Jump to content


Member Since 10 Feb 2007
Offline Last Active Private

#379808 Is God Forcing Me To Marry?

Posted by HappyChristian on Yesterday, 11:51 AM

Speaking on marriage, is there anytime when it is wrong for someone to make the decision not to marry simply because it is not their desire to? I am 38, and have never had the desire to marry. However, my pastor seems to imply often that everyone should desire to marry.

The Bible tells us that it is good for man to marry - but it does not state that it is required.  


"Delight thyself also in the LORD and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart."  As you walk with God, He will put the desires into your heart that He wants you to have.  If you are open to the idea of marriage if it's what God wants you to do, He will show you what to do - either way.


I think 1 Cor. 7 is pretty clear on the matter...marriage is not a command for anyone.

#379802 Paradise And Abraham's Bosom

Posted by HappyChristian on Yesterday, 09:14 AM

Daisy you need to not ask men but God and study it out for yourself.  The command to study in 2Tim 2:15 is for you as well.  so write out all the verse and observe the textual context and learn to rightly divide the word of truth for yourself.

Urging someone to study scripture is great. But do not interfere with someone who is going to their pastor for clarification on something.  Period.

#379728 When Is The Church Not The Church?

Posted by HappyChristian on 23 July 2014 - 11:29 AM

Well, we'll see - eventually.  :biggrin:

#379717 When Is The Church Not The Church?

Posted by HappyChristian on 23 July 2014 - 11:03 AM

Eventually being the key word...because there are people who claim that they are saved and live like they are who aren't. But eventually...even if that eventually is in Heaven.

#379698 When Is The Church Not The Church?

Posted by HappyChristian on 23 July 2014 - 09:29 AM



When we do such we are subtly affirming that membership in a local "church" equals salvation"  it also puts credence to works over faith.

Not true.  

#379694 Choosing A Church

Posted by HappyChristian on 23 July 2014 - 09:17 AM

Ok I'll stop. But remember the church does not meet in a church (no bible verse for that).  you can find the church by turning to your saved spouse, child or neighbor.  church was never used in the bible as a place of fellowship.  My point was about using Biblical terms in Biblical ways, seeing everyone here claims to believe the Bible so why not act like it and talk like it.

We all know what your point was.  Just because someone doesn't act and talk like you dictated doesn't mean they aren't biblical. You take too much upon yourself to pass that kind of judgment.  Cease and desist (even though you said you'd stop, you didn't).  No rebuttal is necessary.

#379596 Choosing A Church

Posted by HappyChristian on 22 July 2014 - 09:23 AM

GS - my folks were in almost the same predicament as you describe. Except that there was a church in their town that billed itself as IFB.  They attended there for a while, but there were things that just weren't right...so they left.  After a while, they went back, having tried a number of other churches in surrounding areas.  But the problems were still there and they became pretty glaring.  So they just stopped going to church.  Not a good thing. They did listen to Adrian Rogers every Sunday (and for an SBC, he was pretty biblical!), but that isn't the same at all.


One time when I was there to help my mom after a serious surgery, I saw a sign for a church when my Dad was taking me to the ferry to head back to Seattle and then home.  When I got home, I did a search and found a church about 40 minutes away from them.  We were heading up there for a visit two months later, and visited the church.  It became my parents' home church and remains so to this day. My Dad has gone on to Glory, and, sadly (well, sad for the people), so has the pastor.  My Mom still attends and we are all praying that God will send the man He would have pastor them now. 


It is sometimes necessary to go outside one's area to find the right church.  If it is at all possible to host a church in one's home and try to get a work started (as has been suggested), that's great, too...we can never have too many good, biblical churches.

#379320 Anyone Remember When

Posted by HappyChristian on 16 July 2014 - 11:56 AM

There are several ladies in our church who are nurses.  They are very professional, as are a good chunk of nurses in the area. Not all, certainly, but many. My hubby was in the emergency room a while back (about 3 months ago) and the nurses there were great. Of course, it's a Catholic institution, and all of their hospitals are staffed by good workers.  I don't know if that makes any difference or not.

#379308 What He Said

Posted by HappyChristian on 16 July 2014 - 10:41 AM

Here's an interesting quote about the book Vindication the Founders. (since so many folks today try to say that women were second-class citizens in the founders' minds). The book sounds really good...



Women were understood by everyone to be included in the "all men" (all human beings) who are created equal. In New Jersey, women voted in elections routinely during the 1790s and early 1800s, for the first time anywhere in world history . This fact, as we will see, is clearly connected to the Founders' equality principle. So also was the idea, which grew during and after the founding era, that women and men have equal importance, but different roles, in the family and society. The best protection of women's rights, in the minds of both the men and the women of the founding era, was the core private association of a free and civilized society: lifelong marriage and the family. The alternatives—permitting no-fault divorce, pushing women into the job market, and legitimizing the treatment of women (and men) as sex objects—were thought to dehumanize and exploit, not liberate.

New Jersey actually passed a law in 1797 stating women could vote (until 1807, when the law was changed to specify only while males could vote...not to be hostile to women,but to insure that slaves and aliens didn't vote - because their 1776 constitution stated "all inhabitants" could vote).  heh - women didn't even protest that change!  Try that today and see what happens!  :bigshock:


The Constitution left voter qualifications up to each state (which was the right and proper thing to do).  The 19th amendment (ratified in 1920) didn't actually give women the right to vote - it just guaranteed that women had the right, still leaving it up to the states.  By ratification date, though, 3/4 of the states already allowed women to vote in at least some of their elections (and ratification along with rabble-rousing led to the other states passing laws to do so).


It's interesting to note that the women's suffrage movement demanded voting rights for women - when many states already had them. Of course, it wasn't "universal", so that may have been the impetus, but I doubt it...


One of the reasons some states didn't allow women to vote (and in NY, only with permission of the husband) was that the husband and wife were considered one unit, and to allow her to vote was to allow the man actually two votes.  :coverlaugh:  Wellll...


It wouldn't bother me if the vote was taken away from women (as long as men educate themselves, that is...something that, sadly, doesn't happen today), but the fact remains that it is the law that women can vote.  And so, I vote.  However, my vote gives my hubby two.   :clap:  We always discuss any votes, we pray about what we are going to do - and we vote the same way.  If I disagree with something/one my hubby is voting for, I simply don't vote (with his complete permission and approval) because I will not do something to cancel out his vote (that - my not voting on one thing - only happened once in 28 years of marriage). We are a team and so work together as such even in the voting process.  My hubby even still opens doors for me (something he taught our son to do as well).   :yeah:

#379301 It's Worse Than You Think...

Posted by HappyChristian on 16 July 2014 - 09:54 AM

Jesus was snorting frankincense since he was a baby in his crib? 

I know - that got me! Such idiotic blasphemy.  I don't know. It's just mind-numbingly reprehensible what this nut is pushing.

#379228 What He Said

Posted by HappyChristian on 15 July 2014 - 11:25 AM

Just wait til BO acts on the border crisis he engineered...especially since those horrible Republicans in the House denied his demand for millions to "take care" of it...

#379213 What About Our 'own' Convictions?

Posted by HappyChristian on 15 July 2014 - 10:09 AM

Well, 8 pages and we're just going round-and-round about the mode of baptism (totally off the OP, by the way...).


AVBB, I do understand what you are saying, but I have to say that I believe you are totally wrong about scripture not teaching how baptism is to be done.  You have made issue that we shouldn't have to go to definitions of words to find out what the Bible says, that we should just let the Bible explain itself...and you have applied that to baptism.  Problem is, your conclusion is that, while you yourself immerse and would do no other, since you claim scripture is silent, others who have different conclusions can do differently and still be right.


But therein leads to confusion. And God is not the author of confusion.


Scripture teaches very clearly that baptism is a picture of our being dead, buried, and resurrected in Christ.  The mode is right there: buried.  One cannot be buried unless one is put under completely.  All else is not burial.  Plain and simple.  To claim that the Bible is silent on the mode of baptism is wrong: God said burial. Burial is putting under, ergo immersion is the mode God teaches.  That's using the Bible to explain the Bible.  (of course, we can get picky and say that burial in that area at that time was in caves...but, again, their entire body was placed inside the tomb...they didn't just have a wee bit of dirt sprinkled on them, nor were their bodies partially put into the tomb.  The whole body was buried.)


I know you may be upset that I don't give you a chance to respond to this, since I am locking this thread.  But as I said earlier, we are just going round-and-round.  And it's not getting anyone anywhere. So...'tis time to lock.

#379212 Anyone Remember When

Posted by HappyChristian on 15 July 2014 - 10:00 AM

Wow. Such blasphemy! "Toking" the Holy Ghost?  Like He's a drug. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr - that just makes me so mad.   :verymad:


I, too, didn't make it past about 45 seconds.  Watching two idiots pretend to be high and attribute it to the Holy Spirit, and listening to someone else pretending to be high and trying to twist scripture into accepting those two as akin to the apostles at Pentecost is just not something I want to do.  Ew...It makes me angry just to type that!!!!!!!  (and yes, I say pretending because they weren't high on anything but their false religion).


I have family who are charismatic. I love them dearly (although I do not love their doctrine), and I do believe they love the Lord.  And you know what?  I think even they would see that and say there was definitely something wrong with those three.  Uke, spot-on that once they fall for this it is much harder to reach them with the truth.

#379210 I, Me, My

Posted by HappyChristian on 15 July 2014 - 09:47 AM

Then you would get the worst of the basest of men.

Which is what has been happening as more and more people quit voting...

#379151 I, Me, My

Posted by HappyChristian on 14 July 2014 - 11:09 AM

America was founded as a Republic in which the PEOPLE are the established leaders (the Ceasars, if you will).  Completely in line with scripture, it is the American people on whom the responsibility for elected office falls (in other words, God allows, but does not dictate who will be elected).  The founders saw to that - and claim all one wants, they did follow scriptural guidelines...read what they wrote - they believed in God and even more, many of them (most) feared God by a greater margin than most American Christians today.  Ergo, the people of this country (most definitely with a major amount of voter fraud) "elected" current occupier of the White House.  As our servant, not our lord.  Yes, the POTUS makes decisions for the country, but they are to be in line with the Constitution.  When they are not, the PEOPLE - the boss of the POTUS - are to be vocal about it.  And they are to be vocal about it to the Congress on whom the PEOPLE lay the responsibility of reigning in the POTUS (check out the Constitution, read the founders' explanation of it, and you will see that Congress actually has more authority than the POTUS...because they are representing the PEOPLE - their employers - directly).  Sadly, Congress is not doing its job.  Neither are Americans.  Especially Christian Americans.


That said, I don't think we should just willy-nilly call BO names.  But to point out his wrongs (and he does seem to be going a wee bit wonky) is our responsibility as citizen-leaders in a country uniquely crafted to make the citizen the boss rather than the serf.

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500