General Christian Discussions

Future Christianity in Rev. 12:1-6 – Kirk

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
The correct interpretation of Rev. 12:1-6 defines the future of Christianity. Here it contrasts the popular but errant interpretation.

1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve
stars:

Tradition: Can I suggest that the "woman clothed in the sun" and that has "a crown of twelve stars on her head" is a representation of God's chosen people Israel? The sun being God and the crown with 12 stars being representative of the 12 tribes of Israel?

Logic: No. You must be consistent in your interpretive analysis. Notice that stars are representing people. The sun which is also a star cannot be simply God but must be Jesus Christ who is God but also a man. What can be said to be crowned with the patriarchs and clothed with Jesus? The church can but Israel rejects Jesus so it can't and we've already used Jesus in this puzzle.

2And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Tradition: Who did Israel give birth to? The Messiah, Jesus, through the line of David.

Logic: No. Your error on verse 1 propagates more errors of interpretation in each step. Also, you've made a further error in plurals. You wrote the stars are the 12 tribes so the product of a multiple entity like a tribe or nation of Israel must be another multiple entity thus it can be the body of Christ but it cannot be said to be Jesus alone. You need to learn to be more precise in dealing with language.

3And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Tradition: Here we can see that the red dragon represents Satan as he seduced about 1/3 of the angels (represented by the stars here too) to rebel against God with him. Isn't it a nice thing to remember that for every one demon, we have two angels to deal with them

Logic: Satan is indeed represented as the dragon but there is more to it as you can discover by reading chapter 13. There is an end-time beast with many heads such as the heads of nations that persecute Christians who are left behind so they must flee to the wilderness.

Also, to my understanding demons and fallen angels are two different things.

5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

Tradition: Here we see what represents the birth of Jesus Christ, the male child (not manchild) that was snatched up to God and to his throne. This 'manchild' is not referring to a 'true church' of any kind when taken in context, but is actually referring to the birth of Jesus.

Logic: No. Again this can be the body of Christ, it cannot be Jesus only. But in verse 5 we have some clarification on the specific part of the body of Christ. It must have the rod of iron and be qualified to ascend to God's throne. The part of the body of Christ to receive those attributes is the overcomers in Rev. 2-3. The specifics are Rev. 2:26-27 for the rod of iron and Rev. 3:21 for siting with Jesus on His throne.

At this point we might tentatively think this would include all believers. But the Bible soon corrects that daydream.

6And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Tradition: Here the woman (Israel) flees for 1260 days (approximately half of the tribulation, or 3.5 years). I hope you can see that there is nothing in this verse about "foolish virgins." And if she was a "foolish virgin," why would God be preparing a place for her to take care of her?

Logic: No. Again the woman can be the church but at this moment it must be the church after subtracting the manchild or overcoming believers. So it is clearly the end-time church after the ascension or rapture, the church of the left behind. They flee to the wilderness for the 3.5 year duration of the great tribulation, which is the dangerous half of the total 7 year tribulation, since the manchild will no longer be on earth interceding to prevent many evil events.

While you can by USA's free speech law claim this doesn't correspond to the parable of the 10 virgins, with the 5 wise being the manchild and the 5 foolish being the left behind, you should really go read that parable to be accurate.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Ereon

Member

Posts: 1018
From: Ohio, United States
Registered: 04-12-2005
So are you submitting this for the purpose of an analysis of your train of logic, or to state something you see as a fact, or just open it up for discussion? I'm not sure I clearly see the point. I don't mind that you posted it, I'm just wondering what your goal and focus is.

------------------

The time for speaking comes rarely, the time for being never departs.
George Macdonald

[This message has been edited by Ereon (edited July 29, 2007).]

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
This comparison of the traditional view of the manchild as Jesus (held by many) with my view of the manchild as the overcomers is likely the most in-depth comparison so far. I think this should help people realize my view is correct which hopefully will lead to some changes in the goals pursued in churches worldwide and in Christian games.

If you want to act like Christian computer scientists and trace down the logic for yourselves to see if you can reproduce it, improve on it, disprove it, or agree with consensus on it, do whatever you like.

If you want to just flame me out of your spiritually blind lusts as was almost universal, (especially by TallBill), on my first thread topic on this site: "Coding For The Future" in the World Views & Politics forum, I prefer you verbally masturbate elsewhere and not here.

I hope this answers your question.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Lazarus

Member

Posts: 1668
From: USA
Registered: 06-06-2006
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:

I hope this answers your question.

Quite clearly.

And I'll repeat, don't expect to get anywhere with anyone when you talk like this.

TallBill

Member

Posts: 298
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: 11-22-2002
Kirk, If you expect genuine Christians to not defend accurate theology and confront heresy then you don't know any genuine Christians. In addition, though I am not an authority here, I believe that I am accurate in saying that the insulting, demeaning, vulgar language you resort to in your efforts to spread heresy only succeed in burning bridges with the administrators and moderators of this site, and the more you resort to it the closer you get to the door with a boot print in your back-side—through your own fault. The reason for this is that the administrators and moderators of this site, being a Christian site, are responsible for protecting the sheep—and you, sir, unless and until you repent, are a wolf.

------------------
Never Forget to Pray!

"...prayer itself is an art which only the Holy Ghost can teach us. He is the giver of all prayer. Pray for prayer---pray till you can pray; pray to be helped to pray, and give not up praying because you cannot pray, for it is when you think you cannot pray that you are most praying. Sometimes when you have no sort of comfort in your supplications, it is then that your heart---all broken and cast down---is really wrestling and truly prevailing with the Most High."
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, from the pamphlet, "Effective Prayer"

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
Yes, the verbal masturbators are still at it, going off topic to flame me. Are there any Christian Computer SCIENTISTS available? If so, please start posting. Others, you have a thread on this forum already, the M-word thread.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Ereon

Member

Posts: 1018
From: Ohio, United States
Registered: 04-12-2005
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
This comparison of the traditional view of the manchild as Jesus (held by many) with my view of the manchild as the overcomers is likely the most in-depth comparison so far. I think this should help people realize my view is correct which hopefully will lead to some changes in the goals pursued in churches worldwide and in Christian games.

If you want to act like Christian computer scientists and trace down the logic for yourselves to see if you can reproduce it, improve on it, disprove it, or agree with consensus on it, do whatever you like.

If you want to just flame me out of your spiritually blind lusts as was almost universal, (especially by TallBill), on my first thread topic on this site: "Coding For The Future" in the World Views & Politics forum, I prefer you verbally masturbate elsewhere and not here.

I hope this answers your question.


I think it does. If you're here to clash ideas I don't the the internet would be the best medium to utilize. For abstracted, emotionally non-explosive material maybe, but there is just too much emotional dynamite on the internet to use it as any kind of platform for propogating controversial viewpoints. You'll only get a few more pats on the back from people who agree with you (which has no real practical use) and succeed in alienating those who disagree with you. The only tool you have is your words, your life-witness is nonexistant because noone knows you, you're a name on a screen. I would suggest rethinking your approach because, speaking from personal experience, I have never seen one person's viewpoint or ideas dramatically change whatsoever against their currently held viewpoint from a discussion that they engaged in on the internet.

On the subject of your logic, I would suggest that you make quite a leap with your first supposition, especially with "No. You must be consistent in your interpretive analysis." First of all, your imaginary "adversary" hasn't even begun enough of an "interpretive analysis" to be consistant about anything, second you make the supposition that the stars represent people, which really just logically seems to jump out of nowhere. Without support for your sudden, unexplained leap of supposition I don't think your string of has a firm enough base. Furthermore, I seem to get the impression that you're attributing the twelve stars to the patriarchs in the first portion, after which you inexplicably seem to switch it over to "the tribes of Israel" in order to provide support your next step which involves making the manchild into the church instead of Jesus. I'd also like to note that the way you draw your conclusions and the words and terms you use are very degrading and seem to talk down to your "opponent" which only serves to construct a rather annoying aura of pride and inherent superiority of your own views and ideas. This isn't a very efficent way to win friends and influence people.

TallBill:I agree that truth has to be defended, but the way you usually choose to do it is very vocally violent and contentious. All it does is create fireballs and a pretty word show while severely angering the other person (for good reason) not because you're showing your own views to be right, but because you're just using such powerful and violent words to demean and crush them. I think you'll agree that you would feel rather angry and hurt under similar circumstances. I also thing you'll agree that we're supposed to speak and correct with love and kindness far more often than with fire and brimstone, mainly because that's how we'd like to be corrected, not with harsh words and scathing accusations. Please try to be more peaceful and restrained in your approaches, I encourage you to try and put yourself in the other person's shoes, because I think you'll also agree that we're supposed to treat others as we would wish to be treated, regardless of whether we agree with them or not.

------------------

The time for speaking comes rarely, the time for being never departs.
George Macdonald

[This message has been edited by Ereon (edited July 29, 2007).]

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
First, thanks for actually addressing the thread topic post which is a first on this thread and uncommon in my first thread.

I know in school they don't really train computer people to be scientists the way they do in other fields but even on the National Geographic Channel last night they had a guy with a theory of a mass asteroid bombardment of the moon which was at first greeted with typical negativity by his community and eventually became the prevailing view in his field of science. I would hope we as Christians could make similar leaps of faith as Biblical evidence permits.

But as you write, it is hard to find any evidence of a person changing his mind based on an internet communication. I have some success with very open people such as current university students just learning about the real world and some young military people but that's about it. Ministers are particularly obstinate toward changing their views toward Truth. So I wonder what way would you suggest to make Truth more popular than the currently popular fiction on the Rev. 12:5 manchild?

Interpreting the traditional way is easier both conceptually and because it supports traditional spiritual laziness so pastors don't think spiritual growth is a REQUIRED topic enabling them to simply collect money for their pitiful ramblings instead of developing their pew warmers into saints and overcomers.

Regarding your statements on my logic, first let me note there is no "imaginary adversary" as the role was given in a post on another website which has not been documented to protect it and him from spam. You state that he hasn't even begun enough of an "interpretive analysis" to be consistent about anything. That opinion derives from inexperience with interpretation for working through enough of the same problems already yields insight into what he's doing right and wrong, just like expertise in any field can. You seem to leave words out of some of your sentences as in "...I don't think your string of _____ has a firm enough base."

quote:
Furthermore, I seem to get the impression that you're attributing the twelve stars to the patriarchs in the first portion, after which you inexplicably seem to switch it over to "the tribes of Israel" in order to provide support your next step which involves making the manchild into the church instead of Jesus.

The quote above exhibits a misunderstanding -- the "opponent" used the tribes of Israel and I treated it as a possible interpretation as well as inserting the one I was trained with, the patriarchs. The outcome really doesn't depend on which is used. The manchild is the overcoming church, not the traditional.

quote:
I'd also like to note that the way you draw your conclusions and the words and terms you use are very degrading and seem to talk down to your "opponent"

Without providing any examples your comment is unsupported.

Your TallBill comment "I agree that truth has to be defended" omits his biggest problem which is that he doesn't know the truth so his resistance to it puts him in Satan's seat so interactive learning would be a better attitude; otherwise your remarks are accurate.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Ereon

Member

Posts: 1018
From: Ohio, United States
Registered: 04-12-2005
quote:


I know in school they don't really train computer people to be scientists the way they do in other fields but even on the National Geographic Channel last night they had a guy with a theory of a mass asteroid bombardment of the moon which was at first greeted with typical negativity by his community and eventually became the prevailing view in his field of science. I would hope we as Christians could make similar leaps of faith as Biblical evidence permits.

First of all, I disagree how you seem to equate Christianity with a "field of science". I don't see how you can view Christianity solely as a collection of rules, logical constructs, and theories which has to be discovered. There' a reason why David (arguably one of the best Biblical examples of a man who was close to God and please His heart) said in Psalm 14:8 "O taste and see that the Lord is good:". God is something you can only experience because "His ways are higher than our ways, his thoughts are higher than our thoughs". Logic can be a tool to seek certain things about God, especially in His Creation, but you can't truly know Him from logic, you can't figure Him out enough or construct any theories about Him that will suddenly give you a Enoch level experience of His glory and presence.

quote:


But as you write, it is hard to find any evidence of a person changing his mind based on an internet communication. I have some success with very open people such as current university students just learning about the real world and some young military people but that's about it. Ministers are particularly obstinate toward changing their views toward Truth. So I wonder what way would you suggest to make Truth more popular than the currently popular fiction on the Rev. 12:5 manchild?

I would suggest living your life in such a way as to be a walking testimony of God and God's truth. Until someone is willing to hear what you have to say and curious about what you believe, that interest usually being stirred by the evidence in your life, you're not going to get anywhere with trying to change their views on anything. The only people you'll have considerable success with using other more argumentative or "preachy" methods will be those who are already seeking or are unsure of their ground, and then you face another fundamental problem of the method, that anyone who can be argued into an idea also can be argued out of it just as easily.

quote:


Interpreting the traditional way is easier both conceptually and because it supports traditional spiritual laziness so pastors don't think spiritual growth is a REQUIRED topic enabling them to simply collect money for their pitiful ramblings instead of developing their pew warmers into saints and overcomers.

*shrug* My pastor and youth pastor both share similar views that you attribute to tradition, and both of them have done quite alot to try and encourage me and many of the other people in our Church to become saints and overcomers. Tradition does not inherently translate into either "incorrect" or "lazy".

quote:


Regarding your statements on my logic, first let me note there is no "imaginary adversary" as the role was given in a post on another website which has not been documented to protect it and him from spam. You state that he hasn't even begun enough of an "interpretive analysis" to be consistent about anything. That opinion derives from inexperience with interpretation for working through enough of the same problems already yields insight into what he's doing right and wrong, just like expertise in any field can. You seem to leave words out of some of your sentences as in "...I don't think your string of _____ has a firm enough base."

First of all, you're not addressing experts in this field, you're addressing normal people. To an uninformed, everyday observer such as myself, it seems you've skipped a substantial step, and are essentially accusing your opponent of a mistake that you have provided no grounds for. That left out words by the way is logic, It's easy to miss mistakes when I'm typing long replies. Sorry about that.

quote:


The quote above exhibits a misunderstanding -- the "opponent" used the tribes of Israel and I treated it as a possible interpretation as well as inserting the one I was trained with, the patriarchs. The outcome really doesn't depend on which is used.

*nods* The way you worded your statements was slightly archaic so I had a hard time understanding what you were saying. I would like to add though that in any case Jesus would be a required result. If Jesus is the "manchild" then that settles it, but if it's the overcoming church then Jesus is automatically the head, and therefore the metaphorical "head" of the child. It also might be a worthwhile observation that the head of the baby is always the part that emerges first, so the image could also be one of Jesus, as the head of the manchild, coming forth (which ties into old New Testament passages such as His being the firstborn of the dead ect.) soon after followed by the body, representing the church. Otherwise you'd have a headless child.

quote:


Without providing any examples your comment is unsupported.

Take some time and read through it. Throw off any assumption of truth or who's right or wrong. Read it as someone who supports the other view point, who believes it to be true to the core, and read your own words with someone else's eyes. Then you'll see what I mean.

quote:


Your TallBill comment "I agree that truth has to be defended" omits his biggest problem which is that he doesn't know the truth so his resistance to it puts him in Satan's seat so interactive learning would be a better attitude; otherwise your remarks are accurate.

This is an example of degrading words and terms that I was talking about. Here you've accused him of not knowing the truth to begin with, then with resisting it, then with him "being in Satan's seat". What would be your response of someone used those words with you? Wouldn't that hurt you and automatically steel you to almost anything that they wished to say, even if it were true?

------------------

The time for speaking comes rarely, the time for being never departs.
George Macdonald

Matt Langley
Member

Posts: 247
From: Eugene, OR, USA
Registered: 08-31-2006
quote:
This is an example of degrading words and terms that I was talking about. Here you've accused him of not knowing the truth to begin with, then with resisting it, then with him "being in Satan's seat". What would be your response of someone used those words with you? Wouldn't that hurt you and automatically steel you to almost anything that they wished to say, even if it were true?

I think Ereon makes a good point. Whether or not you beleive yourself as correct and the other as wrong it is important to be respectful. Especially if you ever hope to get your point across. I don't know about you, but I definitely don't respond well to being insulted. In fact it often will cause me to instantly reject what the person says.


You make some interesting points, though since your bitter responses are laced with insults and superiority comes accross as very much not God inspired. In fact based on the fact you typically choose to respond very offensively it causes me to discourage aspects of your posts that are in fact constructive. Some of these responses are the following:

quote:

If you want to just flame me out of your spiritually blind lusts as was almost universal, (especially by TallBill), on my first thread topic on this site: "Coding For The Future" in the World Views & Politics forum, I prefer you verbally masturbate elsewhere and not here.

quote:
Yes, the verbal masturbators are still at it, going off topic to flame me.

quote:
Interpreting the traditional way is easier both conceptually and because it supports traditional spiritual laziness so pastors don't think spiritual growth is a REQUIRED topic enabling them to simply collect money for their pitiful ramblings instead of developing their pew warmers into saints and overcomers.

quote:
That opinion derives from inexperience with interpretation for working through enough of the same problems already yields insight into what he's doing right and wrong, just like expertise in any field can.

quote:
Your TallBill comment "I agree that truth has to be defended" omits his biggest problem which is that he doesn't know the truth so his resistance to it puts him in Satan's seat so interactive learning would be a better attitude; otherwise your remarks are accurate.

These harsh comments definitely do not come accross to me as the compassion and wisdom of the Lord.

Just some notes to keep in mind in an online discussion. The more insulting and harsh you get the less likely people are to take you seriously... which defeats the purpose of trying to spread what you consider is the truth.

------------------
Matthew Langley
Lead Documentation Engineer
GarageGames

Matt Langley
Member

Posts: 247
From: Eugene, OR, USA
Registered: 08-31-2006
Also in responding to the logic of your post rather than your tone... you launch with:

quote:
The correct interpretation of Rev. 12:1-6 defines the future of Christianity. Here it contrasts the popular but errant interpretation.

I find this to be a contradiction and completely invalidates your post.

You combine "correct" and "interpretation" which I find to be in complete contradiction and delusional. An interpretation is in itself neither correct or incorrect. Logically an interpretation can simply be "more" or "less" accurate, which in and of itself is a relative evaluation based on aspects that have relative values. A very much non-objective process.

I would submit a better definition of your analysis would be along the lines of:

"I submit this as the most accurate interpretation"

or change the context to represent a personal belief and not an absolution as well as adding a defining value to "correct" to context it appropriately, such as:

"I believe this is the most correct interpretation"

another, in my opinion still erroneous, way to state it while changing it in the least is to at least contain a personal belief qualifying statement, such as:

"I believe this to be the correct interpretation"

Any of these I would deem as either fully logical or mostly logical statements that represent the goal of your post/analysis. Unless you are in fact the Lord God and can confirm such an interpretation is infallibly correct.

Please clarify your opening statement further. If you do not re-state it in a more logical manner I am left with the conclusion that you start your analysis with a logic contradiction which would initially invalidate the logical assertion of the entire statement.

------------------
Matthew Langley
Lead Documentation Engineer
GarageGames

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
Matthew,

quote:
You combine "correct" and "interpretation" which I find to be in complete contradiction and delusional.

I remember two people from Eugene at CGDC. Were you the long hair who couldn't even stand in my presence after I started preaching or the short hair blond who I tried to disabuse of some really whacky ideas one night?

In either case, I suggest that you look in a mirror for you are the delusional one in this correspondance. Get out of whatever church you are in and find a better one. My personal recommendation is the "Church in Eugene" led by Tim Ayers which should both be in your white pages.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

[This message has been edited by Kirk (edited July 31, 2007).]

Matt Langley
Member

Posts: 247
From: Eugene, OR, USA
Registered: 08-31-2006
quote:
I remember two people from Eugene at CGDC. Were you the long hair who couldn't even stand in my presence after I started preaching or the short hair blond who I tried to disabuse of some really whacky ideas one night?

lol... actually I was neither, I didn't get to make it to CGDC, was working on an engine release that came up, was looking forward to showing up and doing a TGB presentation representing GarageGames though. Unfortunately it didn't work out.

quote:

In either case, I suggest that you look in a mirror for you are the delusional one in this

Hmm, I'm dissapointed. Considering your apparent logical nature I expected an honest and logical answer and explanation (possibly re-explanation). Instead I get an inaccurate rebutal? I never called you delusional, I stated that I found your starting statement "to be in complete contradiction and delusional".

With all of your talk about being a logical Christian I really expected more. I didn't mean any of my comments offensively, you simply took a logical and direct tone so I responded with such. If thats too much for you to handle then I might suggest you re-evaluate whether or not you deliver in such a manner.

------------------
Matthew Langley
Lead Documentation Engineer
GarageGames

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
Ereon,

quote:
First of all, I disagree how you seem to equate Christianity with a "field of science". I don't see how you can view Christianity solely as a collection of rules, logical constructs, and theories which has to be discovered. There' a reason why David (arguably one of the best Biblical examples of a man who was close to God and please His heart) said in Psalm 14:8 "O taste and see that the Lord is good:". God is something you can only experience because "His ways are higher than our ways, his thoughts are higher than our thoughs". Logic can be a tool to seek certain things about God, especially in His Creation, but you can't truly know Him from logic, you can't figure Him out enough or construct any theories about Him that will suddenly give you a Enoch level experience of His glory and presence.

Your disagreement demonstrates you haven't yet adequately tasted and seen that the Lord is good! I frequently find His thoughts are higher than traditional Christians think or preach. You must know Him from logic and experience for if you have spiritual experience without logic, you may be experiencing Satan who can transform himself into an Angel of Light and if you have logic without spirit, you're dead (logically follows James' discussion about faith and works.)

God is absolute perfection and Jesus is absolute perfection in human form. From that definition one must realize the lack of pursuing God is imperfection. Starting with such logic, one can develop a clearn understanding of God and when one encounters the gospel of the Kingdom in Matthew 10:7-8 one can detect when one's spiritual experience is short of Jesus' requirement and then pursue it in prayer, faith, and love.

> Tradition does not inherently translate into either "incorrect" or "lazy".

I mailed about 600 newspapers called "The Christian" to churches in Portland Oregon and got only one positive reply. I emailed about 870 pastors of a certian denomination and got only one positive reply. I invited a dozen pastors from my area to my house on July 12, 2007 and not one came. I think I have lots of support for the opposite of your statement while you may have some.

quote:
It also might be a worthwhile observation that the head of the baby is always the part that emerges first, so the image could also be one of Jesus, as the head of the manchild, coming forth (which ties into old New Testament passages such as His being the firstborn of the dead ect.) soon after followed by the body, representing the church. Otherwise you'd have a headless child.

The above quote sounds gross to me. Why do you bring up a headless child? In any case, Jesus did not emerge from the end time church, he was already resurrected and ascended to heaven 2000 years ago. So you are mixing metaphors incorrectly here. You could say the church came from His rib like Eve came from Adam when John's head rested on His breast.

Considering TallBill's first and all subsequent comments to me so far, I stand by my accurate analysis of his ignorance of the truth I've been presenting, giving him no rational basis for his behavior. For you to support his idea of defending truth if not his methods indicates you also need to get further into the truth than you have. "Store the Bible in your heart, not on a shelf." Rexella Van Impe

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
Matt,

> I never called you delusional, I stated that I found your starting statement "to be in complete contradiction and delusional".

More irrationality doesn't help your case. Attacking my statements is attacking me. I admit to using in the past the same device of seperating a person from his statements but actually they are not completely seperable. If I were to sue you for libel, your use of that seperation wouldn't help you much in court.

> With all of your talk about being a logical Christian I really expected more.

If you weren't so blind, you would have received much more which is still present to recieve from my last post to you. Again, no matter who you are, you have need to replace your immature Bible ideas and logic techniques with better ones. Obviously whatever church you attend isn't helping you as much as you pretend. Go find a better one.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Matt Langley
Member

Posts: 247
From: Eugene, OR, USA
Registered: 08-31-2006
quote:
If you weren't so blind, you would have received much more which is still present to recieve from my last post to you. Again, no matter who you are, you have need to replace your immature Bible ideas and logic techniques with better ones. Obviously whatever church you attend isn't helping you as much as you pretend. Go find a better one.

Wow... you gathered all that from me disagreeing with one sentence of yours? You apparently aren't mature enough to defend your statement in the manner you state it. I will not resort to personal attacks, you will not bring me to that level. When you are ready to actually have a discussion and respond properly then I am ready to respond to it. Your demeaning response is definitely not of God in my opinion. I think you should really consider why you are so defensive, you aren't very secure with yourself.

------------------
Matthew Langley
Lead Documentation Engineer
GarageGames

Matt Langley
Member

Posts: 247
From: Eugene, OR, USA
Registered: 08-31-2006
btw you are expressing quite a bit of hostility and anger... not really sure why? Dropped you an e-mail, I am personally curious why.

------------------
Matthew Langley
Lead Documentation Engineer
GarageGames

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
Matt,

I am a programmer, you are a documention engineer, thus my logic is naturally higher than yours enabling me to see through your insults which you apparently don't even recognize.

Also note:
Seeking God's best church instead of the church of your choice is always an excellent idea yet you've ignored it.

You apparently aren't mature enough to realize your statements about mine are false and misleading. The logic upon which you based them is flawed. You have already resorted to personal attacks and refuse to admit it. There is no need for me to stoop to your level to answer your ill-concieved question as you apparently have no ability to comprehend truth even when you read it. Never the less as a testimony to you, I will do as you asked...

quote:
The correct interpretation of Rev. 12:1-6 defines the future of Christianity. Here it contrasts the popular but errant interpretation.

I find this to be a contradiction and completely invalidates your post.

You combine "correct" and "interpretation" which I find to be in complete contradiction and delusional. An interpretation is in itself neither correct or incorrect. Logically an interpretation can simply be "more" or "less" accurate, which in and of itself is a relative evaluation based on aspects that have relative values. A very much non-objective process.


> An interpretation is in itself neither correct or incorrect.

Wrong. An iterpretation is like a scientific hypothesis which can be elevated to a theory if there is sufficient evidence to support it and nothing significant to contradict it.

People who resort to calling others "subjective" as opposed to "objective" which you do in referring to my logical process as "non-objective" usually are arguing from ignorance. People who have done the work to understand may have a larger and more accurate thought object network than you can imagine, as the heavens are above the earth. Your attitude in name calling before you have a clue as to what I'm saying begs for treatment in the same manner but I'll forgive you.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

[This message has been edited by Kirk (edited July 31, 2007).]

TallBill

Member

Posts: 298
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: 11-22-2002
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
> Tradition does not inherently translate into either "incorrect" or "lazy".

I mailed about 600 newspapers called "The Christian" to churches in Portland Oregon and got only one positive reply. I emailed about 870 pastors of a certian denomination and got only one positive reply. I invited a dozen pastors from my area to my house on July 12, 2007 and not one came. I think I have lots of support for the opposite of your statement while you may have some.


Actually, you have zero support for it. In all my time as a Christian, even considering all of the disagreements I have had with church leadership—some quite vehement—not once has any of them asked me to leave their church. Can you say the same? Is it really any wonder that they rejected your company? Pastors do talk with each other. You have been cast out. They are not being lazy or incorrect, but are standing together against you. Knowing many pastors, I know how difficult it is for them to do that to anyone. But, you show no signs of repentance, and so they continue to stand. They are being neither incorrect nor lazy. What they are doing is both quite difficult, and quite correct. It is you who needs to change. You have been cast into the arms of Satan so that one of two things will happen: either you will realize your sin and repent, or you will continue to wallow in Satan’s deceit. They have seen no signs of repentance, and so they continue to stand. It is you who needs to change.

------------------
Never Forget to Pray!

"...prayer itself is an art which only the Holy Ghost can teach us. He is the giver of all prayer. Pray for prayer---pray till you can pray; pray to be helped to pray, and give not up praying because you cannot pray, for it is when you think you cannot pray that you are most praying. Sometimes when you have no sort of comfort in your supplications, it is then that your heart---all broken and cast down---is really wrestling and truly prevailing with the Most High."
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, from the pamphlet, "Effective Prayer"

[This message has been edited by Tallbill (edited July 31, 2007).]

Mene-Mene

Member

Posts: 1398
From: Fort Wayne, IN, USA
Registered: 10-23-2006
As much as I admire your devotion to your belief you walk a treacherous path. Jesus didn't believe Zaccheus' beliefs but that didn't stop him from talking kindly to him. You'll get much more support if you love your enemies, and forgive those who hate you. Give to those that steal from you, and show by actions that Jesus is in you. As much as we disagree on theology, the theory surrounding the Bible, we both agree that Jesus was perfect, just, kind, the prince of peace, counsular, and all that the Bible said he was. Follow Jesus' words, "They will know you by your love". I'm not going to get into the calling you not walking in love, but you will get a better response if you walk, talk, debate, and post in love.

------------------
MM out-
Thought travels much faster than sound, it is better to think something twice, and say it once, than to think something once, and have to say it twice.
"Frogs and Fauns! The tournament!" - Professor Winneynoodle/HanClinto
I reserve the full right to change my views/theories at any time.

HanClinto

Administrator

Posts: 1828
From: Indiana
Registered: 10-11-2004
I want to take this opportunity to lay out some basic ground rules for ecumenical fellowship.

Kirk, just because someone is disagreeing with you does not mean that they are flaming you. Neither does it necessarily mean that they are unsaved and need to "convert", nor does it necessarily mean that they are possessed by demons.

Seriously, think about it from our perspective for a bit. We've got our faith that we've been working out for many years (and our parents and relatives for years before that), and some guy on the Internet that we don't know from Adam comes along and expects us to quickly jump on his bandwagon. It takes me a long time to accept new doctrines from my pastor (who I have gotten to know over the course of a matter of years), much less a guy like yourself who I hardly know, and doesn't even have a graduate degree in Bible or theology. Perhaps most significantly, it really doesn't help that when we disagree with you, you get offended, and start accusing us of being under demonic influence.

So come at it from our point of view for a bit (note that I'm sidestepping the issue of whether or not your arguments are valid). Regardless of whether or not you are right in what you say, the personal offense that you take when people disagree with you does not incline them to trust you. You may be right in what you are saying, though I don't think you're right in how you are saying it. Have patience with people -- sharing Christ's love and truth takes time, and if you aren't willing to invest time in people, that shallowness comes across. If you aren't willing to approach a conversation with an open mind, then that shallowness comes across as well.

TallBill, similar things go for you. You may be right in what you are saying, but phew -- the quickness with which you jump to hostility in your posts does not incline people of differing views to agree with you. I don't think that you're approaching disagreement in the right way if we're going to have good ecumenical fellowship.


I'll say this next part to anyone and everyone. If you only intend to get along with and be friends with people of your theological viewpoint, then perhaps an ecumenical message board isn't the place for you right now.


Kirk, just to be clear, I honestly am glad that you're around. I hope that we all (you, me, and everyone else) can mutually benefit from your participation in the boards. I'm really not trying to drive you off, but you've honestly gotten off with a somewhat rocky start, and I'd like to see you ease in here a bit better.

I hope to see you continuing to participate here, and that you join the upcoming CCN Speedgame Contest. I hope that we can sharpen each other's minds and characters, and spur each other on in following our Savior.

In Christ,
clint

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited July 31, 2007).]

Calin

Member

Posts: 358
From: Moldova
Registered: 12-04-2006
I think it would be in everyones benefit if CCN had some mandatory rules for posters to keep in mind before posting. We've had threads of this kind in the past. One could copy-cut the first half from the Clint's post and make it sticky.

I think everyone has the right to share the things he believes in however it should be made with respect and dignity.

------------------
Check my C# libraries

[This message has been edited by Calin (edited July 31, 2007).]

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
Ecumencial board? Are you sure you want to use that word in light of the Pope's recent decree reaffirming Roman Catholicism as the one true church? The Pope's message means that all efforts at ecumenicalism are only intended to bring people to Catholicism. There is no middle ground. There may be patience instead of inquisitions, excommunications, and burning at the stake but the power of the Pope is the singular power behind ecumenicalism. If this board is truly ecumenical then its intent is to bring people to Roman Catholicism, not to develop a consensus religion based on Biblical truth.

Regarding demons, I think you probably don't pay attention enough to tell when you are and are not being so influenced. This morning I awoke with a spirit of gaming in my head which provided a spiritual foundation for me to think it's alright for me to be a computer game developer. Only one problem, that spirit caused a headache in a small part of my brain, the upper left rear. I have no use for headaches so I had to cast it out. I believe it was sent to me by someone's prayer, more than likely someone who posted on this thread.

I've examined a few of Tallbill's non-flame posts which so far only exist outside of my threads and it looks like he's a typical wannabe Christian, growing in his own way, but when it comes to me he clearly acts the devil. If he were an administrator, I'd be banned already. So I strongly request that he never be given the opportunity.

To all I say, get more serious about Jesus than any pastor you ever met. Some people from different backgrounds than me have given their lives 100% to Jesus and with those I get along with in one accord. The 95%ers always cause trouble when facing a 100%er because they want to hold on to their piece of the world. Only Jesus is judge but when you compare computer games to the gospel of the kingdom in Matt. 10:7-8 I hope you can see there is no comparison.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Calin

Member

Posts: 358
From: Moldova
Registered: 12-04-2006
Kirk

That's trying to win a debate by cheating in arguments.

quote:

If this board is truly ecumenical then its intent is to bring people to Roman Catholicism, not to develop a consensus religion based on Biblical truth.

What does 'true ecumenism' mean to you, bringing people to Roman Catholicism?
If not that's a flawed (invalid) syllogism.


Don't play with words. You'll get banned if you don't change your style.

------------------
Check my C# libraries

HanClinto

Administrator

Posts: 1828
From: Indiana
Registered: 10-11-2004
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
Ecumencial board? Are you sure you want to use that word in light of the Pope's recent decree reaffirming Roman Catholicism as the one true church?


Yes, I'm sure I want to use that word -- I'm not using the word in your sense -- I'm referring to the word by its definition -- that is, the entire body of true believers (the "big c Church"). To clarify, my attempt to promote unity in the Body is not an attempt to convert you, myself, or anyone else to Catholicism. I am using it in the Philippians 2 sense of unity.

Here at CCN, we are people who center around a common thread of interest. In general, we love God, and we like computers. We want to glorify God in our use of computers.

It is foolish to get caught up in pointless debates of Christianity, such that it causes schism in the Body. Scripture exhorts us time and time again to have unity in the church. One way that we do this is by establishing what is absolutely essential to agree on (the things that we would burn at the stake for), and the things that are not as necessary. Those less-necessary things are still important, but love and unity in the body supersedes that.

Perhaps a section from the letter to Timothy would be appropriate here. Timothy was left in Ephesus, and given warnings about how to guard against unnecessary and unprofitable schism in the Body.

quote:
1 Timothy 1:3-7
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.


I think that's enough to say on this subject for now.


quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
I have no use for headaches so I had to cast it out. I believe it was sent to me by someone's prayer, more than likely someone who posted on this thread.


Just to clarify, did you just say that you think it's likely that someone on the boards here demonically prayed for you to have a headache this morning?

--clint

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited July 31, 2007).]

bennythebear

Member

Posts: 1225
From: kentucky,usa
Registered: 12-13-2003
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
...

Regarding demons, I think you probably don't pay attention enough to tell when you are and are not being so influenced. This morning I awoke with a spirit of gaming in my head which provided a spiritual foundation for me to think it's alright for me to be a computer game developer. Only one problem, that spirit caused a headache in a small part of my brain, the upper left rear. I have no use for headaches so I had to cast it out. I believe it was sent to me by someone's prayer, more than likely someone who posted on this thread...


you're funny.

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

proverbs 25:7
open rebuke is better than secret love.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
Sigh, you guys need to learn to be more precise with your English.

Calin's post with no support for his first flame goes on to quote a sentence of mine then asks if what I clearly wrote is what I wrote. What you need to have me confirm 1 + 0 = 1? And why the "if not" clause? Just more flames.

Clint's post quotes two sentences asking if what I wrote implies someone's evil intent. In reply, I expect it was specifically Matthew Langley who sent several private emails beyond his posts here. I don't expect that he prayed specifically for me to have a headache but the spirit that was sent, whether his own or a demon, is definitely incompatible with me. I expect just as many posts here express illogic which reflects a degree of lack of commitment to and knowing of God, sometimes people carry their errors into the spiritual realm and make mistakes there too without realizing it. So I don't attribute evil intent, just a blunder with evil result.

On the matter of my interpretation at the start of this thread, I may want to rephrase it but generally yes, I'd burn at the stake for the manchild being the overcomers, the spiritual son of Jesus and not personally Jesus. It's that important.

What do you think I'm doing here besides burning figuratively, socially, and spiritually (but not physically)?

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

[This message has been edited by Kirk (edited July 31, 2007).]

HanClinto

Administrator

Posts: 1828
From: Indiana
Registered: 10-11-2004
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
Sigh, you guys need to learn to be more precise with your English.


Is this in response to me with my "ecumenical" post along with the Timothy quote? I felt I was very precise in my language, so I'm just wondering if you meant this to apply to me.

quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
Calin's post with no support for his first flame goes on to quote a sentence of mine then asks if what I clearly wrote is what I wrote. What you need to have me confirm 1 + 0 = 1? And why the "if not" clause? Just more flames.


Hey bud -- I wouldn't exactly call Calin's post to you a flame. It was a retorting argument, but just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean it's a flame. A flame is an unnecessary personal insult that ignores the real issues and instead is intended to cause emotional harm to a person -- I.E. trying to make them feel bad, instead of addressing a debatable point. In a phrase, a flame post is a groundless name-calling post. Childish insults.

His post addressed the point. He didn't call you any names. His post was not a flame.


quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
Clint's post quotes two sentences asking if what I wrote implies someone's evil intent. In reply, I expect it was specifically Matthew Langley ...<snip>... the spirit that was sent, whether his own or a demon, is definitely incompatible with me...<snip>... So I don't attribute evil intent, just a blunder with evil result.


BTW, it's not usually polite to gossip and slander people who have approached you tactfully and privately.
I appreciate you clarifying what you meant -- I'm just trying to make sure I'm getting what you're saying. You're saying it's likely that a troublesome/evil spirit sent to you by him (possibly unknowingly on his part) has caused you physical pain?

--clint

P.S. Okay, you edited your post after I had begun to reply to you.

quote:
Later posted by Kirk:
On the matter of my interpretation at the start of this thread, I may want to rephrase it but generally yes, I'd burn at the stake for the manchild being the overcomers, the spiritual son of Jesus and not personally Jesus. It's that important.


In your view, is holding your particular interpretation of it necessary for one's salvation?

quote:
Later posted by Kirk:
What do you think I'm doing here besides burning figuratively, socially, and spiritually (but not physically)?


That's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm trying to figure out how you gel with Titus 3, and what my response should be.

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited July 31, 2007).]

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
quote:
I'm just trying to make sure I'm getting what you're saying. You're saying it's likely that a troublesome/evil spirit sent to you by him (possibly unknowingly on his part) has caused you physical pain?

My clear simple answer: YES!

It is possibly the result of a violation of Paul's rule, don't let the sun go down on your indignation.

> In your view, is holding your particular interpretation of it necessary for one's salvation?

Intial belief in Jesus, no. Full complete perfect salvation, yes.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

HanClinto

Administrator

Posts: 1828
From: Indiana
Registered: 10-11-2004
Thanks for the clarification regarding the headache. So it sounds like you're accusing him of some sort of possession of an evil spirit, whether it's his own, or demonic, and that he is affecting you negatively through (demonic) prayer.

That's a pretty bold accusation, bud. I've known Matt Langley for a good long while now, and hung out with him in person, and even gone to church with him and his wife. He is a cool guy, and because of my knowledge of him, I'm naturally extremely suspicious of the things that you're telling me. As I understand it, you haven't ever met him, have exchanged maybe a day's worth of e-mails with him, and you are very quick to publicly name and suggest that he is demonically possessed (a very serious charge).

quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
> In your view, is holding your particular interpretation of it necessary for one's salvation?

Intial belief in Jesus, no. Full complete perfect salvation, yes.



Hmm. Please forgive me for asking another clarifying question (I hope it's okay), but I'm not sure what all is implied by "full complete perfect salvation." Perhaps another way to get closer to what I'm trying to figure out -- can someone go to Heaven while holding to a view other than your particular understanding of this particular prophetic passage?

I realize that I appear painstakingly pedantic, but please understand that I am trying to very carefully understand where you're coming from so that I don't take action without firm basis. I am asking so many clarifying questions because how you are responding to me is determining what I think of you in context of Titus 3, and it will determine what future action I do or do not take.

In Christ,
clint

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited July 31, 2007).]

Calin

Member

Posts: 358
From: Moldova
Registered: 12-04-2006
quote:

Calin's post with no support for his first flame goes on to quote a sentence of mine

The quote was an example to support my 'flame'.

quote:

then asks if what I clearly wrote is what I wrote. What you need to have me confirm 1 + 0 = 1? And why the "if not" clause? Just more flames.

You should talk more straight forward. You're misusing the terms "ecumenicalism" so it's hard to figure out what is that that you intended to say. (ecumenicalism - (Christianity) the doctrine of the ecumenical movement that promotes cooperation and better understanding among different religious denominations: aimed at universal Christian unity http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ecumenicalism )

I thought you understand the 'ecumenicalism' term as everyone else, in which case the statement "If this board is truly ecumenical then its intent is to bring people to Roman Catholicism" doesn't make much sence.

I hope that sheds some light.

------------------
Nanostorm

[This message has been edited by Calin (edited July 31, 2007).]

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
It's not uncommon to have demon problems, it's just not common to recognize it as can be seen in the Gospels vs. Epistles. I was reading verses relating to God's writing on us a new name, the name of the city of God, His name, etc. and I was focussing that on my inner being to try to experience God's writing there on me. Suddenly a big dark spirit came out of me. I don't know what it was other than a demon that had to flee at God's word. I hadn't noticed it inside me before but I guess they come in during moments we aren't fully pursuing God.

One major problem is most Christians I've encountered don't believe in Jesus to the extent of his sayings on demons. One Christian eye doctor told me something like they don't exist except maybe in certian diseases like Gill's DeLatouret Syndrome (involuntary foul language). I tried to cast one out of a programmer with that illness but wasn't able. I've also tried to get time on a MRI machine to test these things but the guy who had the time available for projects didn't even reply.

> Can someone go to Heaven without holding to your particular understanding of this particular prophetic passage?

People go to heaven daily. Everyone who dies in Christ goes to be angels in heaven. They need not have even read Revelation for that. But most of them aren't all they could be and that's where the manchild's work to build the New Jerusalem comes in, perfecting all the dead foolish virgins, undercoming believers, and the disobedient who only want to be loved by God after they die without participating much in Christian life while alive. People who are martyrs it is written live under Jesus' throne. So it's a matter of where in heaven you want to be. Do you want to be seated with Jesus as promised to the overcomers in Rev. 3:21 or do you want to be off somewhere in heaven yet having lost Jesus as your first love in Rev. 2:2?

Your questions may need expanding from the Occam's Razor simplicity of "does this get me to heaven or can I ignore it?" More appropriately, "is this the best God has for me?"

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

HanClinto

Administrator

Posts: 1828
From: Indiana
Registered: 10-11-2004
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
So it's a matter of where in heaven you want to be. Do you want to be seated with Jesus as promised to the overcomers in Rev. 3:21 or do you want to be off somewhere in heaven yet having lost Jesus as your first love in Rev. 2:2?


Rev 2:4 is the passage that talks about losing one's first love, and it's telling the church in Ephesus to repent, or else its lampstand will be extinguished. Not just moved to another part of heaven -- we're talking removed entirely, as in not in Heaven at all. You're referencing a passage that refers to a salvation issue, not a rewards issue.

quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
Your questions may need expanding from the Occam's Razor simplicity of "does this get me to heaven or can I ignore it?" More appropriately, "is this the best God has for me?"


Good clarification. We are always seeking to know more and more of the truth, and never being happy with mediocrity in our own lives. One danger of the "ecumenical movement" is that people can focus on it too much, and try to be too inclusive of all denominations, religions, and philosophies. God hates schism in the Body -- what issues are worth splitting a church over? What about the Church (big C)? Into what category does your particular interpretation of this particular passage fall?

--clint

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
The pitiful attempts to redefine Ecumenicalism from the Pope's statement are all wrong politically speaking. Dictionaries define words based on popular useage, which may vary depending on if the college students they survey are more liberal or conservative. That shows dictionary definitions are by consensus or popularity, not necessarily truth.

Since Catholicism is the most popular Christian denomination with 1.1 billion as opposed to 0.3 billion in all other Christian groups, the Catholic definition may be statistically given more weight, technically speaking.

However, it's always possible to stand against the tide and create your own private interpretation of words or use someone else's dialect. But it's better to find a new word that represents the oneness Jesus prayed for which implies breaking down walls that divide instead of the shaking hands over denominational fences and walls which is ecumenicalism.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
By my doctrine of interpretation which requires holding the words of Jesus absolutely true and comparing all others to His, my interpretation of the manchild is another truth and cannot be a source of division within the body of Christ but can only be part of that upon which the Body is built, like the New Jerusalem being built on the foundation of the Apostles.

By Jesus' words there is NOTHING worthy of dividing the Church or church for the church should be one as He and His Father are one. Thus everything in the Bible is properly a source of unity.

But what we have today are PROSTITUTES, not churches, as proven by rightly interpreting Rev. 17:5. With those, frequent division is expected. So EVERYTHING of God that will divide a prostitute and help fulfill Rev. 18:4 is excellent for teaching, correction, and instruction that the man of God may be complete.

So instead of continuing to worship in the church of your choice, obey Rev. 18:4 and come out of her to pray for the true church, pursuing Jesus directly as He intended.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

HanClinto

Administrator

Posts: 1828
From: Indiana
Registered: 10-11-2004
I felt it was a reasonable question, Kirk. I'm having a hard time telling what you're saying. I asked you if you thought people could be in heaven if they held to an alternate view of that particular prophetic passage, and you responded by saying two things. With your words you said that they could possibly still be "saved", but just be in a lower part of heaven. With the scripture, it spoke about a salvation issue, implying that they would not be in heaven at all, because their lampstand would be entirely removed.

Can you empathize with me and see how I'm having a hard time following you?

Imagine that you and I have long been happy members of the same church. We have both been holding your particular view of this particular prophetic passage, and remained in perfect agreement. One day, basing on what I see as scriptural evidence, I decide that I don't think it's true. I believe that a differing view from this particular view of this particular prophetic passage is closer to the truth. On all other accounts, we agree. You and I discuss the issue at length, and after quite a while, we agree that we cannot come to agreement. So in the context of our hypothetical example, I have two questions. 1) Scripturally, must one of us leave the church? 2) Would that, in turn, signify my departure from the Church, and I am going to be in a lower place in Heaven (if I get there at all)?

quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
But what we have today are PROSTITUTES, not churches, as proven by rightly interpreting Rev. 17:5.


Personally, I'm fine with accepting the interpretation of Rev 17:5 that Rev 17:18 offers (since it explains it so clearly). Here, it says that the prostitute is a city -- unless you're saying that it's a double analogy, where the prostitute is an analogy for the city is an analogy for the plethora of little-c churches. Revelations uses other more established analogies for churches though (such as lampstands) -- I don't see a whole lot of support for the connection that you're drawing here.

quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
So instead of continuing to worship in the church of your choice, obey Rev. 18:4 and come out of her to pray for the true church, pursuing Jesus directly as He intended.


Hrm. I don't see this is how He intended, since He intended for us to worship not only individually, but also communally. This is particularly clear in Hebrews 10.
quote:
Hebrews 10:24-25
And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

--clint

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited July 31, 2007).]

steveth45

Member

Posts: 536
From: Eugene, OR, USA
Registered: 08-10-2005
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
I remember two people from Eugene at CGDC. Were you the long hair who couldn't even stand in my presence after I started preaching or the short hair blond who I tried to disabuse of some really whacky ideas one night?

Sorry, I came late to this discussion. I'm the "long hair." I don't remember any preaching from you. You weren't on the speaking schedule. You approached me during the conference and shared your thoughts on the Bible and the man-child. Though I disagreed with many of your conclusions, I listened to you with respect.

------------------
+---------+
|steveth45|
+---------+

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
quote:

Steveth45 wrote:
You approached me during the conference and shared your thoughts on the Bible and the man-child. Though I disagreed with many of your conclusions, I listened to you with respect.

What I saw was many spiritual indentations into your arm like you were being punched by everything I said. You walked away after what I think was a minute more or less without comment or something very brief I've forgotten.

quote:

Clint wrote:
I'm having a hard time telling what you're saying. With your words you said that they could possibly still be "saved", but just be in a lower part of heaven.

With the scripture, it spoke about a salvation issue, implying that they would not be in heaven at all, because their lampstand would be entirely removed.

<snip> I have two questions. 1) Scripturally, must one of us leave the church? 2) Would that, in turn, signify my departure from the Church, and I am going to be in a lower place in Heaven (if I get there at all)?

Personally, I'm fine with accepting the interpretation of Rev 17:5 that Rev 17:18 offers (since it explains it so clearly). Here, it says that the prostitute is a city -- unless you're saying that it's a double analogy, where the prostitute is an analogy for the city is an analogy for the plethora of little-c churches. Revelations uses other more established analogies for churches though (such as lampstands) -- I don't see a whole lot of support for the connection that you're drawing here.

Hrm. I don't see this is how He intended, since He intended for us to worship not only individually, but also communally. This is particularly clear in Hebrews 10.


Wow! No wonder I've been finding a tough room here. Well, let's go through it step by step:

1) Ok, let's just pretend Heaven has two major parts, the throne area and the many mansions area. We can be in at least three places there, sitting with Jesus on His throne per Rev. 3:21, under His throne where the martyrs are, and somewhere in the mansions area. The scripture I cited, Rev. 2:2 which you corrected to 2:4 may be misapplied here, I don't know. In any case I was using it to show there is potentially some other place in Heaven than being seated with Christ on his throne. I may be wrong but it seems there might be some difference of some kind -- perhaps only in the number of talents we bring.

I think the removal of salvation by removal of the lamp stand is your interpretation which should be considered as another issue as the verse seems to parallel Rev. 18:4 regarding the church but not the absence of believers being called out.

2) Leaving church. Well, you leave the prostituted church building all the time to go home, work, etc.. The true spiritual church which separates you at death from going to heaven or hell I presume it's difficult to leave. As far as scripture goes, Jesus says to talk to the offending one and ramp up in progressive stages until either he repents or you consider him a heathen (eligible to be saved). The individual is not prevented from moving to new jobs, etc.. So I think it's better to obey Jesus' prayer for oneness than to start a division and also pray that the truth will be revealed to both sooner or later by Jesus to provide for greater oneness.

3) Most people I've heard, even people who don't dare preach on it on TBN say the Rev. 17:5,18 city was Rome and is now the Vatican, the smallest nation on earth. As such it is the mother of all the "small c" churches born during the great reformation and since.

4) Yes there is support for meeting together as a church, not as a prostitute. The characteristic of prostitution is selling love for money (and having a paid pimp). So to meet together as a church differs from tradition by meeting in locations that don't cost money and practicing the unity of the believers by letting everyone share instead of a special paid clergyman. Having met in a place mentioned above in Eugene which was "almost" like that, I would love to be able to meet entirely like that so I pray to be led to a divine dozen.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Lazarus

Member

Posts: 1668
From: USA
Registered: 06-06-2006
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
4) Yes there is support for meeting together as a church, not as a prostitute. The characteristic of prostitution is selling love for money (and having a paid pimp). So to meet together as a church differs from tradition by meeting in locations that don't cost money and practicing the unity of the believers by letting everyone share instead of a special paid clergyman. Having met in a place mentioned above in Eugene which was "almost" like that, I would love to be able to meet entirely like that so I pray to be led to a divine dozen.

No. Prostitutes sell their bodies for money, not love.

I've read through this entire thread. And I've read most of what you said, Kirk.
And how can someone be so rude, so insulting - so slanderous; and call themselves a Christian?
You say you'll take Jesus' words over Paul's(not that they contradict) - have you forgotten that He said "Speak the truth in love."??

[This message has been edited by Lazarus (edited July 31, 2007).]

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
Lazarous, were you ever raised from the dead?
Your comments belong in your own M thread.

Or, do you need glasses?

I wrote prostitutes sell love for money. You wrote "No. Prostitutes sell their bodies for money, not love." You are actually incorrect in two ways.

1) Your word "No." implies you think something is wrong with what I wrote. The error in that thought is yours. Love in human biology means sex. Prostitutes sell sex for money. But in the church analogy intended by the writer of Revelation, the spiritual and social attributes of love are sold for money. Clear?

2) Prostitutes do not sell their bodies, they rent them.

So don't even hint that I might be wrong unless you can prove it, then write your proof instead of your hint.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Lazarus

Member

Posts: 1668
From: USA
Registered: 06-06-2006
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
Lazarus, were you ever raised from the dead?
Your comments belong in your own M thread.

Or, do you need glasses?


Yes I was, actually. Ephesians 2: 5, my dear Kirk.
And no, that wasn't a comment. It was a remark.

Oh btw, I do wear glasses. Bifocals to be precise.

Alright, here we go...

1) If you meant sex(as you did) you could have said "sex". You didn't. You said love. Love <> sex.
2) ...uh...
Yes, I can see how it would be a grievous misdeed to even hint that you might be wrong about anything - without offering total and absolute proof. /sarcasm

Anyway, here's a little proof in the form of a dictionary definition:
Verb: Prostitute -
"Sell one's body; exchange sex for money"
Aaand let's get in some more proof! A link to the actual definition.
(I mean - you wouldn't want to take "my" word for it, Kirk. For all you know I made up that definition just to prove a point! Thanks for your high opinion of my posts.)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prostitute

Oh yes, and since you conveniently ignored the rest of my post(concentrating only on the first sentence...), I'll ask this question?
Didn't Jesus say "Love your neighbor."?? Didn't He also say "Speak the truth in love."??

Are you unaware of the way you come across? I mean seriously - have you no clue, Kirk? Do you think everyone who ever said that to you(and I have no doubt it happens often) was just lying for some demonic purposes?!


Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
quote:
Love <> sex.

Wrong. Are you aware of Ideograms? A thought represented pictorially in text? Analyze the word "love": "l" represents the male penis, "o" represents the female vagina, "v" represents them joined at the hip, "E" represents the resulting child. Sex is that reproductive act, not masturbation. Therefore, love = sex in human terms.

Jesus raised the meaning of love to a new level relating to caring for others as for yourself.

quote:
Yes, I can see how it would be a grievous misdeed to even hint that you might be wrong about anything - without offering total and absolute proof.

To All: Good, keep that in mind when communicating with me so You remember to speak truth in love and not just flame me then whine about my reactions.

Regardless if you made up your definition of prostitute or copied it from some other source, it's wrong. Someone who sells their body for money is a slave. Someone who rents their body for money is a prostitute.

Yes Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself." No Jesus didn't say "Speak the truth in love" but Paul said something close in Ephesians 4:15.

All my posts do that. If I had no love for you people, I'd not respond to any post that doesn't address my topic post. In fact I might have not responded at all but just started new topics until someone humbled themself enough to respond on topic.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Lazarus

Member

Posts: 1668
From: USA
Registered: 06-06-2006
Paul said that? Sorry Kirk, my mistake.

My other mistake was getting involved in a discussion with a guy who thinks what he says is always and absolutely the truth and anything that goes against his opinion is wrong.

Lava
Member

Posts: 1905
From:
Registered: 01-26-2005
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
Wrong. Are you aware of Ideograms? A thought represented pictorially in text? Analyze the word "love": "l" represents the male penis, "o" represents the female vagina, "v" represents them joined at the hip, "E" represents the resulting child. Sex is that reproductive act, not masturbation. Therefore, love = sex in human terms.


What the.........?????

[This message has been edited by Lava (edited July 31, 2007).]

TallBill

Member

Posts: 298
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: 11-22-2002
In these Kirkian threads there have been many false accusations thrown about—many of them against me. It is time for truth. There is a document on my website, a document created and made available there long before any of us ever heard of the chesterodox one. Therefore read, and please stop slandering.

------------------
Never Forget to Pray!

"...prayer itself is an art which only the Holy Ghost can teach us. He is the giver of all prayer. Pray for prayer---pray till you can pray; pray to be helped to pray, and give not up praying because you cannot pray, for it is when you think you cannot pray that you are most praying. Sometimes when you have no sort of comfort in your supplications, it is then that your heart---all broken and cast down---is really wrestling and truly prevailing with the Most High."
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, from the pamphlet, "Effective Prayer"

bennythebear

Member

Posts: 1225
From: kentucky,usa
Registered: 12-13-2003
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
Everyone who dies in Christ goes to be angels in heaven.

*buzzer* wrong.

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

proverbs 25:7
open rebuke is better than secret love.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

Kirk
Member

Posts: 73
From:
Registered: 07-23-2007
Clint,

Here's an idea I submitted to the forum creator formerly serving Jack Van Impe's website. Write the forum software to enable thread starters to moderate (aka. delete) posts on the thread they started. That would enable getting rid of posts that either have no content related to the thread or the hit and run posts that flame but don't explain. Note: I'm using a more intuitive definition of flame than yours i.e. to insult regardless of topic with no explination.

What do you think about upgrading this forum? You can get source code for other forums like phpBB and Eblah which should be able to handle this modification. Some other things would look better too.

Kirk

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Lava
Member

Posts: 1905
From:
Registered: 01-26-2005
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
Clint,

Here's an idea I submitted to the forum creator formerly serving Jack Van Impe's website. Write the forum software to enable thread starters to moderate (aka. delete) posts on the thread they started. That would enable getting rid of posts that either have no content related to the thread or the hit and run posts that flame but don't explain. Note: I'm using a more intuitive definition of flame than yours i.e. to insult regardless of topic with no explination.

What do you think about upgrading this forum? You can get source code for other forums like phpBB and Eblah which should be able to handle this modification. Some other things would look better too.

Kirk


Oh come on...off-topic posts are the best! This forum needs some tension release :P

[This message has been edited by Lava (edited August 01, 2007).]

Mene-Mene

Member

Posts: 1398
From: Fort Wayne, IN, USA
Registered: 10-23-2006
quote:

Clint,
Here's an idea I submitted to the forum creator formerly serving Jack Van Impe's website. Write the forum software to enable thread starters to moderate (aka. delete) posts on the thread they started. That would enable getting rid of posts that either have no content related to the thread or the hit and run posts that flame but don't explain. Note: I'm using a more intuitive definition of flame than yours i.e. to insult regardless of topic with no explination.

What do you think about upgrading this forum? You can get source code for other forums like phpBB and Eblah which should be able to handle this modification. Some other things would look better too.

Kirk



A problem with this is the abuse of the moderator abilities, say I say something you don't agree with, it'd be easy for you to just delete my post, than to answer it. Another thing, is that the forums are currently undergoing a changing of hands from Krylar, to Mack. Mack is working on making a new version of CCN with more indate forums, and look.

------------------
MM out-
Thought travels much faster than sound, it is better to think something twice, and say it once, than to think something once, and have to say it twice.
"Frogs and Fauns! The tournament!" - Professor Winneynoodle/HanClinto
I reserve the full right to change my views/theories at any time.

HanClinto

Administrator

Posts: 1828
From: Indiana
Registered: 10-11-2004
quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
1) Ok, let's just pretend Heaven has two major parts, the throne area and the many mansions area.


"Let's pretend"? Dude, Rev is filled with so many word pictures and analogies and figures of speech and whatnot, I don't think we have any place to try and argue about things like the floorplans of the Pearly Gates. This seems to fit squarely into what Titus 3:9 is talking about when it says "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." -- I think that we would be overstepping our boundaries of human knowledge to continue further in this line of thinking. Please understand that I'm not trying to dodge your question or comments, I just think that you're stepping out onto some shaky hypothetical ground, and I haven't yet heard you give good exegesis to back it up. You had one eisogetical passage (Rev 2:4) which, from context (especially if you read the threats of excommunication that he gives the other lampstands), it's clear what they're talking about. I think that you're right -- I recognize that further debate on this issue is another topic. I only brought it up because you used this verse as the support for your argument, and I was wanting to show you a better understanding of that passage.

Please understand that it's many little things like this that give me some doubts about your overall interpretation of scripture, and it's one of the biggest reasons why I have been hesitant to agree with you. I feel that you've been hasty to apply your own interpretation to a verse without looking at what the verse is trying to say. Again, this is eisogesis, and Rev 2:4 is not the only example -- I have called you on at least one other one before.

quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
2) Leaving church. Well, you leave the prostituted church building all the time to go home, work, etc..


You know this isn't what I'm talking about, and you know full well in what sense I was using the word "leave". This is a pointless detour that you're making for no good reason, please stop redefining words in the middle of a conversation. It's not polite, and it just makes debate take longer.

quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
So I think it's better to obey Jesus' prayer for oneness than to start a division and also pray that the truth will be revealed to both sooner or later by Jesus to provide for greater oneness.


Fabulous. So what we have arrived at here is a "no" to both of my questions, is that correct?

So please do the same here. Please give people the benefit of the doubt, be gracious in your speech, and don't be a trouble-maker. Try to get along, and gently correct others. Just because someone disagrees with you, please do not go off and do things like:
1) Insult their intelligence:

quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
I am a programmer, you are a documention engineer, thus my logic is naturally higher than yours enabling me to see through your insults which you apparently don't even recognize.


Matt most certainly *is* a programmer. In case you aren't aware, a "documentation engineer" writes programming tutorials and example code to teach "programmers" how to use complicated things like game engines. Even if you were correct in your assessment of Matt's intellectual capacity, you are stooping to a credentialist ad-hominem attack here, Kirk, and it is out of place on these boards.

2) Groundlessly accuse them of hypocrisy or demonic possession:
If someone has made a contradiction, then it is good to point it out to them. But do not go throwing around groundless accusations at people just because they disagree with you.

You are freely casting around accusations left and right, to anyone who attempts to get close to you and talk to you. To briefly ignore what you've said about others on these boards and at the CGDC, let's just talk about me. Since first meeting you less than a week and a half ago, you have already publicly slandered me by calling me an unsaved hypocritical pharisee who is demon possessed and asked for others to join you in prayerfully exorcising me. You are being a loose cannon with your accusations, and you are stirring up trouble and controversy over the tiniest of issues.

3) Major on the majors, minor on the minors: (this is not a bannable issue, but consider it a guidelines for helping you to having more productive debate)
Seriously, step back and look at this for a second.

If you lookup the word Love in Nave's Topical Bible, you get almost 70 Biblical topics that speak of love. After a quick glance through, it doesn't appear that more than a few speak about "love" in the "eros" sense (Proverbs 5:15 is the closest one that I see). So why the heck are you making such a huge deal and plastering the boards here with sexual ascii illustrations? Show some tact. To go back to scripture, the Bible *rarely* uses the word "love" to refer merely to the act of sex -- if anything, it more frequently uses the phrase "to know" (for reference, see the Greek behind Matthew 1:25). For Lazarus to call you on the misuse of the word was a fair comment, and you should have humbly accepted it. It was a fair critique, yet you are defending this issue tooth and nail with very little Biblical basis for doing so. You are arguing for the sake of trying to prove yourself right, and that kind of self-aggrandizing has no place on a board like this.


In praying and struggling about how to deal with this issue, I have decided to use Titus 3 as my guideline here on these boards.
I want to encourage each of us here on CCN to be ready for every good work, to be obedient and law-abiding, to not speak evilly. I want us to remember that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us, and how can we, who have been given so great a gift, consider the trifles of this life to be of great consequence. In light of that, I want us to strive for unity in the Body, but not in such a way that it dilutes the essential Truth. I want us to avoid foolish controversies, endless hypothetical arguments, pointless schisms, and angry quarreling about the finer points of the law. This is completely worthless and damaging to a community, and we need to watch out for it. If there are people who insist on doing this, and stir up division, I will warn him once, and then warn him twice, and then we will have nothing to do with him, as that person brought judgment on himself.

Kirk, you are being divisive. Chill out, prayerfully read through Titus, and then come on back. This is a warning.

In Christ,
clint

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited August 01, 2007).]

HanClinto

Administrator

Posts: 1828
From: Indiana
Registered: 10-11-2004
As a P.S. to the above, I want to make it clear that you are not the only one who has committed these offenses. I don't know that any of us are innocent of sin in this discussion. You are not the only one that I have issued corrective warnings to. I am warning you here because this is your thread, and to make things clear for the rest of the board. Again, I am not just singling you out -- I have written a number of private messages and e-mails to a number of different people. I am warning you here in particular because you have been the most flagrant offender in this thread.

In an attempt to get everyone to cool down again, I am now locking this thread. Kirk, if you want to respond to any of my questions privately, you know my e-mail. If you would like to start a new thread to respond, you are welcome to do so, but please chill out for a bit and wait a little while before doing so.

This thread is now locked.