Jump to content


Member Since 10 Feb 2007
Offline Last Active Private

#276913 Bonjour de France

Posted by HappyChristian on 12 August 2011 - 11:05 AM

Hello, pierre. Glad to have you with us. Thanks for the brief testimony. It's always interesting to learn about new members. When did you accept Christ as your Savior?

#276450 Conservatism versus hyper-conservatism?

Posted by HappyChristian on 06 August 2011 - 03:09 PM

Good posts! Christians do indeed have liberty (btw - the liberty in 2 Cor 3:17 is talking about freedom from sin, not the right to do whatever we want - amblivion, I know you're not promoting that...I just wanted to clarify myself). And many people seem to forget that, painting invisible arrows on the foreheads of people who don't do exactly as they do. But.......

We have to be careful that we understand liberty. We are to "stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free..." Gal. 5 is an outstanding chapter on liberty. But there is a verse so many Christians ignore..."For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion for the flesh, but by love serve one another." Verse 13.

Using liberty for occasion for the flesh is called license, or licentiousness. So-called "Christian liberty" (I put it in quotes and said so-called because that is not actually a biblical term) does not free us up to live a free thinking lifestyle. We are still to obey scripture - commands, precepts, principles and patterns are all there for us to follow.

In 1 Pet. 2:16, we're told to not use our liberty for a cloak of maliciousness - wrongdoing, trouble, living any way we feel like and proclaiming liberty...

2 Pet. 2:19 tells us of false teachers who promise liberty but actually bring bondage...because when we convince ourselves that our liberty as Christians okays us to do certain things that might be questionable - we put ourselves back under the bondage of sin from which Christ freed us.

Liberty is the fence around our Christian yard: If we stay within the bounds of that fence (God's Word), we will not get entangled again with the affairs of the world (that doesn't mean we won't live....we are still in the world, just not of it) and sin. We have the freedom to roam all over our Christian yard, but not to go outside it.

Jude talks about those wolves who come in and turn God's grace into licensiousness...we aren't to follow them. That is one of the reasons for standards in churches, whether it be music, dress, etc. The Bible says a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. It doesn't take long for sin to spread. So, if someone appears hyper-conservative, mayhap they are just concerned with making sure their liberty doesn't turn the grace of God into laciviousness.

Following the fads of the world is just that. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look nice, won't have a decent car or a nice house. It means we won't actively pursue that which the world holds in such high esteem - and we won't try to reason our way into causing others to lower their standards just because we believe that our liberty allows us to do things. Again, remember, liberty is not license. We are liberated from sin. We are liberated from the law. But we are not liberated from doing what is right. We are not liberated to do as we please and claim Christian liberty.

#276277 Texas Governor's Event and Cult Members

Posted by HappyChristian on 03 August 2011 - 11:59 AM

I doubt seriously that any state would be so unenchanted with being part of the US that they would secede and join Mexico...

#276204 U.S. debt ceiling

Posted by HappyChristian on 02 August 2011 - 11:40 AM

The debt ceiling doesn't need to be raised. Spending needs to be cut. The "deal" JB and BO were working on to cut $4trillion was laughable, based on the fact that while they would be "cutting," they would also be taxing...I can tell you quick how to cut $4 trillion: repeal Obamacare. Cut government salaries. Stop sending $480 billion/year to foreign nations. Defund Libya. Cut out non-Constitutional government departments. Stop funding things like the National Endowment for the Arts, etc. Lo and behold, there will actually be more than $4 trillion cut then!

Taxing the rich more is stupid. Claims that they need to pay their share are just smoke and mirrors, because they already pay a higher tax. The poor and the middle class are the ones who suffer when that kind of stuff happens, because it's THEIR jobs that are cut to balance higher tax rates.

Here's how the federal government can promote a job-growing economy: STAY OUT OF IT!!! Governmental interference is the quickest way to kill the economy (just look around...)

#276051 How strongly would you try to dissuade a 17-year old from getting an eyebrow...

Posted by HappyChristian on 29 July 2011 - 11:36 AM

Yes, it does answer the question. The principles behind the verses apply. Nowhere in the Bible does it say men shouldn't shave. Not even in that verse. That verse is simply discussing the pagan STYLE of beard that God didn't want the Israelites to emulate. He didn't want the Israelites to emulate the cutting pagans did (and still do...), either. He doesn't want Christians to look like the world. He doesn't want us to have the philosophy and mindset of the world. Because the world is at enmity with God. And there is plenty of scripture to back that up - verses in that vein have already been quoted.

#275930 How strongly would you try to dissuade a 17-year old from getting an eyebrow...

Posted by HappyChristian on 28 July 2011 - 01:11 PM

farouk, did God give literal earrings in this passage? No. It's a picture of His taking Israel as His own, as His wife...decking her out with ornaments and jewelry (which shows that there isn't anything wrong with men giving their wives ornamental things), etc. And then He goes on to describe her adultery. It's about spiritual adultery. To use it as a justification for boys/men to wear earrings is a misapplication of scripture.


Ty. I didn't say it referred to boys, but I was responding to the not 'condoning' bit, but yes I think you already said your ears were done too, in any case. In the OT (in a specific context) it also refers to male ear piercing, maybe not in the context that happens today, but anyway. Ty. Blessings.

It still isn't condoning earrings. It's just making a statement. Neither does it condemn them (on wives, as the passage speaks of). This passage doesn't refer to male ear piercing. There are other passages that do, but they can't be seen as condoning men wearing earrings...

#275785 How strongly would you try to dissuade a 17-year old from getting an eyebrow...

Posted by HappyChristian on 27 July 2011 - 11:50 AM

*sigh* You are just obsessed with jewelry. That chapter is all about spiritual adultery...maybe not a good reference to use? :Bolt:

#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?

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500