pianofrieak2

Actually, whoever gave you that information is incorrect. Here are some Scriptures taken from the Koran. I'm not trying to flame muslims by any means. But I am pointing out that those who say Islam is a peaceful religion are wrong. Back on topic to North Korea, the UN delayed the vote. Again.

Let me explain it this way. If you had a kid, would you let them skateboard? Probbably. But if you did, then he would get hurt. Unless, of course, you put so many pads on him that he couldn't ever enjoy the sport. So you're left with two choices. Either, he has no fun or he has no pain. God chose to let us have fun and excitement but with those comes pain and suffering. He, in his omniscience, found that this would bring the greatest pleasure to us which results in the greatest pleasure to Him.

the things that you suggest here could be seen as "selfish" in a sense requests. a girl coming back from the dead serves only the purpose of the people who miss her and want to see her again, when she very well may be much better where she is, or had already done a good amount in life. a guy lost his leg in a war, he went to war, he knew the risks and he suffered. you can't just go around losing limbs and praying for them back, it doesn't work that way. prayer is realistic too, you pray for needs, not wants. a girl was born with 8 fingers, but that doesn't mean she can't live through life can she? she is able to function in society, fingers aren't the most important thing in the world. is it possible for these things to happen though? yes, but i doubt anyone has enough faith. faith is beyond thinking, it is knowing. i believe prayers are answered when you know they will be answered, this is easy to do when praying for a sick person to become well, or a loved one to return home safely. however, to be in that same frame of mind of "knowing" something will happen when asking for miraculous things to happen would be near impossible. i know more of the Christian than the Judaistic belief on prayers, so in due time i may be able to respond to this more fully and accurately. I don't mean to be argumentative or rude, but we do need some clarification. For one thing, what's wrong with wanting the best? 8 fingers isn't the best...but God tells His children to ask Him. Jesus said that we "have not because we ask not." Doesn't that mean we should petition the throne of God with our prayer requests? Then, at least, the ball's in God's court. Now He, in His immeasurable sovereignty, can decide whether or not to grant His children's requests. After all, Jesus healed all who came to Him asking Him to heal their needs. Arguing that God won't heal someone with only one leg or 8 fingers saying "they can live, can't they?" just seems very harsh to me. And God is a good God, like a good parent. They won't spoil their kids, they will correct their kids, but they are good parents who bless their kids.

Oh, come on now. Bush has been trying to deal with the whole North Korea thing ever since he invaded Iraq, calling it one of the three most dangerous nations in the world. If you actually think that working with China or the UN will do anything, think again. China hates the United States. Always have. They merely tolerate America because so much of our economies are dependent upon each other. If either of us goes to war, our economies go back to the ration state of World War II. (As an American, I say that we are way too materialistic...I wouldn't mind seeing some of that break away). Dealing with the UN has been total crap because Russia and China are against sanctions. Ironically sanctions are the only thing the UN can do besides slapping North Korea on the wrist. But then again, the entire UN thing is such a total waste of money and time, the world would do better just to move the entire building onto some God-forsaken island. I would say start over, but then we get one global bureaucracy which is even worse than what we have right now in the world. George Bush has a lot of things on his hands. North Korea v. South Korea, China v. Taiwan and the US, the Middle East with Israel completely obliterating any Palestinian efforts to stop them, and Russia waiting to see what it will do. The big thing about North Korea is that their missiles might have the capability to cross the ocean and hit the Californian coast. I know, I said might, but then again, the military keeps top-secret stuff from the press. If it can that is. Star Wars? Think again. It has a success rate of 60%, hardly what I would call dependable. Blowing it up over the ocean? Well, trying to hit a moving missle is pretty hard, but what about the nuclear effects blowing over? The best thing we can hope for is giant tomatoes in 40 years, like Japan has right now. Right now, the United States has a large military force in that area defending Taiwan and South Korea. It has kept China and North Korea at bay so far, but time will only tell how much longer they will keep building up their forces without attacking.

Wow, I LOVE these kinds of topics!! As for the time question, I would have to say that time exists but our ways of determining it and measuring it are relative. We have tons of exceptions as other smarter-than-I people have shown. However, when one is talking about light, let me clear this up. Light, you see, is the fastest object in our universe. Why? Well, as someone showed 2 posts above, it is impossible to reach unless you are a mass-less particle. Yes, light has no mass. In fact, all objects without mass travel at the speed of light. And all objects with mass can NEVER travel the speed of light. So how do you find a mass-less particle? For instance, I tried researching the neutrino which carries away the momentum of matter and anti-matter. But neutrinos are merely speculative, if I remember correctly. So is the only reason they say a "neutrino" exists because it "has to" for our theories on the conservation of momentum to be correct?

Incredible book, but I think I might choose When Heaven Weeps over it. :P The Circle Trilogy is also awesome, what with the tons of symbolism and all. I love Ballad of the White Horse by G.K. Chesterton and Divine Comedy by Dante. There's also several Star Wars novels that I love. I don't know that I really have one favorite book - there's so many that I could read over and over. Oh, man, When Heaven Weeps is SUCH a good book! I loved it! But I still think Heaven's Wager is better. :P

Global warming exists, but no one can say for sure that what we are experiencing is because of OUR doing or a natural warming. The Earth continually goes through warm and cold stages, and we are in a warmer state right now. Ozone can build up, yes. Does it? Yes. And, yet, over the past two centuries, we've only experienced a net increase of about 1 degree. So at this rate, we'll all be dead in about 600 years. And no one cares about what happens in the next 600 years since we won't be alive at that time anyway.

Hmm...I have quite a few too. I really enjoyed "Safely Home" by Randy Alcorn. It's about a man and his family in communist China. He was captured for being a Christian and eventually becomes a martyr. The picture of heaven as well as the actions on Earth on behalf of his family and his friend who tries to get him released is really inspiring and eye-opening. I also enjoyed Heaven's Wager by Ted Dekker. *Go Astra!!* Anyway, the book is probably Dekker's best (in my opinion) and is very well-written. I definately recommend it, for Ted Dekker has so many twists and insights into the power of prayer and intercession. 1984 too? I like politics and seeing how things are turning out just like in Revelation. I'm pretty civil libertarian after reading those types of books.

Well, you've gotta be careful on those kinds of things. If you're looking for healings, then you don't really need prayer. I mean, pray all you want, but the Bible never says that prayer is the ONLY way for someone to be healed. Of course, you can also start reading Copeland and other "faith healers" who are more into scientology and Hegel than they are rooted in the Bible. At least to me. I would have to agree with Astra in saying that so few Christians are dead. Dead spiritually, that is. They don't talk to God, they certainly don't hear Him speaking, and just have Him there to help them do well on tests or, as a courtesy, to help them get back safely. I enjoyed your question, but, alas, I do not have any books on prayer either. I'll have to get back to you on that. Let me offer a few comments on the subject, though. 1. Healing requires faith. How much faith? Well, Jesus said the faith of a mustard seed which is one of the smallest seeds on the planet. Obviously not much, which is why I don't buy into these "need more faith" people. 2. The Bible says that if one is sick, they should approach the elders, be annointed with oil, and they shall be healed. Now there are a few rules in that case, like it being within God's will and having the correct heart. God's certainly not this legalistic, put in the right numbers and *pop* comes the thing you're looking for. He's not like an ATM machine, for sure. But I do know one thing: I've seen healings right in front of my eyes. Do they happen? Definately.

I don't think my Muslim friends would find the above statement that funny. Look, everyone knows you're talking about Islam. There is absolutely no need to associate the acts of a few fanatics with an entire religion. Just because there have been Christian terrorists (ie Timothy McVeigh) doesn't mean people assume that Christianity is a violent religion. They rightly examine the entire religion and its teachings in context. I think it's foolish and ignorant to stereotype Muslims as being inherently violent and expansionist. As someone who has been to the Middle East, I can say that the vast majority of Muslims suffer from the acts committed by a few delusional people. Also, I question your historical scholarship. Islam spread quickly from its source on the Arabian peninsula primarly because of the incredible commercial links between Africa and Asia Minor. Military conquest had much less to do with the expansion of Islam than many people think. It was the merchants of the Middle East who did the grunt work. I didn't say that to spite Islam. Actually, I have muslim, hindu, Jews, agnostics, and atheistic friends. And, for the recrd, Islam isn't the only fighting religion. Why do you think India and Pakistan are always fighting? One's Islam, the other's Hindu and they HATE each other. Too bad they both have nukes... As for the Islamic terrorists, they're merely obeying the Koran. Have you read it? I'll find the right surah for you in one of my books but I'll have to find it first. For Islam spreading quickly, you are correct in saying its location and merchants was important. But Islam didn't REALLY spread quickly until Mohammed had captured Mecca and Medina, by forcing everyone there to be a muslim or die. That's a pleasant beginning. Since when did I say Christianity conquered areas outside of Europe? I will agree with you in saying that the crusades were a complete failture. But it was because Richard the LionHeart went out to fight and no one else joined him. They all betrayed him at the end to enlarge their territories, leaving him undermanned and way underpowered. Religiously, and for you, that may be the case. But it was colonialism that spread Christianity more quickly than anything before or since. In the 21st century, demographic trends indicate that Christianity is on the decline, and may continue to decline, despite its strong presence in many areas of the world. Colonialism may have spread Catholicism, but I would separate Catholicism and its rituals from Jesus' teachings. Colonialism spread the power of the individual nations in the name of God. But not really. And then, when it did spread, it was through rituals and acts that were necessary for salvation, not at all what Jesus Himself taught.

Ah, I stand corrected. That being said though the followers of Jesus do have this in their bible. Seems an oddly barbaric thing to leave in. Not really. I've seen weirder things, like angels coming down and making children with human women. They made a super-race, but it was wiped out in the flood. Or the fact that God told the Israelites to completely wipe out other nations, killing everything from the city and later burning it. Perhaps that is the root of christian expansionism? Lol, no that's another religion but I'm not going to name it. Actually, if that were the case, then all nations would be "Christian"...or at the very least "Judaism." Instead, look at the size of Israel. My point exactly. Actually, the cause for the growth of Christianity is a changed heart. As well as true joy, a peace that surpasses all understanding, and an overflowing love for others. (see the Early Church)

Ah, I stand corrected. That being said though the followers of Jesus do have this in their bible. Seems an oddly barbaric thing to leave in. Not really. I've seen weirder things, like angels coming down and making children with human women. They made a super-race, but it was wiped out in the flood. Or the fact that God told the Israelites to completely wipe out other nations, killing everything from the city and later burning it.

Actually, havesome, they were Israelites. Not followers of Jesus since Jesus didn't exist at that time.

I don't see how my remarks constitute some particular flame of Christian comments--I simply pointed out to you the fact that you have made dubious claims at best, and unlike insane, haven't substantiated anything you've actually said or responded adeptly to criticism of your points. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. OK, we're having a miscommunication here. Godzira quoted some people and I responded with my own commentary on their quotes. Nothing wrong there that I see. Insane just merely pointed out how Godzira's quotes and my comments were both equally worthless, the entire reason why I posted what I said. Then you come in here and say "So you made completely unsubstantiated claims that have been repeatedly smacked down to paradoxically prove your point? Or is it because you've been beaten up badly in your previous post and now need a statement to save face?" That's called flaming because you slam me as a person in an unecessary way. And what, exactly, points did you make? Also, since when did I claim to make any point besides the fact that my comments on Godzira's quotes were completely worthless. Your entire comment to me says it's "unsubstantiated" and "not responsive to criticism." I purposely didn't. :roll: Since we're on the verge of flaming each other, I'm going to quit having this conversation with you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for Godzira, I would ask, as someone pointed out, why you choose the anti-religious side. Christians burn books which I don't agree with. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "burn all books contrary to what you believe." If I were in the situation, I would have said, "Don't buy the book." Still, your side has interesting comments too. Nero would burn Christians at the stake, have them get mauled by wild animals, get slaughtered by gladiators, and have them burned as torches for his palace. As I believe you pointed out, young Spartan men were forced to commit homosexual acts. In almost all pagan temples, prostitutes abounded. I just fail to see why atheism has such a better track record than Christianity.

I'm sorry, but how does your view make you Christian? That goes against everything the Bible says. :-k

No. So you made completely unsubstantiated claims that have been repeatedly smacked down to paradoxically prove your point? Or is it because you've been beaten up badly in your previous post and now need a statement to save face? Wow, man, I don't know what your problem is, but you need to calm down and take a breather. Just because we disagree doesn't give you the option to come in and start flaming every Christian comment. Grow up. Godzira: Why wouldn't we need missionaries? I'm confused. Also, since when do Christians burn books? I've only heard of a practice similar to that in communist China which is staunchly atheistic. But I'd love to look at your source.

Anyone can find any quote to back up their claim. Just saying "this famous person said this", doesn't make it true. Your post of quotes is just as empty as his refutation. Unless the person in the quote itself proves their opinion, it's completely worthless. As for quotes from "the other side"; not only are they irrelevant (a bad Christian can say things completely opposite to the heart of Christianity), but I could find quotes just like that from atheists. Thank you, insane. That was precisely my point. He quoted famous people, and I gave my perspective on those quotes. Did I support my viewpoints? Perhaps with Scripture but that's useless here. I did that on purpose to show how empty his entire post was.

Philippians 1:10 says we are to study the Bible so we can use our mind to discern that which is good and that which is evil. Hmm... Since when does the priest have to be the ONLY teller of the Scriptures? Spoken like a true, staunch, liberal feminist. Go reread insane's post. I agree completely. Of course, I could also point out to our SCIENTIFIC textbooks and history books that indoctrinate our young kids into the politically correct generation where we abandon the truth to make others "feel good" about themselves. Politically correct, forced tolerance, and relativism are all carrying the civilized nations down to a path of literal government control and quickly approaches the fastest route to the complete loss of freedoms. Isn't believing that the entire known universe (as well as an infinite amount theorized) coming from nothing an extraordinary claim? Oh, wait. Of course not. Why don't you quote me Scripture saying that? Since that's apparently what you're claiming. Satan goes by many names. Here are some of his newer ones: the love of money, unabaited pursuit of sexual pleasure, divorce, selfishness, greed, envy, and desire to get whatever will fill the void that can only be filled by the one true God. Courage: Clear thinking: Honesty: Fairness: Love of the truth:

Insane's point stillstands. Whether or not our universe was/is the first big-bang is irrelevant mainly because it still requires a "big bang" to occur resulting in the need for a universe of "inanimate protons, neutrons, and electrons" or an uncaused being called "God." Even if you delve into the whole numerous universes and super-string theory, you have to have a cause. Besides, the entire super-string theory is based on the notion that the entire world we see is a result of matter and anti-matter being unbalanced...of which case there has never before been seen. They're ALWAYS balanced which just seems to me to be a little strange. :-k

Based on the past 8 pages, I know I'm going to sound like a total idiot, but I'll say it anyway. Games with low scores tend to be characterized as the most boring. Let's see: European football (soccer), baseball, and hockey. They're all dangerous and all that in their own way, so I'm not saying the players are "less manly" than others, but that's just the way I view it.

95-92. The Mavericks lost. Dang...and I was really hoping they'd pull it off. Oh, well. They played pretty terrible though. It's true, the refs were totally against them in the first half but by the end of the 3rd, they actually got normal. Imagine that. Normal refs when Dallas plays. Too bad it was for 1 quarter. In my opinion, the Heat deserved to win. Mavericks sucked. Totally. I'm just really discouraged because they had the best SEASON. And about the whole Kobe thing: I'll grant that he's one of the best, but Wade and LeBron and up there too. It's just that Kobe's a veteran player while Wade and LeBron are just now entering upon the scene.

I'm sorry, Ghost, you're right. You never made the claim that marriage is so terrible that it shouldn't be saved: that was insane. Now for your viewpoint: 1. Marriage is a sacred covenant between the two people in the eyes of God and recognized by the state for legal purposes. 2. Because marriage is sacred, it should be preserved and not thrown out the window because some people have made it look bad.

Just because they don't believe it's sacred doesn't mean it isn't. It's like saying "I don't believe in gravity so it doesn't exist." Non-Christians should get married! The Bible condemns promiscuity and there's nothing wrong with getting married. I'm still confused why you're thinking non-Christians can't get married. They can still enter into the covenant between God and each other...they just may refuse to believe in God but the covenant still exists. I understand that about people getting married all over the world. But it's something that God put into the heart of everyone who is human. The desire to be love and be loved. Obviously the greatest representation in this physical world is marriage. It's why so many get married and why marriage has been around since the creation of the world. The government legally binding two people of the same sex isn't a marriage because a marriage means so much more. It's a covenant between the two in front of each other and God. The government recognizes it for legal reasons, but it means much more. That's all I'm saying. Marriage is much more than a legal document. And because it is, God has set guidelines for it. Marriage itself is not the sacred convenant God created for us. Secular marriages cannot be religious... can they? When we're talking about gay marriage, we're talking about the secular, legal version of a marriage. There is nothing Godly about it if the church doesn't acknowledge it. I think it's kind of silly to say two non-Christians who get married through the government are making the same sacred pact that two Christians who are married through the Lord are making. No, silly isn't the right word. It's disrespectful to God and Christianity to make that claim. Sorry to not respond for a long time. My first question is this: why does people's acknowledgement or belief change the fact that marriage is a sacred covenant? Second question is: Why is it so disrespectful to God and Christianity to make that claim? Third question: If you say that marriage is so terrible and ruined that people can do whatever they want with it (marry animals, etc.) then what would you say about Christianity? Christianity is dead in many respects. Few believe it unless it's "cool" and more still believe that Christianity means you should be a good person (NOT correct). Basically my point is that your argument of "it's so terrible anyway, why even try to save it" is entirely wrong. Something sacred, even if it has been abused, should still try to be saved.

logic, can you give me an example of your view? One civilization doing something totally unacceptable to another civilization to show your point? And Ghost: I was thinking about eastern thinking in the Bible and here's what I've come up with: Yes, there is much of it. Numbers mean something, there are many symbols and double-meanings...even through prophecy and such. So I can definately see your point there. But it's not entirely eastern. Israel, and the whole Middle East world for that matter, is situated between the east and the west. Thus, a lot of their beliefs are a mix: western with a little bit of eastern in there, such as the whole numbers and symbols thing. But even if you believe in the eastern way, why would the Bible use the same word to mean something totally contrary to other uses of that word, especially if the Bible never even insinuates that happening?

Ghost, the only sermon I see is the one from Memorial Day. Could you show me how to listen to the others? By the way, I'm impressed with this church so far. It's much like mine. Oh, and just one last thing: How do you solve the "yom" argument? You can blame misinterpretation on East-West dichotomy of thinking, but your view of "yom's meaning" changes even though the exact same word is used? I'm sorry. I really hope I'm not being too harsh. I'm not trying to totally bash what you've placed some of your theology upon, but that foundation seems to be completely unfounded now. I'm still eager to hear what the church you listed has to say on the topic. And insane, about the whole use of Jesus' parables: Why would Jesus say a child is the epitome of a "saved" person if Jesus' teachings were so hard that even adults couldn't even understand it? Why would Jesus want to be so confusing? God doesn't NEED a reason for doing anything, but He DOES because He's a practical God. I'm still confused as to why you think Jesus kept the truth hidden. Does He WANT them to go to hell? No. I'm just a little confused as to how you came to that conclusion. It seems as if I'm confused on two things now. :P