CommentsDisplaying Walt G's 10 most recent comments.

• Van Jones Warns America: ‘Hold on to Your Seats’ Because the ‘Progressive Fight Back’ Is Coming in October

  September 30, 2011 at 8:12pm

  The political Progressive/Liberal mind-set was fairly well described two thousand years ago, by Peter the apostle. See if you agree:
  (2 Peter 2:13-22) . . .They consider luxurious living in the daytime a pleasure. They are spots and blemishes, indulging with unrestrained delight in their deceptive teachings while feasting together with YOU. 14 They have eyes full of adultery and unable to desist from sin, and they entice unsteady souls. They have a heart trained in covetousness. They are accursed children. 15 Abandoning the straight path, they have been misled. They have followed the path of Ba′laam, [the son] of Be′or, who loved the reward of wrongdoing, 16 but got a reproof for his own violation of what was right. . . . 17 These are fountains without water, and mists driven by a violent storm, and for them the blackness of darkness has been reserved. 18 For they utter swelling expressions of no profit, and by the desires of the flesh and by loose habits they entice those who are just escaping from people who conduct themselves in error. 19 While they are promising them freedom, they themselves are existing as slaves of corruption. For whoever is overcome by another is enslaved by this one. 20 . . . the final conditions have become worse for them than the first. . . . 22 The saying of the true proverb has happened to them: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.”

• Hold on to Your Holy Books! It’s International Blasphemy Rights Day!

  September 30, 2011 at 3:29pm

  In reply to Obama_Sham.

  “the big guy in the sky”??? How quaint! I heard an interesting lecture on that, once. The speaker said:
  “If you were to search every corner of the physical universe; every galaxy in existence; every black hole; behind every interstellar cloud of what-ever-it-is; If you had unlimited time and resources to do so, even traveling to that point in time and space where the universe first started to come into existence, you would NOT be able to find God! Why not? Because God is not a physical entity. Rather, God is a SPIRITUAL entity, existing in a spiritual dimension beyond human understanding and ability to conceive.”
  Or words to that effect… Very impressive, I thought.

• Why Are Young Evangelicals (Almost) Just as Sexually Active as Non-Believers?

  September 30, 2011 at 1:46pm

  In reply to rghtwngcrzy.

  AS I WAS SAYING, where my comment was so rudely chopped:
  I think the examination and scriptural analysis of this subject from the “faithful and wise servant” of Matt. 24:45 should be sufficient to settle the subject in the minds of any who are open to reason and God’s spirit.

  As for my “fundamentalism;” I and my fellow believers might be accurately called a fundamentalist group, if by fundamental, one means hewing to the intent of Sacred Scripture as it was originally meant to be understood. However, those who constitute modern traditional fundamentalism will never agree that we are such. Most of them cling to numerous ideas that are truly apostate. Things absorbed from pagan thinking by the “church” after the death of the last apostle, John. That is, corruptions of what was originally, historically understood and taught by Christians of the first century, charter congregations. So, fundamental as my beliefs may be, they are definitely NOT like traditional modern fundamentalism.

• Why Are Young Evangelicals (Almost) Just as Sexually Active as Non-Believers?

  September 30, 2011 at 1:25pm

  In reply to rghtwngcrzy.

  *** it-2 p. 343 Marriage ***
  Christian Marriage.
  Jesus Christ showed his approval of marriage when he attended the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. (Joh 2:1, 2) As already stated, monogamy is God’s original standard, reestablished by Jesus Christ in the Christian congregation. (Ge 2:24; Mt 19:4-8; Mr 10:2-9) Since man and woman were originally endowed with the ability to express love and affection, the arrangement was to be a happy, blessed, and peaceful one. The apostle Paul uses the illustration of Christ as husband and head of the congregation, his bride. It is a prime example of the tender loving-kindness and care that the husband should have for his wife, loving her as his own body. He also points out that, on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband. (Eph 5:21-33) The apostle Peter counsels wives to be in subjection to their husbands, appealing to them through chaste conduct, deep respect, and a quiet and mild spirit. He uses Sarah, who called her husband Abraham “lord,” as an example to imitate.—1Pe 3:1-6.
  Cleanness and loyalty in the marriage bond are emphasized throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures. Paul says: “Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.” (Heb 13:4) He counsels mutual respect between husband and wife and the payment of the marriage due.

  I think this information, from the faithful and wise servant of Matt. 24:45, is su

• Why Are Young Evangelicals (Almost) Just as Sexually Active as Non-Believers?

  September 30, 2011 at 1:13pm

  In reply to rghtwngcrzy.

  *** it-2 p. 343 Marriage ***
  Concubinage was practiced under patriarchal law and under the Law covenant. A concubine had a legal status; her position was not a matter of fornication or adultery. Under the Law, if a man’s firstborn son was the son of his concubine, this son would be the one to receive the firstborn’s inheritance.—De 21:15-17.
  Concubinage and polygamy no doubt enabled the Israelites to increase at a much faster rate, and therefore, while God did not establish these arrangements but only allowed and regulated them, they served some purpose at the time. (Ex 1:7) Even Jacob, who was tricked into polygamy by his father-in-law, was blessed by having 12 sons and some daughters from his two wives and their handmaidens who became concubines to Jacob.—Ge 29:23-29; 46:7-25.

• Why Are Young Evangelicals (Almost) Just as Sexually Active as Non-Believers?

  September 30, 2011 at 1:09pm

  In reply to rghtwngcrzy.

  This 1500 limitation becomes extremely irritating! The following is from the Bible encyclopedia, INSIGHT IN THE SCRIPTURES, and said much more effectively than I am able to:
  *** it-2 p. 343 Marriage ***
  Polygamy. Since God’s original standard for mankind was for the husband and wife to become one flesh, polygamy was not intended, and it is prohibited in the Christian congregation. Overseers and ministerial servants, who are to set the example for the congregation, are to be men having not more than one living wife. (1Ti 3:2, 12; Tit 1:5, 6) This is in harmony with what true marriage is used to picture, namely, the relationship of Jesus Christ and his congregation, the only wife possessed by Jesus.—Eph 5:21-33.
  As was the case with divorce, polygamy, while not God’s original arrangement, was tolerated until the time of the Christian congregation. Polygamy had a start not long after Adam’s deflection. The first Bible mention of it is concerning a descendant of Cain, Lamech, of whom it says: “[He] proceeded to take two wives for himself.” (Ge 4:19) Concerning some of the angels, the Bible mentions that before the Flood, “the sons of the true God . . . went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose.”—Ge 6:2.
  (to be continued)

• Why Are Young Evangelicals (Almost) Just as Sexually Active as Non-Believers?

  September 30, 2011 at 12:53pm

  In reply to G M Martin.

  In my post, I clearly said that David and Bathsheba were adulterers. If you read it with understanding and put your assumptions away, you will see that. As for being a fundamentalist; I truly believe the biblical teaching as it was intended.
  The following is from a modern literal translation of 2 Samuel 12:5-14:
  5 At this David’s anger grew very hot against the man, so that he said to Nathan: “As Jehovah is living, the man doing this deserves to die! 6 And for the female lamb he should make compensation with four, as a consequence of the fact that he has done this thing and because he did not have compassion.”
  7 Then Nathan said to David: “You yourself are the man! This is what Jehovah the God of Israel has said, ‘I myself anointed you as king over Israel, and I myself delivered you out of the hand of Saul. 8 And I was willing to give you the house of your lord and the wives of your lord into your bosom, and to give you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if it were not enough, I was willing to add to you things like these as well as other things. 9 Why did you despise the word of Jehovah by doing what is bad in his eyes? U·ri′ah the Hit′tite you struck down with the sword, and his wife you took as your wife, and him you killed by the sword of the sons of Am′mon. 10 And now a sword will not depart from your own house to time indefinite, as a consequence of the fact that you despised me so that you took the wife of U·ri′ah the Hit′tite to

• Why Are Young Evangelicals (Almost) Just as Sexually Active as Non-Believers?

  September 30, 2011 at 5:09am

  In reply to Joeyp22.

  You are so very RIGHT about the corruption of certain versions of scripture. Especially the so-called paraphrased versions. They can be TREACHEROUSLY dishonest! One is FAR better off with a translation that is as literal as is possible to make it. In the literal, the work is mostly word for word by definition, and the meaning remains close to what was originally intended. In the paraphrased, the translator reads a passage in Greek or Hebrew and says,”I believe the writer meant this…” They may not outright LIE, but their preconceived ideas and prejudices influence the way they see things. That influence can really cloud the intended meaning and flavor of the original text. ESPECIALLY if he has beliefs that are quite out of harmony with the original meaning, as so many in Christendom do. Even that old reliable KJV has it’s faults in that area. Psalm 68:11 in my KJV says”The LORD gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.” But in more modern and correctly translated versions it says: “Jehovah himself gives the saying;The women telling the good news are a large army.” The reason? Prejudice against women in the 1600s. They didn’t want to give any credit to women. And the Sacred Name of God is another matter. Although it appears in the old Hebrew nearly 7000 times in it’s original four consonant form, it’s recognized in KJV only four times, such as at Psalm 83:18 and in the Exodus account. The New KJV has eliminated it altogether!

• Why Are Young Evangelicals (Almost) Just as Sexually Active as Non-Believers?

  September 30, 2011 at 3:27am

  In reply to G M Martin.

  Actually, sex without benefit of marriage IS an immoral, anti-Christian activity. King David WAS an adulterer, who although became repentant was still punished with the loss of the offspring from that adulterous arrangement. Actually, if David was not in the line of kingly descendants leading the the Messiah, he very well could have been put to death for that particular fornication. But he WAS repentant and was forgiven. It is even stated in Scripture that David was a man after God’s own heart! How could that be? Read the Psalms David wrote, decrying his sins. He OWNED his sin, accepted the blame, AND whatever punishment, and made the appropriate changes to align himself with God. Whereas, Saul, who’s sins might be viewed as far less grievous, made excuses for himself. He tried to diminish the seriousness of his sin. He blamed others for what was his own doing. His pride and desire to look good in the eyes of the people did nothing to help his case before God, either.
  Many things changed, with the arrival of the Christ and his laws and principles laid upon the new congregation of spiritual Jews. There were NO MORE multiple marriages among those who became dedicated Christians. Divorce could no longer be granted for just any old reason. The Mosaic Law was no longer the main ruling law of the Christian congregation.
  Speaking of excuses, that’s what FOOBEAR”S comments sound like. Just what is it that you have been up to, that you need so badly to justify, FOO? Hmmm?

• Why Are Young Evangelicals (Almost) Just as Sexually Active as Non-Believers?

  September 29, 2011 at 9:44pm

  In reply to Walt G.

  *** Rbi8 p. 1576 5A “Fornication”—Every Kind of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse ***
  B. F. Westcott, coeditor of the Westcott and Hort Greek text, in his work, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, London and New York, 1906, p. 76, comments on the various meanings of por·nei′a in the Scriptures in a note on Eph 5:3, saying: “This is a general term for all unlawful intercourse, (I) adultery: Hos. ii. 2, 4 (LXX.); Matt. v. 32; xix. 9; (2) unlawful marriage, I Cor. v. I; (3) fornication, the common sense as here [Eph 5:3].” By “the common sense” evidently reference is made to the modern, limited, sense involving only unmarried persons.
  In addition to this literal meaning, in certain places in the Christian Greek Scriptures por·nei′a has a symbolic meaning. Concerning this meaning ZorellGr, col. 1106, says under por·nei′a: “apostasy from the true faith, committed either entirely or partially, defection from the one true God Jahve to foreign gods [4Ki 9:22; Jer 32:9; Ho 6:10 etc.; for God’s union with his people was considered like a kind of spiritual matrimony]: Re 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2.” (Brackets his; 4Ki in LXX corresponds to 2Ki in M.)