Messages

1

Bible Discussion / Re: I don't know what to do...

« on: November 17, 2023, 11:30:32 AM »

I've come across the Christian Identity movement before (mainly in the form of British Israelism), and have just been refreshing my knowledge of it. One of its core teachings (and heresies) is the claim that Aryans rather than Jews are God's chosen race. People involved in this movement believe that white Europeans are the true Israelites and that the Jews are descendants of Canaanites, who in turn are descendants of Cain. They allege that Cain was a "cursed hybrid" of an illicit union between Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden. (I'm not sure whether every CI person believes this, but a great many do.)

Would it be fair for me to assume that you are white, but the special lady in your life is not? You currently live in Japan, so maybe she's Japanese? I suppose the CI movement would class people of Asian descent as being part of the Canaanite race or whatever. So adherents of this movement would regard marriage between a white and a non-white as an "unequal yoke" and thus purportedly against God's Law. Is my understanding of that correct?

One thing that I would like to state clearly at the outset is that God's prohibitions against the Jews marrying foreign women had NOTHING to do with so-called interracial mixing. The real reason (which I will shortly prove from Scripture) had to do with SPIRITUAL purity. God did not want His people intermarrying with pagans, because they would have a bad influence on their households and the nation of Israel as a whole. However, if a woman from a heathen nation got saved, then it was acceptable in God's eyes for her to marry an Israelite (Boaz and Ruth being a noteworthy case in point).

I'm not sure how much you believe in any of the "serpent seed" doctrine that permeates much of the CI movement, but the Bible is extremely clear on who Cain's biological father is:

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (Genesis 4:1)

So Cain's father was Adam, not the serpent. Cain was every bit as human as his brother Abel. There is nobody on earth with reptilian blood. No one group of people is more "pure" or less "pure" than another in terms of biological makeup. Incidentally, notice that Eve says, "I have gotten a man from the LORD". She would not have said this if the serpent had been Cain's biological father. It would have been a total contradiction.

However, the Bible makes a distinction between people's physical fathers and their spiritual fathers. You're probably familiar with John 8:44, in which Jesus tells a group of Jews (mainly Pharisees) that the Devil is their father. He did NOT say this because they were the "serpent seed" (there's no such thing), but because they were lost. They thought that they were eligible for Heaven simply because they were the physical descendants of Abraham (a bit like CI people believing that being descendants of Adam, as opposed to the serpent, makes them God's children). Jesus was pointing out that regardless of who their physical ancestor was, they were, spiritually speaking, sons of the Devil. Satan is the spiritual father of all unsaved people, but God is the Father of everyone who is born again in Christ. Essentially, He adopts us:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will (Ephesians 1:5)

Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. (Galatians 4:3-7)

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:14-16)

Who are the sons of God? Those led by the Spirit of God, not those descended from Adam, Abraham or anyone else. There's more I could say and more verses I could quote on this, but I don't want to make this post too long. So I will now move on to the question of why God prohibited marriages between Israelites and non-Israelites.

The main reason why God forbade marriage between the people of Israel and the nations around them had to do with idolatry. We see this explained in Exodus 34:

Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. (Exodus 34:12-16)

It is very plainly stated there that if Israelites married women from pagan nations, those women would lead their husbands astray into their wicked idolatrous practices. Indeed, this is EXACTLY what happened to Solomon:

But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. (1 Kings 11:1-6)

There is no mention in this passage of Solomon marrying women of other "races". The entire focus is on the spiritual consequences of marrying pagan women. Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived (see 1 Kings 4:30-31). He wrote, or had a significant hand in, three books of the Bible (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon). In many respects, he was a great man of God. Yet when he got involved with pagan women, it caused him great spiritual harm, and had consequences for Israel as a whole too.

When Nehemiah rebukes the Israelites for marrying "strange wives" (i.e. women from foreign nations), he specifically references Solomon's sin:

Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. (Nehemiah 13:26)

The word "outlandish" there just means foreign. It has nothing to do with the modern meaning of outlandish. Solomon's sin was NOT marrying women of a different race or nationality, but marrying women who turned his heart away from God and towards idols. If they had been godly women, his marriages to them would have been fine. But they were wicked and ungodly, and the spiritual corruption that led to is what God wanted to protect His people from when He told His people not to marry women from the pagan nations surrounding Israel.

The same problem existed in Ezra's day:

Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass. (Ezra 9:1-2)

So the real issue was not marriage between people whose skin might have been a different colour, but marriage between people who were supposed to be God's holy people and people who worshipped false gods and indulged in all kinds of wicked practices. Due to marrying pagan women, the people of Israel were copying the abominations of their heathen neighbours. This was corrupting the "holy seed". The corruption was spiritual, not physical. Incidentally, one of God's commandments to Israel was to be holy:

For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. (Leviticus 11:45)

Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy. (Leviticus 19:2)

Born-again Christians are given the same commandment in the New Testament:

But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. (1 Peter 1:15-16)

Being holy has nothing to do with any kind of racial "purity", but rather separating from sin, the world and so on. Think of it this way: holiness is a bit like a garment that is completely clean, without even a single speck of dirt on it. As soon as any dirt gets on that garment though, it is no longer clean. Even if there is only a small amount of dirt, that garment will be considered dirty. Holiness is about being as spiritually clean as you possibly can, and avoiding (as far as possible) being contaminated by sinful practices and philosophies. Israel was destroying its holiness by mingling with the world (in the form of its men marrying pagan women). It has nothing whatsoever to do with supposedly racially pure marriage (the marriage of Boaz and Ruth, among others, proves that). In any case, there really are no races as such. Skin colour is just a variation like hair colour and eye colour. God has made us all "one blood":

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation (Acts 17:26)

Spiritually speaking, there are no racial distinctions (or distinctions of any other kind) between those who are in Christ:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28 - "Greek" in this context means Gentile)

No one will be excluded from Heaven on the basis of their skin colour or nationality:

After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. (Revelation 7:9-10)

This is talking about saved saints of God. ALL nations, kindreds, people and tongues are represented. That includes any and all people that the Christian Identity movement claims to be descendants of Canaanites, or worse, descendants of the serpent. So for a white person to marry a black person, or whatever, is not an issue at all. It's only a problem if one is saved and the other is not. Moses married an Ethiopian woman (see Numbers 12:1). Boaz, an Israelite man, married Ruth, a woman of Moab. This was normally forbidden, but because Ruth was converted to the true God, her marriage to Boaz was acceptable in God's eyes. Had Ruth been a pagan leading Boaz astray, it would have been wrong. But she wasn't, and she ended up becoming grandmother to King David and an ancestor of Christ (in fact, she's one of just two women mentioned in Matthew's geneaology, and the other was Rahab, mother of Boaz and also from a pagan nation originally).

As to the law of the Old Testament, Christians are not subject to it, but if you want to obey one part of the Law, you have to obey all of it (which no one can do):

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. (Galatians 5:1-6)

This passage is using the example of being circumcised, which was a requirement for Jewish males under the Old Covenant. The word "circumcision" is also used to refer to Jews, while "uncircumcision" can mean Gentiles. This passage is one of several that refutes legalism (which essentially means living in obedience to the Law, and making that a requirement of salvation). Just as you don't have to be circumcised nowadays, you don't have to concern yourself with laws regarding marriage to foreign women.

Anyway, to apply all this to your situation: unless you are a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, you are not an Israelite. And your lady friend is almost certainly not descended from Canaanites. However, even if you could trace your lineage back to the Jewish patriarchs (meaning you were physically Jewish), marrying a Japanese woman (or whatever ethnicity this lady happens to be, even if she DOES have Canaanite ancestors) is not going to be a problem. There is no sin in this. You are not breaking any laws of God by marrying a woman of another nationality or ethnicity. In any case, since you're not Jewish, the laws forbidding Israelites from marrying foreign women don't even apply to you. However, if one of you is saved and the other isn't, THEN there's a problem. Then you have an unequal yoke situation (see 2 Corinthians 6:14-18). So your main concern should be that. Are you both saved? If so, great, go ahead and get married (if you are both confident that this is God's will for you, and that there are no Biblical impediments to it). Although even if you are both saved, make absolutely certain that you're on the same page spiritually. Suffice it to say, you're not going to break any of God's laws by marrying a woman whose skin colour happens to be different to your own (if she is indeed Japanese or otherwise "non-white").

There's quite a lot more ground I could cover, and more Scriptures I could quote on this, but I think I've written enough for now. I hope this goes some way to answering your concerns. As Ellie says though, it would help if you could be more specific about your concerns regarding this lady and your hopes of marrying her. I do apologise if I've misunderstood the gist of your question, but I hope this post has still been helpful to you. Incidentally, I would advise you to separate yourself from the Christian Identity movement, because it is really quite heretical. And pretty racist, too - not that I am in any way accusing you of being racist. You don't come across that way at all. But the CI movement does teach a number of things that are racist. More importantly though, it teaches things that fly quite utterly in the face of God's Word, and that is why you need to get away from it and its influences on you.

2

Bible Discussion / Re: Dreams and Visions

« on: July 05, 2023, 10:28:17 AM »

It sounds to me like your dreams were coming from some sort of spirit of divination, Annalisa. As you say, one of the key indicators that the dreams were from an evil source was the pride they filled you with. Had they been from God, they would have humbled you.

Interestingly, a passage at the start of Deuteronomy 13 warning about false prophets also refers to DREAMERS OF DREAMS:

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)

Notice that this talks of signs and wonders coming to pass. That could include something like a "prophetic" dream coming true. Satan can do counterfeit miracles, and I think we are witnessing that in today's Pentecostal and Charismatic churches. They set great store by signs and wonders. Just like the miracles that the Antichrist's false prophet will do, the goal is to lead people away from God. Also, dreaming dreams seems to be a big part of how false prophets operate.

A passage in Jeremiah also references the use of dreams by false prophets:

Therefore hearken not ye to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreamers, nor to your enchanters, nor to your sorcerers, which speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon: For they prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far from your land; and that I should drive you out, and ye should perish. (Jeremiah 27:9-10)

I think it's rather significant here that dreamers are lumped in with diviners, enchanters and sorcerers - all practitioners of witchcraft. That shows that the dreams they are experiencing, even if they come true, are not of God, but rather, the Devil or some other demonic source. Another passage in Jeremiah directly associates false visions with divination:

Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them, Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place. Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart. (Jeremiah 14:13-14)

So, they were not prophesying what God told them (even though they claimed to speak on His behalf), but just saying whatever was in their wicked hearts. Again though, it's important to take note of the end goal. It's about turning people away from God, and towards idols, rebellion and suchlike. The false prophets of Jeremiah's day were telling the people that they wouldn't be in exile for long. According to them, a time of peace was coming, not war and suffering. They were all about positive messages, just like the false teachers today. Whereas true prophets of God give messages that, as Chris mentioned, rebuke, correct and instruct. False prophecies often tend to FLATTER people:

For there shall be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination within the house of Israel. (Ezekiel 12:24)

If you listen to a lot of false prophecies today, they often go on about how great the hearers are, or how great their country is, or how God is going to do some amazing thing soon, and so on. The "dreams" that lady had about being "raptured" were kind of flattering to her and her family. ("Hey, you're really special, so you're going to be raptured soon" is the underlying message, IMO.) And of course, flattery puffs you up. True prophecy, on the other hand, is often meant to humble you to repentance. After all, a lot of the prophecies made by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others were rebuking sin, urging people to repent and warning of dire judgements to come if they did not do so. Even when the prophecies were positive, they were never flattering.

Anyway, those are a few thoughts I had on this subject. Thank you for starting this discussion and sharing the testimony of your own experiences with dreams.

3

Wild Emails @ CLE / Re: First Disgruntled Flat Earth Cultist

« on: June 24, 2023, 01:46:17 PM »

Anyway, the point I wanted to make was that Genesis doesn't mention the creation of a sun, it just says in Chapter 1:3

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

I think this verse is referring to the creation of the sun and moon (which occurred on the third day):

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Those "great lights" can only be the sun and moon, although no further detail is given about how exactly they were made. There was also day and night somehow on the first and second days before the creation of the sun and moon. Dry land appeared on the second day (Verses 9-10).

I do agree though that the FEC is using a presupposition to make his argument. He also sounds a bit like atheists who ask "gotcha" questions (but then, he ultimately has the same spirit as them).

4

General Discussion / Re: Chicken or Egg? (The Entertainment Industry and it's Bizarre Downward Spiral)

« on: June 11, 2023, 09:19:10 AM »

I remember when I used to be in the electronic music scene.  As I danced to the music I literally felt as if something took over.  As creepy as it sounds, I gave myself over to the music.  My body was able to do things that I could not do on my own.  It seemed as if something else was bending and moving me.  When I look back, I'm convinced that it was possession.

Praise God that once I was born again, God took the love of that kind of music out of me.  I remember driving down the road shortly after I was saved.  I was listening to my favorite music and I came to a stop sign.  At that very moment I thought, "I can't listen to this anymore!" It was the conviction of the Holy Spirit.  Immediately, I turned off the music and it hasn't been turned back on.  That was almost four years ago.

Some pop songs actually include instructions to surrender yourself to the music. For example, in Madonna's Vogue, she tells her listeners to let their bodies "move with the music" and "go with the flow". In essence, she tells them to give themselves over to the music. And in the song Everybody Dance Now by C & C Music Factory, they actually tell you to let the music TAKE CONTROL and let its rhythm move you. And when you let the music take control, you're basically letting the spirits behind it take control, I think. But yeah, many of these songs actually tell you to give yourself to the music, let it take control of your movements and so on. You can also get allusions to the singers themselves losing control. For example, in Blame it on the Boogie, there's a bridge where Michael Jackson sings that he just can't control his feet. In fact, he repeats this four or five times, kind of like a mantra. And later in the same song, he actually sings that the Devil has gotten to him through the dance he's doing! He also says that the boogie has him in a "super TRANCE". At an earlier stage of the song, he says the boogie has "drugged" him. It's all right there in the song, but people generally miss it because of the catchy melody and rhythm. They focus on that rather than the lyrics. It's amazing what songwriters can get away with saying if they set it to the right music. That song is going back to the disco era. But a lot of electronic music has its roots in disco, I think. There's not much difference between today's electronica nightclubs and the disco clubs of the '70s, I suspect. I'm sure the people behind these songs know exactly what they're doing when they insert these sorts of instructions or comments into the lyrics.

Just briefly on tantra, that is rather closely associated with sexuality, from the little I know of it. I remember seeing an item on tantric sex some years ago (I think it was on a current-affairs show). One thing that stood out to me at the time was that the lady they interviewed said that there was a whole lot more to tantra than just the sex. She admitted flat-out that tantric sex is really just a way to get people involved in tantra as a whole! So it is really bait to lure and then ensnare people into New Age and pagan spirituality.

Switching to television, some years ago I bought a book by Ben Shapiro called Primetime Propaganda. It was one of my first e-books after I got a Kindle. At the time, I did not actually know who Ben Shapiro was. Anyway, in this book, he discusses a number of different TV shows and quotes Hollywood writers and producers that he interviewed. They all seemed quite happy to reveal to him that they want to influence how their viewers think. One of the simplest and yet most effective tactics they use (and I noticed this before I read the book) is in the characters they choose for their shows. They always make the characters with liberal or left-wing values likable, while they endeavour to make Christian and conservative characters as unlikable as possible. In addition, whenever there is a dispute between the characters, the Christian and conservative characters always make the dumbest arguments possible, while the liberal and left-wing characters are made to appear logical and rational by comparison. However, this tactic has backfired sometimes. Certain conservative characters, like Archie Bunker of All in the Family and Alex Keaton of Family Ties, ended up becoming very popular, which wasn't what was meant to happen. They overshadowed the liberal characters who were meant to be the heroes of those shows. Most of the time though, the indoctrination of the Hollywood writers worked as intended.

Before I gave up most television, I remember that sitcoms (especially American ones) often used to get "preachy". You'd have an episode where a bigoted person (usually a racist) would come on, cause some trouble and end up being lectured and taught a lesson by the liberal "good guys". They would either see the error of their ways and apologise, or retreat with their tail between their legs. The laughs would stop and it would be clear that this was A Very Serious Episode with an Important Lesson. In fact, they would often call them "special episodes". Increasingly, they started conflating "homophobia" with racism, and you would get episodes where a "homophobe" would be taught a similar type of lesson to the earlier racist. Now, the "homophobe" would often act in a genuinely bigoted manner, but it was all part of the plan to make people associate criticism of homosexuality with actual bigotry like racism in their minds. By the grace of God, I never fell for that, because somehow I could see the fallacious logic behind what they were doing. But yeah, many TV shows were full of that. And of course, the propaganda extends to dramas. I remember a storyline on a show here in NZ where a pregnant woman was contemplating an abortion, and was harassed by a "crazy Christian" woman. The clear message of this storyline was that Christians and pro-lifers are dangerous and irrational people, while "sane" and "normal" people are "pro-choice". (In the end, I think the woman didn't actually have the abortion, but they still made sure their viewers got the message they wanted to convey. This was in the early to mid-90s, by the way.)

Nowadays, as Aussie Chris as said, the indoctrination is not even subtle anymore. TV shows have, from what I have read, gone fully woke. They've all got to have gay characters, or trans characters, and feature "alternative" families, and so on. And they've got to throw some climate change fearmongering in there too, no doubt. They also seem to want to reimagine white people in history (like Cleopatra or Ann Boelyn) as black. Historical accuracy no longer matters. However, it seems that the woke indoctrination on TV is getting so blatant and over the top that many people are being turned off it. So that's good, although I'm sure the younger generation (who have been raised with woke values from birth) still lap it up. And sadly, those who are cutting back on TV and movies are not turning to Christ, but other forms of entertainment.

When it comes to people wanting fame, I am reminded somewhat of these verses in Matthew 6:

Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. (Matthew 6:2)

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. (Matthew 6:5)

People seeking fame have that exact same desire to be seen of men and receive glory from men. And for a time, they do get that glory, along with all kinds of other sinful "perks" of fame. But like the hypocrites Jesus is referring to, they have their reward, and unless they repent, that's all the enjoyment they'll ever have. Fame has its cost, both in this life and the next.

5

Evangelism / Re: Passing Out Tracts

« on: March 06, 2023, 06:30:27 AM »

One thing I used to do, and maybe could do again, was be a sort of "Gospel mailman" and just drop tracts in letterboxes. In New Zealand, most houses have letterboxes (or mailboxes, as I think you call them in the States) at the end of their front path. It is rare for a house in this country to have the letterbox/mailbox in the front door. During the two years that I lived in the US though, the house my parents rented had a letterbox in the front door, and I think most houses in our neighbourhood were the same. With that, you have to go onto people's properties a lot more and run the risk of being attacked by guard dogs. But in NZ, it's possible to stay on the street (although some letterboxes can be awkwardly positioned up or down shared driveways - my city is a very hilly one). I remember getting to know my local neighbourhood a whole lot better with this method. I would go on outings and target specific streets. Depending on the length of a street, I might do a single long street or several shorter ones.

In more recent times, I have also been leaving tracts on cars. Like you, Annalisa, I put them under a wiper blade. Occasionally, I even hand them directly to people! When I do that, I usually just ask them, "Would you like something to read?" Most of the time, they quite happily take it, and then I wish them a nice day and move on. Sometimes, I have seen them reading it as I've walked away. I usually say a little prayer for them in that case. (Well, I pray for them anyway, but if they're actually reading the tract in that moment, so much the better.) While most people seem to take the tract without any questions, someone will occasionally ask what I'm offering. So I will then say it's a Gospel tract. If they're observant enough, they can also work it out from the title.

Every once in a while, someone will refuse to take a tract from me. So far, they have always been polite about it, although I do remember one woman getting a little irate with me some years ago when I tried to leave a tract in her letterbox (she was just coming home as I left it, I think, so she took it out and gave it back to me). I usually just say, "OK, no worries, have a nice day" and move on. I used to use Chick tracts a lot, but have reservations about some aspects of them now (though I kind of like their latest offering, called Trust the Science!) At the moment I'm favouring tracts I bought some years ago from a guy who no longer sells them. They're in a "business card" format, which makes them ideal for leaving on cars and also for carrying around. They use the KJV and preach the Law, which I like. They do give the Gospel too, although they could be a bit stronger on repentance.

Aside from letterbox drops or leaving them on car windscreens (plus giving them directly to people), I have also sometimes left tracts on the table of a restaurant I went to, left them on buses or left them on an outdoor shop display. A few weeks ago, I actually did give a tract to a beggar, along with a small amount of money (I wasn't that generous with the money, but he looked the sort that might drink, so I didn't want to fuel his habit).

I don't know whether anyone has ever been saved from the tracts I've left, but there are a lot of people in my neighbourhood and general local area who will be without excuse on the last day, and their blood won't be on my hands. I do like the idea of giving a tract to people who come to your door too.

6

General Discussion / Re: The fruit of the Spirit

« on: March 05, 2023, 12:10:42 AM »

I noticed one of the accusations that Anna made is "Unrighteously judging people without sufficient evidence/context/understanding." Yet it seems to me that this is precisely what she is doing in her post above! She is sitting in judgement and not providing any evidence for her claims.

If there was any substance to what she is saying, providing examples to back it up would be charitable for two reasons. Firstly, it would prove the truth of what she is alleging. But as Chris has pointed out in the past, if you make accusations without evidence, it's just so much railing accusation, which is in turn lying.

But secondly, if there was some sin we were guilty of, it would be good to be made clearly aware of it so we could repent, then learn from it and do better in future. Throwing about a whole lot of accusations without specific examples is not helpful, and certainly not charitable. Frankly, it's not all that much different to what abusers do. Or the mainstream media, for that matter.

That's about all I have to say, other than that I am not seeing much fruit of the Spirit in Anna's post, and there wasn't too much of it in evidence during the last two meetings she attended either. Which is very saddening and disappointing. I can only pray that the Lord would be kind and merciful to her and give her the grace and humility to understand her own wicked and unrighteous behaviour (because accusing without evidence is not righteous).

7

Bible Discussion / Re: A Time In The Wilderness

« on: March 03, 2023, 01:23:11 AM »

Thank you for these edifying posts, Annalisa. It certainly is exciting when the Holy Spirit gives us new understanding about some aspect or other of His Word as we study it.

In answer to your question about "the pit", I believe that's referring to Hell (as indeed Kevin has just said in his post). Many times when you see the phrase, "the pit", Hell is meant (unless the context makes it clear that an actual pit is meant, such as the pit that Joseph's brothers threw him into). When we're lost, we're on our way to "the pit" - i.e. Hell. But when we're saved, then we're no longer bound for Hell.

One thing that struck me last time I read this verse is that we are dug out of "the pit" (by what Christ did). We don't dig ourselves out (which would be salvation by works). I suppose "the pit" could in some ways also represent our old life, which we were stuck in until Jesus saved us. As for Egypt, I generally understand that to represent the world. The reason why many of the Israelites wanted to go back to Egypt is because they loved the world and not God, despite everything He had done for them.

8

General Discussion / Re: Negative Amazon Review

« on: February 25, 2023, 03:28:59 AM »

That review, left by "PJ Publications", is quite an old one (going back to September 2019), and it has in fact been discussed on the forum before. You can read that discussion here:

https://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=911.0

I found it by simply typing "Amazon" in the forum search box, although inputting "Amazon review" would get you there even faster (as I later realised). But you don't need to do that since I have provided you with a direct link to the thread above. Anyway, back in 2019, "PJ Publications" used to go by "JOY W.", so it would in fact appear to be a woman who left the review. (If you click the link to JOY W.'s profile in the old thread, it will take you to the profile for PJ Publications.) Back then, Chris said that he had not encountered her before, as far as he knew.

In that older thread from November 2019, Chris has gone over the review in great detail and refuted it quite thoroughly. So do have a read of what he says there, Dan. But as Annalisa has pointed out, it's not exactly surprising that someone would leave a bad review on one of his books, especially one dealing with such a crucial topic as repentance. In fact, from a Biblical standpoint, it would be far more concerning if Chris WASN'T getting bad reviews! In addition to what Annalisa quoted above, here are another couple of Scriptures to illustrate that point:

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. (Matthew 5:11-12)

Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets. (Luke 6:26)

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:10)

So Chris getting a one-star review on a book like this is nothing to be alarmed about. In fact, it's cause for rejoicing in that he is being hated for preaching the truth. So it shows he's doing something right. It is a fair point though about Joel Osteen also getting widely condemned by those who wish to expose his false teachings. So when a bad review is given, it is naturally important to consider what is being said and what the context is. A bad review can certainly be warranted if it highlights genuine error. In this case though, "PJ Publications" is trying to promote their particular brand of false doctrine. In the process, they're speaking evil of Chris falsely. But as I say, have a read of that older thread concerning this very review.

9

Bible Discussion / Re: Hananiah - What He Shows Us About False Prophets and False Teachers Generally

« on: February 24, 2023, 01:34:04 AM »

Thank you for that feedback, Annalisa. Glad the study has been helpful and edifying to you. And thanks also for introducing the Roman Catholic angle - great point! The RCC does indeed hijack the word "Christian" (and then the media perpetrates the lie by calling Catholicism "Christianity") and Biblical concepts, although of course it hijacks all sorts of pagan things too and then creates the most unholy mixture of the sacred and profane. (When you do that, the whole thing is corrupted.)

Infant baptism is a Catholic hijacking of Biblical baptism, which is only for adults (like a number of cults, they teach the heresy of baptismal regeneration - infant baptism becomes "logical" when you believe in that). The Eucharist, aka Mass, is a blasphemous mockery of the Lord's Supper. Just the name "eucharist", which comes from the Greek for "to thank", sounds so pretentious (and Rome loves putting on a grand show as well). With the confession of sins to a priest, that's more blasphemy in that they are trying to put a man in the place of God (when you think about it, the Roman clergy are trying to "be as gods").

Another recent pope who looked like a lamb but sounded like a dragon was John Paul II. His successor, Benedict XVI, was quite creepy-looking, so couldn't pull off the fake lamb act too well. But Francis has gone back to the John Paul II mould. One difference between them though is their "dragon-talk". Francis openly promotes liberal ideas and says things that shock and offend conservative Catholics (the mainstream media lap it up though). So to some of them at least, he's not as "godly" as his predecessors. John Paul II was more conservative in his moral values (at least outwardly), but exalted Mary and considerably advanced the ecumenical movement. In many ways, he was more dangerous than Francis.

I don't think Francis is THE false prophet either, but he is advancing the cause of the final Antichrist, just as all the popes before have done, and all those who will succeed him. Anyway, thanks again for your reply.

10

Bible Discussion / Re: Why the "Y" names?

« on: February 11, 2023, 05:01:13 AM »

A likely reason why the "Y" names don't sit well with you, Annalisa, is because they are commonly used by Hebrew Roots cultists who want to be more "authentic" by calling God by His Hebrew name, and Jesus by His. Even some people who are not Hebrew Roots cultists sometimes like to use Hebrew words or Hebrew names for God, because they think that doing so makes them more "Christian" somehow. Some Pentecostals and Charismatics do this, for example. There's an element of Judaising with this as well (like what happened in New Testament times). And as "Aussie Chris" has just mentioned, people also tend to use the Hebrew names of God as kind of "magic" words. They think that God will grant their wishes if they address Him by His "proper" Hebrew names.

If they really want to be more authentic, they should call Jesus "Iesous", the Greek name which was used in the New Testament (originally written in Greek). "Yeshua" is actually a Hebrew translation of this since the name Jesus doesn't appear in the Old Testament. (It can also be pronounced "Yashua" and the name "Joshua" is closely associated with it.) The word Christ is from the Greek "Christos", which means "anointed one". (Fun fact: the Hebrew equivalent is "Mashiach", which is where we get our word "Messiah". In Psalm 2:2, this word is used for the English word "anointed", and when the verse is quoted in Acts 4:26, the word "Christos" is used in the Greek text, which is why the English translation says "Christ" rather than "anointed" again.)

The letter "J" is a rather curious one. In many languages, it's pronounced like "Y". (These include German, Dutch, Scandinavian languages and some central European languages.) In others, it's pronounced more like our J, but often softer (like in French). In some languages, like Greek, their equivalent of "I" doubles as a "J", and is pronounced like "Y" at the beginning of words. So "Iesous" is pronounced "YE-soos". The Hebrew "alef-bet" includes a little letter called yod (also spelt yodh). It looks like a small apostrophe: '. (Another fun fact is that in the "alef-bet", there are three letters that look like vertical lines. I call them "The Three Bears". The "papa bear" is Nun - the Hebrew N - which takes one shape at the beginning or in the middle of words, but looks like a large vertical line at the end of a word. The "mama bear" is Vav, which is a medium vertical line and is the equivalent of either B or V, depending on circumstances. It can also be used to substitute for vowels, so ends up being used a lot in modern Hebrew. And the "baby bear" is Yod. So if you ever decide to learn Hebrew, that's an easy way to remember those particular three letters.) When used at the start of words, it gives them a "y" sound. Hebrew words starting with Yod tend to become either J or Y words in English. For example, in Hebrew, the word "Jehovah" is pronounced like "Yehova" and starts with this Yod letter. Why we say "Jehovah" and not "Yehova" probably has to do with the way the English language has developed through the centuries.

A note of caution on the name "Jah": while this name is Biblical, it is used by the Rastafarians as the name for their god. They have stolen it from Psalm 68:4. Obviously, using that name in prayer doesn't make you a Rastafarian, but you wouldn't want people to think that if you happened to be praying with others around. Also, the name "Jehovah" has been hijacked by the Jehovah's Witnesses, so be a bit cautious with that as well.

In conclusion, there is nothing wrong per se with using Hebrew names for God, but there's also absolutely no need for it. The names of God and Jesus Christ are perfectly fine for all speakers of English. As I say, the Hebrew names are commonly used by people who are making a pretence of being more "authentic Christians" by going back to the Bible's "original language". But if they truly wanted to be more authentic, they should incorporate Greek as well as Hebrew names into their vocabulary. (Of course, that would be just as pretentious.) To me, the most Biblical address we can use in prayer is simply "Father" or "Heavenly Father". Jesus Himself prayed to the Father, and the Lord's Prayer (which was meant as a general model for prayer and not for repetitious prayer heathen-style) opens with the words "Our Father". However, if you want to use another Biblical name for God when praying, I don't think that's wrong. The Bible never says that God won't hear us if we don't use "the right name", but it does say He won't hear us if we regard iniquity in our hearts (Psalm 66:18). So He doesn't hear the people who use His Hebrew names for a pretence, because He can see the pride in their hearts behind that.

Interesting about the Invictus Games using "I Am" in their logo. They were founded by Prince Harry, who has all sorts of issues, but this is not the thread to go into those. I'll just say that it doesn't surprise me that something he's behind would include this sort of thing. Incidentally, I have a smattering of modern Hebrew and Greek through studying them on Duolingo. They differ somewhat from the ancient languages used to write the Bible, just as modern English differs from old or medieval English, but anyway, that's how I have come to know a bit about them.

11

Introduce Yourself / Re: Why did I check "other" on beliefs? Annalisa's Introduction

« on: February 09, 2023, 02:59:41 AM »

I've had time alone with God where He has chastened me and got me on the right path.  I have a story to tell about something beautiful that He did for me lately, but I'm not sure where I should post it in the forum.  It's a testimony about pride and what He did for me in that area of my life.  Should I write it here? or put it somewhere else?  Maybe under the "general" topics part of the forum?

It probably wouldn't be out of place in this thread, but since it's from your recent Christian walk rather than part of your salvation testimony, maybe it would be better to share that story in another part of the forum. "General Discussion" would likely be the best place for that. See which way others lean though.

12

Bible Discussion / Re: Where is the scribe?

« on: February 08, 2023, 07:19:13 AM »

It's possible that Paul is alluding to that verse in Isaiah (small correction though - it's 33:18 and not 34:18). Apart from the repetition of "Where is the scribe?", the structure of the two verses is remarkably similar, with their series of "Where is ..." questions. However, I don't think he's directly quoting it (apart from maybe that one part about the scribe). Admittedly, with the New Testament being written in Greek, citations from the Old Testament are really Greek translations of the Hebrew in which the OT was written. That's why the English translations can end up looking a little different when you compare the Old Testament originals with their quotations in the New Testament. (God knew what He was doing with that though.) Even taking that into account though, I think Paul is, at most, alluding to the Isaiah verse and not quoting it in full.

Verse 19 of 1 Corinthians 1 does appear to be clearly referencing a verse in Isaiah though:

Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. (Isaiah 29:14)

So it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Verse 20 might be hearkening back to Isaiah 33:18. In any case, the phrase "Where is the scribe?" only appears twice in the KJV. Based on that, I would say it wasn't a common question.

13

General Discussion / Re: Morgellons

« on: February 08, 2023, 06:11:57 AM »

I had never heard of Morgellons until seeing this post. But I have now Googled it, and it seems to be a rather strange condition that is disputed in the medical profession - some doctors believe it exists and others seem to think it's all in the mind. Those who recognise it say there's no cure, so it sounds like a chronic thing. Sorry that you have been afflicted with this. Hope you're able to manage it OK these days.

As far as I know, I've never had Lyme Disease, but there was one time about 15-16 years ago when I thought I might have it. After a spider bit me on my left arm, I developed a nasty rash and the arm swelled up a bit. This is often how Lyme Disease can start. However, a course of antibiotics sorted it out. It may just have been a simple bacterial infection. In any case, I don't think spiders spread Lyme Disease - ticks are usually the main culprit. Apart from the arm rash and swelling, I had no other symptoms. Also, Lyme Disease is not endemic to NZ and the only people who have it here are those who have travelled from the US or parts of Europe where ticks are widespread.

That's all I have, I'm afraid. But I've learnt something new, so thanks for that. Sorry again though that you've got this condition.

14

Introduce Yourself / Re: Why did I check "other" on beliefs? Annalisa's Introduction

« on: February 08, 2023, 05:50:01 AM »

I'm actually not the only subscriber of Nate's on here. Joshua JZB is too (if you've seen comments by a Joshua on Nate's videos, that's the same one). And Anna G is another one who watches him regularly, but she's no longer in the church. I don't know whether anyone else here follows his channel though.

I've heard of Sam Adams - he's a Baptist preacher, by the looks of it. (For anyone who wants to look into him further, this is his page on SermonAudio - https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Pastor_Sam_Adams) As far as I know though, I've never listened to anything by him. Whatever faults he may have, it's good that the sermon of his you listened to convicted you to look for a church and pray about it.

I can relate to your struggles to find a good church. Our cities are a very long way apart, but the churches in Wellington, New Zealand, where I live, aren't much chop (which is an expression we use Down Under to mean that something isn't very good). Most of them are Pentecostal or Charismatic. The more "traditional" or "old-school" churches have often been infiltrated by Charismatic practices and heresy, or have otherwise become very worldly or completely apostate. Nearly all of them use modern Bible versions. Quite disheartening. I don't think the situation is all that much better elsewhere in the country either. But I knew I shouldn't be going it alone, and so was glad when I found CLE. I've enjoyed good fellowship here, and hopefully you will be able to as well.

Incidentally, we're almost the same age. I'm 50 and will be 51 in another few months. Ages here generally range from early 20s to about early or mid-60s.

15

Introduce Yourself / Re: Why did I check "other" on beliefs? Annalisa's Introduction

« on: February 08, 2023, 12:40:56 AM »

Thank you for saying hi, Rowan.  Is it okay for me to say hello in Nate's comment section?

You're welcome, Annalisa, and thank you in turn for replying to me and sharing more of your testimony in the process. Yes, you can say hi to me in Nate's comment section if you like. Probably best if you reply to one of my comments. I haven't actually made that many. The last comment I left was on his video about Kanye West and performance art. That was a little over a month ago. Anyway, thanks again for your further testimony.

16

Introduce Yourself / Re: Why did I check "other" on beliefs? Annalisa's Introduction

« on: February 07, 2023, 12:25:02 AM »

Hello and welcome, Annalisa. Thank you for sharing your testimony. When reading it, I was especially struck by how you went through a period when you confessed sins to God, but had no real sorrow for them (certainly not godly sorrow at that time). I was reminded of a short anecdote shared by "Aussie Chris" (someguy85) in another thread recently about a professing Christian woman he knew who was involved in fornication. When challenged about it, she said that it was OK because she asked God for His forgiveness. In doing that, she would have had to confess her sin, but she clearly had no sorrow for it. That's another example of confession without repentance. So while confession of sin is very important, there does have to be repentance as well. Only when there is repentance in the heart can there be proper FORSAKING of sin in one's heart and life. (The forsaking part - turning from sin - comes with conversion.) If there isn't that repentance accompanying confession (and subsequent conversion the first time, after which all confession should include repentance), then sooner or later, you'll end up being like the dog returning to its vomit or the sow wallowing again in the mire.

He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. (Proverbs 28:13)

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. (Proverbs 26:11)

But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. (2 Peter 2:22)

That's not you now, but it was you before you came to true repentance. By the way, do you follow Nate Marino's "Sound the Battle Cry" channel on YouTube? (I highly recommend it to everyone.) I have seen someone with your username (or something very similar) commenting on a number of his videos. If you have ever seen a Rowan commenting on Nate's videos, that's me. Anyway, thanks again for your introduction and testimony.

17

General Discussion / Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

« on: February 02, 2023, 09:14:59 AM »

I'd be very cautious of anything implicating Israel or the Jews in acts of significant evil. In many ways, Israel today is quite a wicked nation. The vast majority of its citizens are not born again, and even many of the Jews there don't practise their religion (or they are into corrupt variations like Kabbalah). Nevertheless, if there is one country in the world that Satan hates more than any other, it's Israel. And if there is one group of people he hates with just about as much vehemence as Christians, it's the Jews. That is because God has a covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants. And for all their ongoing rebellion and unbelief, He has not forgotten about it. Also, a key moment of Christ's return will be Israel welcoming Him as its Messiah. That couldn't happen if Israel didn't exist, so it's a major reason why Satan would like to wipe out Israel and the Jews - as indeed he has attempted to numerous times.

The Devil's hatred for Israel and the Jews is reflected in the hatred that the world in general has for Israel. For example, whenever Israel tries to defend itself or do things within its own sovereign territory, the United Nations usually passes a resolution condemning it. The mainstream media is always extremely sympathetic to the Palestinians and frequently negative in its coverage of Israel. This was the case for instance when Israel fought a short war with Hamas in May 2021. Certainly in NZ, our mainstream media devoted almost 100% of their coverage to the Palestinian perspective and gave almost no airtime to the Israeli point of view. The Left also got very uptight about Israel trying to deal with Hamas, yet they remained largely silent about other conflicts going on in the world at the time, such as a war in Yemen that claimed over 200,000 lives, many of them children. There is a constant effort by Israel's enemies to make it always look like the bad guy. Now as I say, Israel is not without sin. There are things it can be justly accused of. But there are many things it is WRONGLY accused of by its enemies. The Bible moreover shows us that those who hate Israel also hate God:

Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God. For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assur also is joined with them: they have holpen the children of Lot. Selah. (Psalm 83:1-8)

Cutting Israel off from being a nation is the exact aim of today's Palestinians, and indeed the hope of Muslims everywhere. The Palestinians are not so dissimilar to the ancient Edomites, who are reproved and judged by God for their "perpetual hatred" of Israel (see Ezekiel 35:5). One of their favourite tactics is to falsely accuse Israel and make it seem like a villain. The God-hating world happily joins in. So that's why I say you need to be very careful of anything making serious accusations against Israel or the Jews. Doesn't mean we should give Israel a free pass in everything it does, just that it's important to understand how much misinformation and malicious disinformation that is in circulation about that nation and its people. As a matter of fact, Hitler based his persecution of the Jews on false conspiracy theories about them. (Conversely, the Psalm 83 passage I quoted above shows a real conspiracy against Israel by God's enemies.)

I would therefore be extremely sceptical about any claims that Israel played a role in 9/11, because that is implicating Israel in mass murder. Now who would want to make that sort of implication? The Devil and his earthly servants. What better way to make Israel seem evil in people's eyes? That said, if 9/11 was an inside job by the US Government, I suppose Israel COULD have done something in its capacity as an ally of America. But to me, this sounds like another piece of fake news planted by those who "take crafty counsel" against Israel on a regular basis.

Just on 9/11 generally: while I think there are valid reasons to doubt the official story, it's not something I personally like to spend a lot of time on. The same applies to things like the Moon landings, who shot JFK and the recent pandemic. There are good reasons to doubt the official version of events in the case of these and other major moments in world history, but I don't believe that the Lord wants me expending too much time and effort on figuring out what the real story is. The Great Commission is to preach the Gospel, not expose or explore conspiracies. When I look at the Gospels and New Testament epistles, I see a fair amount of effort put into exposing and warning against false teachers, and nothing too much about conspiracies. Of course, you have liberty to spend your time however you want, Dan, but we are told in Ephesians 5:16 to redeem our time, because the days are evil. Which is a better use of our time for the Lord: studying His Word and witnessing to others, or researching conspiracies? Of course, we shouldn't be ignorant of Satan's devices (2 Corinthians 2:11), but one of his favourite devices is to distract us, and a way he commonly distracts Christians is to get them going down various conspiracy-related rabbit holes. So please be aware of that danger. And also, please take note of what Kenneth has said.

18

General Discussion / Re: Did the moon landing occur?

« on: January 28, 2023, 10:30:25 PM »

I find this verse interesting in light of the discussion here:

The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men. (Psalm 115:16)

This verse is worth considering too:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28)

My understanding of the first verse is that God has made the earth for mankind, and this is where He wants mankind to stay. He does not want us travelling into outer space, trying to colonise other planets and suchlike. All that belongs to Him. It's not for us. In the Bible, the only time that anyone travels beyond the earth is when God supernaturally transports them in the spirit (examples include Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul and John). And when He does that, it is NOT to take them to the Moon or another planet, but to show them something about Heaven or the supernatural world generally. Sometimes, as in John's case, it is to give them a prophecy of the future, and show the spiritual activities that will behind the events on Earth when those things come to pass.

The second verse also tells us that God wants mankind to replenish, subdue and have dominion over THE EARTH. There is no command to go to the Moon, or Mars, and subdue them. So given that part of God's will for man is to live on the earth that He has created and given to us, it seems reasonable to conclude that He has made it very difficult, if not impossible, for mankind to travel beyond the limits of Earth, even to make a relatively "short" journey to the Moon.

When you think about it, the desire of man to travel beyond the earth is a symptom of pride (wanting to be "as gods", because it would feel pretty godlike to take over other planets), rebellion against God and discontent. Hebrews 13:5 instructs us to be content with such things as we have, so that would, I believe, extend to being content with living on this earth (until our appointed time to die comes, or the Rapture, whichever is first). For that matter, there is an element of covetousness attached to wanting to live on other planets. Essentially, man is coveting what God has said belongs to Him.

It does therefore seem likely, purely from a Scriptural understanding of how God has set up the heavens and earth, that the Moon landings were faked. If they had been real, you would think they would have been continued and that maybe even some sort of space station would have been established on the Moon. But if they were fake, then maybe NASA discontinued them before the ruse could be exposed. Money would have been an issue too - it would have cost billions to either travel into space or construct an elaborate hoax about it. (Although money didn't seem to be too much of an object for the space shuttles in the '80s and '90s.) As for the motive, it may well have been American pride (wanting to get one over on the Soviet Union). However, I think it was as much to do with human pride generally - exalting man, making people believe that man is capable of more than he actually is. It's probably the exact same rebellious spirit that led to the Tower of Babel being built. Remember the motive for that?

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. (Genesis 11:4)

This was possibly mankind's first attempt to go into outer space, although their aim was Heaven, not the Moon or other planets. Notice also that they didn't want to obey God's command to fill (replenish) the earth. They wanted to go straight up to Heaven by their own efforts (the Tower of Babel is, among other things, a symbol of works salvation). So they too were motivated by pride and rebellion. They wanted to make a name for themselves and create something for their own glory. Likewise, the Moon landings were all about glorifying man. Nothing new under the sun.

If the Moon landings were faked, it makes you wonder about some of the satellite imagery that we sometimes see - especially of Mars. So-called footage of Mars looks suspiciously like the Australian outback (which has a tremendous abundance of red soil). With modern drone technology, it probably wouldn't be that hard to plonk a drone in the middle of the outback somewhere and get it to send camera footage back to NASA headquarters. They could then edit out any signs of earthly life (like flies buzzing everywhere) and say "Hey, look, here's some new satellite imagery from Mars!" Not saying they're definitely doing that, just that it would be a fairly easy way to create fake footage. They could probably do it in the American deserts as well and just play around with colour effects. But with a higher population density in the States, they'd have more chance of getting caught. Even if that footage purportedly from Mars is somehow real, it's feeding into man's foolish imagination and wicked desire to travel beyond the earth that God has given us to live on.

Just as a side note, many (or most) flat-earthers believe the Moon landings were faked, because the photos supposedly taken on the Moon show a spherical earth. So one of their arguments (which I have come across) is that if the Moon landings were fake, the spherical earth is too. They conflate the two things, which is a logical fallacy. Moreover, even if it can be proven that the Moon landings were faked (and therefore the photos are frauds), there are still way too many indications that we can observe on Earth to show it's a sphere. In fact, we don't need NASA's photos at all. Real or fake, they're irrelevant. But it's a shame that if NASA has deceived us with the Moon landings, it facilitates other deceptions and encourages people in them.

19

Introduce Yourself / Re: Hello there

« on: January 24, 2023, 08:54:54 AM »

Hello and welcome, Morgan.

It sounds like we may have fairly similar types of mothers. My mother has also been abusive and controlling while purportedly being "religious" (I remember one thing she used to do was play "Christian" music loudly to "drive the Devil out", and she was fond of repetitive prayer too). She did a lot for me, but that was all a ploy to make me dependent on her (it worked too well for too long). If I tried to stand up to her, she would accuse me of letting the Devil have his way and say we needed to do things God's way (which in reality meant her way).

Reading about your experiences with witchcraft and observations of your mother's "Charismaniac" practices, it struck me that many practices in the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are really just witchcraft too! The only difference is that they try to put a "Christian" veneer on their witchcraft in much the same way that the Roman Catholic Church (which I see you also had experience of) tries to make all its pagan traditions and activities seem "Christian".

I'm not very familiar with ASMR, so have been getting up to speed on it. Was this something you did as part of your witchcraft? The reason I ask is that ASMR seems to be quite popular with witches. For example, this page (which, be warned, is from a site for a witchcraft magazine - you might even know of it) shows the extent to which witches like to use ASMR - https://http://www.lunalunamagazine.com/dark/asmr-for-witches

I am aware though that people who have no involvement at all with witchcraft can use ASMR. As far as I can tell, it's possible to experience it without trying if you get the right sort of stimuli. I don't think it's necessarily an occult practice, but it's interesting that witches seem to like it so much.

Don't worry about the length of your first post. As others have said, it was a good read. And compared to my first couple of posts here, it was pretty short, really! 

20

General Discussion / Re: Biblical Cosmology

« on: January 05, 2023, 10:00:52 AM »

I'd like to begin by thanking you for this very well-written post, Anna. You have presented your case in an articulate and gracious manner, and it was a pleasure to read. Thanks also for the PDF file with the Biblical cosmology models. That was helpful for additional understanding.

Ahead of the planned Sunday night (US time)/Monday morning (NZ time) discussion, I think it is important to make clear that "flat earth" and "stationary earth" are two separate issues - at least, I consider them thus. There are Christians around who advocate for geocentricity and a stationary earth, but reject a flat-earth model. A few days ago on Facebook, I came across a flat-earth debate. (I wasn't seeking it out; it just appeared in my newsfeed. However, I believe that the Lord meant for me to see it.) In this debate, someone shared the following article:

https://http://geocen.blogspot.com/2015/12/flat-earth.html

Teno Groppi, the man who runs this blog (in fact, I think he was the one who shared the article from it in the Facebook debate), would likely agree with many of the points you have made in your post, Anna. When it comes to rejecting heliocentricity, for example, he'd be with you all the way. He believes in a stationary earth, like you do. But he does not accept that the earth is flat. And there are other people around like him. So that's why I think we should make a distinction between those two issues. Actually, I'm saying this not so much to you, Anna, but more as a general guideline for the upcoming discussion. This is not solely a "flat-earth debate". (Not that you are calling it that, but in case anyone thinks that, there's a lot more to it, as you yourself rightly point out. It's about Biblical cosmology as a whole.)

When thinking about cosmology myself of late, one of the things I have wondered is what the ramifications would be if the earth stopped spinning (if indeed it spins at all). Because if the "sun standing still" was due to the earth temporarily stopping its rotation, wouldn't that have caused some pretty freaky things to happen? This is actually a question that Mr Groppi addresses in his blog:

https://http://geocen.blogspot.com/2014/06/earth-stopped-spinning.html

For that matter, when the shadow of the sun went back on Hezekiah's sundial, does that mean the earth would have temporarily REVERSED its rotation? How else could the shadow of the sun have gone back if the earth spins? And again, what might that have done to our world? Also, what is the "circuit" of the sun in Psalm 19:6? Could that refer to the sun having an orbit? It doesn't say that the earth has a circuit, but that the sun does. The moon is generally understood to orbit the earth - could the orbit of the moon be considered a circuit? When Joshua stopped the sun, both the sun AND the moon stood still (see Joshua 10:13 and Habakkuk 3:11). So if the moon stopped orbiting the earth for a brief period of time, is it not possible that the sun did likewise? Anyway, I think there are maybe some reasons why we could question, at the very least, the idea of the earth rotating, and maybe even consider the possibility of the sun orbiting the earth the way the moon does. Also, does the moon rotate? How come we only ever see one side of it? If the moon rotated, wouldn't we see more of it at different times? (The "official" scientific explanation is that the moon rotates within the same period of time that it orbits the earth - I suppose that could work.) If the moon is stationary (in the sense of not rotating), maybe the earth could be too? I don't know. I'm open to that possibility though. It's certainly interesting to ponder.

It's also interesting that you mention many cultures referring to a great flood. Something else that many cultures have in their history/mythology is a story about an extra-long day or night (depending on what part of the world they are in). New Zealand's own Maori culture includes a myth about Maui "slowing down" the sun, which most likely refers to what occurred in Joshua 10. An example of that is here: https://eng.mataurangamaori.tki.org.nz/Support-materials/Te-Reo-Maori/Maori-Myths-Legends-and-Contemporary-Stories/How-Maui-slowed-the-sun

So for me at least, the notion of a stationary earth is plausible, although I'm not saying it's definitely right. But this is a point on which I may be able to find partial or even entire agreement with you. However, I cannot agree with the earth being flat. Before I explain my reasoning for that (and I have thought and prayed about it, so this is not a case of my "flatly" refusing to believe in it), I would like to say that I fully agree with your point that we should prayerfully study God's Word with an open heart and mind. Also, it can be all too easy sometimes to unthinkingly accept things that we're taught while growing up. I will admit that I have been guilty of taking it for granted that the earth is a rotating sphere. We should NOT simply take such things for granted, but make the effort to investigate and study them. After all, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to prove ALL things. I have been rather too lazy in this particular area. So I do want to thank you, Anna, for challenging my perspectives on cosmology. Moreover, the amount of time, effort and prayer that you have put in to studying it and laying it all out is very commendable. Speaking of lazy, I think that those who mock people who believe in a flat earth are quite intellectually lazy. Maybe not all of them, but some certainly are. Even if I don't agree with it myself, I still feel a lot of irritation with those who mock and scoff about it. Their mockery shows the pride in their hearts.

The Bible tells us a great deal about our world, but it doesn't tell us everything. Even when it does talk about things, there is a lot it leaves out. For example, it refers to moths eating clothing and generally corrupting things. However, it doesn't specify that it is the moth LARVAE that do this. Adult moths can't eat at all. Their only purpose is to breed. But the Bible doesn't explain that part. So how do we know that moth larvae rather than adults damage things? Through study and observation. The Bible never mentions the platypus. So how do we know that this remarkable creature, which seems to made up of spare parts from other animals, exists? Again, through study and observation (not to mention exploration to discover it in the first place). Of course, there are some things that can only be discerned spiritually, and only those who are saved have that ability. But God has also given us the capacity to reason, study and observe. While he tells us many things in His Word, He has, in His wisdom, left us to work out some things on our own, using the abilities He has given us. Such would appear to be the case with the shape of the earth. The Bible never explicitly states anywhere that it's a sphere OR flat. The only major clue it gives about the earth's shape is in Isaiah 40:22 (a verse you discussed quite extensively), where it mentions "the circle of the earth". But that could mean a sphere or a flat disc. How can we work out which one it is? Well, God has actually given us a number of different means to do so. And people have been concluding that the earth is spherical long before NASA came on the scene, or even Galileo. Pythagoras and Aristotle believed in a spherical earth all the way back in ancient Greece, and some ancient Greek and Roman coins have globe earths on them. As a general rule, they have drawn these conclusions through observing things like lunar eclipses or the movements of the sun. The stars and principles of navigation play their part too.

Now, whether the sun's rising and setting is due to the earth rotating, or whether it literally rises and sets as it orbits the earth (as geocentrists believe), the fact remains that at different latitudes, it rises and sets at different times. For example, here in Wellington, it's summertime, and the Longest Day occurred quite recently. Currently, our days are still pretty long, with today's sunrise scheduled to occur at 5:56am, while sunset will be at 8:58pm. In your city, Anna (which is just a little way north of mine), the sun will also rise at 5:56am, but set at 8:52pm. Up in Auckland, where our friend Joshua JZB lives, sunrise is at 6:10am and sunset at 8:44pm. So he has rather less daylight than what we do, because he is closer to the Equator and further away from the South Pole. But down south in Dunedin, which is that much closer to Antarctica and the South Pole, sunrise is going to be at 5:57am, while the sun will set at 9:31pm. So Anvilhauler, who lives there, gets a whole lot more daylight in the summer months - more than half an hour of it than you or I do, and just about an hour more than Joshua. Way down in Invercargill, sunrise will be at 6:03am, but the sun doesn't set until 9:42pm.

This is an observable phenomenon. We don't need any "scientific experts" to tell us this. All we need is to look out the window and check the time when we see the sun coming up or going down. I'm sure that if Joshua and/or Kevin care to, they could verify the times I have mentioned above. Certainly, I know from my own observations that Wellington's sunrise and sunset are occurring at these times right now. But why do these sunrise and sunset times vary so much? During New Zealand's summer months, why is it that cities located further south get more sunshine hours than those that are further north? Conversely, why would those same more southern cities be much darker in the winter?

Of course, while we're enjoying summer Down Under, it's winter in northern parts of the world. In your old country of England, for instance, it's currently winter. So the days in the UK are very short right now. For example, in London, the sun won't rise today until 8:05am, and will set at 4:06pm. Further north in Manchester, sunrise will be at 8:23am, while it will set at 4:04pm. Crossing the border to Scotland, Edinburgh's sunrise will be at 8:42am, and its sunset at 3:54pm. In Lerwick, Shetland Islands (not all that far from the Arctic Circle), sunrise is at 9:05am, while the sun will set there at 3:14pm. Notice again how much darker it gets the further north you go. But having visited Shetland once during July (high summer), I can tell you that the sun at that time of year shines until around midnight and rises again at about 3:00am.

Another thing to consider is: why are the seasons so completely flipped around between southern lands like Australia and NZ, and northern countries like the US and UK? Why are we in summer here, but they're in winter? And why will they be basking in summer from June until August when we're shivering in winter at the same time?

The logical explanation would seem to be that there are two hemispheres making up a sphere. Both hemispheres taper off into poles at either end. The amount of sunlight that any given location gets depends on its latitude. Cities closer to the Equator get much less variation in their sunshine hours throughout the year. Conversely, cities located close to either pole get wild fluctuation in the daylight hours, with extremely long days in summer and very long nights in winter. But also, the seasons are flipped around between the hemispheres. How would these fluctuations in sunshine hours be able to occur on a flat earth? How would the seasons flip around as neatly as they do? For that matter, how is it possible for the Big Dipper to only be visible in the Northern Hemisphere, and the Southern Cross to only be visible in the Southern Hemisphere, if the earth were flat? These things could all be possible on an earth that was spherical and spinning, OR spherical and stationary (I think), but not on a flat one - at least, I can't see how. But perhaps you do know a way it could work, Anna? If any flat-earth advocates have explained these things, or you have come to an understanding yourself, please share it with me. Rest assured that these are not intended as "gotcha" questions. If there is some logical way that variations in sunrises, sunsets and seasons could work on a flat earth, I am absolutely open to learning about it.

Also, whenever there is a lunar eclipse, the shadow of the earth as it passes across the moon is very clearly circular. Now, that could be due to the earth being a flat disc. But depending on the angle it's at to the moon, it would struggle to cast a perfectly round shadow on the moon during an eclipse if it were flat. Speaking of the moon, if the earth were flat, we should be able to see different sides of the moon depending on what part of the world we're in. This would apply regardless of whether the moon itself is flat or a sphere. But everybody everywhere only ever sees one face of the moon. (Which again does beg the question of whether the moon rotates.) Another thing about the moon, as Teno Groppi points out, is that when it is in half or quarter mode, it shines on one side in the Northern Hemisphere, and on the other in the Southern. (So if the light appears to be on the left side of the moon in one hemisphere, it will seem to be on the right side in the other hemisphere.) Again, how would such things be possible on a flat earth? You can't have hemispheres with two distinct poles on a flat disc.

Then too, you get things like the way water drains (clockwise in one hemisphere, anticlockwise in the other). All of these phenomena logically fit a spherical earth, but not a flat one. But none of them are due to any funny tricks played by NASA. They all occur naturally, and we can observe them with the eyes that God has given to us, and draw logical conclusions with the brains that He created in us. We don't need any "experts" to tell us. We don't need to "trust the science". We can observe and work it out for ourselves, entirely independently of anything corrupt scientists may say.

This post is starting to get pretty long, and I want to wrap it up soon. But one point I'd like to make with regard to Heaven being above us is that there is no reason it couldn't be wholly above a spherical earth as well as a flat one. There is an easy way to demonstrate that within the physical realm. Place a spherical object and a flat object next to each other on a floor. You yourself will be above them both equally. Other objects will be physically above them. Mind you, it has occurred to me that both the spherical and flat objects in this experiment would be STATIONARY (although I suppose there's always a risk of the spherical object rolling away). That said, you could put a spinning top next to them. But the point is, things can be above them both equally, so there does not seem to be a reason why Heaven couldn't be entirely above a spherical earth (although whether it's spinning on its axis is another matter). Also, God is not limited by physics in the way that we are.

So in conclusion, I want to thank you again, Anna, for writing such a well thought-out and informative post. I enjoyed reading it, and I appreciate all the effort that you've made with it. You make a lot of very interesting and thought-provoking points. Unkind people might call you crazy, but it is very evident from this post that you are absolutely NOT crazy and have a sound mind. And perhaps you are half-correct in that the earth could be stationary (although I'm not firm on that - I just think it's more of a plausible possibility). But there are a number of significant problems with the concept of a flat earth. I have only addressed some of them above. One thing I do want to say is that I'm not emotionally attached to the idea of a spinning globe. Indeed, I think there are some valid reasons to question the "spinning" part. Moreover, I certainly don't "trust the science". I don't believe in a globe because "science" says so. I therefore don't have an intellectual attachment to a spherical earth either. As a matter of fact, the way in which people scoff at a flat earth, in an eerily similar way to how they scoff at the six-day creation or vaccine hesitancy/scepticism, actually made me more open to the idea of the earth being flat. However, when I consider some of the things I talked about above, I just think that many of the phenomena we can observe (without any "help" from scientists) fit more logically with a spherical earth. The Bible tells us to "prove all things", and using logic and reason is a big part of that. Anyway, that is where my understanding of all this is currently at. As we discuss it more though, I certainly don't rule out some changes to what I currently think, depending on how the Lord guides me.

One last thing before I close: what led you to believe in a flat, stationary and enclosed earth in the first place? What was your own process of reaching that position? Did you arrive at it solely through your study of Scripture, or were there other factors at play (such as articles or podcasts that made you reconsider your previous understanding)? I'd be interested to know how you adopted this position to begin with, and it might be useful for others to learn as well.