Ukulelemike

Moderators
  • Content count

    3,629
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ukulelemike

  • Rank
    Just a Servant
  • Birthday November 11

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location: NE California
  • Interests Preaching, drawing, singing, ukulele, goats, herpetoculturism.
  • Are you IFB? Yes

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo ukulelemike@yahoo.com

Uncategorized

  • Bio Pastor of a small IFBaptist church in NE California, raise goats, sheep, chickens, rabbits. Play ukulele and sing. Sometimes TO my goats.

Recent Profile Visitors

8,445 profile views
  1. Did God Save Us to Live for Him or for the World

    A post worthy of some rumination. I think you may be painting with a bit too much of a broad brush, but understand that's not meant as a criticism, as its so easy to do. But I would agree that much of these are the case with what many see as the typical "IFB", or maybe the mega-IFB's. But for every one of those there are many small, 'insignificant' IFB churches doing the work of God faithfully, preachers who will never be invited to preach someone's conference because, even though they've faithfully served in their area for 10, 20, 30 years or more, staying in one place, bringing souls to Christ and discipling their small congregations, they aren't of note enough in the numbers game to really matter.  
  2. Motivation of example #3 wood-hay-stubble?

    Good questions. I tend to look at it from the point of the fire. If all our works are cast into the fire, in the case of gold and siler, what does that do? It refines. It removes dross and pollutants and purifies the metal.  So my thought is, if we are doing the right then, though maybe not always with the right intent, those things may be gold or silver with dross, and the fire will draw out the imprities and produce a pure substance, hence a purified work before the Lord. Remember Paul said that while he was in prison: "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." (Phil 1:15-18)  So if we do the right thing, though not always with the right heart, it is still the right thing and God can work in that, and I beliee it will be counted as siler or gold, with all wrong intent drawn out by the fire.    
  3. The Worldwide Flood

    I honestly see rally nothing concerning the six-day creation in your scripture reference other than it referring to God resting on the seventh-day. what point are you trying to make with it concerning the creation week?  
  4. Ash Wednesday and such like 'Holy Days'

    40-day fast for Tammuz.  
  5. IN THE BEGINNING

    Since one is called the Garden of Eden, and the other is called Eden the garden of God, I see no reason, scripturally, to believe they are anything but one and the same. To assume anything else is just that-assumption to try to prove an otherwise improvable point.  Are the 144,000 Jews sealed by God in Rev 7, the same 144,000 male virgins as seen in Rev 14:1? I would say yes, but hey, maybe not! But most would assume that yes, indeed, they are.  (And they aren't JW's).  When we see the same reference in two places, unless theres a really good reason to believe otherwise, why would we assume them to be different, save to help make a point.
  6. The Kingdom

    unless my memory is faulty, there was only once that the word 'church' was used to indicate anything BUT the New testament churches, and that was when speaking of the church in the wilderness, the children of Israel in their wanderings. It fit the general description as a called-out assembly, being the Hebrews called out of Egypt. Apart from that, the term church always refers to the body of Christ, the New Testament local churches, and the context is quite clear that this is to whom those seven letters are addressed. At this point, the synagogues had rejected Jesus and God completely-why would we assume their candlesticks were in place? And are you intimating that the synagogue at Philadelphia was doing things so perfectly that the Lord had nothing but commendation for them? A synagogue full of Jews who had rejected Jesus?  No, I think you're reeeeally reaching here.  The churches are those to whom these seven letters are written, though as a whole, they and the entire book are written to him that has an ear to hear.
  7. The Kingdom

    "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (Rev 1:4-6)  Written by John the Apostle to the churches. Kings and priests. "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:9&10)  Those redeemed of God from ALL kindred and tongue and people and nation, made kings and priests, to reign on the earth."   Israel was made to be a holy nation, a nation of kings and priests to God, and so they were for some 1500 years until Christ came and they rejected their Messiah.   This is not to say all promises have been taken away from them-certainly there will be a remnant saved of Israel, but that promise to be a nation of kings and priests was given and fulfilled, and subsequently rejected by them when they rejected the expected Messiah.
  8. The Kingdom

    God created each creature to reproduce after their kind. Angels, fallen or otherwise, and humans are of different kinds, created with different purposes, and do not reproduce. I'm sorry, they do not, they cannot.
  9. The Kingdom

    Still not understanding how people take the simple, stand-alone phrase, "And there were giants in those days;" to mean anything other than "There were giants in those days." Chances are, EVERYONE were giants. I have speculated that people who have 'gigantism', are actually a throwback to that giant-potential that we all have in our DNA. Notice that people with gigantism often continue to grow through their normally short lives. Why? If they lived say 200 years, 500 years, might they stop growing much later than their 'normal' short fellows? See, I believe that the potential is there in everyone. That when we lived 800-900 years, we didn't stop growing at 18-20 like we do now, but maybe 50-60-100 years. But see, today, people who have gigantism suffer because of the difference in the atmospheric pressure and oxygen content today, and so their bodies can't handle the size. But when there was 50% more oxygen, they COULD survive much heartier. And in the context, the wording does not attach the giants to the sons of God and daughters of Men, specifically. It is a statement in itself, and then a statement about the SOG and DOM and their offspring, but is says "And also after that," clearly separate.   
  10. IN THE BEGINNING

    Besides, from the Book of Daniel, it would appear that Nebuchadnezzar became a believer, and even wrote a chapter of the word of God. He was also referred to as the Lord's sword, when God used him to punish Judah, and the great gold head of the statue in his dream, God Himself stating that he was the greatest of the (worldly) kings on earth. Can't see him as being spoken of as being cast down, because even when he was, he was given back his glory and honor and throne, while at the same time fully accepting that Jehovah God was the one True God.
  11. Coffee addiction

    I grew up drinking coffee; I was extremely hyperactive, (now they call it ADHD), and the doctor wanted to put me on Ritalin. Being a fairly new thing at the time, my parents allowed it-they said it calmed me down but completely changed my personality-made me mean. As they said, there was never a mean bone in my body. So finding that Ritalin is actually an amphetamine, an upper, which works on hyperactives because they are paradoxical in their reaction to stimulants and depressants, they started me drinking coffee, and it worked great, with the fairly regular spanking. My father told me that he believed when I was young, due to an inability to control myself, I'd either end up dead or in prison. Instead I became a Baptist preacher, and I guess we're still not sure which was better-lol. Now, while I enjoy coffee from time to time, I have no addiction to it-and it really has no effect one way or the other on me now, except for sending me to the 'little preacher's room' too often.
  12. IN THE BEGINNING

    Amen. God is a God of order. His creation week, a literal week, (well, six days and the day of rest), specifically were done to set precedence for all time afterward-as seven day weeks, and eventually, the establishment of the Sabbath day of rest for Israel. He COULD have spoke and the heavens and earth could have been created fully formed in an instant, but God did it in stages to set time in motion. It was done to establish order, so was done in an orderly fashion.  
  13. Fouled with their feet

    Maybe you need a feeder to put the food in and keep it off the ground while they eat.
  14. Divorce and remarriage

    Swathdiver said: "Not at all.  Taken your way, verse 15 contradicts verse 11 and God is not the author of confusion. Marriage is not bondage either, it is a holy union, a covenant before God that God blesses. What bondage means here that if the departed return, one is not obligated to take them back, lie with them in bed, etc., unless they've reconciled. That's the only way all of the verses in chapter 7 harmonize together and therefore are true.  Your way is wrong and confusing.  Please read the entire chapter, each verse. Mike, most of the verses in chapter 7 repeat that divorce is not acceptable and Paul gives example after example and like you've been trying to get through Wretched's thick skull, words have meanings and it's so very important that we know the meaning of those words in the 17th century, not trying to apply today's dictionary like Wretched got sucked into doing and believing. Coming around to this truth has big implications for you brother, you'll then see the answers to many unanswered questions."   No, verse 11 is dealing with married couples that are both believers, while 12-16 are dealing with a believer and unbeliever. believers are bound together in marriage, while if a believer and unbeliever, the unbeliever leaves, the believer is not bound to them in the way they would be to another believer, since it is clearly not God's will that we be unequally yoked together. So if the unbeliever departs, the believer is not bound to them they way they would be to another believer.  It is not confusing at all, it is two different circumstances that have two different rules applying to them. Like even today, unbelievers often get married, and one might get saved, while the other rejects Christ. Should the one who rejects decide they don't want to be married to this "crazy Christian" anymore, and they leave the other, the believer is not obligated to them in the eyes of the Lord, because once the one was born again, the marriage began to become unequally yoked. Ideally, the believer should stay with them, should the unbeliever want to remain, and eventually the unbeliever may get saved-so we aren't free to just leave the unbeliever. But if the unbeliever leaves, the believer has no bonds to them, and is free from them.  It isn't difficult, nor is it at all confusing.
  15. While some do, indeed, seek to change a text's meaning by going to the 'Greek', often it is done because words in English have changed. I have had times when the English didn't seem to make sense in its straight reading, but in seeking the meaning of the word (in English), in times past, closer to the translating of the KJV,  it DOES, indeed, give a deeper (wider?) meaning to some words, and clarifies it when it made no sense before. This has been mentioned in other posts, as well. For instance, 'wine', in 1828, had a primary meaning of unfermented juice, and a secondary meaning of fermented juice, while today, it just refers to fermented. Many words in the KJV have changed meanings so much, particularly in common use, that to seek the meaning of those words in the past is often to completely MISS why it is there.