Random Questions; Bible-based answers
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
kerygma/GRFS, you are not presenting it correctly from the " United States Conference of catholic Bishops".
They teach and believe in the Transubstantiation doctrine, which is:
Transubstantiation is a Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist become the body and blood of Jesus Christ during Mass: Literally
That is a false doctrine.
They teach and believe in the Transubstantiation doctrine, which is:
Transubstantiation is a Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist become the body and blood of Jesus Christ during Mass: Literally
That is a false doctrine.
Indeed. Although all Christians are saints who comprise the worldwide/catholic church/body of Christ, the Roman Catholic denomination has taught several problematic doctrines including transubstantiation, papalism and veneration of Mary. However, there are many reformed RCs in America who affirm the kerygma and Protestants as siblings in Christ.
I am going to say this, becoming "Protestant" and leaving the RCC doesn't save you. It is Coming to know the Lord Jesus Christ, receiving him as Lord and Savior, and placing your trust in the work of the Cross, death, burial, and resurrection. There will be many protestants in hell, such as the RCC. Foe only one reason. Pride and wanting to be right in one's religion over a relationship with Christ.
I have another RQ book report for you in the "for what it's worth" department. The book is "Lenin, Stalin and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe" by Robert Gellately, and my RQ is: Why were those guys so evil?
The author's answer? He doesn't have a clue.
Regarding Lenin RG states that his grandfather was Jewish, but there was no connection with Judaism in his life, the account of which begins with him becoming a Marxist in college.
Regarding Hitler RG says that he grew up in Linz and led an aimless existence in Vienna before moving to Munich where he lived an isolated existence before joining the military and developed right wing anti-Semitic views.
Regarding Stalin RG writes that he was born into a poor family in Georgia where he attended an Eastern Orthodox elementary school before entering a seminary but leaving before graduating to enter Marxist circles and become a Leninist revolutionary. There is little else known about his early career and private live except that he was deeply saddened by the death of his wife following the birth of their son.
While some readers probably find the detailed account of the careers of these dictators, I was disappointed that the author did not accomplish the second part of the goal stated in the epilogue: recording their evils and figuring out how it came about. Again, RG offered no evidence of awareness of the spiritual warfare underlying the political warfare and so I am tossing this book.
The author's answer? He doesn't have a clue.
Regarding Lenin RG states that his grandfather was Jewish, but there was no connection with Judaism in his life, the account of which begins with him becoming a Marxist in college.
Regarding Hitler RG says that he grew up in Linz and led an aimless existence in Vienna before moving to Munich where he lived an isolated existence before joining the military and developed right wing anti-Semitic views.
Regarding Stalin RG writes that he was born into a poor family in Georgia where he attended an Eastern Orthodox elementary school before entering a seminary but leaving before graduating to enter Marxist circles and become a Leninist revolutionary. There is little else known about his early career and private live except that he was deeply saddened by the death of his wife following the birth of their son.
While some readers probably find the detailed account of the careers of these dictators, I was disappointed that the author did not accomplish the second part of the goal stated in the epilogue: recording their evils and figuring out how it came about. Again, RG offered no evidence of awareness of the spiritual warfare underlying the political warfare and so I am tossing this book.
Now I am reading a book entitled "America, the Last Best Hope, Vol.2" by William J. Bennett that began rather mundanely with chapters describing the history and politics of the Great War, the period of boom and bust following WWI, and WWII. However, chapter 7 on the Cold War introduced a series of topics more specifically related to the book title that might generate some RQs worthy of discussion, which I will present to see whether you also find them interesting.
The first of these RQS is this: Was the cost of freedom purchased by the blood of American soldiers worth it? For example, on D-Day the U.S. suffered 6,000 deaths by the 57,500 troops who stormed the beaches. However, following V-E Day on May 8, 1945, the Allies failed to prevent Stalin's military from occupying eastern Europe, and in August it took two atomic bombs killing over 200,000 Japanese before V-J was achieved on 2 September. Yet this only marked the beginning of the Cold War, which included struggles with Communists in American society, notably in Hollywood., that has continued until today with the MAGA Republican Party barely winning the recent election over the Communist-infested Democrat Party.
Is the struggle worth it, or should we just give up being the "last best hope" and allow the Communists and Globalists to take over the world?
The first of these RQS is this: Was the cost of freedom purchased by the blood of American soldiers worth it? For example, on D-Day the U.S. suffered 6,000 deaths by the 57,500 troops who stormed the beaches. However, following V-E Day on May 8, 1945, the Allies failed to prevent Stalin's military from occupying eastern Europe, and in August it took two atomic bombs killing over 200,000 Japanese before V-J was achieved on 2 September. Yet this only marked the beginning of the Cold War, which included struggles with Communists in American society, notably in Hollywood., that has continued until today with the MAGA Republican Party barely winning the recent election over the Communist-infested Democrat Party.
Is the struggle worth it, or should we just give up being the "last best hope" and allow the Communists and Globalists to take over the world?
Time's up!
In a way I don't think it was worth it, because the question as asked (Was the cost of freedom purchased by the blood of American soldiers worth it?) has a false premise. The choice was not between wasting that many lives or losing to the communist-fascists, as I explain below.
World War II - The first mistake was causing too many of our soldiers to die in the Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944. Surely a wiser plan could have been made and carried out, possibly waiting until the atomic bomb was ready to be used. The second mistake was
allowing Japan to attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which could and should have been prevented by maintaining vigilance at all times, monitoring movement of Japanese aircraft carriers with our submarines and aircraft.
Korean War - The first mistake was withdrawing our troops from South Korea in 1948, which allowed the communist attack in June of 1950. We should have maintained sufficient troop levels, especially along the border, to deter an invasion. The second mistake was allowing the Chinese to invade Korea in November of 1949 almost to Pusan. We should have commanded General MacArthur to defend Korea by surging overwhelming support along the northern border (which he had reached by November of 1950) and then to bomb invading Chinese troops as soon as they crossed, if they dared to do so (which they did in November of 1951).
Vietnam War - The first mistake was supporting the French in 1945 when it tried to reassert its subjugation of Viet Nam. We should have supported the Viet Minh’s attempt to liberate the colony, thereby preventing or obviating the need of Ho Chi Minh to seek communist support. The second mistake occurred after Vietnam was divided by the Geneva Accords in 1954, allowing the South to reject elections and then the North to infiltrate until we joined the war in 1965. Instead of gradually escalating or increasing our military effort and secretly trying to prevent infiltration from Cambodia and Laos, we should have surged military support along the entire border in 1955, and bombed invaders immediately (cf. The Korean War). Then recall General MacArthur to lead the conquest of the North (preparing to bomb Chinese invaders if necessary–i.e., they did not learn from the Korean War).
War in Afghanistan (2001-21) - The first mistake was failing to prevent the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. We should have prevented the 9-11 attacks by means of FBI and CIA involvement and punished anyone who contributed to the tragedy because of their incompetence, beginning at the top. (President Bush had been briefed about a credible threat of aircraft hijacking by al-Qaeda.)
The second mistake was failing to win the war in Afghanistan quickly with minimal casualties and cost. After the Taliban were defeated in November of 2001, we should have continued surging military support especially along the borders to prevent the escape of Bin Laden and infiltration from Pakistan, locking down the country and holding secure elections by the end of 2003 (then implementing something like the Marshall Plan by 2004), not departing until Afghanistan was stable for two years, but leaving an adequate military presence at the Kabul Base to monitor the situation and deter terrorist attacks as well as to monitor China.
War in Iraq (2003-11) - Learning from the success of the victory in Afghanistan, the first mistake was failure to prevent the need for active war in Iraq. Bush should have fired the warmongers including Rumsfeld and Cheney and utilized sanctions (a la Trump) to prompt Saddam to allow inspections of suspected WMD locations. We should have punished his murderous behavior with appropriate consequences, such as no-fly zones or targeting him with precision guided missiles. The second mistake was failing to win the war quickly with minimal casualties and cost. It could have been won after the initial invasion by continuing to surge military support until the country’s border with Iran could not be infiltrated, weapons (or materiel for making IEDs) could not be stolen from armories, key infrastructure was protected and insurgency was prevented. Instead of disbanding the Iraqi army, we could have transformed it with the help of cooperative officers into a peace-making mission between Sunnis and Shiites. After the capture of Saddam in December of 2003, we should have continued surging support in order to prevent insurgent attacks (such as in Fallujah), insured secure elections (held in the fall of 2005), and implemented something like the Marshall Plan by 2006. We should have maintained the surge until the country was stable for two years (giving PTSD to enemy elements), then have withdrawn except for an adequate military presence to monitor the situation and deter terrorist attacks.
In a way I don't think it was worth it, because the question as asked (Was the cost of freedom purchased by the blood of American soldiers worth it?) has a false premise. The choice was not between wasting that many lives or losing to the communist-fascists, as I explain below.
World War II - The first mistake was causing too many of our soldiers to die in the Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944. Surely a wiser plan could have been made and carried out, possibly waiting until the atomic bomb was ready to be used. The second mistake was
allowing Japan to attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which could and should have been prevented by maintaining vigilance at all times, monitoring movement of Japanese aircraft carriers with our submarines and aircraft.
Korean War - The first mistake was withdrawing our troops from South Korea in 1948, which allowed the communist attack in June of 1950. We should have maintained sufficient troop levels, especially along the border, to deter an invasion. The second mistake was allowing the Chinese to invade Korea in November of 1949 almost to Pusan. We should have commanded General MacArthur to defend Korea by surging overwhelming support along the northern border (which he had reached by November of 1950) and then to bomb invading Chinese troops as soon as they crossed, if they dared to do so (which they did in November of 1951).
Vietnam War - The first mistake was supporting the French in 1945 when it tried to reassert its subjugation of Viet Nam. We should have supported the Viet Minh’s attempt to liberate the colony, thereby preventing or obviating the need of Ho Chi Minh to seek communist support. The second mistake occurred after Vietnam was divided by the Geneva Accords in 1954, allowing the South to reject elections and then the North to infiltrate until we joined the war in 1965. Instead of gradually escalating or increasing our military effort and secretly trying to prevent infiltration from Cambodia and Laos, we should have surged military support along the entire border in 1955, and bombed invaders immediately (cf. The Korean War). Then recall General MacArthur to lead the conquest of the North (preparing to bomb Chinese invaders if necessary–i.e., they did not learn from the Korean War).
War in Afghanistan (2001-21) - The first mistake was failing to prevent the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. We should have prevented the 9-11 attacks by means of FBI and CIA involvement and punished anyone who contributed to the tragedy because of their incompetence, beginning at the top. (President Bush had been briefed about a credible threat of aircraft hijacking by al-Qaeda.)
The second mistake was failing to win the war in Afghanistan quickly with minimal casualties and cost. After the Taliban were defeated in November of 2001, we should have continued surging military support especially along the borders to prevent the escape of Bin Laden and infiltration from Pakistan, locking down the country and holding secure elections by the end of 2003 (then implementing something like the Marshall Plan by 2004), not departing until Afghanistan was stable for two years, but leaving an adequate military presence at the Kabul Base to monitor the situation and deter terrorist attacks as well as to monitor China.
War in Iraq (2003-11) - Learning from the success of the victory in Afghanistan, the first mistake was failure to prevent the need for active war in Iraq. Bush should have fired the warmongers including Rumsfeld and Cheney and utilized sanctions (a la Trump) to prompt Saddam to allow inspections of suspected WMD locations. We should have punished his murderous behavior with appropriate consequences, such as no-fly zones or targeting him with precision guided missiles. The second mistake was failing to win the war quickly with minimal casualties and cost. It could have been won after the initial invasion by continuing to surge military support until the country’s border with Iran could not be infiltrated, weapons (or materiel for making IEDs) could not be stolen from armories, key infrastructure was protected and insurgency was prevented. Instead of disbanding the Iraqi army, we could have transformed it with the help of cooperative officers into a peace-making mission between Sunnis and Shiites. After the capture of Saddam in December of 2003, we should have continued surging support in order to prevent insurgent attacks (such as in Fallujah), insured secure elections (held in the fall of 2005), and implemented something like the Marshall Plan by 2006. We should have maintained the surge until the country was stable for two years (giving PTSD to enemy elements), then have withdrawn except for an adequate military presence to monitor the situation and deter terrorist attacks.
Okay, now I will get off the soapbox and ask the next RQ, prompted by a statement in "America" that a reason Dr. M.L. King emphasized the Christian and constitutional nature of his crusade for civil rights during the Eisenhower administration was because the movement was dogged by charges of Communist infiltration.
So, the question is this: Are civil rights more compatible with Christian or Communist teachings?
So, the question is this: Are civil rights more compatible with Christian or Communist teachings?
You have to look at the origin of both. Civil Rights of 1968 was fought and created by Republicans. Democrats fought against it.
if you look at the political chaos today, the Democrats attack those who disagree with them as fascists, attacking democracy. Dog whistle. to deflect fro what the real issue is. The Press have become cheer leaders for one party.
For your Question yes if you read the Book of Enoch you read that Fallen Angels have kid with human women who give birth to the Nephilim(Giant) and still live on Earth hide from the eye of the public and if you search in the Word Book of Number chapter 13 Israel when they visit Israel before to enter with Joshua they see the Anakim who its mean Son of Fallen Angels. Im a veteran and some of my brother in arms who was send in Afghanistan ear the rumor of the Kandahar Giant who L.A Marzulli investigate and talk to one of the Seal who was in the mission and the pilot of the Hercule bring the Giant dead back to area 51. Second the Aliens our interdimensionnal like the compagnie CERN make it come true portal they did. Third and last we got Hybride human and aliens dont forget in Genesis that Father put something between Eve proterity and Satan posterity that why since then they try to fuse God création with Satan DNA to make Hybride i got documentary on that. Dont forget in the Grand Canyon it have a temple of Giant that why some place you cannot go the police will stop you and give a real big ticket of thousand dollard.
When you start your life has a new born christians you got to put the Word of our Father in every situation in your life and when i say every situation i mean your life, work, kids, wife, teaching, friends, preaching the Word etc... Me that what i do its hard sometime but each situation i got trouble i say what Jesus will do and i see is love and the Scripture and i do it like he will do like it wright in the Word John chapter 14 verse 6
Regarding the fallen angels: Perhaps if we make contact with them we will know how they fit into God's plan of salvation.
Regarding searching Scripture: It is true that when you seek God the Holy Spirit reveals the truth about how to be saved and gain spiritual maturity.
Yes, insofar as we all apply Scripture to the various aspects of life, we taste heaven on earth.
Regarding searching Scripture: It is true that when you seek God the Holy Spirit reveals the truth about how to be saved and gain spiritual maturity.
Yes, insofar as we all apply Scripture to the various aspects of life, we taste heaven on earth.
My understanding of American history is that the Pubs DID support civil rights because many of them, including my parents, were Christians, whereas the Dems did NOT support civil rights because most of them were pseudo-Christians and closet-Marxists. However, the Kennedy machine defeated the Johnson machine in the Democrat primaries, and the charisma of JFK during televised debates won the 1960 election over Nixon, although he lost a Cold War battle with Khruschev at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba as the U.S. fell behind in the space race and the Berlin Wall was built. Then, the Civil Rights issue became a hot war with the murder of Medgar Evers and then JFK in 1963, following the MLK-led March on Washington.
And so we arrive at the next RQ: Was JFK assassinated by a lone gunman or because of a plot, and if the latter, was it Communist or CIA in origin?
And so we arrive at the next RQ: Was JFK assassinated by a lone gunman or because of a plot, and if the latter, was it Communist or CIA in origin?
I will skip over questions about the murders of MLK & RFK, because they are similar to the RQ regarding JFK, and I will also skip over the RQ I would have asked regarding the Vietnam War, because I have already ranted about the stupidity and immorality of U.S. politicians regarding all of America's long wars in the 20th century.
I guess the next RQ I would mention in this chronology is this: Why do you think the Supreme Court approved abortion in its ruling on 22 JAN 73--and do y'all approve of that decision?
I guess the next RQ I would mention in this chronology is this: Why do you think the Supreme Court approved abortion in its ruling on 22 JAN 73--and do y'all approve of that decision?
Time's up! Answer: Because the judges were ignorant of fetal development and the scientific determination of death.
If a person studies fetal development, at some point he/she will probably contemplate two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old premature but viable baby outside the womb. This should lead one to understand that geographical location is not a valid basis for defining personhood. There is no qualitative change that occurs at birth, merely a difference in the mode of breathing and feeding.
And so a person will be led to consider the crucial question: when does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment? People on both sides of the debate usually overlook this question when they discuss this issue, but considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults.
Those who adopt the conceptionist viewpoint are certainly right that a qualitative change occurs when the chromosomes in the egg and sperm are united, so that physical development of a new human being begins, but those who adopt the birthist opinion are wrong to assume that birth is the qualitative change that marks the beginning of personhood. Learning about fetal development should enable birthists to realize that the advent of personhood definitely does not extend beyond the seventh month or viability, when a premature baby is frequently able to survive. Thus, birthists should at least become “viabilitists”.
Are there any changes between conception and viability that might reasonably/logically be viewed as indicative of the beginning of personality? There is one possibility: the counterpart of the basis doctors use for determining when an adult person no longer is alive. This basis is brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalo-gram (EEG). We might call this stage “sentience”, referring to the level of brain activity which indicates when the fetus has brain life and is therefore a person, who should be granted the civil right to life. If our best definition of sentient death is the cessation of these brain waves, then it is logical and consistent to view sentient life as beginning at least when these brain waves are detectable. Thus, I think every open-minded and truth-seeking person on both sides of the abortion debate should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development. Birthists or viabilists and conceptionists should become “sentientists“.
This is only a partial solution, but it is better than the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed abortion throughout pregnancy. It recognizes that a gray area still exists from conception until sentience, so people may still reasonably disagree about the status of the fetus during this period, which may change as science improves. This view permits some forms of birth control. Implementing this solution requires educating every post-pubescent person about fetal development until society develops a new consensus that when a fetus becomes sentient, abortion is a type of murder and should be punished appropriately. Two wrongs do not make a right.
If a person studies fetal development, at some point he/she will probably contemplate two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old premature but viable baby outside the womb. This should lead one to understand that geographical location is not a valid basis for defining personhood. There is no qualitative change that occurs at birth, merely a difference in the mode of breathing and feeding.
And so a person will be led to consider the crucial question: when does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment? People on both sides of the debate usually overlook this question when they discuss this issue, but considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults.
Those who adopt the conceptionist viewpoint are certainly right that a qualitative change occurs when the chromosomes in the egg and sperm are united, so that physical development of a new human being begins, but those who adopt the birthist opinion are wrong to assume that birth is the qualitative change that marks the beginning of personhood. Learning about fetal development should enable birthists to realize that the advent of personhood definitely does not extend beyond the seventh month or viability, when a premature baby is frequently able to survive. Thus, birthists should at least become “viabilitists”.
Are there any changes between conception and viability that might reasonably/logically be viewed as indicative of the beginning of personality? There is one possibility: the counterpart of the basis doctors use for determining when an adult person no longer is alive. This basis is brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalo-gram (EEG). We might call this stage “sentience”, referring to the level of brain activity which indicates when the fetus has brain life and is therefore a person, who should be granted the civil right to life. If our best definition of sentient death is the cessation of these brain waves, then it is logical and consistent to view sentient life as beginning at least when these brain waves are detectable. Thus, I think every open-minded and truth-seeking person on both sides of the abortion debate should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development. Birthists or viabilists and conceptionists should become “sentientists“.
This is only a partial solution, but it is better than the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed abortion throughout pregnancy. It recognizes that a gray area still exists from conception until sentience, so people may still reasonably disagree about the status of the fetus during this period, which may change as science improves. This view permits some forms of birth control. Implementing this solution requires educating every post-pubescent person about fetal development until society develops a new consensus that when a fetus becomes sentient, abortion is a type of murder and should be punished appropriately. Two wrongs do not make a right.
