Jump to content


Member Since 10 Feb 2007
Offline Last Active Private

#275781 How strongly would you try to dissuade a 17-year old from getting an eyebrow...

Posted by HappyChristian on 27 July 2011 - 11:39 AM

Missed them? Just because they didn't quote them? The Lord gave jewelry to ISRAEL...symbolic, not literal.

The Israelites adopted several pagan practices from the Egyptians...should we follow that?

Let's also remember the scriptures (in the NT, under grace...) that teach separation from the world. Brow bars are definitely part of the dress of someone with a worldly mindset. And justification is always given, but no actual scripture (other than to say things like "it's an individual thing based on Romans 14"...which isn't talking about things like brow bars being okay, but rather pointing out the opposite...).

A 17 year old might have questions. And questions should be answered biblically. But not by using old testament references as support...

#275666 Advice/prayer

Posted by HappyChristian on 26 July 2011 - 10:10 AM

Where you attend is important, there is no doubt about that. I have a suggestion, though. When you are home again, set aside some time alone with your wife when you are both rested, and then just ask her about it. There could be some dissatisfaction that you don't know about but should learn. There is likely something behind her comments, and it would be good for you to discuss it.

(Good post, MissLinda!)

#275576 Should children take communion?

Posted by HappyChristian on 25 July 2011 - 09:23 AM

I can see many different points of view here, and many who say children should not partake. I understand the logic behind that. I also understand the logic of children partaking as well.

What I have not seen is any Scripture on the matter. Is there any? Or are all of these different views just based upon logic?

A lot of good comments have been made - and there has been scripture offered. None that specify that children cannot participate in so many words, but I think it needs to be looked at as a whole.

Jesus instituted the ordinance of His remembrance with His disciples. Paul, in the Corinthian passage, was addressing the church, and the proper administration of communion. That word "unworthily" sticks out there. We know that we are all unworthy, until we've accepted Christ - and then we are only worthy because of Him.

I talked with my hubby about this, and he brought up an interesting thought. He applauded that you want your daughter to understand the love of Christ. That is important (but here's a thought, too: children can understand it sometimes better than adults...Jesus did say that unless we had faith like a child we wouldn't believe, because children innocently believe truth about Christ so much easier than adults do). But he brought this thought up: at what point do you then tell your daughter she is partaking unworthily? After she has partaken for a while, how then do you tell her now she must be saved? I honestly have to wonder if it actually won't breed confusion in her to be allowed to partake now, and then told she has to be saved.

Annie had a good point: The Lord's Supper is a communion of remembrance amongst the body of Christ. Admittedly, I believe that children are protected eternally until they reach the age where they are cognizant of what sin is, and so the argument could be made that they can partake until then. But here again: telling them yes and then saying no leads to confusion.

Would it not be better to sit down at home and explain to your daughter (at 3, children are remarkably able to understand quite a bit more than we often realize!) exactly what the Lord's Supper is, and who may partake - and then tell her with joy that one day, when she understands that she is a sinner and needs Christ's forgiveness, she can partake. You could make it something she can look forward to, with assurance that one day she will understand and be saved.

Passover was instituted as a remembrance of Israel's deliverance from the death angel, and as a picture of the coming crucifixion of Christ. It was a look forward. Christ fulfilled Passover on the cross, and so there was no need to continue the remembrance. The Lord's Supper was instituted as a look back on what Christ did on the cross for those of us who have been saved. When one has not been saved, there is actually nothing to remember. It's been said earlier in the thread, but unsaved participation could actually lead to false assurance.

Scripture about children participating? No. But one word in the scripture ought to warn us all: unworthily. It shouldn't be taken lightly. The lost are unworthy because they are lost - no matter their age. The saved are worthy only through Christ, and can be partaking wrongly if they are not examining themselves and clearing things up with Christ.

#275198 Should children take communion?

Posted by HappyChristian on 21 July 2011 - 03:49 PM

I agree that parents should teach their children what it means. I don't know that the verses in 1 Cor 7 are applicable simply because we know that the verses aren't saying that the children would be automatically saved (I know you're not saying that - I'm just saying why I'm not sure the verses apply to this particular idea)

(kob, could you change those references to King James...remember we only post KJB on the forum. Thanks)

#274269 Pop up ads of 5" platform heels

Posted by HappyChristian on 05 July 2011 - 12:36 PM

One thing's for sure: if we rejected everything that Christians of old rejected, we'd not be on the internet....because Christians of old didn't always have uniform standards, either. I don't base my decisions on what Christians used to do, but on what God says in His Word. The commands, principles and patterns contained therein are enough for me.

I've never worn 5" heels, although in my younger years I did wear 3 inch. For the way they shaped my leg? No way! Actually, studies have shown that there are some feet that benefit from heels - I don't think 5" are beneficial, though! That would curve the foot a bit too far, IMO.

I think we need to be careful of just saying that heels are bad (let's face it: we might say 5" is too high, while another says 3", and another says any heel!!). If a Christian lady is sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit and is in her Bible as she ought to be, the Lord will show her whether or not it's right. If she is under her father, or if she is married, the man who is her head will help her in that decision.

Church attendance ought not be a fashion show, so if a woman is wearing heels to draw attention to herself, that is wrong. We all know that. But we cannot read the heart, so we need to be careful not to issue a blanket statement that all who wear 5" heels have the wrong motives.

edited to add: I missed a lot of the other posts - don't know how I did that! :icon_mrgreen: FTR - our church has drums in the orchestra. :o Some of the women wear makeup :blink: Some of the men have beards. :huh: And we play board games....but anyone who's ever been to our church knows very well that standards are preached.

#273912 Married Couples No Longer in Majority

Posted by HappyChristian on 30 June 2011 - 12:42 PM

The question put forth was valid. We must remember that until about 40 years ago America was 90% white. It was the "white protestant base" that kept America morally grounded to the extent she was.

In looking at this fact we must also take note that the moral decline began when America was still 90% white. White American protestants (consider Baptists included in this for the sake of simplicity) took a liberal turn in the 19th century which greatly accelerated in the 20th century. The vast majority that turned against Christianity or turned Christianity into a liberal, more humanist version, came from that white protestant base. The "Greatest Generation" may have made it through some tough times at home and a World War, but they failed to raise their children for Christ. Many got a taste of the world and clung to it and then raised their children more in accord with materialism and the world than the Bible.

(NOTE: in the above I'm speaking of the major trend, that's not to declare that some Christians were not holding to the faith; there is always a remnant and many of them were sounding warnings in both the 19th and 20th century)

Add to this mix 20 or more million Mexicans who don't want to be Americans, who hold to a liberal form of Catholicism, plus millions of others from around the world who want what they can get from America but don't want to be American, and who also are not Christian, and that has just added more fuel to the fire of decline.

So, one might rightly say that white American protestants, by turning from their roots in the Bible, are responsible for allowing things to go the way they did.

John, I give up, I'm tried of it, even those who have been here quite sometime read into my post, and yours as well, that which was not stated. Its as if they live to pick to pieces anything that is posted.

Perhaps doing so they think it makes them look better.

And before I post this I want to say, I know I fall way short of the glory of God, I would not put myself above anyone that has been here a long time, nor anyone that has been here a short time, its just as if some want to trash whatsoever is posted, reading into their every post that which is not there, I give up!

Jerry, I'm sorry you feel that way. If you didn't intend to stir up a racial tempest, your wording indicated otherwise. No, I doubt responding to what you posted makes BroMatt think it makes him look better. I know it doesn't me, either. Most likely no-one else, either. Mayhap it's a lesson learned? There are times we all (including you) read posts differently than from what the writer intends and respond accordingly.

#273894 The sin of sending your kids to public schools

Posted by HappyChristian on 30 June 2011 - 09:51 AM

Again, I'm going to reiterate: the head of each household must decide for his own house how the children are going to be educated. Any man, woman, boy or girl who declares that said man isn't trusting God if he doesn't have his children educated in the way in which another person claims is God's will is attempting to usurp the headship of that man and that is sin. Plain and simple.

We can state all day that God's Word says this and God's Word says that. But it does not specify where academics are to be learned, and so the decision is up to the man. We do not walk in any shoes but our own and to stand and proclaim that we know the answer for every single home in this issue is actually a form of spiritual pride and ought to be avoided. To claim that a parent who educates their child(ren) in a way in which we do not agree is not trusting God is to actually claim to be able to read the thoughts and intents of the heart: something only God can do.

There are many problems with the public school system. That is a truth. There are also problems with Christian schools. That is also a truth. There are problems with homeschooling. Another truth. But the glaring truth that stands above all that is that parents are to see to it that their children are grounded in the Word of God. Academics is not specified, and if, for some reason unbeknownst to any of us (and not our business) a family cannot do anything but send their child(ren) to a public school, those parents must work overtime to insure their children have the protection to combat the evil.

#273849 Married Couples No Longer in Majority

Posted by HappyChristian on 29 June 2011 - 11:28 AM

I agree with heartstrings and BroMatt - it isn't the fact that Caucasians are close to becoming a minority that leads to moral decline. It is the fact that Christianity is declining...and it isn't because of the color of skin of folks who are coming to this country.

There is truth in the idea that many people who are moving here (whether legally or not) are Catholic, but that doesn't contribute to the moral decline (many Catholics are more moral than other religious beliefs). And just to give a bit of historic punch to this, let's remember that the Irish moved here in droves years ago (at last count, 1 in 4 Americans have Irish roots somewhere in their lineage). They were as white as I am, or any other white person reading this....and they brought Catholicism with them, along with their white skin.

If a people turn to God, moral decline will stop - regardless of the color of their skin. It does appear that accusations of moral decline are accompanying statements of skin color. I think care needs to be taken not to continue in that vein. Capice?

#273320 Discussion Topic - Tattoos?

Posted by HappyChristian on 22 June 2011 - 10:39 AM

If a woman got saved, and wanted to alter her ex-boyfriend's name, the best thing to do, instead of changing the tat, would be to get rid of it. Painful, but no more so than the original tat, so I'm told.

#273249 Do Wives Have To Love Their Husbands?

Posted by HappyChristian on 21 June 2011 - 11:09 AM

CC - actually, your rebuke is misplaced. The verse in Titus is an instruction for the older women to teach the younger women to love their husbands...it's not a command for women to love their husbands. A woman is to reverence her husband and submit to him. A man is to love his wife. If done according to scripture, love grows in an unbelieving way between a man and his wife. As the couple has children, the mother is able to manifest her love for her husband for her daughter(s) to learn (if they have any). Sadly, in this day and age, biblical principle is not followed in even many Christian homes, and so daughters do not learn this - that is where older Christian women come in, to teach biblical principles of love to the younger who do not know how to love their husbands. And it begins with submission and respect.

The scriptural basis for a man doing what he should and his wife coming around lies in his headship. It's not always going to happen, but if the man is the head of his home that he should be, the woman is more likely to want to do what is right. Each person has a free will and makes his or her own choice, but if a man leads the way he should - strong, yet with love and compassion, remembering that his wife is the weaker vessel - a woman is more likely to respond. Now, as has been stated, if a wife is right with God, she will submit and reverence simply because that is God's will for her. That really does make it easier for a man to lead. But if she isn't right with God, and refuses to submit or respect her hubby, his biblical leadership can guide her to be what she should be.

CC, we always reap what we sow. When a marriage starts out to be fairly godly, and the head of the home allows it to stay that way, that's the way it stays...unless God convicts, and the hubby changes things. It is much easier to allow things to remain the same, rather than rocking the boat - especially if patterns have been developed over the years so that habits are formed. I know myself that, when we've been doing something a certain way and my hubby says we're changing, just like that, no explanation, my NATURAL instinct is to argue, fuss or drag my feet. Totally wrong reaction on my part, but avoidable on his....

We have learned over the years that, if he is burdened about a change needed in our family, we discuss it. Oh, not to decide if it's going to happen, never never! It's going to happen, because he believes it's right. What I mean is, he will sit me down and tell me something like, "Something's been bothering me, and the Lord has shown me that it has to change...." And then he goes into what it is. And you know what? Usually God's been working on me for the very same thing!!

Do you have devotions with the family? If you do, you can begin to instruct in areas you see need to be shored up. Maybe sit down with your wife and discuss with her, in a calm, non-accusing way, things that you see that could benefit the family if changed. And then, love your wife.

A man doesn't love his wife just because he lets her have her way! I'm not talking about that. What I mean is - do you leave your wife little notes? Maybe get her flowers once in a while? How about take her out to dinner, or even just pack a picnic and take her to the park for a surprise. Give her your attention. Wives truly crave to spend time with their husbands. If a wife doesn't want to spend time alone with her hubby, then that's all the more reason that they should!!

Be careful of pushing for too much, too fast. That can cause attitude problems with your wife and with any kids. But be loving, be firm...and most of all, be sure the change is scriptural.

It is a case of "you've made your bed." Only you can decide if you have to lie in it now.

#272696 CCM?

Posted by HappyChristian on 10 June 2011 - 01:17 PM

I believe I already mentioned this, but I'll say it again in case I only thought I did:

When I put 1/3, I wasn't intending time signature. I was referencing the idea that good music emphasizes the first and third notes rather than the second or fourth. And your comment proved my point:

The audible back beat IS what defines rock music

Regardless of the pretty sound or not, a back beat is rock music. Even if there is a "generation gap" or not, even if it's a calm song (in the manner of bubble gum rock from the 70's).

anime, I actually gave you scripture earlier on into which music fits. While the Bible does not say "thou shalt not listen to..." principles are clearly there.

An unjustified fear of sinning? That's a little presumptuous of you. There are people around who prefer to stay away from questionable stuff - and it's not unjustified. There's a little verse you may know: "let him that standeth take heed lest he fall." By accepting songs with a soft back beat (and, truly, people can hear back beats, whether they realize that's what they are hearing or not) and a lovely sound, it opens the door for going into other music that is worse.

I don't think anyone's trying to "prove" anything. It's a discussion - with strong feelings on all sides.

#272601 Discussion Topic - Tattoos?

Posted by HappyChristian on 09 June 2011 - 01:14 PM

I cannot see why a christian should want to disfigure their bodies with tattoos or piercings of any kind.

Personally, I don't see why anyone would. I know of those who either have them or want them but I don't get it. Of course, i also know that each person must make up his/her own mind about things.

No-one is disputing that each person must make up his/her own mind...but it's wrong for Christians to "make up" their own minds while ignoring scriptural principles.

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding. In ALL thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

#272600 New half-naked photos: Rep. Weiner calls a news conference

Posted by HappyChristian on 09 June 2011 - 01:09 PM

Jerry8, why is it that you can present your opinions, but if someone presents one contrary to yours - and even has scriptural backing - they are bickering? Pot calling kettle black, maybe?

As to the man's wife: actually, she knew quite well the kind of man she was marrying. He warned her, and instead of being wise and waiting until she was sure he could handle being faithful, she married him. She's one of Hillary's aides, so maybe it didn't really matter to her...

And Sarah Palin actually was correct. Revere did warn the British that they would not win...

Anyone with any brains knows that all politicians are not trustworthy. But to lump all people who run for office together is rather dishonest. There are some who are running who are what they present themselves to be. If you don't want to vote, that's your prerogative. Don't vote, but sit there and gripe about the results. That's fine. You have that right. But, so too do people have the right to vote. And you are wrong trying to make those who do feel wrong. After all, government is ordained of God. And the form of government we have was allowed for us by God. So, if we aren't to have any part of it, why did God ordain it? That's just a ridiculous thought, Jerry8. And a total cop-out (yes, you knew I'd respond, didn't you :icon_mrgreen:).

The problem with this thread and threads like them is not that Christians need to realize that politicians are wicked. As I said, anyone with brains is aware of that. The problem is that it isn't an appropriate subject for the main forum. We have ladies on here, we have teens on here. If you want to post this kind of stuff for, uh, edification, then please do it in the men's forum. Not political stuff - that's not a problem. But this junk with this guy is beyond the pale of decency.

#272590 CCM?

Posted by HappyChristian on 09 June 2011 - 10:04 AM

You are right, music is subjective. But when there is a back beat, the music causes the body to respond in a way that is not proper. Even in that first song. I understand that when you think of rock music, you think of certain groups. Most people do. But the thing is, even the world knows that rock covers more of a gamut than Queen and Black Sabbath (both groups that are definitely not what one could call soft rock). If we were to apply your reasoning as to the first song, then we'd have to say that the Beatles didn't perform rock music, because most of their songs (at least at the beginning of their popularity) didn't sound like rock music. In fact, many of them sound very nice...

The rock music of my parents' generation is a bit different from that of mine....that is true. But having been immersed in the rock culture, I can testify that it is harmful. Very. I will not go into further detail, and I don't need to prove it - anyone who's been there knows what I am talking about. My point about smoking wasn't to justify it. I agree that the Bible teaches enough principles that show us smoking is wrong. However, the Bible also teaches principles that should guide our music. As Annie very aptly pointed out in the quote you used. But...

We have to be careful not to use her questions to justify that which is not God honoring. No, the lost might not care for the song you listened to...it wasn't written for the lost. It was written for the saved. And it was written in a way that pulled a worldly beat into it. You may not feel that it was wrong, and that is your choice. But my whole point is that it is a beginning. A beginning of accepting a sound that can lead to a harder beat. I know, I know - that's silly. Well, it's not, though. It is true. I've seen it happen over and over to young people who listen to a song and it sounds nice. The words are good and the music isn't too bad - after all, it isn't "rock" because it isn't Queen, Kiss or Santana....or even the Eagles (which group was actually more soft rock, and thereby might be acceptable to some, because, hey, they might not think it's actually rock...).

As to mosh pits in "Christian" concerts...I think you answered your own question, when you put Christian into quotes. The so-called Christian concerts are not. They are simply rock concerts with some God thrown in. And just because a song has scriptural words doesn't mean it's Christian, nor does it mean it's God honoring.

Let's put some biblical words to "We Will Rock You." The refrain is "we will, we will rock you," twice. Let's just put "He will, he will save you." Keep the music from the original song...and voila! We've got us a Christian song, right? Wrong. What we've got is words that might have a biblical basis put into music that even the world recognizes as rock. And it would be rock: nothing Christian about it.

Just like taking a glass of water - good stuff. Add a little bit of arsenic. It's still water, right? Let's drink it then...no, it's no longer pure, is it? It's been polluted by the arsenic, and is harmful to the body.

Rock music harms the spirit before it harms the body. And soft rock, even if good words are added and "generational gaps" don't recognize it as soft rock, begin to harm the spirit.

The Bible is full of instruction and principle that teaches that worldly music is to be avoided. That doesn't just mean rock. That means songs that have philosophy that isn't God honoring - whether it's via the words or the music/beat.

#272563 Women & Church

Posted by HappyChristian on 08 June 2011 - 11:56 AM

GP - As I indicated on the other thread, I agree that you've said too much publicly. But if you've painted a true scenario, I don't believe you are selfish. What I do think is that you need to stop discussing your husband in the manner you have. Sin is sin, but for you to bring all of his shortcomings to a public forum (even if you don't name names) is wrong. Again, I suggest pming one of the ladies who might be willing to discuss things with you. I say ladies, because you should not be privately discussing any of this with men.

And please pardon me if I sound heartless. I really am not. But I am very concerned about bitterness taking root....

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500