The End Is Near…Again.

You may also like...

135 Responses

  1. Em says:

    signs of the times? i think we should be thoughtful and watchful after the manner of Mary Luke 2:19 … and, perhaps, remember our Lord’s advice about running around after false prophets …

    just sayin

  2. Shaun Sells says:

    I am not a fan of prophecy reviews and watching the news for prophecy updates. I still have not settled in my mind what it means to watch for the signs of times, but not be a nut case. I am teaching through Matthew 3 this weekend, so that gives me a few months before I get to Matthew 24-25. If you guys could have this all figured out by then I would appreciate it.

  3. What are really “signs of the times” ….?

    Perhaps Facebook itself is one of those signs?

  4. mike macon says:

    The most compelling sign that the end is near: no 2012/2013 NHL season.

  5. Alex says:

    http://www.livescience.com/25367-first-ipcc-climate-report-accurate.html

    The Science is hard to refute…I’ve tried many times. The predictions coming in the next several decades are apocalyptic.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/05/1080955/-Forecast-of-global-economic-collapse-by-2030-by-MIT-team

    MIT and other leading geniuses predict what can only be described as apocalyptic as well.

    It still chuckles me up that the End Times Crowd and the Climate Change Crowd and the Macro-Economic Collapse Crowd (made up of the smartest people on the planet) all have something in common…the End is NEAR! 🙂

  6. Ixtlan says:

    Signs of His coming… which coming? Is Jesus talking about the rapture, or His 2nd Coming? Is there a difference in chronology or in symbology? Amillenialists need not apply.

    No doubt there is some strange phenomena…… but that has been a normal course during all of time.

    I remember when Crater Lake erupted….. it was crazy then. Had an effect on the Rogue and Rogue Brewery had to shut down operations for eight weeks. The natives were sure restless.

    Same thing with Mt. St. Helens….’cept a few entreprenuers scooped up as much of the ash as they could carry and sold it in Southern California swap meets.

    Shaun,
    Barnhouse and a few others see a parallel between the events in Matthew 24 and the opening of the seals in Revelation. It is the least subjective interpretation that I have read and it actually backs up that interpretation with other scripture. It does answer some of the problems of the common interpretation of Matthew 24 that I have heard for many years. I’d be interested in your take on this.

  7. Ixtlan says:

    can someone take my #6 out of moderation? There was a response to Shaun on that post.

  8. Lutheran says:

    #3

    Hysterically funny.

    Made my day.

    Thanks, Mr. Martin-George

  9. DavidM says:

    Well, there go 20 minutes of my life that I’ll never get back . . . It is truly inconceivable that somebody actually took the time to produce this bit of worthlessness.

  10. Well, until the dispies pull in the reins on their propaganda ministers, like Tim Lahaye and Joel Rosenberg and all the pastors who last night at Wed night Bible study did year in review and prophecy updates, this kind of video will always find an audience.

    This is what has been preached the past 40 plus years – it just sounds more stupid on video.

  11. Oh buh-ruh-ther! What an embarrassing piece of crap!

  12. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    I think Windows 8 may be a sign that the end is near

    Daniel 12:4

    “But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”

  13. Em says:

    hmmm … the old saw that history repeats itself seems to apply to the end times prophesies also with each cycle ramping up the distresses, so, perhaps, we can cut the chicken little guys some slack as being somewhat correct, but not on target exactly … we need to get wiser about watching the times and seasons without running here and there yelling that the sky is falling

    i see a parallel between Matt 24 and the 7 seals of the last book also … there is, however, no way to dismiss MLD’s application (if i understand him correctly) that our Lord was warning the Jews of what was coming in their lifetime via Rome … was that event the only application? i don’t think so – nor do i think that the 7 seals can be confined to 7 blocks of time … we’ve had too many scandal mongers and not enough sober study, the basics of the last book of the Bible are very easy to grasp … IMHO
    … or so it seems to me

  14. Nonnie says:

    So what do you think of the book The Harbinger? I have a friend who can’t say enough about it. As well as a film that goes with it. (cash cow?)

  15. rick says:

    THE END IS NEAR! So what? Does anyone need a heads up? Why?
    Are we not supposed to live as though He may return at any moment?
    I believe pondering future events is a total waste of time better spent ministering unto the Lord and one another.
    We can do nothing about His returning so why allow ourselves to be distracted with nonsense from people who have a Spiritual depth of flea.

  16. Chile says:

    I’ll pay attention when the sun goes dark and the moon turns red.

  17. Reuben says:

    The typical Evangelical American world view is so narrow, it is painful to watch. If a dog falls in a well hole, Pat Robertson, who really needs to take a nap, is on TV telling people that Jesus is coming any minute…

    In this world today, there is genocide, war, dictatorships, nukes, and all one has to do to see the world is turn on Al Jazeera or BBC for a minute.

    I spoke yesterday with a Christian, who explained to me that the end was so close, he could taste it, because our government had only just proposed a fiscal cliff plan that really did nothing.

    If the fiscal cliff of America is a sign of Christ’s return, I give up on Churchianity entirely.

  18. Alex says:

    Reuben said, “If the fiscal cliff of America is a sign of Christ’s return, I give up on Churchianity entirely.”

    ROTFLOL! 😆

  19. brian says:

    In my opinion is it keeps people from looking for real answers the kind that actually solve or prevent problems not just sell books or conferences or other Jesus junk.

  20. BrianD says:

    A sign of the end?

    A one-point safety in the Fiesta Bowl.

  21. Patrick Kyle says:

    I knew a woman who took a nap as Mt. St. Helens erupted. Unbeknownst to her, the husband and children went to the store while she napped. When she awoke, she saw the door open (last child out forgot to close it) and the sky an ominous and strange grey/yellow. Her immediate conclusion was that the ‘Rapture’ had occurred , so she ran down the street, leaping into the air, distraught that “Jesus had forgotten her.” Later she had a good laugh about it, but at the time said she was terrified.

  22. brian says:

    A few points of reference is that I personally caused the Apocalypse, that I personally brought about the rise of the Anti-Christ. I wont go into how many times I was told I was an anti Christ, how I hated and betrayed Jesus, was a reprobate, was personally responsible for the crucifiction of Christ, even before my great great great great great … grandfather was born. I always struggled with that, that I killed Jesus, personally, even before I was born. But that is a different post. To be honest my understanding of the faith one had to understand who was more reprobate, it is a crap shoot. It really was rather frustrating. I dont deny God hates me, I consider that a given, but I do not hate God, no matter how hard I try. Trust me I have tried to hate God but I cant. Sad I cant even get my apostasy correct.

  23. Chile,
    “I’ll pay attention when the sun goes dark and the moon turns red.”

    if you are refering to the Matt 24 passage, I don’t think it is real something to look for. It is a verbal picture produced by Jesus to describe the destruction og the temple.

    The Hebrew prophets used this method, called theophanic language of “cosmic distress” several times in the OT to describe the coming of God with power.

    It’s kind of like the passage that says that the stars will fall into the sea?How could that really happen?

  24. Alex says:

    MLD, yet you take “six days” as literal in Genesis, “1,000 years” as not literal when it comes to the Millennium in Revelation.

    You don’t have a clue as to exactly what stuff means. You’re guessing like the rest of us.

  25. Alex says:

    MLD:

    “This is my body, this is my blood”: MLD says “literal, something magical occurs and you are really eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking His literal blood”

    Yet when it comes to Jesus saying “the sun goes dark and the moon turns to blood” suddenly you are 100% sure it’s metaphorical and “theophonic language”.

    This is another illustration of what I mean when I cite your philosophical contradiction…

    This primer from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy may or may not help depending on your ability to understand it. Regardless, you often demonstrate various forms of contradiction from a Philosophical Logic perspective in your stated Beliefs.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/

  26. Alex says:

    MLD said, “It’s kind of like the passage that says that the stars will fall into the sea?How could that really happen?”

    Well, how could the bread and the wine really turn into Jesus’s literal flesh and literal blood when you take Communion?

    MLD, you argue “completely literal!” and “it’s a MIRACLE!” when it comes to the Resurrection, when it comes to “this is my body, this is my blood!”…then you parse and say “stars falling into the sea is IMPOSSIBLE! Sun turning dark and the moon turning to blood is not literal, it’s theophonic! 1,000 years is metaphor, Christ won’t really reign for 1,000 years!” etc etc etc.

    Contradiction, inconsistency. It’s part and parcel with Christianity and bible interpretation. No way around it. I accept it and embrace it.

    It’s why I have lots of “theories” but am only certain about a few things…

    Again, our “faith” is Unreasonable, Illogical and full of Paradox, inconsistency, contradiction etc.

    You illustrate this all the time…and yet you seem to be blissfully unaware….

  27. Alex – first. and I don’t expect you to know this with your Master’s College background, by theology is the art of making distinctions. You have to distinguish between genres and context. Even in doing so, nothing is subjective in it’s genre and context.

    Second, you said “Well, how could the bread and the wine really turn into Jesus’s literal flesh and literal blood when you take Communion?” Have you ever tried to educate yourself? Where have I EVER said that the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Jesus?

  28. Alex,
    You are so fun to play with because you are so gullible… gullible about yourself.

    “Yet when it comes to Jesus saying “the sun goes dark and the moon turns to blood” suddenly you are 100% sure it’s metaphorical and “theophonic language”.

    Well, we know that right now in fact that the moon is made of cheese and that is reality, but don you think that if someone says that “the moon will turn to blood” (as you say) that that is metaphor – or will it be dripping of real blood?

  29. and… I do think it will be a good trick to see a star, say the size of our sun fit in the Pacific Ocean.”

    You cannot keep excusing your ignorance by say “well, you are stupid too.” I think I used to run into guys like you in the 4th grade.

  30. Alex says:

    MLD, your insults amuse me. It is fun having outside the bubble third parties read your stuff and comment to me offline…folks who are qualified to make accurate judgments about your sloppy critical thinking and logic, etc.

    You live in quite a world over there. My friends are right, you are probably sincere even though you have professed to playing “blog theater”…it’s just that you really don’t understand the discipline of philosophical logic, reason, etc. That’s OK, others do get something out of the discussions.

    The issue is as you summarize above: “by theology is the art of making distinctions. You have to distinguish between genres and context. Even in doing so, nothing is subjective in it’s genre and context.”

    However, it is entirely Subjective, even though claim the contrary. By nature it is subjective. Hermeneutic, context, distinction etc etc is by definition Subjective. You are categorically wrong on that point.

    Even defining context is Subjective.

    There is vast disagreement, nothing is Universally True with regards to those issues, at least not that we humans have the ability to determine Absolutely/Necessarily as Universally True.

    It is illustrated by the 9,000 or 30,000+ (pick your number, James White says closer to 9,000) different Denominations under the Christian Umbrella.

  31. Alex says:

    Even within Lutheranism, there is a big schism and disagreement as to what is the proper “Context” etc etc.

    MLD said, “You cannot keep excusing your ignorance by say “well, you are stupid too.” I think I used to run into guys like you in the 4th grade.”

    I accept what is reality and continue to seek Truth and hash away at it on a daily basis. It is what it is…humans are stupid, we know very little of the Universe and the complexity and nature of things as they are. We get a tiny little glimpse of Truth and then we fill in the blanks with all sorts of “FACT!” “THIS IS THE WAY IT IS!” “THE REST OF YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!” etc etc.

    Truth is, you have a Belief System…it is based largely on the opinions of others and your personal interpretation of the bible. It is also full of contradiction, Paradox, inconsistency and Subjective Interpretation appealing to “context” and “genre” etc…all Subjective, by the universally accepted definition of the term…yet you boldly state otherwise (which is your M.O.).

  32. rick says:

    And there lies the rub. Alex and MLD sniping at one another over an event that no one has a clue about. I see the love of Christ on display.
    You both should do a pride check. So much for great minds with much education.

  33. Tell you friends Hello! for me. By the way, can anyone else see you friends?

    Genres are subjective? If I write poetry, it is up for discussion of whether my genre is poetry? I ask again – do you listen to yourself?

    If James Patterson writes a novel, you say it is subjective whether or not it is a novel?

    According to you – nothing you have said is true (I do have that right don’t I?) since we cannot know truth.

    Alex, you are the perfect example of a person with a high IQ, but no education or common sense.

  34. So, rick is RIGHT and me and Alex are WRONG.

    Who needs the pride check?

  35. Alex says:

    MLD said, “Genres are subjective?”

    Yes. The human categorizing nature of defining what is genre and what isn’t is subjective by nature. The genres do not necessarily exist independent of human thought, perception and categorization, they are by definition humans assigning labels to particular things and then having opinions about what does and does not fit the category.

    Genres do not exist without human interpretation and categorization.

    Sound exists independent of human interpretation, opinion and categorization, “noise” exists independent of human interpretation, opinion and categorization etc…however, what you would call “music”, I may call noise or “not music/art” etc.

    What you call “poetry” I may interpret as the ramblings of a psycho, etc.

    Though the more Universally Accepted a particular Genre and the more Universally Accepted a particular piece of “music” or “poetry” etc the more it is perceived to be objective, but that can change in time, by culture, etc…ergo Subjective.

    What is a Genre today, may not be a Genre in 1,000 years (a literal 1,000 years). It is not necessarily an Absolute for all of time in all cultures, contexts, etc etc.

    Whereas Gravity in our existence is Objective and appears to be an Absolute.

  36. Alex – re #35 – now I know that is something you got from one of your imaginary “friends”

    But you still have not said anything – “we cannot know truth” – Alex Grenier

  37. Alex says:

    As much as I’d like to roll in the mud with you MLD and insult you back, I’m going to try a bit harder to keep it civil for the benefit of rick and others.

    “We cannot know truth”…we can know what we “believe” to be true, we can know things we observe through Observational Science and the World and Universe around us. We can know Mathematics, Natural Physical Law, Laws of Reason/Philosophical Logic etc etc. We can know we exist (in some form) and I even think that through a reasoned approach we can “know” that God must “be”….though that epiphany is probably supernatural and simply a means God uses to reach some.

    Again, much of your truth is entirely personal and a function of your appeal to Scripture, Tradition, and the opinions of experts/Gurus you believe are credible and accurate. You rely on your conscience in synergy with the Holy Spirit (it is assumed) to come up with your particular Belief System.

    Again, there is Relative/Subjective “truth”…and much of what you and I operate within is that sort of truth. Underlying that truth is the reality that there are Absolutes, there are objective things that exist independently of human opinion, perception etc. “God” is really incomprehensible…yet you seem to state you “know” Absolutely/Necessarily so many specific things about Him…and appeal to Scripture…yet others appeal to the same Scripture and come to differing Conclusions…even among your Sect…

    I tend to hold as more Absolute that which is Universally Accepted underneath the Christian orthodoxy umbrella and I tend to accept as more subjective and non-essential those things where there is broad disagreement.

    Ergo my Big 4 (still, until convinced otherwise):

    1. God Is.
    2. Jesus Christ is Messiah
    …you know the rest 😉

  38. OK “Ergo my Big 4 (still, until convinced otherwise):” as long as you don’t claim them to be TRUE.

    But hey – I cling to the 3 ecumenical creeds as true by your definition of Christian orthodoxy.

    “yet you seem to state you “know” Absolutely/Necessarily so many specific things about Him…and appeal to Scripture…yet others appeal to the same Scripture and come to differing Conclusions…even among your Sect…”

    I have never made a claim about God that is not clearly revealed in scripture – because people disagree does not lessen what I know.

    If someone disagrees with your Big 4 does that lessen your big 4?

  39. In other words, your doubt and your lack of commitment to truth in no way affects my knowledge of truth.

    Doubters are doubters and will always be around.

  40. Alex says:

    MLD said, “I have never made a claim about God that is not clearly revealed in scripture – because people disagree does not lessen what I know.”

    …which takes us back to your incongruity in picking and choosing what is “literal” and what is metaphorical based on your opinion of what is “clear” and what isn’t and your appelas to ‘context’ ‘genre’ etc.

    …which is the point, whether you realize it or not.

  41. Alex says:

    MLD said, “If someone disagrees with your Big 4 does that lessen your big 4?”

    No, it doesn’t. It is Truth or it isn’t independent of my belief and perception.

  42. Re 41 – Alex, I already allowed for the fact that you are confused and doubt a lot. You don’t need to keep lobbying the case.

  43. Alex says:

    If you review and understand the Law of Contradiction from a Philosophical Logic perspective as identified and explained and defined in the Stanford link I posted above…a “sound” Philosophically logical assertion is:

    The stuff is either Absolute Truth or it isn’t (independent of my belief, opinion or perception).

    Even my Big 4 is subjective and my Belief based on the limited information that is available to me and based on my limited “clear” understanding of the nature of things both spiritual and physical.

    I arrive at the Big 4 due to the “common sense” thing you mention up the thread.

    There is no Pure Skeptic, we all assent to “something”…we all believe in “something”…even my Skeptic friends who profess a lack of Religious/Philosophical belief have a Religious/Philosophical belief and base their beliefs on appeals to Absolutes we observe in Science and then they fill in the Gaps with all sorts of Philosophical machination that isn’t necessarily supported by an Absolute.

  44. Alex says:

    MLD, I’m not “confused”…I simply recognize the reality of the illogic and subjective nature of spiritual things and Scripture etc. Doesn’t make it not “truth” but does make it something other than what you are selling…which stumbles many agnostics/atheists/rationalists who see through the shaky reason/logic you profess to be espousing (yet you violate the universally accepted and defined rules of logic/reason all the time and make statements like: “This is NOT subjective!” “This is NOT a contradiction!” when it clearly and universally “is” from that framework.

  45. Alex says:

    Gotta run and will stay off this thread the rest of the day so others can participate and not feel dominated etc.

  46. I have to leave for work also – but Alex, what you are saying is that the information that God has revealed to us IS NOT capital T truth and he has left us to flop around on our ouw.

    I say that what God has revealed through creation and in scripture is 100% pure unadulterated TRUTH – sorry that you disagree – to call the Bible illogical and subjective is really out there.

    Gotta run.

  47. “…will stay off this thread the rest of the day so others can participate and not feel dominated etc.” Gee, how big of you, Alex.

  48. Papias says:

    CK…. The End IS Near.

    😉

  49. rick says:

    Well, I found the exchange between Alex and MLD totally enlightening.
    I think when all was said and done, it could be summed up as ” I know your are but what am I?”

  50. DavidM says:

    I have just been reminded exactly I stay away from this forum for weeks at a time.

  51. rick,
    Going back to your #15, you have made 3 comments on the thread – all have been dismissive of conversation – the first one was dismissive of Michael’s article.

    Do you have nothing to offer the conversation other than your disdain for conversation.
    You wouldn’t be much good on a baseball blog if people had differing opinions about teams.

  52. Em says:

    perhaps it would benefit us to focus on the One Who has the power to end it all?

    2 Timothy 3 (or is it 2T that darn space thing trips me up)

    i have this mental image of Alex and friends, half in and half out of their glorified bodies, saying, “wait a minute, i haven’t gotten my point across to these guys about what qualified a pastor for his office down there” … 🙂

    for my part what qualifies a pastor/teacher is what he teaches … someone up the thread a ways pointed out our responsibility as pew sitters in that regard

  53. rick says:

    MLD,

    I have no desire to engage you in a debate. As for my post #15, try reading it without your desire to argue. The point is or was that it is a waste of time discussing events one has no knowledge of. The end of time is just the end of time. As I understand it you get a new job title for the age to come. Insulting a brother in Christ no matter how wise you think you are is sin. Period. If you think it edifies the body of believers to watch two brothers try and one up one another than you are wrong.
    I am pretty sure scripture would bear that out. What took place here today had nothing to do with furthering the Gospel of Christ.
    I saw two guys who think highly of their own opinions attack one another. just saying.

  54. MLD and Alex,

    My understanding of what you are both saying is: That we as people know exactly what we want to know, whether we know if it is subjective/objective, or true/false. What you know and what we know are different than what they know; yet we are they; and that makes it totally submissive, consistent with nothing. God agrees with all that live according to the interface congruency beyond personal mythological idol logic. Furthermore; we see the absolute spiritual existence of theoretical reality, so why profound upon natural bossiness?

    In English, what the hell does that mean? Just sayin.

  55. Em says:

    P.S. to #52 perhaps the bad guys in the pulpit will scream the loudest about being persecuted for their “faith” – we pew-sitters (in the cheap seats with brian) have an obligation to put distance between us and them – leave them bellowing in an empty church when there is no accountability in place to deal with them – IMO

  56. rick,
    So you would never go listen to a debate between scholars on a biblical topic? When Norman Geisler and Michael Licona debate over the reality of the graves opening and the bodies walking the streets (Matt 27), you just close up?

  57. Paul,
    You described Alex’s point – I argued that you can understand scriptures clearly

    What get’s lost was Alex’s challenge to my #23 which was a reply to Chile (which I thought was simple and not argumentative.)

  58. pardon ze interrupcion. says:

    Please stop using “Just sayin'”.

  59. Em says:

    Paul A, you saying 2 Timothy 4:1-3 ? 😎

  60. Em,

    You have it exactly right. I just didn’t know there was a Biblical way to express it. You have a gift of understanding if you understood any of what I said; and a gift of enlightenment to know the meaning of it. I did not even know I had a meaning, but after reading 2 Timothy 4:1-3, that was the purpose that drove me. God bless you.

  61. rick says:

    MLD,
    Yes, I would have no desire to listen to two men debate over things that have no eternal value. Now if they could add to my walk by pointing out how I could better minister unto the Lord, I would be all ears.

    I have no desire to spend my limited time on the earth with the “Always learning but never acknowledging the truth,” crowd.

    What good is there in winning an argument when the cost is a broken relationship. I can drive through my neighborhood and find at least 10 different denominations all started by learned men who whom loved to debate at the cost of relationship. Or simply put, those who thought they knew more than the next guy. Does that answer your question?

  62. rick,
    ““Always learning but never acknowledging the truth,” crowd.”

    I prefer “because I acknowledge truth, I am always learning.”

    But then I’m not holy in that way. Not everything I do is to “better minister unto the Lord” – some things I do for pleasure and to satisfy my curiosity.

    But your reply did answer my question.

    Pitchers and Catchers report for Spring Training in 39 days – nothing to do with the Lord, but it will be fun. 🙂

  63. Chile says:

    What Rick says is true, in that “being right” at the cost of relationship is often damaging. Having said that, it’s not so with some people, such as the French.

    The French have fun and lively discussions (with a tenacity that would rival -if not beat- Alex.). They seemingly “insult” one another in a way that would crush most Americans; however, they do not take it personally. No, they rather enjoy the sport. It bonds them!

    If one cannot engage in such an arena with a Frenchman, then one will never share the gospel with them.

    Both MLD and Alex have a “Lutheresque” style of communication … Or else they are beginner Frenchmen? This makes me doubt that they have intent to harm.

    I understand gentle, patient correction if they are out of line for an all American context; but I, personally, enjoy the exchanges because I hear their content and see great value in their seemingly opposing opinions.

    Now, if they do have malice… Well, then they already know what they should do. If they do not have malice, then I’d like to congratulate them on their contributions as well as their ability to not be side-tracked from the point.

  64. Em says:

    MLD, in your defense i would say that you do have the attitude of a learner … with one caveat … it has to clear the Lutheran filter 🙂 way better that than “wise in our own conceits” – which is, i think a tightrope we all walk … just sayin, cuz i can (sorry p ze i)

  65. Hey Chile – I live in France for 3 years in the early 60s – does that count.? 🙂 Also, I was raised Jewish and you know what they say “get 2 Jews together and you will have 3 opinions.”

  66. Em says:

    Chile, argument for sport is not wrong – it carries all kinds of undercurrent and innuendo, but, at what point, does it over-step its boundaries when it comes to the doctrines of the Faith? … or does it?

    IMX (limited) – real top drawer educated folk in most disciplines (exceptions perhaps, law or philosophy) have no patience for the sport

  67. Em, there is no “Lutheran” lens. There is no Lutheran position – we stand strictly on Christian teaching.
    We were the first to come out of Romanism – ever since, all other denominations have been splintering off of us. We would love to welcome you all back into the fold.

  68. Chile says:

    There is a season for everything …

    When I came to Christ I did not need doctrine, I desperately needed love. Not long after I needed the basics of how to love God and love others. Eventually I needed doctrine. I don’t mind that I was handed one set of doctrines as if they were the only ones to consider, because I was young and simply needed to start somewhere. But it was truly enlightening and satisfying to discover there was so much more later on. Fast forward to midlife and I found it amazing at just how little I could be sure of, but just how much more certain some things have become.

    I love the honest lively discussions that can clearly lay out the differences, or seemingly opposing views. I find it more obscure in too polite of a conversation.

    I made a statement that implied I was using a literal translation of a passage. MLD made a case for why he thought it should not be translated literally. Alex pointed out what he perceived to be an inconsistent application of Hermeneutics by MLD. MLD defended saying Alex misunderstood his previously stated positions. ….. Then we lost the excellent conversation due to others not appreciating the style of the exchange (right or wrong.)

  69. Chile says:

    Oh my goodness … No wonder you talk the way you do, MLD!!!

    I always said there’s noth’in better than a New York Jew! … Then I met a Parisienne! They don’t even need to be Jewish.

    MLD, you and Alex are living outside of your cultures and it rubs the Americans wrong.

    I figure blogs set up to discuss things have to lean slightly more in your direction just because of the nature of this limited venue. But obviously, many disagree with me.

    Whereabouts in France? Why were you there?

  70. We lived in southern France in a town called Toulouse. We were there from 1960 to 1963. My dad was on assignment helping the French build passenger planes

  71. Chile says:

    Em, I believe in relationships over being right … With some exceptions (I don’t partner with groups who don’t agree with who Jesus is.)

    But my view of discussions has been influenced by my cross-cultural experiences with old crusty northerners, New Yorkers, Jews, William F. Buckley, C.S. Lewis, and the French. Because of that I don’t hear the insults as over-the-line. I hear their points. (Though I am an American first, and sometimes transition into thinking more American and get my feathers ruffled, too. So I do get it why people don’t like it, I just value not being offended easily and listening to the meat of the conversation.)

  72. Chile says:

    Toulouse? No way!

    Do you have an email I can contact you?

  73. Well, I think that those folks who don’t like the way Alex and I discuss things are just opinionated, divisive trouble makers. If they weren’t divisive, they would join in the conversation.

    Alex and I seem to have or own kumbaya relationship. 🙂

  74. rick says:

    MLD,
    Just for information sake, I was led to the Lord by a Jewish Christian who encouraged me to attend a Lutheran Church, {Missouri Synod} because it the only real Lutheran church. {Just kidding}. He is my sons Aaron’s spiritual Godfather.

  75. Chile says:

    MLD, ygm

  76. Em says:

    hmm – credential time? does having a L.A. Congregation B’nai B’rith/ Wilshire Boulevard Temple Jew for a stepfather who lost most of his family in the holocaust count for anything? FWIW, he didn’t have too much patience with arguing for the sake of it …
    i do get the European “way,” – have often thought that our choice of missionaries to them, particularly the YWAM selection, was wrong headed … BUT, thing is those youngsters demonstrated the ‘love’ factor and that may have been exactly what God intended to message Europe with …
    i’m not stating categorically that what goes on here at times is wrong, but, obviously i wonder about it … i think we do need to consider when a hearty argument over doctrines of the Faith crosses the line … is there such a line? is it just for the sake of airing out the Church? hmmm is the Lutheran way, best expressed in being true to the old, farting, German Martin Luther? is Alex on Christ centered testosterone? dunno … just sayin … and pondering … 🙄

  77. Chile says:

    Em, I had to laugh at your YWAM comment! Many agree with you, though God does use all types!

  78. Just a personal perception,

    It is very natural to have opposing thoughts and opposing dialog ways of expressing such. The term, “Yin and Yang” come to mind. Everything that is has an equal but opposite reality. In fact IMHO it is the core of everything. You cannot know heat if you do not know cold. You cannot know God (holy) if you do not know Satan (evil). This puts “arguments” in the form of a learning experience and is totally natural. But just because they both exist does not mean that both are right and both are wrong. Abuse is abuse (the Yin) and Love is love (the Yang).

    IMNSHO the line is crossed when attacking another person, be it physical, mental, emotional or verbal. Love your neighbor as you would love yourself. God said it; I believe it and that settles it.

    It is good that Alex and MLD (or should I have said MLD and Alex?) can enjoy fighting with each other, but it subtracts from the validity of what they say by the way they are observed. It sounds as if neither one of them is offering to share their though; and neither of them care about learning differently. In my NSHO, this should be done privately and not publicly since it is a personal understanding. If they could say things without belittling (verbally abusing) each other it could expand their points to others in the public area they are in.

  79. Chile – UGM back

  80. rick says:

    Paul,
    Well said.

  81. Chile says:

    MLD, ygm.

  82. Chile says:

    Paul, I think you expressed exactly how most Americans view dialogue like this. The French don’t hear insults as something negative, so they can do it without “sinning.”

    While people may not be able to argue/discuss as they wish to on here without it causing an issue, I just suspect it’s not as intended for ill as it may seem.

  83. Em says:

    FWIW and i’m not taking sides on the issue of how to argue the Faith appropriately – nothing blurs the truth more than a facade of ‘nice,’ and nothing gives me more pleasure as a bystander than to see the sword of Hebrews 4:12 wielded well – not carelessly swiped about … but, as d’Artagnan or someone put it, “thrust home!”

  84. I think that people are missing the point of our “discussion”. Alex was standing on the side (notice I avoided saying arguing) that we cannot understand the Bible clearly. My point, even in heated moments, was that God did not mumble and if you look at the entirety of scripture it all ties together and is clear.

    It may take some time and effort – you may have to get familiar with ancient cultures and languages but God’s message is clear. There may be difficult passages, but there are clear ones that speak on the same issue.

    I just don’t buy Alex’s standard line “I don’t know anything and either do you.”

  85. Paul A. Lytton says:

    Chili Re: #83,

    “The French don’t hear insults as something negative, so they can do it without ‘sinning’. While people may not be able to argue/discuss as they wish to on here without it causing an issue, I just suspect it’s not as intended for ill as it may seem.”

    It matters not if the intent is ill. There are tribes in Africa that think it is okay to kill and eat other people. It is still “Cannibalism”; and not just another way of describing hunger and dinner. Plus it does not mean that it should be okay to do so anywhere outside of their own realm. Aso, the way things are viewed by different people does not make it not be sin,(anymore than, not hearing insults as something negative so they can do it without “sin”). SIN is not up to humanistic interpretation, it is a God decision as to what sin is and what is not. The fact of people arguing with each other about what sin is and what it is not instead of personally seeking out the true meaning from God Himself is in fact a sin itself.

  86. Paul,
    But then you become the arbiter of insult. I don’t take Alex’s comments as insult at all (and I don’t think he does mine – it is the way we communicate with each other. We are like the 2 guys who walk around seeing who can punch each other in the arm harder without grimacing.

    Some people think violence is sin – but how about in the context of a football game?

  87. You know it’s a slow news day when there’s a conversation about a conversation about MLD’s and Alex’s conversation.

  88. Captain,
    People have conversations about Francis Schaeffer conversations and C.S. Lewis conversations – I feel in good company. 😉

  89. Paul A. Lytton says:

    MLD Re #87,

    I fully understand that you and Alex are comfortable in the way you converse, and there is nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. However you should both respect the atmosphere you are in. There is nothing wrong in a married man and woman having sex in and of itself. However they should not have sex in the atmosphere of a first grade classroom.
    If you would like to consider the atmosphere of the public view and presence on this blog as us being first graders, fine. But keep it in the order of not showing us your privates.

  90. Hmmm public sex in the first grade classroom = MLD and Alex parrying points of contention … Did I miss something?

  91. My main point is that there is nothing wrong with the way the men attack each other as long as they both agree to do so, but it is not necessary to exhibit the attack to those who are possibly affected by it in the public. they want to argue in public…., no problem. they want to display verbal abuse in public…., problem…., whether agreed upon or not. I also understand that they allow the public the privilege to leave if they wish. Everyone has a right to be in the public, including those men; but disrespect in public is exempt from the right to be allowed there. Two opposing gang members understand that it is not necessarily a personal issue to shoot at each other (not a personal thing, just a matter of principle) and everyone has the right to get out of there…., but the action they use does not have the right to be public, even though the gang members do have the right to be there.

  92. should i be ashamed? this first grader confesses that MLD versus Alex is boring … but then i’m only in first grade 🙂

  93. Paul,
    this is really kind of funny. I know that you participate over at Alex’s blog – talk about a place of verbal abuse and insult! The only difference, and you do this in front of a public audience also – is that you don’t verbally abuse each other nor do you insult each other – but you do so to 3rd parties who aren’t there to defend themselves.

    Gossip abounds – since most of you have never met nor interacted with the accused parties but just rely on the hearsay contributions of others. Probably 90% of the CCAbuse participants have never met nor interacted with Bob Grenier, yet you guys toss verbal abuse and insult his way.(he may be guilty as hell, but you don’t know it for sure unless you have 1st hand experience.

    Why is that acceptable for your continued participation – but my discussion with Alex on the clarity of the scripture – regardless of the added heat is not being sensitive to onlookers.

    You are either a puss or the world’s biggest hypocrite.

  94. Chile says:

    Paul, I respectfully disagree with you when you say the intent doesn’t matter. I think God makes a big deal about our heart intent.

    I think there are many grey areas when it comes to communication styles. In the black community the mothers show a type of tough love that many kids from the white community would find bothersome. But the black kids feel very loved by their mamas.

    In the Asian community they have what are called “Tiger Moms.” They drill their kids, yell and speak in ways we consider “demeaning.” Yet those kids feel loved.

    I’m stating stereotypes, but it makes the point that when it comes to what is okay in communication styles it is not a one size fits all world.

    If I yell like the people I mentioned, I would be in trouble with my kids. If my Black and Asian mothers of my students communicated as I do, their kids wouldn’t survive the inner city. We all love our kids. We show it very differently.

  95. MLD fires a left hook and an overhand right. Might be a knockout.

  96. Oh…so now we’re first graders? Look, I don’t have a problem telling you that I find MLD and Alex’s debates tedious at best, but I’m a big boy, and I don’t have to read their stuff if I don’t want to.

  97. Alex says:

    MLD said, “‘this is really kind of funny. I know that you participate over at Alex’s blog – talk about a place of verbal abuse and insult! The only difference, and you do this in front of a public audience also – is that you don’t verbally abuse each other nor do you insult each other – but you do so to 3rd parties who aren’t there to defend themselves.”

    Alex responds: Bob is welcome to come on the blog and defend his actions and give his take anytime. I have lobbied for years to get him to address the allegations and to meet his accusers and submit to a Matthew 18 process.

    MLD says, “Gossip abounds – since most of you have never met nor interacted with the accused parties but just rely on the hearsay contributions of others. Probably 90% of the CCAbuse participants have never met nor interacted with Bob Grenier, yet you guys toss verbal abuse and insult his way.(he may be guilty as hell, but you don’t know it for sure unless you have 1st hand experience.”

    Alex responds: Paul went to CC Visalia and know BG. Paul did some driving for me back in the day when I was in the publishing/ad agency biz. We know each other, he knows BG and has seen some of the dynamic first-hand.

    MLD says, “Why is that acceptable for your continued participation – but my discussion with Alex on the clarity of the scripture – regardless of the added heat is not being sensitive to onlookers.”

    Alex responds: I’m used to dealing with jerks. On the Jerk-o-Meter Scale, while you are pretty good at being a jerk, you don’t rate compared to BG and others I’ve had the dis-fortune to share existence with. I think most are uncomfortable when two jerks go at it in public.

    MLD said, “You are either a puss or the world’s biggest hypocrite.”

    Alex responds: I spent some time with Paul and never found him to be a hypocrite. He seemed to be a good guy and very sincere. I was quite a hypocrite at that time…but Paul…nope. Good guy. He wasn’t a “puss” either. Actually kind of a burly, yet pleasant. truck-driver type with a good heart and curious mind. Always liked him. One of those types that have no guile, straight shooter, yet kind. Wish I was more like him actually.

  98. Alex says:

    MLD, when you prepare for “Blog Theater” as you call it…is your character supposed to be wrong so much or does that just happen naturally?

  99. MLD #94
    ,
    Excuse me???…. “I know that you PARCITATE over at Alex’s blog”,… insinuates that I have made personal statements against his step-father. In actuality I have never made any statement against him. Only that I am sorry that Alex experienced the abuse that he states. I have also clearly stated that I personally have never experienced any form of Church abuse. I have never engaged in any way badmouthing either Bob or CC. I personally knew Alex and personally knew Bob. The fact is that I have “commented” on Alex’s blog but in no way in the manner of, “you don’t verbally abuse each other nor do you insult each other – but you do so to 3rd parties who aren’t there to defend themselves”; is a bold face lie about me and I will await an expected apology.

  100. To those of you who are making comments about being “first graders”, the words of “first graders” was first stated by me but please re-read my # 90 and keep the words in the contents stated.

  101. Alex says:

    MLD said, ‘ it is the way we communicate with each other. We are like the 2 guys who walk around seeing who can punch each other in the arm harder without grimacing.”

    The arm? More like the groin 😆

  102. Alex says:

    Dread said, “MLD fires a left hook and an overhand right. Might be a knockout.”

    LOL, don’t encourage the old geezer.

  103. Paul A. Lytton says:

    Alex,

    Thank you for the appreciated support of my nature. I am glad that you have acknowledged the fact that “…most are uncomfortable when two jerks go at it in public.” At lease you are man enough to observe the facts. You have just validated my main point. God bless you.

  104. Alex says:

    God bless you too Paul. I’ll try to tone it down for your sake (and others). MLD will be MLD. He seems to be a good guy, good family man etc, just a jerk on the blogs (says the Pot about the Kettle).

  105. MLD, Re your #94: “…….,but my discussion with Alex on the clarity of the scripture – regardless of the added heat is not being sensitive to onlookers.

    I must agree with Alex’s #99, “……is your character supposed to be wrong so much or does that just happen naturally?”

    How can you possibly say, “regardless of the added heat”? The “Added Heat” is the soul part of, being insensitive to onlookers. not the discussion of difference. However, you mistakenly were correct. You said, “..is not being sensitive (as opposed to not being in-sensitive) to onlookers.”

    Still waiting for your apology for the slander, however I am man enough to forgive you anyway. I will just use my ability to use the door. It is easy for me because I have not been abused; I have only seen it in my peripheral sight of the public area and choose to separate myself from it because I can.

    Before I part, I apologize to anyone I have offended. That was not my intention. The fact that a simple attempt to stop verbal abuse in public is considered the wrong thing to do is an obvious “sign of the end times”.

  106. See #94 Alex “You are either a puss or the world’s biggest hypocrite.”

    It was another not you.

  107. I spent the evening learning to play the funkiest version of Watermelon Man
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ASTMFN-h4

    Then I decided to throw caution to the wind and write some instrumental music.
    Once I get it mixed I’ll post it.

    I see I have avoided the online jousting.
    I’m still waiting for a shrubbery.

  108. LOL to both Paul and Alex – as if Bob Grenier is the only person on the CCAbuse blog being talked about.(verbally abused & insulted)

    OK Paul, how many times have you met and been abused by Raul Reis and or Bob Coy – those guys have their own threads where they get ripped to shreds by a 100 people who have never met or interacted with them as the each pile on to the gossip wagon.. How about the shots to the countless others brought up by the CCAbuse folks? Again they may be guilty as hell, but if you don’t have the first hand knowledge Paul (and like I said 90% of the folks there don’t), how do you continue to participate over their with all the verbal abuse, insults.and gossip.I am not saying that you are saying those things but you don’t oppose those who do.

    Have you ever, even just once pointed out to the CCAbuse crowd that there are first graders listening on the sidelines? So why do you do it here?

  109. Paul,
    In response to your #100 about my #94 – the use of the “you” is the plural “you” meaning the participants at CCAbuse – not “you” as in Paul.

  110. MLD,

    Your #109, “…OK Paul, how many times have you met and been abused by Raul Reis and or Bob Coy…” – My answer: never.

    “..but if you don’t have the first hand knowledge Paul (and like I said 90% of the folks there don’t), how do you continue to participate over there with all the verbal abuse, insults, and gossip. I am not saying that you are saying those things but you don’t oppose those who do”

    First of all, I am not aware of anyone making accusations that do not have firsthand knowledge any more than you are aware that 90% of them do not have firsthand knowledge.

    Secondly, that blog is a place for those who have been abused to vent. As far as I have seen, this is not; it is just a blog for Christian fellowship. If I am wrong about that, I apologize.

    Thirdly, you said, “I am not saying that you are saying those things but you don’t oppose those who do.” – My answer: I have no right to oppose those who vent what has been done to them or what they know about. I will say that those who vent are referring to those that have abused them and it hurt. The verbal abuse you display has no foundation, it is just for fun. You have not been hurt; you just enjoy verbal abuse without regard to those in the public “Christian Fellowship” that may have been hurt. There is a big difference between verbal abuse aimed as a defense and a verbal abuse aimed as an offence.

    Fourthly you said, “Have you ever, even just once pointed out to the CCAbuse crowd that there are first graders listening on the sidelines? So why do you do it here?” – My answer: Again the difference is the arena. It can well be expected to hear verbal abuse in the arena of venting; therefore the audience is not the same as that of a Christian Fellowship arena.

    Plus, you have taken my usage of the word “first grader” out of the contents it was stated.

  111. Final comment

    MLD,

    Your #109, “…OK Paul, how many times have you met and been abused by Raul Reis and or Bob Coy…” – My answer: never.

    “..but if you don’t have the first hand knowledge Paul (and like I said 90% of the folks there don’t), how do you continue to participate over there with all the verbal abuse, insults, and gossip. I am not saying that you are saying those things but you don’t oppose those who do”

    First of all, I am not aware of anyone making accusations that do not have firsthand knowledge any more than you are aware that 90% of them do not have firsthand knowledge.

    Secondly, that blog is a place for those who have been abused to vent. As far as I have seen, this is not; it is just a blog for Christian fellowship. If I am wrong about that, I apologize.

    Thirdly, you said, “I am not saying that you are saying those things but you don’t oppose those who do.” – My answer: I have no right to oppose those who vent what has been done to them or what they know about. I will say that those who vent are referring to those that have abused them and it hurt. The verbal abuse you display has no foundation, it is just for fun. You have not been hurt; you just enjoy verbal abuse without regard to those in the public “Christian Fellowship” that may have been hurt. There is a big difference between verbal abuse aimed as a defense and a verbal abuse aimed as an offence.

    Fourthly you said, “Have you ever, even just once pointed out to the CCAbuse crowd that there are first graders listening on the sidelines? So why do you do it here?” – My answer: Again the difference is the arena. It can well be expected to hear verbal abuse in the arena of venting; therefore the audience is not the same as that of a Christian Fellowship arena.

    Plus, you have taken my usage of the word “first grader” out of the contents it was stated.

  112. Alex says:

    MLD, did you disagree with Michael’s previous version of PhxP? It was similar/same to CC Abuse, no? Did you participate on PhxP when it was similar/same to CC Abuse? If so, why? (in light of your recent comments…)

  113. Paul,
    You missed the point – the first person may say and actually have 1st hand knowledge of a situation – but the next person who comments on that comment DOES NOT and is therefore gossiping, and adding to the hurling of insults.

    So, when someone says that Raul Reis approves of child molesters because they read someone’s comments (but have no personal knowledge) is that not gossip.

    My point is why do you put up with insults and verbal abuse at CCA but object here – That is my only point.

    And I know the answer.

  114. Alex,
    First I must remember to treat you with sensitivity and care when I respond … or people’s feeling will be hurt – so here is my effort.

    I do not disagree with either format. They are both fine and very similar. My question seems to be why are Paul’s ears offended here and not over at CCA?

    I hope you have a very pleasant day.

  115. Alex says:

    MLD, blessings to you friend. May you have a wonderfully joyous spirit-filled day as well 🙂

  116. I must add that I do like the format at CCA and have always wanted to participate in that venue, where as Paul says one is allowed to “vent”. But I am continually banned, why? for venting (banned 3 times – once for mentioning Alex’s brothe and twice for “venting”)

    I guess in some places there are different types of “venting” rules.

    But I won’t vent here – I am here to wish everyone a pleasant day.

  117. PP Vet says:

    Don’t know that there are any great scholars of the Christian tradition whom I respect more than MLD and Derek Prince.

    So when MLD says there is no Lutheran lens it reminds me of when I heard the thoroughly British Dr. Prince note, when addressing a group in North Carolina (or was it at a Camp Farthest Out in Tennessee?), that he was the only one in the room without an accent.

    The phrase “Lutheran lens” is commonly used within, for example, the LCMS (Lutheran Church Mostly Seniors).

    So we will assume that there was an implied smiley face after MLD’s comment.

  118. I think this may be more for rick than for Paul but I think it applies to either. When the topic of how we talk to each other comes up and whether we sin if you use our language more as a style than to produce hate or hurt – I would like to point to Psalm 11:5

    “The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.”

    So if you, or if you have any friends who will be watching football this weekend or the BCS game later – remember the sin you are generating against God.

    But please do have a pleasant day.

  119. PP my friend,
    I have always found that youth must first pass through charismatic / 3rd wave circles first, get it out of their system, grow up, and mature and then move on to the LCMS (Lutheran Church Maturity Studies) 🙂

    On a serious note, when the Lutheran reformers wrote our confessions, they did not say “let’s take a view with a Lutheran lens.” They said “let’s get back to Christianity” So, when I speak of things from that view point, I am only saying – “here is the Christian view.”

  120. Ixtlan says:

    actually, there may be a grain of truth in what mld said (imagine that!).

    Not that I will ever become a Lutheran, but I have much less tolerance for the charismatic, loose subjective interpretations of what the Spirit is doing, and the tongue and cheek, slapstick form of presentation that was so prevalent…. and popular during the Jesus Movement. It was a mile wide but only a few inches deep; which was fine for drawing young people, not so much for thinking adults.

  121. rick says:

    MLD,
    DO always poke at anyone who may question your behavior towards other Christians? I am not sure if I am following what you’re saying. Will you be watching football or not? While you’re tossing out scripture like hand grenades maybe you could lob a couple out about pride? Just saying.

  122. MLD, regarding your #113:

    Your statement: “Paul, You missed the point – the first person may say and actually have 1st hand knowledge of a situation – but the next person who comments on that comment DOES NOT and is therefore gossiping, and adding to the hurling of insults.

    My response: The “point” is not missed. I have no more firsthand knowledge of a comment being made on another comment via firsthand experience or not, anymore than you do unless you are gifted with the power to read a person’s mind through reading what they write. It is not my intention to judge what a person is saying to be false UNLESS I have firsthand experience of that particular person lying (especially in the specific circumstance described at the time, but also with a firsthand knowledge of a history of that particular person lying.)

    Your statement: “So, when someone says that Raul Reis approves of child molesters because they read someone’s comments (but have no personal knowledge) is that not gossip.”

    My response: I agree with you saying, “…when someone says that Raul Reis approves of child molesters BECAUSE THEY READ SOMEONE’S COMMENTS…” but again we are back to having/or-not firsthand knowledge of where they base their reasoning from. Or if one can reason the calculation of adding one circumstance with another, such as – Hundreds of people experience similar methods of being firsthand recipients of abuse talking about a person in the higher level of authority within the system of the abusive locations and not taking athoritive action to correct it. The conversation of those two types of people (Those with firsthand experience and those who are able to reasonably calculate the overall massive circumstances) is not gossip, it is more like exposing warning to the unaware (those without firsthand knowledge being in a location controlled by an authority figure not dealing with within-the system abusive problems that they are well aware of).

    Your statement: “My point is why do you put up with insults and verbal abuse at CCA but object here – That is my only point.”

    My response: The “verbal abuse” here that I was specifically addressing was the one between you and Alex, two commenter’s against each other un-necessarily, for the sake of seeing who can be the biggest jerk and take the hardest insult, gladiator style; except the audience did not come to see the battle in the stands instead of in the center of the arena. If the battle is only in the arena, the audience is safe but when the battle is in the stands the audience may be hurt in the process. Plus, at that point the owner of the coliseum can then be concerned of future tickets to be sold to watch the main event. At least Alex was man enough to state in his #105, “….Paul. I’ll try to tone it down for your sake (AND OTHERS).” Obviously, he recognized the scope of the situation and made an appropriate apology to ALL of the observers WITHOUT SARCASM.

  123. Em says:

    i must chime in here and say unequivocally – without exceptions – it is wrong for any Christian to take action of any kind against another Christian on the basis of 2nd hand or further distanced information … one can certainly be supportive and sympathetic to an aggrieved person, a victim, or otherwise harmed as led by one’s best understanding of God’s leading in that direction … BUT one cannot take action against anyone, let alone another Believer, on the basis of what one “hears” about them … if you have the guts and the opportunity or the authority to go to the accused and ask for clarification, do that … but do NOT mess with someone else’s life or reputation on the basis of hearsay, no matter how high your opinion or affection or relationship with the “victim” … there i’ll stand dogmatic and without any intention of conversing over loopholes and other viewpoints period

  124. ” except the audience did not come to see the battle in the stands instead of in the center of the arena. If the battle is only in the arena, the audience is safe but when the battle is in the stands the audience may be hurt in the process”

    Alex and I were the one’s in the arena – boo if you like.

  125. MLD, regarding your #116:

    You stated: “I must add that I do like the format at CCA and have always wanted to participate in that venue, where as Paul says one is allowed to “vent”. But I am continually banned, why? for venting (banned 3 times – once for mentioning Alex’s brothe and twice for “venting”)….I guess in some places there are different types of “venting” rules.”

    My response: When you said, “…as Paul says one is allowed to “vent”…”, you took the venting I mentioned out of contents. The “venting” I referred to was venting coming from those with firsthand experience of being abuse and allowed to open up. How can you claim that you were only “venting” when you came here and advised others here that you have been at the CCA site for days messing with them and inviting others to join you?

    You stated: “….I guess in some places there are different types of “venting” rules.”

    My response: Of course, in some places there are different types of venting “rules”. However, the circumstance you refer to is not one of different venting “rules”; it is the circumstance of different “types of venting”. Venting a general thought is not venting a firsthand experience of abuse.

  126. Paul let’s get off this – there are new things to discuss. Go to Open Blogging and comment on my Hobby Lobby comment. 🙂

  127. MLD, regarding your #124:

    You stated:” Alex and I were the one’s in the arena – boo if you like.

    My response: All of those making comments to other commenter’s are in the stand of all commenter’s. The arena is the specific issue the blogger is intending to highlight. You point out that you consider your action with Alex puts you in the highlight. That along with your desire to be a gladiator only takes away from your validity. I will not give you enough credit for your action to “boo” you as if you are in the arena. I will only join Em with, “there i’ll stand dogmatic and without any intention of conversing over loopholes and other viewpoints period” God bless you all – sincerly minus sarcasm.

    P.S. I am curious as to how Michael takes this.

  128. Paul, well you can’t say you didn’t have your say.

    I hope you have a pleasant day.

  129. So many are so obsessed with the 2nd coming of Christ that they have forgotten about the 1st one, which is the more important coming of Christ. That one wiped away the sins of the world.

  130. Em says:

    God Whisperer, amen … if not the more important, it is certainly the one that we are charged with keeping until He returns … we look pretty silly, with our noses in the air, immobilized and unable to walk because we simply can’t see where we’re going now

  131. Never been one to compare what I see on the news with prophecy. Neither will I argue whether one needs to be pretrib, prewrath, or posttrib in eschatology. The division these arguments make between believers isn’t worth being “right” (if that is even possible). I do believe Christ will return one day and there are signs to look for (but they can be more confusing than helpful). So as I have often said ” it could be today”

    I think the question asked earlier is a good one. How are we to examine things happening round us as they relate to the return of Christ? Jesus said to watch and pray, how do we do that with out coming off as an idiot? And, on the otherside, how do we keep from getting to the point of saying ” our master delays his coming”

    Been a difficult balance to me. The only solution is to not say anything…but as a pastor that is not right either because people look to us for leadership

  132. “Neither will I argue whether one needs to be pretrib, prewrath, or posttrib in eschatology.”

    How about Amil with no Israel in prophecy – still on equal footing with the other views? 😉

  133. Alan K says:

    “Neither will I argue whether one needs to be pretrib, prewrath, or posttrib in eschatology. The division these arguments make between believers isn’t worth being “right” (if that is even possible).”

    Jesus commands us to be “right” on this issue: “See, I have told you beforehand.” (Matt 24:25).

    Whether one believes the church will face the Antichrist or not, has ramifications, otherwise why the severe warnings from Jesus, Paul, and the book of Revelation to be spiritually prepared to endure the Antichrist’s great tribulation?

    See my pamphlet I have written on this subject:

    http://www.alankurschner.com/i-am-a-pan-millennialist/

    Blessings!

    Alan

  134. Chile says:

    I appreciate what you are doing, Alan.

    I used to be a “Pan-Tribber,” until I kept running into the fact that pre-trib was only a 150 year old view that was popularized a hundred years ago by a footnote in the Scolefield Reference Bible and propagated by Westerners.

    If pre-trib is wrong, then the ramifications of teaching people they won’t go through the tribulation is very serious! Then, of course, there’s all the Scriptural warnings, what to look for and how to endure that would be unnecessary for us, so why even bother studying them?

    I do not find any view airtight, but Pre-wrath makes the most sense to me and seems to “force” passages less than the other views. But my opinion is a humble one because serious study of this subject requires actually studying it and not just learning it from another preacher, the way most people learn it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading