Post Reply
Page 5 of 20  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 20 Next
4 years ago  ::  May 04, 2010 - 11:44PM #41
Newtonian
Posts: 11,229

Kerry - I am sorry but I have no idea who hurt mattica's feelings.  Who said what?


I plead innocent, btw.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 05, 2010 - 12:20AM #42
Imperfectense
Posts: 3,329

The WT link does not say how long  it takes for the  egg to be fertilized, one hour  5? Has scientist isolated the number of minutes, hours  to conception?

WTS Bible Dictionary Insight-2 p. 1132 Truth
"Being “the spirit of the truth,” God’s holy spirit could never be the source of error but would protect Christ’s followers from doctrinal falsehoods. (Compare 1Jo 2:27; 4:1-6.)...)

Watchtower 1987 11/1 p. 29 Religion’s Tidal Wave—The Final Reckoning
Examine the religious institution to which you belong. Does what it stands for agree with the Bible in every way? If not, then your organization is part of “Babylon the Great,” or the world empire of false religion. Follow the command found at Revelation 18:4, which is: “Get out of her, my people, . . . if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 05, 2010 - 12:47AM #43
Theo
Posts: 4,620

Newt:

Theo - Hi! How are you? Have you any thoughts on the Scriptures I posted? And, can you concisely answer whether you agree abortion is murder? It sounded like you agree, but your post was long.


Hi Newt – I am fine. No thoughts on the Scriptures you posted. And yes I can and thought I did answer the question – “Is abortion murder?”


No, I do not believe it is.


And here is why. I do not believe women are murdering their children when they get an abortion. I believe they are misguided and deceived by the pro-abortion crowd and the spirit of Satan working in the world. I do not believe most abortion doctors murder the unborn when performing abortions… because they believe they are merely performing an operation to remove an unwanted fetus, which they most often do not believe is a person. And I do not believe most pro-abortion advocates are for the murder of the unborn… in the vast majority of these cases, they believe what they do is something completely different.


I would say that murderers commit murder after they decide to kill another person – sadly most of those on the pro-choice side do not believe zygotes embryos or fetuses can be said to be “persons” yet. Thus to accuse them of murder is a bit over the top for me.


I believe abortion is wrong. I believe it is the killing of human life. And I believe that those who advocate it and have abortions are tragically deceived and totally misguided. I believe God forgives those who’ve had abortions and performed abortions and repent of their sins. I think the notion that abortion is murder is a problem… a problem that causes the pro-abortion crowd to dismiss pro-life people as nuts.


How can anyone reason with someone who starts out by saying – you need to understand that you are a murderer? Abortion is obviously killing a living human being, so why do we need to debate about when it becomes a person? Lets start with the fact that every conception begins a human life.


 A zygote is not a frog, it is not a salamander – it is a living human zygote, that if allowed to grow full term, will be born a living human being. The pro-choice crowd believes women should have the right to decide to abort a living human fetus… practically up to full term. And that is where we should focus our opposition.


But I say, no one has the right to decide to terminate the life of a potential human being... especially the pregnant mother. Why, because life is from God… its not some "thing" anyone should decide to abort because they do not want to have a baby right now. Women who have sex indiscriminately have no GOd-given right to decide a few months latter – gee now is really not a good time – I can’t afford a baby – here I am – kill it.


No woman should have the right to tell a father – legitimate or otherwise… I am going to kill your baby and you have no say one way or the other. But if I decide to keep it – then you’re responsible and will have to pay me child support for the next 25 years.


These are issues we can address and do something about. Its too bad JWs are unwilling to take a stand for life, other than writing a few articles in your mags. Its sad that you have the right to vote and be counted – but instead you would rather let the devil and the world continue killing the unborn.


This is what I think about abortion and the people who say they are against it but do nothing to stop it.


 Luke 14:34-35 "Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its flavor, how shall it be seasoned?  35 It is neither fit for the land nor for the dunghill, but men throw it out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"


This is right up there with the Pharisees declaring something is corban as merely a pretence to deny their parents what they need.


 


~ Theophilus





 


Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 05, 2010 - 8:17AM #44
matica
Posts: 3,062

May 4, 2010 -- 11:41PM, Newtonian wrote:


May 4, 2010 -- 5:58PM, rangerken wrote:


Too bad I edited my post and fixed the schprelling error which was discovered... oh well... another blow to my infalliility.


And...in an attempt to get things back on topic... does anyone know which religions consider abortion to be OK and which ones consider it to be ...using religious terminology...sinful? Does anyone know what the plant silphium was used for back when the Bible was still in the being witten down phase? and yes, I do know...and no, I'm not telling... I'll just watch and try to maintain some semblance of civility and order .


Rangerken, host




Ken - Here is a little preliminary information on which religions teach for or against abortion - from our literature:



"Do



 



 


These Religions Have the Answer?


IN A moral quandary over the abortion question, many seek the guidance of their spiritual leaders. How do these respond?


The Catholic Church takes a staunch position against abortion, teaching that life begins at conception. Some priests are politically involved and call on the pope to excommunicate Catholic politicians who cast pro-abortion votes. Nevertheless, many Catholics are for abortion and call for liberalization.


The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) reports that 46 percent of pastors “do not believe the Bible teaches that abortion is wrong.” The church’s official stand is pro-abortion.


The 16th General Synod of the United Church of Christ resolved that it ‘upholds the right of men and women to have adequate family planning services and to safe legal abortion as one option.’


The Evangelical Lutheran Church policy states that abortion “ought to be an option only of last resort”; yet it refused to call abortion a “sin” or to say that “life begins at conception.”


The Southern Baptist Convention is strongly antiabortion. But the American Baptist Church states: “We are divided as to the proper witness of the church to the state regarding abortion. Consequently, we acknowledge the freedom of each individual to advocate for a public policy on abortion that reflects his or her beliefs.”


Judaism is divided, the Orthodox branch taking a largely antiabortion stand, while Reform and Conservative Jews largely favor abortion.


Islam allows abortion for any reason for the first 40 days of life but only for a threat to the mother’s life thereafter. The Hadith says that the fetus is “40 days in the form of a seed, then he is a clot of blood for a like period, then a morsel of flesh for a like period, then . . . there is sent to him the angel who blows the breath of life into him.”


Shintoism holds no official position and leaves abortion to personal choice.


Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs teach a general respect for life. But they are not embroiled in debate on the abortion issue, since they believe in reincarnation; abortion merely sends the unborn baby on to another life." - "Awake!," 5/22/93, p. 12


I will be glad to research this further if anyone wants me too.




 


The Roman Catholic Church
has continuously and steadfastly opposed the legalization of  abortion and has supported virtually all meaningful pro-life legislation and public policies. The bishops have testified before Congress on numerous occasions pleading for restoration of respect for all human life. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops has prepared several pastoral letters clearly defining the Catholic Church’s pro-life position. Most dioceses have active respect life offices and parish pro-life committees.

Many dioceses are beginning to establish Project Rachel programs to assist women (and men) who are recovering from postabortion syndrome. And a large number of dioceses also maintain hotlines and provide services to help women with problem pregnancies.



The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod (LCMS)
has passed a series of resolutions beginning in 1971 opposing  abortion on demand and supporting the restoration of legal protection to the unborn child. It has urged all agencies of the LCMS to "continue to give testimony to its pro-life stance to all levels of government in the U.S." The LCMS has called for development of pro-life educational material for all age levels. The LCMS has vehemently opposed the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) and strenuously supported the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (PBA Ban Act.)
The Southern Baptist Convention
initially called for legislation in 1971 that would allow for the possibility of abortions under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe to fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother. In 1976, the convention changed its position to oppose abortions used as a means of birth control. In 1980, the convention strengthened its position by supporting legislation and/or a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother. In recent years the Southern Baptist Convention has taken an active leadership role in supporting pro-life legislation, including backing the PBA  Ban Act and opposing FOCA and other pro-abortion measures. The convention has also developed a broad range of pro-life educational material for all levels, including a comprehensive pro-life Sunday school curricula and materials for Sanctity of Life Sunday in January.
Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)
"has taken a very strong pro-life position, believing that the unborn child is a human being whom God is creating." The position paper of 1978, which is also accepted as the current position, expresses a clear understanding of the sanctity of human life. "Abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child between  conception and birth. ... Scripture leaves no doubt about the continuity of personhood that includes the unborn child, and therefore, under the Sixth Commandment, prohibits shedding innocent blood." At the 1996 General Assembly, PCA strongly condemned partial-birth abortions "as a murderous and horrifying practice and a grave offense against almighty God," and petitioned the President and Congress "to act in accord with this Biblical standard."

The Presbyterian Church (USA)
historically opposed abortion. As recently as 1965, it said, "The fetus is a human life to be protected by the criminal law from the moment when the ovum is fertilized ... As Christians, we believe that this should not be an individual decision on the part of the physician and the couple. ..." In 1970 the PCUSA issued a study report which regarded abortion as help for unwanted pregnancies and in 1972 language regarding "personal choice" and "responsible decision" regarding abortion began to appear in church documents.

In 1983, the PCUSA General Assembly adopted a policy which affirmed abortion as a "stewardship responsibility." PCUSA today actively supports the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC, formerly known as the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, or RCAR). In 1992, after restudying the issue, the General Assembly adopted a new policy which states that "there is a basis in our tradition not only for a woman’s difficult choice for abortion, but also for the preservation of the lives of the unborn because they are human beings made in God’s image." In 1997, the PCUSA broke with other pro-abortion churches to become the first major mainline denomination to take a position expressing "grave moral concern" about partial-birth abortions.


 


These are just a few examples, much better than the ones the watchtower uses to paint the picture of how other religions believe on abortion, the watchtower really needs to balance it's reporting on issue's, I think I'll start calling it Foxtower, fair and balanced.


So is anyone willing to admit that Older's post was totaly slanderous and out of line, inappropriate and was meant as a personal attack against the Christians on this board, and that you disagree with her? Because until you do, anything you say is just lip service and all jw's feel the same.


Matt


Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 05, 2010 - 9:21AM #45
Sulla Felix
Posts: 528

May 4, 2010 -- 10:51PM, Newtonian wrote:


May 4, 2010 -- 6:20PM, Ed2 wrote:


May 4, 2010 -- 4:28PM, Sulla Felix wrote:



Well, what makes it wrong?  Your view is that it isn't a person yet, correct?  If there is no person that could be subject to a resurrection, then an abortion is merely the killing of a body, which is not subject to resurrection.  So, what makes it wrong?




Hmmm. Interesting. That's the first time that I have every heard an argument like that used.


I'm curious as to know how JWs and conservative Christians are going to address that.



 


Ed - First of all, we received new light, a meal at the proper time, in our April 2009 Watchtower showing that an unborn child might be resurrected.



How sweet.  Was there any explanation given for this claim?  And was the problematic Jw position on resurrection addressed?   I refer, of course, to the fact that Jws insist only persons and not bodies are resurrected -- an embryo can't really be called a person, since the only identity they have is their bodies.


May 4, 2010 -- 10:51PM, Newtonian wrote:


Secondly, many Scriptures are involved - and please feel free to copy/paste them to your thread:


3.  (Job 10:18-19) . . .So why from a womb did you bring me out? Could I have expired, that not even an eye could see me, 19 There as though I had not come to be I should have become; From the belly to the burial place I should have been brought.’


[Note: Job questions the resurrection hope but confirms his belief in the resurrection here:


(Job 14:12-15) . . .Man also has to lie down and does not get up. Until heaven is no more they will not wake up, Nor will they be aroused from their sleep. 13 O that in She´ol you would conceal me, That you would keep me secret until your anger turns back, That you would set a time limit for me and remember me! 14 If an able-bodied man dies can he live again? All the days of my compulsory service I shall wait, Until my relief comes. 15 You will call, and I myself shall answer you. For the work of your hands you will have a yearning.]



Actually, you're mistaken about Job's belief in the resurrection.


May 4, 2010 -- 10:51PM, Newtonian wrote:

4.  (Jeremiah 1:4-5) 4 And the word of Jehovah began to occur to me, saying: 5 "Before I was forming you in the belly I knew you, and before you proceeded to come forth from the womb I sanctified you. Prophet to the nations I made you."


So, Jeremiah was known by Jehovah before any body parts had formed in the embryo of Jeremiah, and Jeremiah was sanctified by Jehovah while still in his mother's womb. 


Remember, Jeremiah's DNA began at conception, before even one body part had formed - cp:


I.e. when there was not yet one body part formed all the body parts were in writing in DNA as regard the specific days each body part would be formed.  Note that David's embryo is "me" according to David - not merely a 'fetus' but rather David himself as an embryo.



Well, this would contradict the JW position that your body is not essential to your identity, wouldn't it?


May 4, 2010 -- 10:51PM, Newtonian wrote:

In summary (still researching, btw - have been for many years):


Whether the spirit of the unborn human soul also goes back to God until the resurrection is left unanswered but the above verses give reason for hope - and my belief (not dogmatic) is that it will depend on Jehovah and Jesus (see Jeremiah 1:5) and also the mother in the resurrection whether her womb will have been pregnant until time indefinite (Jeremiah 20:17) and then give birth to that child in the 1,000 year reign.  Our April 15th Watchtower called attention to the fact that some mothers who lost their child before birth still grieve.


In that case, I believe this verse answers the question:


(Psalm 145:16) 16 You are opening your hand And satisfying the desire of every living thing.




Again, that's very sweet, but it can only be correct if the JW viewpoint of what kind of thing is subject to resurrection is incorrect.  As I pointed out on the other abortion thread, JWs do not allow for the possibility that your body is at all essential to your identity.  Since an embryo has only a body, according to the JW position, it cannot be resurrected.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 05, 2010 - 2:00PM #46
Sup
Posts: 2,309

May 4, 2010 -- 8:25PM, Theo wrote:


Ed, I do not believe Sup made a good point, I believe he has been misguided, his dislike for his religious upbringing among the JWs has made him susceptible to the Atheists and Agnostics and those who argue against Christianity and faith in God, and thus he has transgressed against God. It is not always wrong to question God – Abraham did that. But it is always wrong to accuse God of evil, or compare yourself to God as being morally superior to Him, it is always wrong to do that. “Will the potter say to the Clay, What are you doing?”



The bible made me an atheist, not the JWs. Once I realized that I was employing the same sort of moronic apologetics and dishonest pandering to defend my faith in the bible that I had used to excuse the errors of the organization, I came to the stark realization that trying to get this personal relationship with Christ via Holy Scripture was a complete waste of my time.


As for comparing myself to Generic-Deity/Bible-God, I have no problem doing that. I have far better morals than Allah and Zeus are alleged to, as well. If any of them have a problem with me saying so, they are more than welcome to let me know.


1 Kings 18:27 - "Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or  gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be  awakened."


May 4, 2010 -- 8:25PM, Theo wrote:

The only infants and unborn God sanction for death (in Scripture) were those of the intensely corrupt and wicked of the world. In the examples found in the Bible, these were always the unborn of those whose bloodlines were contaminated by the Nephilim, which is something those prone to accusing God always leave out – not believing in such things. In the case of the nations God foretold through the prophets would be brought to ruin, the killers of the innocent were in all cases the ungodly sinners of other nations – i.e. the pagan killers of the false gods of the world.



Bible God is either ok with baby-killing, or he is not.


Throughout the bible he orders the murder of thousands of innocent (already born) children. While he also included alot of passages regarding the sacredness of human life, I submit that none of them really address the modern notion of early term-abortion, when the embryo is really nothing more than a collection of cells, scientifically speaking. Given Bible-God's schizophrenic and convenient outlook on the value of human life (i.e. it's worthless when it gets in his way), I think using such an archaic and in many cases despicable piece of literature to come to any conclusion regarding modern morals is a mistake.


We are above the morals of Yahweh, and Allah, and even Jesus. We could teach them a thing or two about love and human compassion. Abortion is a tricky issue, and it's a tragedy that it becomes even trickier because some people think the 2,000 year old writings of goat-herders offer some sort of insight on the topic.

Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 05, 2010 - 8:09PM #47
Ed2
Posts: 3,322

May 4, 2010 -- 11:19PM, Theo wrote:


We'll not necessarily. You are only speculating by saying that the bloodlines of all the pregnant women who died in the flood in Noah's day were contaminated by the Nephilim. A speculation that I have never heard of before until now.


Speculation, or exposition? I studied this issue years ago – the Nephilim corrupted the bloodlines of mankind, both before and after the flood. And in both cases God destroyed them… all of them, first by the flood, and next by the hand of Moses and Joshua and lastly under king David. It is a lengthy study, but one well worth the time to pursue.




So, Theo, are you saying that all the rigamarole that went on with the flood to make sure that the Nephilim and the bloodline of the Nephilim was wiped out, was a failure?


May 4, 2010 -- 11:19PM, Theo wrote:


Gen 6:9 These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. 10Noah became the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.


“All flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth” – with the exception of Noah and his family, Noah was blameless in his generation – this means more than Noah was good compared to the other people of his times. It means that his generation was spotless, clean… he was not of a corrupt linage. There is a whole boatload of treasure hidden in these passages, the whole of chapter 6 is worth studying Vs by Vs, word by word.




That's interesting. But I was just thinking that JWs either aren't aware of this interpretation, or they don't agree with it.


May 4, 2010 -- 11:19PM, Theo wrote:


The death of Christ was designed to reconcile the descendants of Adam to God, so early on one of Satan’s plans was to corrupt the bloodline of mankind – that is what Genesis 6 and the flood was about, as well as the slaughter of the giants of the Canaanites and the Ammorites, and all the people God had Israel utterly destroy.




But that still leaves me with the question of: So, Theo, are you saying that all the rigamarole that went on with the flood to make sure that the Nephilim and the bloodline of the Nephilim was wiped out, was a failure?


May 4, 2010 -- 11:19PM, Theo wrote:


And that answers the arrogant assertions of the Atheists and Agnostics who mock God and claim themselves better than God. Such people often realize that they are not considering all the facts in play… which is why I said their mockery is hypocritical. They come to poke fun and mock, not debate with any degree of sincerity.




I don't know, Theo. From what I've seen on various boards, it seems like a lot of atheists and agnostics are very familiar with and well versed in the Bible.  


May 4, 2010 -- 11:19PM, Theo wrote:


The killers of the innocent in all cases were the ungodly sinners of other nations? Well, what about the Israelites' slaughter of every man, woman, and child of the Canaanites, which was commanded by the God of the Israelites himself?



Yes, even hundreds of years after the flood the bloodlines in Canaan’s land were corrupted by the Nelphilim. Its all there in the OT, hope you are not embarrassed to believe in the giants.


~ Theophilus




Well, once again that leaves me with the question of: So, Theo, are you saying that all the rigamarole that went on with the flood to make sure that the Nephilim and the bloodline of the Nephilim was wiped out, was a failure?

I think that it's pretty sad and pretty unbelievable that there are so many healthy, powerful, and healing foods that I have learned about from watching "The Doctor Oz Show"...but unfortunately, most Americans from their childhood on up, have only learned how to eat what is essentially equivalent to 'garbage'...and are basically in a 'slumber' when it comes to not having a clue as to what that kind of food is doing to their bodies and to their health. It's really sad.

~Ed2

"Hmmm. So you're saying that for Jesus' followers(throughout the centuries) to truly live a 'godly' life, they had to believe that the end of the world was just around the corner?"

~Ed2(See post #53)

"Although, I think that I'll change that to: Also...I liked the way that you dodged what I had said about being 'concerned that the Bible had to use subterfuge as a means to an end' in my post #137."

~Ed2(See post #145)

"It's utterly beyond belief, that the wealthiest country in the history of the world, fails to care for all it's people."

~Dr. Patrick Dowling, MD(From The Doctor Oz Show, which aired on 11/23/11.)

"If I could prescribe any drug on the planet, it would be food [be]cause it works better, faster, and cheaper than any medication. Food is the most powerful medicine we have...to treat chronic disease like diabetes."

~Dr. Mark Hyman, MD(From The Doctor Oz Show, which aired on 01/13/12. Also, go to www.doctoroz.com for more information.)
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 05, 2010 - 8:27PM #48
rangerken
Posts: 15,784

this thread was moved here from the Discuss Jehovah's witnesses board.


Rangerken, Beliefnet Community Moderator

Conservative, Libertarian, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 05, 2010 - 8:31PM #49
Theo
Posts: 4,620

Ed:

But that still leaves me with the question of: So, Theo, are you saying that all the rigamarole that went on with the flood to make sure that the Nephilim and the bloodline of the Nephilim was wiped out, was a failure?


No, the flood was not a failure – I believe it got them all. However, they reappeared some time during the 500 years or so between the death of Abraham and Moses. You see, the Nephilim, according to Genesis 6 were the hybrid offspring of fallen angels (the sons of God) and human beings. Thus the flood got them all, and then generations after the flood, the angels did it again. Jude speaks of these angels and says that God cast them into the abyss. Apparently the outbreak after the flood was more or less limited to the inhabitants of Canaan’s Land – which is why God brought about their demise by means of the Israelites.


 BTW, the understanding that the Nephilim where giants is the historic belief of ancient Judaism and the early Fathers – Origen was the first one to postulate that the Nephilim were simply evil powerful men – the sons of Cain.


 There are no true giants in the world today, at least none that I know of – thus I believe God was successful in eliminating them from the dominant gene-pool. There are some interesting things you can find on the Internet about giants – but I haven’t found anything I put much stock in. One of the reasons some people make a big deal about them is because in Daniel 2, Daniel says some very obscure things that may indicate a return of the Nephilim in the last days. But I am reserving judgment upon that.


 ~ Theophilus

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 05, 2010 - 9:45PM #50
Ed2
Posts: 3,322

May 5, 2010 -- 8:31PM, Theo wrote:


Ed:

But that still leaves me with the question of: So, Theo, are you saying that all the rigamarole that went on with the flood to make sure that the Nephilim and the bloodline of the Nephilim was wiped out, was a failure?


No, the flood was not a failure – I believe it got them all. However, they reappeared some time during the 500 years or so between the death of Abraham and Moses. You see, the Nephilim, according to Genesis 6 were the hybrid offspring of fallen angels (the sons of God) and human beings. Thus the flood got them all, and then generations after the flood, the angels did it again.




Wait a minute, Theo. Something about that sounds awfully wrong. So you're saying that God took major and spectacular steps to completely wipe the Nephilim and their bloodline off the face of the earth, which some would say was a bit of an overkill(pun not intended), only to allow rebellious angels to mate with women again? I'm sorry, Theo, but that just doesn't sound right. Also, what prevented rebellious angels from doing it again years later after the so-called Canaanite Nephilim were killed by the Israelites? And then again years later after those offspring were killed?  


May 5, 2010 -- 8:31PM, Theo wrote:


Jude speaks of these angels and says that God cast them into the abyss.




But why couldn't Jude have been speaking about the angels of Genesis 6?


May 5, 2010 -- 8:31PM, Theo wrote:


Apparently the outbreak after the flood was more or less limited to the inhabitants of Canaan’s Land – which is why God brought about their demise by means of the Israelites.




And why was that? And as I asked previously, what prevented the angels from mating with women again and again and again and again? 


May 5, 2010 -- 8:31PM, Theo wrote:


One of the reasons some people make a big deal about them is because in Daniel 2, Daniel says some very obscure things that may indicate a return of the Nephilim in the last days. But I am reserving judgment upon that.


 ~ Theophilus




And what verses are those in Daniel 2?

I think that it's pretty sad and pretty unbelievable that there are so many healthy, powerful, and healing foods that I have learned about from watching "The Doctor Oz Show"...but unfortunately, most Americans from their childhood on up, have only learned how to eat what is essentially equivalent to 'garbage'...and are basically in a 'slumber' when it comes to not having a clue as to what that kind of food is doing to their bodies and to their health. It's really sad.

~Ed2

"Hmmm. So you're saying that for Jesus' followers(throughout the centuries) to truly live a 'godly' life, they had to believe that the end of the world was just around the corner?"

~Ed2(See post #53)

"Although, I think that I'll change that to: Also...I liked the way that you dodged what I had said about being 'concerned that the Bible had to use subterfuge as a means to an end' in my post #137."

~Ed2(See post #145)

"It's utterly beyond belief, that the wealthiest country in the history of the world, fails to care for all it's people."

~Dr. Patrick Dowling, MD(From The Doctor Oz Show, which aired on 11/23/11.)

"If I could prescribe any drug on the planet, it would be food [be]cause it works better, faster, and cheaper than any medication. Food is the most powerful medicine we have...to treat chronic disease like diabetes."

~Dr. Mark Hyman, MD(From The Doctor Oz Show, which aired on 01/13/12. Also, go to www.doctoroz.com for more information.)
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 20  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 20 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook