Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As my pastor points out, when Jesus hung on the Cross, He looked like a piece of meat.
[You have some distorted idea of what true worship is, don't you?
Yes, I'm familiar with science's ventures into areas they teach should be rejected on principle.Well, why not?
Excuse me, please put that Bible away, get out your science book, and let's turn to the study of El Niño.
Among other things, I was talking about evolution.
The Bible says it -- that settles it.King James wrote it -- that settles it, right?
The Bible says it -- that settles it.
. . .garbage in, garbage out.
You can read the biblical account of the Flood in Genesis 6-8. As you read this you will notice in Genesis chapter 7, verses 11 and 12 that the rain is almost an afterthought. The first two sources of water for the flood mentioned were the fountains of the great deep and the windows of heaven. Science has discovered hydrothermal vents at mid-ocean ridges in 1977. So it is easy to imagine fountains of the great deep being opened by God, allowing the pressurized water to contribute to the flood. Science has also proposed that the Earth used to have much denser clouds than it has now. Such a canopy would create a greenhouse effect, making the climate of the entire world very mild. Fossil finds indicate that not just the dinosaurs, but all animals, plants, and insects were much larger at one time indicating a superior climate. At the time of the flood, it would have been easy for God to allow this canopy (or a large percentage of it) to fall as water. If almost everything fell at once, it would not have been like rain, it would have been like opening the windows of heaven. The crushing splash of water would have quickly drowned all people and animals that found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly immersed in water.
By the way, this could explain the thousands of woolly mammoths that have been found perfectly preserved in polar areas some with food still in their mouths. Once the protective canopy and its greenhouse effect was gone, the world would have turned cold on the poles, freezing the mammoths in the water that killed them.
The Bible says it -- that settles it.
Believe me -- no one questions what they hear and read and see more than I.
Do you blame them?
It's not a matter of confusion -- we don't think that's what Jesus looked like in the first place.
Where was I ready to ridicule you for having pictures?Not in that order.
LOL -- you were just ready to ridicule me for having pictures, now you're ridiculing me for not?
Iconoclasm. Took me a minute to realise that this is the remains of living breathing English civil war Puritan iconoclasm that I first heard about in history class and that struck me as stupid even then. The churches in England had their pictures and statues smashed in this period and as a result we lost a huge amount of art. Most Churches in England now are very bland inside, either bare stone or whitewashed walls where once the walls were covered in decoration and paintings. All because of the killjoy Puritans. No wonder there was such rejoicing when the Charles II became king.No, actually -- I find it grotesque.
If not having pictures of "Jesus" in my house is displaying 'primitive superstitions', then so be it.
Again -- I have stated why we don't accept pictures:Since the Bible says nothng on the subject of what Jesus looked like, your decision to reject a picture of him is based on your own subjective opinion, not "diabolical mimicry."
LOL -- we don't accept pictures of [a white] "Jesus" in our home, and that's 'making God in our own image'?You're just trying to make God in your own image -- as always.
Where was I ready to ridicule you for having pictures?
Actually, it is the magical aspect that you are attributing to the pictures that made me go "blimey".
Iconoclasm. Took me a minute to realise that this is the remains of living breathing English civil war Puritan iconoclasm that I first heard about in history class and that struck me as stupid even then. The churches in England had their pictures and statues smashed in this period and as a result we lost a huge amount of art. Most Churches in England now are very bland inside, either stone or whitewashed insides where once were paintings and decoration on the walls. All because of the killjoy Puritans. No wonder there was such rejoicing when the Charles II became king.
And here is a bizarre period in English history alive and well in America. AV, you are straight out of the 1640s. Puritanism went to america and stayed in a time warp bubble and made you. Dear god!
-- You guys crack me up.
All this because I don't have pictures of a white, long-haired Jesus in our house.
By the way -- do you?
Do you, or do you not, have pictures of Jesus hanging on your wall?I don't go round tearing them out of the bible.
AV1611VET said:Do you, or do you not, have pictures of Jesus hanging on your wall?
Do you, or do you not, have pictures of Jesus hanging on your wall?
You're not thinking this through, are you?There's nothing Satanic about that, and if your first reaction to an image intended to make you think about God is to think of Satan and the antichrist, you've got bigger problems than we can solve here.
Again -- I have stated why we don't accept pictures:
- God, in His wisdom, did not give us an image of Him -- (or His Son).
- The Antichrist will use those pictures to his advantage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?