WOW! Name it and claim it blab it a grab it theology is tough stuff. It tickles the ears of those that live in want. We live in an ugly world that looks to what a man possesses as the measure of how God has blessed Him. In the reality of scripture God broke everything that was given to Him. As with Jacob and Esau God gave Esau the world and everything in it. Jacob was broken over and over throughout his life. God hated Esau but loved Jacob. It is through that very brokenness God draws us closer to Him. This is God's way it can be seen all the way through the bible look at Paul ... look at all the apostles....... Be careful lifting up man ........... any thing you lift between you and God is your idol.
Obama's remarks at prayer event
- Thread starter Ravindran
- Start date
WOW! Name it and claim it blab it a grab it theology is tough stuff. It tickles the ears of those that live in want. We live in an ugly world that looks to what a man possesses as the measure of how God has blessed Him. In the reality of scripture God broke everything that was given to Him. As with Jacob and Esau God gave Esau the world and everything in it. Jacob was broken over and over throughout his life. God hated Esau but loved Jacob. It is through that very brokenness God draws us closer to Him. This is God's way it can be seen all the way through the bible look at Paul ... look at all the apostles....... Be careful lifting up man ........... any thing you lift between you and God is your idol.
Ah, so I can call you clueless as well, as long as I use a disclaimer? Awesome!
You don't know me. I do my research, and if I haven't, I say so. And I go where scripture leads me, not pick a belief and make scripture fit it. So ask yourself as well, whether you've done due diligence and dared to put Copeland under the microscope.
you missed my point or I did a poor job of expalining what i meant. Either way I am glad that you replied.Have agood one today and perhaps later I might try again. Clueless ? Hmmm guess it could have been words. lol
you make no sense as far as this toic is concerned. What is it that you are trying to say?
May the love of Christ draw us all closer together so that the vile may be pushed back.
Once there were two soldiers who swore their allegiance to their King, who both were willing to go out into the land and defend the kingdom, yet both had two entirely different strategies. Both heard the same decrees from the King to go out and defend the innocent and the Kingdom, yet both interpreted differently the King's mandates. One soldier to strategical hermeneutics calculated where the enemy would come in to steal, kill and destroy and believed they should set up a patient camp in proximity to the innocent. The second with entirely different tactics believed they should use a confrontational roaming strategy where they would seek out the enemy and destroy them more quickly.
Both left the Kings castle with the same decrees in their hearts, to be obedient, defend the innocent and push back the forces of darkness, yet to strategy they were totally different in their understandings. Upon riding out they begin to argue strategy and what the King “actually said” and also what the King “actually meant.” Both in a contention could not get along and suffered division. They rode out in different directions to engage the enemy half as strong. Due to the division the forces of darkness were able to avail much more ground, and inflict more harm to the innocent.
Is it possible that opposing ambiguous hermeneutics (interpretive positions unclear to the body as a whole) should not be “tolerated personally” but instead should be “tolerated unto operation if it remains void of any violence” on the grounds that none of us know the deepest inner-workings of our King's saving grace regarding another persons heart.
Is it also possible that overcoming our own propensity to divide against each other is part of our training to become seasoned and experienced soldiers of Christ? For if we all have individual “hermeneutics” which is an interpretive study confirmed in our consciences and spirit, then filling our quills to engage against the enemy will fill in variance and uneven. What if the two that war against demons were to on rare occasion “thrash the age old dichotomy of division” and seek the common destruction of Satan, and operate in a spirit of love, unity and power? For if the strategy of stillness falls benign to spiritual warfare, will not the still soldier join the mobile one, yet to contrast will not the mobile soldier seek stillness to defend the innocent if roaming also falls benign? Thus in the confines of friendship, love, compassion, unity and patience, is it possible to come together to provide a more powerful defense of Gods Kingdom; for I contend that both strategies are usually misunderstood and often unknown to the opposite soldier.
Once there were two soldiers who swore their allegiance to their King, who both were willing to go out into the land and defend the kingdom, yet both had two entirely different strategies. Both heard the same decrees from the King to go out and defend the innocent and the Kingdom, yet both interpreted differently the King's mandates. One soldier to strategical hermeneutics calculated where the enemy would come in to steal, kill and destroy and believed they should set up a patient camp in proximity to the innocent. The second with entirely different tactics believed they should use a confrontational roaming strategy where they would seek out the enemy and destroy them more quickly.
Both left the Kings castle with the same decrees in their hearts, to be obedient, defend the innocent and push back the forces of darkness, yet to strategy they were totally different in their understandings. Upon riding out they begin to argue strategy and what the King “actually said” and also what the King “actually meant.” Both in a contention could not get along and suffered division. They rode out in different directions to engage the enemy half as strong. Due to the division the forces of darkness were able to avail much more ground, and inflict more harm to the innocent.
Is it possible that opposing ambiguous hermeneutics (interpretive positions unclear to the body as a whole) should not be “tolerated personally” but instead should be “tolerated unto operation if it remains void of any violence” on the grounds that none of us know the deepest inner-workings of our King's saving grace regarding another persons heart.
Is it also possible that overcoming our own propensity to divide against each other is part of our training to become seasoned and experienced soldiers of Christ? For if we all have individual “hermeneutics” which is an interpretive study confirmed in our consciences and spirit, then filling our quills to engage against the enemy will fill in variance and uneven. What if the two that war against demons were to on rare occasion “thrash the age old dichotomy of division” and seek the common destruction of Satan, and operate in a spirit of love, unity and power? For if the strategy of stillness falls benign to spiritual warfare, will not the still soldier join the mobile one, yet to contrast will not the mobile soldier seek stillness to defend the innocent if roaming also falls benign? Thus in the confines of friendship, love, compassion, unity and patience, is it possible to come together to provide a more powerful defense of Gods Kingdom; for I contend that both strategies are usually misunderstood and often unknown to the opposite soldier.
Last edited:
I'm guessing it's a typo intended to be "topic".
Ah, so I can call you clueless as well, as long as I use a disclaimer? Awesome!
You don't know me. I do my research, and if I haven't, I say so. And I go where scripture leads me, not pick a belief and make scripture fit it. So ask yourself as well, whether you've done due diligence and dared to put Copeland under the microscope.
Why do you keep twisting what I say to you as something bad or personal. You have tried to nail me to the cross in several threads over one thing I said in here to you. I said you were clue less as to not knowing the full story or whole truth.
You also said to me that I don't know you and you do your research. Ok that is awesome but I did not accuse you of not doing research. I asked you how much youe researched this. In fact here is what I said....
((How much do you know about the author of this link?
1.How much time have you spent checking to what they feel about other parts of scripture?
2.It is easy to find something that backs your beliefs and has christian this or that written all over it.
3. All I am saying is research every area of the source you use,)))
1..I asked you a question nicely...
2..I made a simple statement as a refference......
3.. A suggestion as to check sources out ..and why did I say this.....because it is easy to google something and up pops the most popular sites first. They claim Christian or church etc...
BUT if you are to take what they say about another servant of God, there are a few things you or whoever it is that is using them....must do
1...check out everything they post about every one they claim to be false and check it against the word...we have to look it up and pray.
2. We then have to go to their church or ministry pages and read everything they claim and say and write.
3. we have to listen to their sermons
Why have I said all this...BECAUSE when we as Chrisitans make a statement like this about another servant of God it is a serious thing. God warns us about doing this. So we have got to make sure that the source at hand is 110 percent on time or correct in every area of their ministry. Just one single place that they are off key or do not agree with from the written word of GOD AND it very much shoots their claim void.
So please Relentless explain to me how you feel I have been so rude to you that I must be crucified at every turn ?
Thank You for your honesty and friendship
Have a wonderful day with your family.
Jim..
Last edited:
I said...you make no sense as far as this toic is concerned. What is it that you are trying to say?
First off toic is Topic when your super low battery is trying to shut you down and you are trying to finish writing...Sorry for that but whith a shut down tablet it is a tad hard to edit...
Now you respond with it appears other understood. Ok Cool but I did not ask you if others understood. I said it makes no sense to what you replied to. You quoted me from a conversation with some one else and posted some stuff. I said the scriptures and things you said make no sense in what I was talking about......
I thank you for your well thought out and informitive reply there.
Have a great day
I love to read Charles Krauthammer on the foolishness of Barak Obama - by far his most constant critic.
How about ditching Kenneth Copeland - because the thread is not supposed to be about him; but rather Obama and his remarks at a prayer meeting.
If you want to read a sensible intelligent critique of the great 'Leader of the Free World' and what a procrastinator he is , then read the blog by the one and only Charles Krauthammer. No doubt Obama's thorn in the side.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer021315.php3
How about ditching Kenneth Copeland - because the thread is not supposed to be about him; but rather Obama and his remarks at a prayer meeting.
If you want to read a sensible intelligent critique of the great 'Leader of the Free World' and what a procrastinator he is , then read the blog by the one and only Charles Krauthammer. No doubt Obama's thorn in the side.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer021315.php3
A misspelling of "topic"
I'm not twisting anything. I'm arguing principles: if you keep saying I'm clueless and then adding a disclaimer, then so can I. This isn't about hurt feelings but about logic and double standards. That's all. You are the one reading all kinds of wild ideas into my responses. The fact remains that calling ANYONE clueless is a personal attack. I've explained this before.
It is you who keeps making everything personal. It is you who appears to be perpetually offended by everything I say. It is you who is twisting words.
I understood what you said. And to ask those questions is to imply that I had not done research. I began earlier with a link to material about Copeland, and that's part of my research, so why did you ask after that? The only explanation is that you presumed this was some kneejerk reaction on my part rather than research.
You think you're asking nicely, but you sure aren't coming across that way. Your "suggestion" came across as an accusation of failure on my part to do research. Your ASSUMPTION, repeated here ("it is easy to google something"), is proof that you do in fact believe I have not done research. Why else would you even say it? That's not a "suggestion", it's a presumption. You further prove this by adding "there are a few things you or whoever it is that is using them....must do". Why do you presume that I, or the link I referenced, has not done those needed things? Again, you're not merely "suggesting" something, you're presuming it. You presume that whoever criticizes Copeland must not have done due diligence in research.
(And by the way, I had issues with Copeland's teachings long before I was ever on the internet.)
Jim, I have explained that not only have I not been rude at all, you have been condescending and accusatory. Why must YOU crucify ME at every turn? Is every instance of disagreement with you "crucifying"? Can you take any disagreement without taking offense? I do hope that you can return my honesty, and not make me put you on ignore because I cannot carry on any conversation with you unless I agree with you. You have a nice day too.