloquence and such artificial power that Napoleon said what he did. With unbelievable insight, he saw how Jesus Christ conquered. It was not by force, but by winning the heart. Napoleon understood Jesus far better then Pilate did. Pilate probably had no clue what Jesus meant when He said, "My kingdom is not of this world," or how far into the future this Christ would conquer-and that without the methods by which empires are normally expanded, of which Rome was a prime example. Also, here are the endnotes for that Napoleon quote given in the book, if anyone is interested:

Personally I tend to be of the view that truth can never be "overused" and that simply mentioning something related to a topic is not going off topic. If we can't speak of anything related to the subject at hand then there is very little we can say, is there not?

Science thought it was impossible for Ninevah to be as great a city as the Bible described, that is, before they excavated it. Many of the things once deemed improbable or impossible have been shown to be otherwise. We know only what we've experienced. As a result there are only a handful of things about the universe or anything science truly knows for certain, since to "know" something it must be able to know the end results of all possible outcomes. The Bible makes it very clear that people in that age had incredible longevity, and if you are going to doubt that you might as well doubt the story about Lot as well. Me, I would assume that people created then were closer to the perfect form which God created the human being as. That's a fundamental difference between the Bible and evolution. Evolution says we evolved. The Bible says we have devolved, as we live for a shorter time, no longer reach the huge bodily proportions we once could, and that our evils are getting worse and worse. I would also guess that diseases had not yet had much if any time yet to form, so there may not have been any diseases or maladies yet at that time. The earth I would assume would have been smaller since the contents surrounding the core would not have had as much time to grow (think earth's layers). And that's all assuming you don't believe in the water canopy surrounding the earth. That's one interesting thing about evolution. It wants to say carbon dioxide levels among other things have remained at a constant, yet wants to say that the catastrophic events it believes in (meteor showers killing dinosaurs, ice ages, etc...) had no effect on these factors remaining constant. But I digress. I merely wanted to show you that maybe you're not taking everything into account when you write something off as "impossible" rather then "improbable" (and I don't think it even that). As I have said before, I don't go around condemning people for my sins because even if they manage to stop sinning in that respect they will still be as guilty of death as I am. What they need is to get in a right relationship with God so that their sins are forgiven and they are born again and freed from their sin bondage, so that they may freely turn from those sins to serve God instead. Living a good life is not what gets you to Heaven, but accepting that you are evil and that neither you or anyone else can save you but Jesus, and then trusting in Him alone to save you from your sins. And that is one thing with me, I accept the Bible and thus God as the ultimate definer of what is right and wrong, now how I think or feel on a subject. Ravi Zecharias would argue that if we don't believe in evil then all is permissible and that we're just dancing to our DNA, following our own special path in life. That a murderer is just dancing to their DNA, all is hopeless, and that any murder or rape can be done. If you admit there is evil then there must also be good, evil is not something in itself, it is merely the absence of good as darkness is not something but merely the absence of light. If there is evil and good then there must also be a moral law to define what good and evil are, and an embodiment of that moral law, for if one doesn't meet a law how can it exist? And thus you have your moral universe, moral law, and moral God. As for your last comment, about how you can't stand those who claim different things are wrong... You should find this excerpt from Ravi Zecharias' introduction to "Jesus Among Other Gods":

It reminds me a bit of Greek mythology for some reason... The Bible speaks of a person being life as well, His name is Jesus Christ. There's even an area where it speaks of death as a person, whether literally or figuratively I'm not sure: Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. It is said that both death and Hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire at the end of time, although I don't know that it says they'll be actual entities: Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. As another interesting point, it would seem that God gave Satan the power over those who died before he was cast out of Heaven and that Christ tricked Satan into killing Him, thinking he would be able to capture the King of Creation, only to find that not only could he not hold Him, but that the very power of death was stolen from him in the process. And so I personally find the true Bible story even more thrilling then any work of fiction God comes to earth, dies and lets his archenemy Satan capture Him in death. Then the Almighty God-man wins the ultimate victory in the history of creation and rises victorious as even death and Satan cannot stop Him, a victorious Saviour who can give eternal life and freedom even from death to all who trust in Him.

Good info with the Sabbath, but isn't Saturday the Sabbath? Sunday is now celebrated for certain reasons as the day of rest instead of Saturday now due to certain Scriptures like Hebrews 4:7-10. I'm about 90% sure that Sunday is technically considered the first day of the week.

So do you know of any homosexuals then which love without having sex? (since we've verified the sex part is wrong) Also, Christ said that simply lusting in your heart can be adultery which would then mean even if they want to do it and don't they're guilty (Mt. 5:28). Just like if you hate someone in your heart you're guilty of murder (1 Jn. 3:15). I just gave those verses and you still don't think they're against being female homosexuality? Here's just one of the verses now... As for the original text of 1:27, here it is: Romans 1:27 And <te> likewise <homoios> also <kai> the men <arrhen>, leaving <aphiemi> the natural <phusikos> use <chresis> of the woman <thelus>, burned <ekkaio> in <en> their <autos> lust <orexis> one toward another <eis> <allelon>; men <arrhen> with <en> men <arrhen> working <katergazomai> that which is unseemly <aschemosune>, and <kai> receiving <apolambano> in <en> themselves <heautou> that recompence <antimisthia> of their <autos> error <plane> which <hos> was meet <dei>. I don't see the word "pederasty" anywhere but I can give you the Greek definitions for any of the words from the Strong's Greek Dictionary, widely considered the best Greek dictionary available. As long as we're into the original Greek, the original for 1:26 is: Romans 1:26 For <dia> this <touto> cause God <theos> gave <paradidomi> them <autos> up <paradidomi> unto <eis> vile <atimia> affections <pathos>: for <gar> even <te> their <autos> women <thelus> did change <metallasso> the natural <phusikos> use <chresis> into <eis> that which is against <para> nature <phusis>: That word affections is the Greek "pathos", which means: 3806. payov pathos, path'-os Search for 3806 in KJV from the alternate of 3958; properly, suffering ("pathos"), i.e. (subjectively) a passion (especially concupiscence):-- (inordinate) affection, lust. So just the lusts themselves are condemned, regardless of whether children procede or not. As I mentioned before, they sin just within their hearts by doing such things. The final nail in the coffin is that in 1:27 it goes on to say the men left the natural use of the women, meaning it should be a man and a woman, the reverse of that is a woman and a man, but it should be clear there should be no 2 of one kind. However, since we're getting deeper into the subject I might as well throw some other verses at you as well: Not really, since Paul doesn't just say "not agreeable to nature" but goes on to say "the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Paul elsewhere goes on to say even the effeminate will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven, as the verses I gave above say. And I was saying that the Bible often uses that term of knowing someone to mean sexually. 1) Irregardless, the Bible certainly doesn't condone his actions and the children which proceded from that sin fathered the nations that were Israel's greatest enemies for perhaps thousands of years. 2) Christ constantly spoke of a day in which He would judge the world and gave this parable of how He would let the evil and good exist until that day when the world would be judged. Then those who had been born again would be allowed to enter Heaven for they have been born with a Spirit that will seek to destroy all sin in them, and thus sin will be destroyed. 3) Because of that God had not yet given the Law or its commandments, and where the Law is not given sin is not imputed (Romans 5:13). His main commandment then was to be fruitful and multiply if I recall correctly. 4) Same issue, but again, you must realize that Noah was 600 years old at the time. So it wasn't exactly brothers and cousins being 20 years apart for example. You could have a girl and her cousin that could have an age difference of 150 years for example. My point is, it kind of changes the views with which we think of the immediate family. The longevity of that time surely must have affected what we consider the immediate family.

Thanks, and I did write it by myself. Again, I wrote it because I'd ran out of poems to put here so decided to make a new one I have several others on here that are better but noone wants to comment on them I guess: -Time -Rabboni -The Pitcher -War -Earth The only one commented on was the Time one, and that ended up being a conversation on whether I was posting them to "spam"

Umm... question... where did this "large mass" that caused the Big Bang come from?

In other words, you're proclaiming tolerance for all as long as they don't disagree with you. Once they do you feel it's alright to use charachter assassination and bashing to put them down until they no longer are allowed to disagree with you?

The devil may tempt us but the Bible does make it quite clear that we are all responsible for our actions. Adam and Eve might have been tempted into sinning, but still were responsible for their actions. While we can struggle and strive to prevent our sins eventually we all fall short of God's ultimate standard of perfection. If you know anyone who doesn't sin, let me know, I'm sure we can find something. Christ made it clear that the key is not becoming "a better person" but rather admitting we can't become good enough and just trusting in Him to pay for our sins so we can be forgiven, and just trust in Him to save us. The Bible not only says there is a devil, but that he is in active opposition to God and that Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Satan was an extremely powerful, blessed, and influential angel who was cast out of Heaven for his rebellion. He seems to have had the authority over the dead which Christ took from him by dying and rising again. Satan also is the behind-the-scenes guy for much of the world governments it seems. One of Satan's greatest deceptions may lie in either convincing us he doesn't exist or that he appears evil and hideous. Satan is a liar and the father of all liars. (John 8:44) 2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Satan's final deception will involve one known as "the Beast" sitting in the Temple calling himself God: 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. And all those who have not trusted in Christ and thus are in His Book of Life will fall for that deception, and worship the Beast: Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Alright, well, as usual my opinion is that of the Bible's, if you don't want to hear it... just ignore me Ah, marriage, the 2nd most important relationship a person can have... God created marriage a blessing, but God's blessings come with conditions and protections, when we try to get the blessings without meeting the conditions, we ruin everything. God's ways are best. God created marriage to protect people, is it any surprise that in a society that has so devalued marriage we see women starving as they try to provide for themselves and families where the father left? So many children growing up without parents or else ones who don't care anything about them. God meant marriage to simply be a formalizing of a bond where 2 people utterly commit themselves to one another. When you let others in on that relationship physically you take from the other what is theirs, for that bond joins you together so that you are one. And as the Bible says, what God therefore has joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:6) Why would you NOT want to get married? It doesn't have to be some fancy ceremony, it can be just the simple vows to one another before God. I've talked before on how people use the term "cheating" in dating. If you don't have that formal bond what is there to be "cheated" on? Essentially when you are saying you don't want marriage you are saying you don't want to commit to anyone since you're interested in merely the physical pleasure you can have from someone's body, rather then the meaningful relationship God intends marriages to be whereby both people value and are valued by the other person, correct? Perhaps if people saw others as more then mere objects there wouldn't be so many divorces. Also, if you think the Bible condones divorce for any reason other then the other person having sex outside of marriage, read this:

While I don't speak out against fantasy games, if I were to take a guess I'd assume it's because you're trying to accord men power (raising the dead) which belongs solely to God? The problem with taking Hell out of the picture is then you're simply catering to what people want to hear rather then what they need to hear. I took my brother to a "church" a few days ago called "Church of Life" and was shocked to see it was nothing more then one giant party zone. They had an equivalent of a rock concert area and even had video game consoles near the area for the Sunday service. I say this to illustrate that what is popular isn't always right and what's right is very rarely popular. In fact, we're told whoever will live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution (2 Timothy 3:12) and that if the world hated Christ even so it will hate us (John 15:19-20), a servant is not greater then his Master. If things are going well for you, that's the time to question whether you really stand for anything worth anything: Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets. You raise some good questions and points, Hell is most definitely harsh. God is a perfect, just, and righteous God and we don't realize just how great our rebellion is when we so much as tell a lie. Everything adds up and God will judge every disobedient act we've committed against His righteous Law in the final day. If we're not convicted of how evil we are, we will be then. Sinners may have reasons for their sins, but there is never a good reason for sin. All sin is disobedience towards God and inexcusable. As far as homosexuality goes, it is wrong simply because it is going against the basic premise God set forth in the beginning, and dares to rebel against God's rules even as Satan did. All sin is rebellion and as the sin of witchcraft (1 Samuel 15:23) and thus serves idols instead of the one true God. Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. You're right, we can't control our urges and whims, we are under bondage to them as I mentioned before. That's why God made a way out. His righteous nature necessitates that there be a punishment for the sin, and He is the only righteous Judge that Creation has. He came as one of us to pay the penalty for all those of us who will accept that sacrifice. The question isn't why we need to accept that sacrifice (He HAS given us free will, even to refuse Him) but why we would refuse it when He's been telling the world of this wonderful gift to come for thousands of years now. He's told us it's our only way out and that if we refuse it there is no escape to be found from the consequences of our sins. Someone has to pay the penalty, and God gave us a chance to have Him pay it. If we've refused that chance then there is no other. We have shown ourselves utterly hopeless and worthless by not only disobeying God but by refusing even the wondrous act of selflessness He committed in trying to save us. John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Hope that helps, jz

Well, I think the word I did mean was prevailing Like I said, it was a spur of the moment thing that took me maybe 5 minutes to write (most of my poems were written in extremely short time periods) and why it should flow so well. With the rhyming scheme I don't like following patterns, the "Rabboni" and "Legacy" poems are the only ones written to a pattern before. I don't like using the same rhyming scheme and actually switch the pattern back and forth intentionally for variety I'll tend to go with that 1-2 beat and then get fancy occasionally with the 1-2-3-4 structure where I alternate the rhymes and in still other places I'll rhyme within just one line, like at the end. I like to mix and match I guess you could say. *shrugs*As for the poems being preachy, it's not something I do intentionally. I write my poems to convey how I feel as well as to convey those things I've found most meaningful and valuable to me personally. My poems reflect that, I throw in the truths I've found and is what makes the poems good in my opinion. *shrugs*Again, I wrote it just off the top of my head with no specific agenda in mind other then to convey what I know and feel about the topic of love. Writing like that tends to express myself best and how I really feel and am inside, in my opinion. I tend to write all my poems on very broad topics, "War", "Freedom", etc... I figured I'd write another poem to put on Xisto so just wrote it as a new post right then and there. And it was high time I wrote a poem on love, but I'd actually been putting it off before because it's such an all-important topic. I'm pleased with how this one turned out though, aside from the travailing mistake

Definitely the chicken. Of course I believe God created them all as whole creatures. If you take the course of them "evolving" it means everything had to come from nothing. Some atoms poofed out of nowhere, collided, made dirt, dirt somehow got water involved, etc... If you go with that everything gets a lot more complicated I think since you have to stretch so much to make it fit, and ignore some facts in the process Including the chicken/egg dilemma