Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

mattd

Members
  • Posts

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mattd

  1. Maybe, if you twist it round and round and round and round and round and round and round. WAR EAGLE! TIGER PROWL! BIG CAT WEEKEND!
  2. In the scriptures at issue (those dealing with the wedding at Cana), God clearly says wine. The wine that Christ created from water is explicitly related to wine that had been previously served and which was clearly alcoholic (as a side note, there is no such thing as "nonalcoholic wine" -- that's called grape juice). I haven't searched the Bible from front to back, but a word search shows that the Bible never says fermentation is a corrupt process -- it's almost impossible to prove a negative anyway. I of course cannot prove it beyond a resonalbe doubt as what is or is not reasonable is subjective. However, a plain literal reading of scripture supports what I have stated. An interesting question is when did certain Christians first start believing that God really meant 'grape juice' when he said 'wine?'
  3. While the decision to use alcohol in moderation should not be a cause for division, adding to or contradicting scripture should be. We are to reprove and rebuke those that are spreading messages contrary to scripture. Things such as "fermentation is the same as corruption" and "when God said wine he really meant grape juice" is not Biblical. It's a distortion of biblical principles developed based on preconceived notions of right and wrong. Their inability to even address your comparison to food and gluttonay is further proof of their false religionist message. So, although we should not let positions on moderate use of alcohol to destroy our unity, we are obligated to stand against the manipulation of scripture. Pray that they might accept the Bible as God's holy and perfect word. What we are dealing with is a people hat refuse to accept the authoratative plain meaning of God's word.
  4. You are right. Man, or something else, has to add yeast (I don't know that I would call any part of the process decay any more than I would call 'aging' decay). Regardless, God created the process of fermentation. The psalmist tells us that God gave us wine to make our hearts happy. It's a gift. Should it be abused? No. Should one be a drunkard? No -- that is sin. But, wine obviously has some redeeming quality as Christ used it to perform his first public miracle and Paul prescribed it as a treatment for stomach ailments. We could go round and round with this and two facts will remain true: the liberal use of alcohol is contrary to scripture and the total abstination from alcohol is contrary to scripture. It would appear that, just as with food, alcohol, if to be used at all, is to be used in moderation. As far as the "appearance of evil argument goes," it only appears evil to those that think it is evil. God made it and everything God made is good. It is man and his abuse of God's creation that is evil. War Eagle! Hey!
  5. Assuming that is how alcohol is made, who do you think created the process of decay? You need to pray. Have you ever accepted Christ as your lord and saviour? You too can be saved. Pm me if you would like to know more about salvation.
  6. I'm no mocking. I want to participate in the administration of the site. How do I get the required qualifications so that I may bam. I want to ban. I am not charles sheen. War Eagle! Hey!
  7. God created alcohol. He created everything. And I want the power to ban. It is important that I receive the power, to protect them. I want to ban. What must I do to be ordained with the power? I want to ban. War Eagle! Hey!
  8. Happy Christian: I say look to the Luna eater than look above. It's a figure of speech. But if it troubles you, I will forego. And you comment that Jesus would not give people alcohol makes little sense. It's like saying "God wouldn't create something that ..." when we know he created everything. And I don't know who've you banned in the past and I don't appreciate being threatened. How do I get the power to ban. We could band together and do some serious banning! Give me the power. War Eagle! (the universal salutation for those that follow Auburn - so you're not bewildered). I want to ban.
  9. Goodness no. It's another way of saying to look to above -- to God. The Bible is clear. All this stuff about grape juice and low alcohol content and everything else that isn't in the Bible is phooey. Alcohol has many good properties when used in moderation and it is indisputable that wine was a central part of daily life in both Biblical times and modern times. What does the Bible say about those who prescribe rules about what, and what not to eat and drink? Modern day pharisees seeking a holier than though position of self righteousness that cast guilt and shame over others. Lying about God's precious word -- be accursed.
  10. I'm afraid he did, despite your disapproval (he is, after all, GOD). My source: the Bible, KJV 1611. You'll have to answer for these things you are saying. I urge you to the luna.
  11. On what do you base this assertion? If wine isn't wine, then why host notice its quality at the wedding (why would he be impressed by good grape juice compared to bad wine? He even mentions the trend, which still exists today, of serving the good booze first, the switching to the bad after everyone has become intoxicated) and why did Paul urge that it only be consumed to treat stomach ailments (why would he care how much grape juice people drank)? I agree 100% that drunkeness is not only unwise, but a sin. But to say that all wine/alcohol is sinfull in and of itself does not match up with the teachigs of scripture nor the actions of Christ. All other arguments are vain and will require an answer. Again, I urge you: look to the luna!
  12. I was taught this growing up but have since learned it is not true. Wine is wine and juice is juice. Juice never got anyone drunk. Wine is also beneficial to ones health, in moderation, as it contains many antioxidents other other healthy compounds. This is becoming one of my biggest beefs with the IFB. Why can't we just accept the Bible for what it says. Why do we have to twist and bend it to make it say what we want it to say. Jews and Christians have interpretted wine as "wine" through the ages. This whole idea of about "grape juice" is relative new and was basically unheard of prior to the great awakening in the U.S.
  13. Psalm 104 14He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; 15And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart. I think the prevading teachings of scripture are that alcohol in and of itself is ok and is in fact a gift from God that benefits man when used properly. Jesus turned water into wine. Not grape juice or "unalcoholic wine" (which is grape juice -- right?). The passage is very clear that the party was drinking and that the wine Jesus made was of a better quality than that which they had been drinking -- not a different beverage altogether from that which they had been drinking. It is vain to suggests otherwise. Look to the luna.
  14. Once can chose not to surrender even though they don't have a viable weapon. Our soldiers in arms did what they had to do in their situation. THANK GOD FOR ALL OUR TROOPS! And to think that our Commander in Chief was having to navigate this MAJOR portion of our war against islamic terrorism while the nation entertained a reality t.v. star questioning his nationality! I'm not a BO fan but, bravo Mr. President. Bravo. I can only imagine how difficult it is to protect each and every U..S. citizen while at the same time placating to a horde of children whoare in need of a strong lashing. Now, let's move on down the line until we have all these monsters detained or in the grave, the choice is their's.
  15. I believe that movies, like forms of artistic expression, should be alloted a fair amount of leeway. If the fast beat, up tempo, music (rock) is being played in a movie for the purpose of conveying suspense or action, then I think It's fine. It's part of the director's artistic freedom in conveying emotions and scenarios. If its gratuitous and being played to convey the actual message delievered by the illicit lyrics, then it's wrong. It all has to do with context.
  16. :smilie_loco:4 I didn't take the article as her saying that her "Christian life" kept her from having a childhood but, rather, her specific upbringing did. I mean, come on, not being allowed to say "deviled egg?" Who wouldn't be affected in some manner by such a ridiculous rule. If you read into Mrs. Perry's life, you see a ton of bad decisions, sin and . . . a profession of faith. She's one of those . . . what do you call them? Oh yeah, CHRISTIANS! And, true to her kind, she's not perfect. I wish that all these people on little message boards had their personal lives spread across the world, so then we could narrow down who the "real" Christians are. As if David "sip tug" Cloud weren't busy enough! LOL!
  17. I watched the video and, though I think it is a representation of only one IFB church (and obviously only one, I might add), I also think they gave the pastor in question plenty of opportunity to explain the situation. He chose not to do so. I also note that the one pastor who cooperated with the interview did an excellent job of explaining that one IFB church does not represent any other IFB church. He also took the proper approach to the whole situation, in my opinion. Kudos to him. Where did we get the idea that this girl suduced this man? How many of us know a 10, 11, 12 year old girl that is just that -- a little girl. They still hug adults, they are open and loving and very naive. When is the age that this disappears? I'm sure everyone would agree that it is a different age for different girls. There's no reason to believe that a 16 year old can't still be innocent -- especially if she has lived in a "sheltered" lifestyle. It's also reasonable to believe that this girl would be inhibited by a man who holds a position of power (yes, an usher is a position which sets one apart from the rest of the congregation) and would not neccesarily scream when he approaches her. No one else has said it but I am going to. This sounds like rape. It doesn't mean the church had anything to do with it, or that the pastor should bear any blame (though I think the public shaming is disgusting). But it reaks of rape and the guilty man should face the appropriate consequences. She could have been a lewd seductress, but it appears that she was a little girl. Shame on him.
  18. I was raised on dispensationlism. In my own study, I've come to the conclusion that it is a doctrine of man, though well intended, which seems to add to the basics of scripture. I guess if you wanted to lable what I believe about the progression of time and how it aligns with scripture, then I believe in what is commonly called covenant theology -- though I believe the conventional pattern of this approah has it's own questions to be answered. All I know is that there was a time before Christ and a time after Christ. An old covenant, and a new covenant, which is evident in the blood. Over time, I've come to the conclusion that most dispensationalist are adding to scripture that which is simply not there.
  19. One great thing about America is our capability to persevere. Regardless of fuel prices, I have faith that we'll pull through. Times might get a little tougher, but nothing has been able to stop us in the past. I doubt a few extra dollars per gallons will be able to do it. It's just money.
  20. Good points Annie. I believe (and I'm sure that coc will correct me if I'm wrong) that the Church of Christ don't see baptism as a "work" of man. Rather, they see being baptized by a pastor the same as being led to the Lord by a pastor. The pastor plays his role, but it is acutally God that does the saving and the baptizing. I can agree with them in that regard, however I don't agree that baptism is necessary for salvation.
  21. Who says it has to? It certainly doesn't forbid them.
  22. I'm by no means an expert, but I think it is only a small handful of Episcopals that have women or homosexual priests/bishops. The ones I know are sound, aside from the infant baptisim or course.
  23. Not changing the subject, just having a little fun with the absurdity of your logic. I know why you don't have insturments: because they aren't mentoned in the NT. Which, neither are pews, podiums, baptistries, hymnals . . . or even Bibles. .
  24. They didn't use toliets either but I bet I can find one of those in your church!
  25. Wow! Is this the same Bart Ehrman that used to be the leading scholar of evangelical theology? He must have fallen off his rocker!
×
×
  • Create New...