Jump to content

TeenLeaderTom

Members
  • Content count

    1,208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TeenLeaderTom

  1. curious you should be from GA...the college I attend is in Stephens County.

  2. So the school i attend is a Christian private school. We have a bout 120 students in total. I really like my school, but they do have this one policy that is not too popular. The no-dating policy. Before we can attend the school we have to pledge we won't date in high school. So you sign on the line, and your in, basically signing away your ability to date. This is also means, my school has no dances or prom. The policy has been successful in an indirect way. Just because we have a no-dating policy doesn't mean dating doesn't happen, it just means the students become more covert. What it does help prevent however is sexual promiscuity. They set the goals high, and the students meet it halfway. I hadn't dated, until my junior year (biggest mistake in my life) and there were no repercussions even though the christian living teacher found out. So now I'm really interested in this girl outside of my school, and I've been hanging out with her alot. For intents and purposes we go on dates, though we haven't defined our relationship romantically, and to me thats the bigger issue then if two people of the opposite sex go together somewhere. What do you all think about rules like these? Do any of you go to schools with rules like these?
  3. TeenLeaderTom

    Is Marriage Predestined?

    Let me focus this in a little more: Are you predestined to marry a particular person? I've asked this question of many people and more often than not, most people are ascribing to the idea that the Bible merely directs you in the way of guidelines and that there isn't a certain person, but a certain group of persons that would make potential marriage partners. This view is now being accepted widely amongst my fellow students at BICS. However, though they all accept this view, they are also all avid calvinists, as are the teachers. I cannot see how the two opinions are able to coexist. If God has indeed chosen the elect before they are born,our parents must obviously come together so that we are created. This would then indicate marriages must be predestined because God has already chosen His elect and they must be created. This predestination would not be only limited to christian marriages, but to any kind of marriage or sexual intercourse. Though a thousand years ago my celtic ancestors were probably dancing around naked to some pagan ritual, if they didn't marry the person they did I wouldn't be here. Thus making the marriage being necessarily predestined. And it all started with Adam and Eve. While there aren't many verses in the Bible talking specifically about whether marriage is predestined, it would seem clear that if there is indeed an elect, there must also be marriages predestined to bring the elect into existence. That is my current understanding of the matter, show me otherwise.
  4. Should we? Should we really kill them? As a Christian, I don't feel it'd be my place to do that, but then again.....lets change the scenario. It's 1942. You have him in your crosshairs. With a pull of a trigger you could kill Adolf Hitler. You could prevent millions of more Jews from dying. Would you do it? Should you do it? People try to differentiate between Hitler and abortion doctors, but when it comes down to it, I see no real difference. Accepting the pro-life argument that life begins at conception, there can be no real difference. Both Jews and the unborn are human. The Jewish murders number in the millions as do the murders of the unborn. The only possible difference I see between Hitler and abortion doctors, is that Hitler is one man. Abortion doctors are many. Killing Hitler would have had a much larger effect, than just killing one abortion doctor. Thus, killing abortion doctors would not necessarily be a very effective way to end the American holocaust. Why do I write these things? I write these things because I am deeply concerned that even those of us who are pro-life do not equally value human life inside the womb as outside the womb. If babies were being killed outside of the womb, if toddlers were being killed, if teenagers were being killed, if adults were being killed, we'd do something about it. We live in the comfort of out of sight, out of mind, not much unlike the German people who lived under the Nazi regime. Am I being hypocritical for suggesting death for those who cause death in order to prevent death? No more hypocritical than the one who kills the man who has a gun pointed at his wife and children in order to prevent their death. Is the death of one to save the many justifiable? God seemed to think so. Yes taking a person's life to save the many and the giving of one's life to save the many is different in the sense that one is willing and one is not, but the common denominator of both is the death of a person, that the death of that one person is morally justifiable in order to save the many. I expect some heated discussion, just please keep it civil and refrain from slandering one another. Don't expect me to be walking around with a sniper rifle any time soon. I believe that at this point there are other options to be sought to prevent the continuation of the holocaust that we have in this country without resorting to violence. Thankfully, our country is built upon democracy, and so I hope and pray that the love of God may work in the hearts of the people and to open their eyes up to holocaust around us.
  5. TeenLeaderTom

    Hell=Annihilation

    Out of all of my theological beliefs, aside from our means of salvation, I have never been more fully convinced of any than this: That the punishment in hell for sinners is final. Sinners are not punished eternally in hell, they are destroyed. Destruction does imply that the sinners punishment is less painful or just. It in fact supports the nature of a just God and allows for Him to justly punish sinners in accordance to their crimes. I am so firm on my belief of this because I have never seen a shred of evidence to prove otherwise, and because I have seen positive evidence for the case of annihilation. Before I present my case, I'd like to hear some initial responses,and to see what proofs others may have for the theory that hell is a place of eternal torture for sinners. Happy hunting.
  6. TeenLeaderTom

    God Doesn't Love Everyone

    Well the title is my hook, but I am no longer quite sure whether I believe that or not. Though I recognize this is not objective in any way and I could just be wrong, I saw a woman at the gas station and I just felt like walking up to her and telling her, "God loves you." Yet I suddenly realized that I couldn't say that with certainty because I do not know who God loves and does not love and who he chooses for salvation..... So greatly did this weigh upon my mind, that I can no longer hold with certainty my previous explanation about God's love, but that goes with saying that I still believe in Calvinism. As I was driving my car home, I began thinking about things spoken about in the debate on Calvinism and one argument came to mind that was thrown my way saying that election would be "like God as a father choosing only to save some of His children and letting the rest die." Sounds quite brutal and unloving. But if I am wrong, and then what? Does God save all the children? And if the children represent all people, then does God save all people? Do we then affirm universalism? There is clearly a problem here. I've heard that man's free will and God's sovereignty is an antinomy, but I don't really believe that at all. I have come to an understanding of how the two are compatible. What is truly an antimony is how God loves everyone yet He only chooses some for salvation. I would quickly turn to arminianism if not for the great amount of Biblical proof supporting election and predestination. I cannot deny the evidence is there. And so it is left to either accept God's love as an antinomy, or to come to a suitable explanation for how God can love all men, and yet choose only some for salvation. That is of course unless God doesn't love all mankind....... I have more thoughts but I await your inputs first. edit: word is antinomy, not antimony
  7. TeenLeaderTom

    NEVER REMARRY!

    I've discussed this in the past on this forum, and my opinions have changed as I learn more from different teachers as well as from examining the proof shown by all of you. The Bible is pretty clear in several areas concerning divorce: 1.To divorce an innocent woman is to force her into adultery. Matthew 5 2.To divorce an innocent woman is to commit adultery (the Bible assumes the man is going to remarry) Matthew 19 3.To marry a divorced woman (divorce not being qualified as justified or unjustified) is to commit adultery. Matthew 5 4. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 says the divorced should remain single or be reconciled. These things are pretty clear. What isn't clear is in Matthew 19:9 where it reads "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." This seems to indicate that a man may remarry, and not commit adultery if his "wife" has committed sexual immorality. However, though this may seem to be a case on the surface, there is an argument to be made that this isn't so. Sexual morality in the greek is porneia. Adultery in the greek is moicheia. This suggests that perhaps the relationship with this "wife" may not necessarily be marital, but rather a betrothal. The words for husband and wife are the same as the words for man and woman, and were used in the context of Joseph and Mary before they were married, when they were betrothed to one another. At that time, Joseph was considering to divorce marry, even though they were only BETROTHED. Therefore, the argument here is that Matthew is simply saying it is ok for the betrothed to divorce and marry someone else. I had to present this topic today in my intro to counseling class, and I cannot even fully express how many times I went back and forth, trying to decide whether the word was more important, and the context it had been used in other parts of the Bible, or whether the immediate context the word was being used in, was of greater importance. Well have at it. Hopefully we can learn much from this discussion.
  8. TeenLeaderTom

    And Masturbation isn't sinful

    Ahh...gentlemen. I remember when I first arrived on ctf, I was an ardent anti-masturbation supporter. By that I mean, that I considered masturbation, in and of itself, sinful. Today, I admit that I was wrong and somewhat simplistic in my understanding of what sin truly is. Back when I was young teen, I was stuck in the porn. It had engulfed my whole life. Lust was my lord. Thankfully, God had grace on me and delivered me from pornography. Still dealt with lust though. Still do sometimes. What guy doesn't? But for a time I went 133 days without masturbating. But then I fell and lusted, and I became once again biologically bound to masturbation. Lately in my life, it's usually once every week. Sometimes a little shorter span than that. But usually, I'd say at least 90% of the time, I do not fantasize while I do it. I do not lust. And that's what it's all about isn't it? That's the sin, lust. We don't call the sin masturbation, we call it lust. You won't find anywhere in Scripture that masturbation, in and of itself, is a sin. You'll find boatloads of scripture saying that lust is sinful. Today I recognize that distinction. I believe as guys, we get all caught up in identifying the sin of lust as being the physical act of masturbation. This simply is not the case. Touching yourself, is not the equivalent of touching your girlfriend. Intentionally touching yourself without lust isn't sinful. Intentionally touching your girlfriend's private areas in any situation would be sinful. Jesus taught a message that focused on what the desires of our hearts are, what our thoughts are focused on. To merely think something with evil desire in one's heart is considered sinful. However, as humans, it is hard for us to comprehend mere thoughts as being truly sinful. If a guy thinks lustfully, he often fails to recognize the sinfulness of his ways. Yet when he ACTS out those thoughts through masturbation, he suddenly realizes the gravity of the sin as it has taken on a physical form. The dilemma that develops is that the young man now sees his sin to be the masturbation, rather than the lustfulness that may be partially driving him to do that. This then leads him into a crusade against his body, while the devil gleefully rejoices that he has confounded the saint into believing his physical flesh and bone are evil and distracted him from the true root of the problem. The problem is lust, not masturbation, gentlemen. Personally, I don't really believe masturbation is very beneficial. I would prefer to live without it. I believe it offers temptations to lust, but that it is indeed possible to do it without lusting. It is always preferable to flee from temptations, but to not flee should not be considered a sin in itself if one does not yield to them. So, what I challenge all of you and myself, is that we fast from masturbation. (the kind w/o lust) Today, I'm going to commit to 3 weeks of fasting from it, to really focus in on God. I'm hoping to also really focus on continuing to improve how to better handle myself in situations with my girlfriend. It's been getting better, and I can a feel a true desire in my heart to chase after God. I challenge all of you guys to join me in this fast, and I ask that you reflect on whether you have the ability to masturbate without engaging in lustful thinking, and that you separate the real sin (the thoughts) from the symbol of sorts (masturbation). Masturbation is to lust, as money is to greed. The former in both cases are morally neutral while the latter are sinful desires. Masturbation is not a sin.
  9. TeenLeaderTom

    You shouldn't say screw

    It's the popular swear amongst Christians, making Pastors edgy and seemingly relevant. It's often heard as "screwed up" "screw it" "screwing" and multiple other forms. Founded in sexual connotations, and a synonym for the f-bomb, it has slowly crept into the church to the point of being spoken even in sermons. I believe this is totally wrong, and that it is simply another symptom of the church abandoning their beliefs and truly being a peculiar people. If we're trying to spread the Gospel through being "raw and real" we have truly forsaken the characteristics of what it means to be a Christian and have denied the power of the Holy Spirit in their preaching, resorting to weak human tactics. Have at it.
  10. TeenLeaderTom

    The Christian should die.

    A deviation from the "should we kill abortion doctors?" debate, this thread is meant to discuss whether a Christian die with no act of resistance against his persecutor. In personal sense, if someone was going to kill me for my faith, the answer is an obvious yes. But what if he were going to kill your wife and kids? Would you it be morally justified to kill him to protect them? If he had a machine gun pointed at them, would it be ok to shoot him? If you believe you this would be ok on the micro level, then you must also believe it would be ok to kill him on the macro level. What I mean is, in the micro level maybe you're only killing the soldier. That doesn't remove the threat from your family, it only temporarily removes it. The only way to truly save your family would be on the macro level by killing the leader. Would it be morally correct to do this? Remember, we are talking only in the context of Christian persecution, not in the case of any racial, people group, or any other kind of persecution. There is a difference between murder and martyrdom. My own conclusion is that in the case of Christian persecution, we have been called to lay down our lives as sacrifices for Christ and to not resist in a violent manner. This means you would let your wife and children die if your only option remaining was lethal force. What say you? I think this is an important question for all Christians to answer. Persecution may be right around the corner. Let's discover the truth together
  11. TeenLeaderTom

    Catholicism

    The idea of justifying grace lends itself to being applied as being made perfect through penance. I don't doubt that the Catholic church believes all this must be done through Jesus Christ, but I find it's application very sketchy. From my conversations on here, it seems to boil down to "Jesus Christ died so that we could do enough penance to get into heaven." Why must we be completely sanctified before we enter into the kingdom of heaven? From what I read it seems that the reason would be sanctified=justified. You can't enter into heaven if you aren't justified, and so therefore you must be fully sanctified in order to enter. Protestants view justification and sanctification as being wholly separate from one another. Christ work on the cross ITSELF saves us. The perfection of the human being through sanctification is not what brings salvation. The question is, how does one become sanctified according to Catholicism ?
  12. TeenLeaderTom

    God Doesn't Love Everyone

    Well, God loves everyone, but not equally. If God loved all equally, then all would come to salvation. He would make all the blind see so that they could accept the truth of the Gospel.
  13. TeenLeaderTom

    Is heaven exclusive?

    Sounds to me like a morally conscious person. You never answered the question about the guy down the street, so I'll assume that's a yes. Christ is more than some concept. You must not simply be seeking for A savior. You must seek THE Savior. The language you use in how this person comes to salvation outside of the knowledge of Jesus Christ is all very ambiguous. How can they seek "Him" as in Christ, when they don't even know He exists? I think you'd be hard pressed to find how the gospel can be found in natural revelation. Nature testifies to the existence of God, but no leaf is going to tell me about the Gospel or about Christ. Besides, there isn't a shred of Biblical evidence to support what you are suggesting, and there is boat load of evidence to the contrary. Even if your Biblical evidence did exist, it would create a major contradiction within the Biblical text. Salvation comes through placing faith in Christ alone.
  14. TeenLeaderTom

    The Christian should die.

    How can we know what is "unlikely?" God takes the unlikely fools to shame the wise. To the early Christians, it seemed probably very unlikely that Saul would ever change. In fact, when he did, they had many misgivings. I doubt that you'd find many a persecution where most of the culture isn't against you as well. Say you're a Coptic Christian in Egypt. They've been under a great amount of persecution and it is highly "unlikely" in human estimation that the Muslims will convert to Christianity. Is violence really the answer?
  15. TeenLeaderTom

    Is heaven exclusive?

    Jesus is more than a mere magical name that gets us into heaven. He is the Son of God, He is God. When one lacks knowledge of Christ, he lacks a true understanding of God. He cannot know God, if he doesn't know Jesus. Jesus is the mediator between God and man. Please explain how one can come to salvation outside of Jesus Christ. ---------- Post added at 11:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 PM ---------- Jesus is more than a mere magical word. He is the Son of God, He is God himself. Without knowledge of Jesus Christ, one does not fully understand the nature of God. How does a person come to salvation outside of Jesus Christ? If this can apply to those who may not have had the opportunity to hear, why can't it apply to the guy who lives down the street from me?
  16. TeenLeaderTom

    Catholicism

    The very doctrine of purgatory exists because of the belief that one must be sanctified before he is justified. Why else do you think they developed that belief? If you are follower of Christ and you haven't been fully sanctified they believe you cannot go into heaven. Yet they also believe you would not go to hell. Therefore you must be go to purgatory where the santification process would be made complete. Can a Catholic please confirm that I am representing your doctrine correctly? What I have presented is a true reflection of Catholic beliefs. We studied a number of Catholic beliefs in my college theology class.
  17. TeenLeaderTom

    Catholicism

    I can agree with that. ---------- Post added at 11:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ---------- So you believe the process of salvation is santification, justification, glorification?
  18. TeenLeaderTom

    The Christian should die.

    I'm still convinced that reacting in violence will only cause further harm to Christians, but I will grant you that perhaps in some cases it may reduce loss of life on the Christian side of the things. However, we are still left to deal with WHY the early Roman Christians did not resist. I think it was more than simply my practical reason. I know I was really pressing it, but I don't believe it was THE reason they didn't react in violence. I think they knew it would indelibly mar the image of Christ. If they reacted in violence and the Romans left them alone, they may have ruined the message of Gospel for all Romans. I strongly believe that had they reacted in violence, it would've spelled disaster for Christianity, and I believe that same principal is still applicable to today. So why we shouldn't react in violence in the face of persecution: 1. It ruins the message of Gospel to non-believers 2. You kill potential converts (Saul) and thereby lose them to destruction in hell 3. You miss the blessing of suffering for Christ You've been doing fine, perfectly civil.
  19. TeenLeaderTom

    Is heaven exclusive?

    The "who says" argument is a ploy for me to challenge the ability of God. God can hear anyone. He doesn't even need to "hear" because He already knows all things because of his omniscient character. So yes, God could "hear" them but I don't exactly understand what you mean by "If we want Him there, He'll be there."
  20. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/perry-says-rivals-made-mistake-by-skipping-florida-test-vote/ Past GOP candidates such as Reagan and H.W. Bush went on to win the nomination. This is a big upset considering most would've looked at Perry as being a favorite, yet Cain beat him handily. I'd really love to see Herman Cain as our next president. I'm done with these stupid politicians who won't give straight answers.
  21. TeenLeaderTom

    Is heaven exclusive?

    "The concept of the Gospel?" How can one have a concept of the Gospel? You either know it fully or you don't. The Gospel IS Jesus Christ. [TABLE=class: table_bible] [TR] [TD=class: td_bible_verse_heading, align: left]Rom 10:9 [/TD] [TD=class: td_bible_text] "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." That verse leaves no room for simply a "concept" of the Gospel. You must confess that Jesus is Lord. How can you do that if you don't even know who Jesus is? The verse you cite is grossly taken out of context. That verse references when people are speaking in tongues, or when we can't express what we need in words. The verse is in reference to BELIEVERS. Those who have not come to salvation do not have the Spirit, as the Spirit resides within the believer. [TABLE=class: table_bible] [TR] [TD=class: td_bible_verse_heading, align: left]1Cr 2:14[/TD] [TD=class: td_bible_text]The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] He cannot discern them because the Spirit is not present.
  22. TeenLeaderTom

    Catholicism

    A far more serious reason that should keep you away from Catholicism is the switching around of the justification, santification, glorification process. Catholics believe the process goes as santification, justification, glorication. Essentially, Protestants believe that we are justified by Christ's death on the cross. His righteousness has been imputed upon us just as are our sins were put upon Him, and so we are made righteous in the eyes of God. Protestants then believe that we begin to be shaped more and more into the image of Christ, until His return, which will then commence the glorification when we are mad anew. Catholics believe that we must be made fully into the image of Christ before we are justified to enter the kingdom of heaven. Because we are pretty much unable to be fully sanctified in our lifetime, they believe we are sent to purgatory to be purged of our remaining sins. Once we have been made righteous and clean on OUR account we can then enter the kingdom heaven. Protestants enter the kingdom based upon Christ's account and not their own. Boiled down, Catholicism is another example of a works-righteouness religion. The papacy serves as a false prophet and has led many away from the truth of Gospel. Thank God for Martin Luther.
  23. TeenLeaderTom

    Is heaven exclusive?

    First. You assume we are all children of God. We are all creations of God, but we are not all children of God. If we were already all inherently children of God, there would be no need to be adopted into the family of God. Second. God is all-merciful, but God is also all-just. He cannot let sin go unpunished. To let sin go unpunished would be to go against His all-just nature. The solution to this seeming dilemma was Jesus Christ. You get this salvation by placing your trust in Christ alone for you salvation, no longer relying in your own good works, repenting of your sins, and making Him Lord of your life. Outside of Christ's salvation, all must be punished. ---------- Post added at 08:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 PM ---------- God's standard for entrance into the kingdom of heaven is perfection. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No man can come unto the Father except through Jesus Christ. God's law is written on their hearts, but that says nothing about their obedience. The only way they could have salvation is if they were PERFECT. The world needs the Gospel, plain and simple.
  24. TeenLeaderTom

    Catholicism

    I believe she has made her point. She can only truly speak for herself when she says she does not worship the images, but merely uses them to focus on God. If that is true, I don't see anything wrong with it. However. I do believe asking the saints to pray for you, or praying to them to pray for you, is very dangerous. I don't believe the catholic forgets about God, but I do believe he runs the risk of focusing completely on God as the source of power and strength and may be tempted to view the saint as that source. Undoubtedly idolatry has occurred in the Catholic church and will continue to occur. However, this does not mean that all Catholics are idolaters. I simply see their means of prayer and worship to be extremely risky in misguiding people. Zabby, I appreciate your persistence, but I simply do not believe the subject is that easily solved. It's all very subjective and that's what makes it dangerous. Risk vs. reward. I think it's far too risky in this situation.
  25. TeenLeaderTom

    The Christian should die.

    Well, as I said, the dragon is a two headed beast. You have the dictator/leader as one head and the culture as the other. The dictator may want to kill all Christians, but to perfectly achieve this, it must be in concert with the other head. The culture. Reacting in violence may discourage a leader, but it will encourage the culture, which then invigorates the dictator, which then leads to PROLONGED persecution. Not reacting in violence has a much higher chance of defusing the situation than reacting in violence. This is because the culture will not simply read the Christians violence as an act of self-defense. It will be perceived as extremism or something of that sort. The Roman culture demonized Christians, painting them to be something they were not. Being accused of atheism, poisoning wells, and burning Rome, the culture didn't have a true understanding of Christianity. That is how persecution thrives. You must demonize a people before you can persecute. Reacting in violence would only further cement that demonization.
×