Jump to content


Advanced Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Annie

  1. I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but I will just throw in my two cents here. I spent a good deal of time waitressing during my high school years to save up money for college. At none of the places I worked was the gratuity included on the customer's bill. By law, waitresses and waiters were all paid a lot less than minimum wage because tips were supposed to make up the bulk of their earnings. The minimum amount anyone should tip (except in the case of really poor service) is 15% of the bill. You should tip 20% for really good service. Charity behaveth not unseemly...It is not rude. It has good manners, which means it observes conventionally expected forms of behavior in social situations. You give your seat to a lady...You don't make rude noises....You don't jump in front of a person in a wheelchair...You tip the expected amount.
  2. Annie


    Praying...as one cancer patient for another.
  3. I am not interested in discussing this topic with anyone who has never read in context what C.S. Lewis himself had to say about salvation, mythology, and Christianity in general. Apparently you chose to ignore my use of the words "only" and "alone." You are so blinded by your uninformed presuppositions...I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you try to twist my words like that. You do the same with the little tidbits about Lewis. Are you really so desperate to make a point that you stoop to willful blindness? You are telling me a lot about how seriously I should take your comments on this subject.
  4. I would say that you can be saved only by grace and faith in the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son, alone. Lewis would say the same thing, btw. People love to take quotations out of context to "prove" their biased presuppositions. If you truly took the time to read Lewis himself (instead of relying on others' skewed "research"), then you would realize that.
  5. I'm confused...Who has said you are unkind?
  6. Hi, salyan. I admit I was thinking of you when I posted the link to the articles, mainly because you seem to be somewhat of a kindred spirit in that you enjoy thinking about and evaluating literature. If you ever do get around reading the articles, I would love to get your take on them. No pressure, though. The articles aren't really just about C.S. Lewis, but about mythological concepts in general. Yes, The Last Battle does seem to have at least one theological problem. I won't try to explain it away, but I do think a person can gain a more rounded perspective on what Lewis thought about that particular issue by reading his more definitive works. Having read most, if not all, of those works, I can say that Lewis was definitely not a Universalist. His ideas about what happens to those who have not had a chance to hear the gospel during their earthly life are fairly complex. He did believe, though, according to his own writings, that it is only through redemption in Christ that a person can be saved from eternal damnation. How that all plays out is somewhat of a mystery even among fundamentalist and evangelical Christians...Some believe that those who have never heard the gospel will be given a second chance after the Rapture...and there are other views about how Christ's mercy deals with the ignorant as well as babies, mentally handicapped people, etc. Lewis had some interesting ideas on this subject, but you don't get a full picture of them from reading only The Last Battle. BTW, my all-time favorite chapters of The Chronicles of Narnia are the final chapters of The Last Battle..."The term is over; the holidays have begun," etc. Since four months ago when I was diagnosed with a potentially terminal disease, I have so much enjoyed reading Lewis's books The Great Divorce and The Problem of Pain. Very uplifting and encouraging...along with Til We Have Faces, and Reflections on the Psalms, and, and, and...:-) Of course, nothing in this world beats the Scriptures for comfort and nourishment and instruction. Regarding the whole "was C.S. Lewis a Christian" issue, there's really no substitute for reading what Lewis himself had to say...within the context of the whole work(s). Quotations can be taken out of context so easily to "prove" just about anything, as I believe at least one poster on this thread has rightly observed. It is impossible to take seriously the comments of anyone who hasn't really done the homework, but is merely parroting the opinion of someone else.
  7. Interesting that you should come to this conclusion, since Lewis's essay "God in the Dock" as well as his book 'Til We Have Faces advocates the complete opposite viewpoint of that of The Shack. (I have read all three works cover to cover...which of course takes more than two hours. ) Two hours isn't enough time to arrive at an informed opinion about an author like Lewis...It isn't enough time to read even one of his major works, let alone all of them. "Research" that involves merely "reading what other people have to say about Lewis" isn't true research at all. As John mentioned, to get an idea about what Lewis himself believed, you have to read what he said. Which of Lewis's definitive works have you read in its entirety, swathdiver? Your answer will let me know how seriously to take your opinions on this subject.
  8. Yes, I think that would be the best way for you to get an idea of where Lewis is coming from.
  9. I am reading through a series of interesting short articles which I just discovered on another discussion board. I am really enjoying the series and thought that perhaps some of my fellow literaure buffs who have batted around literary ideas with me in previous discussions on this board would be interested in reading it. The articles do a much better job than I ever could of articulating how I view the relationship and interaction of mythology and fairy stories with Christianity. Here is the link: http://sharperiron.org/tags/series-mythology
  10. Thanks, John. God is so good to us; each day I grow to understand more about how much He loves us.
  11. Thanks, LuAnne. I have heard of tumeric and will check it out.
  12. No, she watches literally no TV, and plays no video games. Her brain is thinking about violin auditions, her new violin student, her first soccer practice, etc. I have talked to her about the sin of worry, and she deals with it...but it's still a struggle for her. She's not a "worry wart" at all during the day; it's just when she lies in bed and thinks about how tired she will be in the morning if she doesn't get to sleep. She's not even "worried" about the other stuff; she's thinking through it, and that makes her not able to sleep.
  13. Joel, I just prayed for you. I have also been experiencing an ongoing major (life threatening) health problem for the last few months, with many months to follow, I'm sure; the end is nowhere near in sight. The medication I am on (chemotherapy) is pretty rough. I know how much of a comfort it is to have many family members and friends bringing me before the Throne. I am not a big fan of medication (as in habit-forming meds) for sleep problems...but I have used medication with my children at times to get them "over a hump," so to speak. For example, my 13 year old seems to struggle with getting to sleep at night; her brain won't "shut off, " and she lies there and worries that she won't be able to get to sleep. Sometimes she is awake until 2 or 3 in the morning. I've talked to her about strategies to "change her mind" and to calm herself (read/quote Scripture, pray, count as high as she can, other things to get her mind off of the endless cycle of thinking and worrying)...I've even slept with her in her (twin) bed a couple of times. Eventually, I decided to go ahead and allow her to take some Benadryl just before bed to help her to relax. I've also considered getting some Melatonin, which is a natural, herbal, non-habit forming sleep aid. I also (very occasionally and sparingly) use the pain meds my doctor has given me to help me fall asleep. I know how addictive those things can be, so that's why I don't use them unless I'm totally desperate.In my daughter's case, getting one or two full nights of sleep gets her back on track, and she doesn't need the Benadryl anymore. So, I wonder if taking NyQuil or some other kind of sleep aid would help to knock you back into your natural sleep cycle/rhythm...You could discontinue using the meds when you're back on track. I wonder if the nightmares (and daymares) have come as a result of lost sleep at night. (I know you mentioned a reaction to a B-complex medication, but as you said, you should be over that by now unless it did permanent damage.) Have you gotten any bloodwork done? I think that would be a great start to helping you down the road of recovery. Just my 2 cents...
  14. Annie

    Have You Seen This?

    I am interested in these statements, b/c (as I think you already know) I'm a BJ grad and am pretty familiar with the other ministries you mentioned as well. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know, none of these ministries ever were KJVO (maybe that's not what you were saying). And as far as I know, while BJU and Majesty may be incorporating more modern music (to a very slight degree, IMO--they'd NEVER do Southern gospel like Crown College and West Coast would), the Wilds is still on the "very conservative" end of the spectrum. But I'm willing to be corrected on that, and I'd like you to elaborate on what gives you that "general impression." We've always thought we'd send our kids to BJU...We live nearby, and we know we got an excellent liberal arts education there, which is what we want for our kids, too. But certain things (including some of the trends we've seen) are giving us pause. So, as I said, I would be interested in how you arrived at your opinion on this.
  15. That's really the funniest part to me...I am not KJVO (as y'all know), and these kinds of statements (that those who baptize infants are heretics) make KJVO's look ridiculous.
  16. This is what I see as the weak point (if not the fatal flaw) in the arguments that insist on drawing a strict parallel between circumcision and baptism. Yes, circumcision and baptism are "similar" in that they are outward signs of inward belief, but the similarities end there. If the modes of application are strictly parallel, then only male infants should be baptized, since only male infants were circumcized.
  17. I agree that it isn't heretical to baptize infants. The practice is well within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Heartstrings, do you honestly believe that the KJV was written by heretics?
  18. Thanks, John, Jerry, and others, for describing what kob must have meant by "baby dedication." In our church, the focus is not on the baby at all--that's why I said I had never been a part of a "baby dedication"--but rather on the parents...The parents are dedicating themselves...are making themselves accountable before the church and asking for prayer and support to help to raise the new child to follow the Lord. I see no similarities between this and infant baptism, in which the baby is assumed to be in sort of a "covenant relationship" b/c of his believing parents...but then, I've never been present at a baby baptism, either. I think that the biblical pattern is clear: "Repent and be baptized." Baptism follows conversion to Christ, and Christ's example of going out into the Jordan River certainly seems to indicate immersion (not to mention that the meaning of the Greek word for "baptism" means "immersion"). Baptism might be comparable to circumcision (in the case of men, anyway...what about women and female infants? have any of the Presbys and Anglicans ever thought about that?), in that it is an outward sign of one's inward belief. But it can't be strictly analogous, because women and female infants were not circumcised, but they are baptized. So, I think it's a stretch to build a doctrine/practice (infant baptism) on such a weak connection, especially when we consider that nowhere in the NT is infant baptism even mentioned one time.
  19. I haven't ever been a member of a church which "dedicates babies" (and I don't recall even witnessing a ceremony like that). I'm curious about this practice. Can you elaborate on it?
  20. P_Bear, I remember being in your situation 13 years ago and wondering the exact same thing. How I wanted to instill Scripture in my children from the earliest age! I used The Bible in Pictures for Little Eyes--the one with realistic "painting-type" illustrations instead of the more cartoony ones in the current editions of that book. (Maybe you could find a used one at www.addall.com or something.) I would just sit with my babies and talk about the pictures..."This is Adam. This is Eve"...etc., and as they developed cognitively, I'd add things to the stories until finally I was reading the actual stories to them. I also played Scripture for them at night: two lovely CD's that are now out of circulation called "Psalms in the Night" and--ooh, I can't remember the name of the other one right now, but it was comprised of Scriptures that focused on the death and resurrection of Christ. The CD's played soft, "night-time" music in the background, and a male voice and female voice alternated reading the Scriptures. The CD's were actually put together by a mom and grandpa who had the same desire for their kids as we do for ours. Another thing I did was to make up my own cassette tapes for them to listen to during their "alone playtime." On the tape, I recited nursery rhymes, sang songs, and even had the kids sing along with me (they love hearing their own voices). I also included (more than once) a full passage of Scripture, like Psalm 1 or Psalm 23. I was surprised how soon the kids memorized what was on the tape. Their minds are like sponges! God bless you as you rear your child for him!
  21. The official opinion of the owner of this board is that the KJV is the only reliable version in English. I disagree for a variety of reasons that I won't go into now. I believe that the ESV is also a reliable version of Scripture, and would recommend that you stick with that if it is the easiest for you to understand. I also like the New King James Version and the New American Standard Bible. But the NASB is not as readable, in my opinion. My husband has traveled to the Philippines a number of times. He loves it there. I will try to remember to ask him if he has any opinions about which Filipino Bible(s) are reliable.
  22. I think you're defining at least the first issue correctly, Oldtimer. As a Christian--as someone who recognizes that God created (and is therefore the only one who can define the parameters of) the institution of marriage/family--I should be doing my best to help others toward being blessed by falling in line with that reality. Reality--the "way things really are"--transcends politics, society's opinions, etc. So, if I'm an estate planner, there's no way I'm going to encourage a "lifelong commitment" between sexual perverts, or encourage the adoption of children by said perverts. (IMO, a "lifelong commitment" is worse than an uncommitted homosexual relationship, because it shows that the participants are dead set on continuing in their perverted way of life, with little hope of repentance.) As far as the second issue goes, I think society (unanchored upon truth as it is) is going to do whatever it wants, no matter what Christians say. Homosexual marriage and adoption are going to be commonplace by the time my grandkids are adults. My point is that my job as a Christian--as salt and light--is not to capitulate to the anti-biblical way of thinking and accept the radical redefinitions of marriage/family of a godless society.
  23. kob, would you say that this "arrangement" is indeed a "family?" If so, on what basis do you allow yourself to define "family" in this way...or I guess I could ask what justification you have for calling this a "family." Who gets to define "family?" That's what it comes down to. Those of us who believe that God created the "family" (male and female; man, wife, children, grandpa, grandma, extended, etc.) to glorify Himself through their proper and natural relationships--to reflect Christ and the Church--understand that we do not nor ever will have the prerogative to redefine "family," since we had nothing to do with its creation. If you decide to adopt a new definition of "family," you're overstepping your bounds; you are a rogue acting radically outside your rights. (I just proofread a PhD student's paper on this very subject (theology of family); there's no way anyone in the world can say that God's definition and descriptions of "family"--or His intentions for "family"--are at all ambiguous or flexible...especially when it comes to sexual perversion!) I'm not blowing off any extenuating circumstances...I understand things aren't always ideal (and I noticed you haven't addressed my previous post in that regard). However, redefining "family" to suit somebody's "emotional bonds" or "lifelong (perverted sexual) commitment" still isn't our prerogative. Children should not be raised by perverts; nor should they be instructed that such a way of life is "normal," as that only perpetuates more perversion, which eventually rips apart the fabric of any society. I'm afraid your tunnel vision is preventing you from seeing the big picture.
  24. I mean the art form. If the material is "serious" and weighty and important...and true (as opposed to flippant, fun, and fiction), shouldn't the form in which it is presented reflect that? Form does shape content; the viewer/reader's idea of the content is affected by the form in which it is presented. That's why it's demeaning to make a statue of Jesus out of, say, chocolate or Legos or an inflatable pool toy. It's why we wouldn't put the words of the great hymns (and other "true" songs) to a carpet cleaner jingle or the tune of a soft drink commercial. It's why "CCM" is out as a vehicle to worship our holy God and describe what He is like. It's why we don't use urban graffiti or tattoos to share the gospel. These presentation styles are vulgar and common. "Pop culture" with all of its bling and faddishness and sensationalism has nothing in common with the ideas of the Bible, so why use "pop art" to depict Bible stories or followers of Jesus? Those "lower," "cutesy" art forms are fine for content which matches their essence (with the exception of fleshly music): fun, frivolous, comical, droll, kitschy, etc....but they're not appropriate to convey messages which are truly beautiful and weighty with truth. The Hebrew word for "glory" (as in God's glory) is kavod. It's a derivitive of the word for "heavy." God's glory is "heavy," weighty...not something that is trifling, cute, sparkly, entertaining, sensational, faddish, or super-hero-ish. These qualities are the opposite of "heavy"; they're quite "light and frothy"--empty of real substance and value, and therefore quickly passing. Someone who is seeking to illustrate God's glory (His Word is part of that glory) shouldn't use art forms of this nature to do so.
  25. I'm not questioning the existence of people who don't follow God's plan for the family...who seek to redefine "family" to mean whatever they want it to mean. Nor am I questioning God's love for them (in the sense that He loves the world enough to die for them). How we as Christians relate to these people is indeed important...I agree with you there, too. I'm not sure what your role is in the situation...Can you really "tell the couple to split"? If so, on what grounds, from their perspective? I'd have to know more about how you fit into the situation to have an opinion on what you should do. I don't think (from a biblical/moral, psychological, emotional, practical, or any other standpoint) that it is healthy, natural, or desirable for children to grow up with two parents of the same sex. Both boys and girls need a dad and a mom. That's ideal, of course...I'm not naive enough to think that that is how every family can be...There is death, and divorce, and single motherhood--all results of either direct sin or the curse that is on the earth because of sin. However, I believe it is much better for a child to grow up with a single parent--feeling the void that he should naturally feel due to the absence of the parent of the other gender--than to grow up nurtured by someone of perverse sexual desires and habits. In the first scenario, at least he gets some sort of idea (albeit only because he experiences the incompleteness) of what a proper family is. In the latter, he gets a completely false idea of what a family is...made all the more insidious because of the fact that he "feels" loved and nurtured by "two parents." Is it better to be raised by wolves (to learn wolfish habits) in a nice, cozy den than it is to be raised by mountain goats (to learn their toughness and hardiness) in the less-than-ideal environment of rocky hillsides and exposed mesas? (Stupid analogy? Maybe. But hopefully it makes my point, especially when you consider the two kinds of animals as symbols.) Why wouldn't the legal issues encountered by two homosexual persons be the same as, say the legal issues encountered by two non-homosexuals who own anything together? I have two single friends who have lived together as housemates for years. Now, one of them is moving away due to a job change. They've bought a lot of things together...furniture, pets, etc. So, now who gets Fluffy and who gets Sammy? Who gets the couch and who gets the Keurig? They have to work it out just like anyone else would...and if any disputes arise, they can (hopefully) be settled by a mediator like a pastor, or in court if need be. Haven't these kinds of things been going on long before homosexuality became accepted in our society? Sure they have. We don't need "civil unions" between homosexuals any more than we need "civil unions" between siblings, parents and children, business partners, roommates, friends/acquaintances who invest/share things together or any other "partnership" which has the potential of running into a dispute rising out of a disagreement of "who owns what" when there is a parting of ways. Unfortunately, children have the potential to become victims whenever sexual sin is involved. It's one of the things people who are bent on satisfying their lusts often don't even stop to consider. In certain cases, they build very real and strong emotional bonds that they have no business building with children, and it's tragic how this selfish behavior hurts the kids in the long run. I've already addressed this, I think. It should be different for homosexuals because they are living in abomination to God. What they have is not a "family," but a gross aberration. It is not beneficial for any child to grow up with two mommies or two daddies. If anything, it only perpetuates the acceptance of sexual abnormality in society.

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

  • Create New...