messenger

The bible says that we all have sinned in Adam. My understanding is that we inherit the seperation from God through our relationship to Adam by birth. I see that our will being commited to selfish ends manifests the acts of sin and we are therefore guilty. In the Word we are told that all have sinned and that all are withoput excuse. However if our acts of sin stem from doing merely that which is our nature by birth how then are we culpable for doing that which we have a propensity to do without our choice in being born with such a propensity? If the word says we are without excuse? Does it not appear the best of excuses being born with a sinful nature?

I have examined this doctrine which ultimately justifies universalism but think it was the influence of Aristotlean philosophy that created this wrong way of seeing the doctrine of moral depravity. Charles Finney's Systematic Theology was helpful to me but I am curious as to how other Christians resolve this dilemma....comments?

Dosen't it make more sense to believe that He was talking to those present? The "Great Tribulation" happened in 70AD with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem and the Jews were dispersed to send the gospel to the rest of the world. The coming in the clouds was the old testament language used for judgement upon the disobedience of the nations so like wise the sign of the son of man coming in judgement was Jesus' vindication upon the Jewish nation for rejecting Him. The "Rapture" then would be simultaneous with the resurrection at the end of time and not associated with the Olivet Discourse. Daniel is told to seal up the words of this prophecy because it was for a later time...600 years later they were fulfilled. John is told not to seal up the words of revelation for the time was at hand. Its been 2000 years. Something wrong with the dispensationalist interpretation here or not? If John wrote revelation in the 90's wouldn't he have mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD

There is another view of endtime prophecy that says the events foretold by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse were relative to those present. That when He said that generation, He really meant THAT generation. There are many anti-christs in history, Nero, Antiochus Epiphanes, Hitler, Stalin etc. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD followed by the Great Tribulation and slaughter of the jews,was the judgement of God upon the nation of Israel stated as Christs coming in the clouds in judgement for the rejection of their messiah. This is called the preterist view of biblical interpretation and was the prevailing truth before Darby introduced dispensationalism to the evangelical world. For 1900 years this stood as the beliefs of the church and the idea of a pretrib rapture was foreign to their way of thinking. Since the "trib" had already tribed (ha ha). This sort of relegates the idea of "Soon coming" to actually mean soon coming eh? Any ideas?

does anyone know how this is done? Or maybe some lift kit other than an airlift system that would do the job?

As opposed to the futurists view where most of the events in Matthew 24 are future events the preterists view which was the dominate belief prior to the teachings of the Scottish Theologian, Darby. Been doing a study on the preterists view and I could maybe go for a partial preterism, i,e, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the resulting tribulation thereafter seems to fall in line with todays anticipation of a "Great Tribulation" of which the Zionist world view holds that all Christians will be raptured out of. One of the most suspect ideas seems to be that the endtimes has two "chosen" peoples...the Church and Israel. I can't escape the conclusion that this makes God a racist...which I know can't be true. Anyone else know more about the Preterist view of eschatology it would be appreciated if you shared your thoughts. God Bless all.

There are some who believe in the literal meaning in Genesis that God created it all in six days. Thats ok. Its not something worth dividing over but perhaps worthy of vigorous debate. Astrophysicists and cosmologists have come to believe that the universe had a beginning and things are lining up more and more every day with the claims of the theists. Darwnian naturalists that are not of academia or students of academia are growing fewer in number as the discoveries of the universe give reasons why a steady state universe neccessary for evolution is virtually impossible.

What this does is destroy the premise of evolutionary theory due to the fact that the mathematical probability neccessary for naturalistic origins vanishes with the accepted age of the universe. Scientist place the age between 7.8 billion to 15 billion years. Evolution requires at least a trillion x a trillion 43 times. Thats before consciousness. What mechanism causes consciousness then in naturalistic theory?

Einsteins General Theory on Relativity posited the equation which led to the refutation of the steady state condition neccessary for evolutionary theory. The release of energy beyond Planck time sent matter outward from the point of singularity which created a ripple in space. The dark matter measurements by the COBE satellite which took readings of the level of universal entropy shown the discovery of the cosmic microwave background first observed by accident by Bell/AT&T lab techs in 1964. This is not unlike the ripples on the surface of a pond when a single pebble is tossed upon it. This is the empirical evidence which is both observable and present throughout the known expanse of the universe. It does not matter to me what you think or don't think about the facts of scientific discoveries. That was not my question. If you don't care to address my question as is then your idea of nonsense is irrelevant is it not?

As a research associate in the field of Quantum Mechanics and Astro-physics I feel that I am hindered from making any substantial progress in finding the relationship between the physical and nonphysiological realities by the basic premise of scientific methodology which relies on the boundaries set forth by empirical observations being the only valid criteria for consideration. With the COBE satelites validation of the uniform microwave cosmological background radiation which Stephen Hawking described as the single most important discovery of the century we have evidence of the creation account which lines up with the Biblical story in Genesis. What I see as the next frontier for science is the study of the origins of consciousness in light of the discovery of the beginning of our space/time continuum. As I scientist I can observe the actions of intelligent volition and in the law of causality insists upon a possible transcendency beyond the point of singularity. Do I see God here?

The wire colors from the appliance is one black and one black with a white stripe. My replacement cord has one black wire and one red one. Which would be the correct assumption for the right polarity. Red to black or red to black and white?

Or if you don't become angry, what irritates you? And if you get angry is this your choice or do others control the mechanism which triggers your emotional well being? Do you have their permission to surrender such power to them?

Does your spiritual situation play a role in how you express yourself when others do not line up with how you wish your world would be? Or do you get just as angry as a Christian as before you were A Christian (or other spiritual identity)?

I'm doing a study on the role that anger plays in our lives. Theists, atheists,agnostics...all welcome to respond...thanks

This is what Irans President announced after they aquired Nuculear (sp?) capabilities. A hydrogen Bomb could be detonated 200 miles from the eastern seaboard, 100 miles in the air and the electromagnetic pulse would fry all the microchips in North America, sending us technologically back into the 19th century.

Also he thinks it is his destiny to cause the circumstances that would usher in the final Emam (Prophet?) and end life as we know it on planet earth. Does thia have any spiritual significance to you? And if you are an atheist...what are you thoughts on this as well.

Well if God told them not to eat of that tree how is it that they were able to eat of it with the consequential circunstances that followed being that they made a wrong choice in eating of the tree before they had the knowledge neccessary to know that it was wrong to do so? Wouldn't they have to have the benefit of knowing it was wrong to begin with in order to be culpable for the choice they made? How is this possible if it was by eating of the tree first that would enable them to know whether it was wrong to be disobedient?

I mean this both as it applies to Gods righteous indignation and our own sense of righteousness that initiates anger or displeasure when it is violated. Is anger a choice then or a spontaneous reaction to be used as a tool of manipulation to get others in line with our own wills?

Any intelligent thoughts?

It seems as if Jesus was addressing those at the Olivet Discourse about events that would soon take place in their lifetime. Especially verse 34 that says "...this generation will by no means pass away till all these things come to pass." Then in verse 44 He is specific about those listening to them as the object of His sermon by addressing them directly with the words "Therefore YOU also be ready..."

If the implications are correct that the key to understanding what is being said here can only be understood by knowing the symbolic apocalyptic language it would only follow that the idea of a pre-trib, mid-trib or post-tribulation rapture becomes errant and the next event in the unfolding of endtime events would be the pouring out of Gods wrath upon the earth. The mark of the beast would be in the things you do (hands) and upon your forehead in the worldview and authority that you recognize. The Christians then would be preserved through the seal of the Holy Spirit upon them.

Mothers love for their children is as close to Godly Love perhaps?What about Fatherly Love? Is there a gender related difference in the way love is expressed? Whaddya think?

More specifically what does it mean to you to take up your cross? What is your cross? Is it related to the scripture that says unless a seed fall to the ground and die it will bear no fruit?

If believers are said to have faith, and many call this blind faith regardless of the believers response being grounded in what he/she deems to be the evidence they have to justify their belief, isn't it the same thing in regards to unbelievers having faith that there is no God, and this being blind faith as well since we are all in agreement that God cannot be proven or disproven? Doesn't it largely depend on what someone may be predisposed to believe?

If I want there to be a God< I will see the evidence in support of His existence. If I don't want there to be a God then I will see the evidence in that support.

I hear too many Christians refer to their belief in God as if it is something that required a jettison of reason. Others, mostly non-believers, have said that faith and logic are not compatible implying that choices based on logic are the only valid ones. But if I look rationally at the evidence for a creator and determine that it is sufficient for a logical decision to believe and put my trust in the claims of Christ, how can this be said to be "blind-faith?" Knowing what I do about the nature of man and the personal witness to my heart concerning the guilt of sin and a God that gave me a brain, isn't it logical that He would expect me to use it? It would seem to me that "blind-faith" fits the category of those who refuse to believe rather than vice-versa. What do you think?

Quantum properties aside, what laws regarding the absence of space, time and matter might remain as they are, such as cause and effect, sequentiality of events and metaphysical evidence and mathematical absolutes and which ones would disappear due to unknown characteristics within infinity?