Jump to content


Member Since 28 May 2011
Offline Last Active May 03 2013 10:22 PM

#327220 Best Beverage Ever

Posted by MadeFree92 on 03 May 2013 - 05:18 AM

You typically want to grab this tin that reads: coffee. 


If you carefully follow the instructions below you can succeed in making the most magnificent beverage God gave to us. 


You will need: 


2-4 scoops, ground black coffee

8-12 oz of cold water. 

1 coffee filter

1 coffee pot

1 coffee mug

2 scoops of non-dairy, or a glub of dairy creamer (optional)

1-3 packets of sugar or artificial sweetener (optional)


Just a few more simple steps! :) 


Put the coffee grounds into the coffee filter, if you're making a larger pot, you want at least four scoops. Colombian is the preferred type, but Arabica or any other is perfectly acceptable. 


Once the grounds are placed into the coffee filter, and the filter is placed into the basket of the coffee maker, you can apply the water into the machine at the appropriate junction. 


The most crucial step is as follows, while most of the steps in this are optional, this one is not. You must locate and activate the power switch on the coffee maker. 


The coffee will take a few minutes to brew, and once it is done it is ready to be served in the coffee mug with or without the optional enhancements. 


The only step left is to enjoy! :)

#327219 You Ever Feel Like A Theology Jerk?

Posted by MadeFree92 on 03 May 2013 - 05:04 AM

In the past few years my understanding of theology and doctrine has shifted massively from what I grew up under due to some studies I have done through the Bible. I let go of Sunday school myths that we may have all heard, and tried to understand what the Bible really said. In this process, I've not always been the nicest person. 


I can think when I came to my particular soteriology shift. After dabbling in Finney and semi-Pelagianism for awhile, I came to embrace a view based on what I understand of Scripture that is the total opposite of that. When I did, I was a major jerk. I shoved my theology down anyone who would listen's throat as I read more books and tried to understand as much as I could about the topic. Like any overzealous 18-year-old, I messed up big time, and I regret it so much more than that. I was a theology jerk, and I was tearing down people with something that was supposed to build them up. 


You ever feel like this? What's something you've maybe taken too far? 


(Or am I just crazy. ;) )

#276390 Discussion Topic - Women in Sports?

Posted by MadeFree92 on 05 August 2011 - 03:19 PM

I do not believe in organized rigorous sports for women....<<snip>>...I DO NOT believe that women should be fit by practicing unfeminine behavior.

Thanks for clarifying, MF92. I am interested to understand what you are saying. First, what do you mean by "organized rigorous sports"? And second, why do you believe that a woman cannot participate in these sports without practicing unfeminine behavior? IOW, what makes "organized rigorous sports" and "femininity" mutually exclusive concepts?

I would consider football (big time) hockey, some extreme basketball, softball, and others that are often extremely physical and hard to be rigorous. God told man to work by the sweat of his face, and most would consider hard physical work to be a thing that is for men. God set it up that way, the same way we consider childcare primarily a woman's specialty because it was what God gifted them with the ability to do, though both sexes are capable of handling children. There is some work that women are not designed to do, that is why God gave the job to men, and there are some jobs that men are not designed to do that is why God designed it for women. If there is to be clear distinction between the two, I would classify rigorous work for men, for their endurance level for certain things is higher. Now this is not a universal reality, there are some exceptions in which women can do things, but it all goes back to the question does it display their God-given role and glorify God? Apply that to organized sports.

#276387 Discussion Topic - Women in Sports?

Posted by MadeFree92 on 05 August 2011 - 02:57 PM

So, in high school, the boys can get fit and do exercises, while for 'religious' reasons it doesn't matter if girls stay unfit, and become obese, through lack of exercise?

I wonder what sort of pr or advertisement this brings to Christian testimony?

Straw man. I never said that nor anything I said could possibly mean that. I believe exercise is important for both sexes, but I do not believe in organized rigorous sports for women. There are all kinds of forms of exercise that are not organized sports. My argument is not against young women playing games, I have no problem with them playing games and staying fit, in fact I would support and encourage them to stay fit, God gave us bodies to be good stewards over them, but He expects us to be good stewards within the bounds of how He has commanded us to act and to demonstrate.

For instance would it be right for me to be a professional athlete and play on Sunday? I'm keeping my body fit, and supporting my family at the same time, being a good steward of my body and my family, but I am also not in church worshiping the Lord. To be a steward of my body I would be violating the practice of corporate worship which God expects out of His people. Also, I would not be demonstrating my respect for God by ignoring corporate worship and to the world would be a hypocrite. However, I could also exercise regularly to stay fit and get a regular job to support my family, and be faithful to services at my local assembly and be a good steward in the bounds God has given me.

Let me just state this clearly so there is no misunderstanding. I DO believe that men and women BOTH are to be fit. But I DO NOT believe that women should be fit by practicing unfeminine behavior.

#276328 Discussion Topic - Women in Sports?

Posted by MadeFree92 on 04 August 2011 - 01:18 PM

I just think this topic is a gnat to strain at.

I respectfully disagree. Our practical theology is very important to get right, for the world watches what we practice. If worldly people are watching what we do and that is somehow to be a testimony of what we believe and Who we believe in, then we must take extreme care to present a Biblical belief system in our practice. I would consider something like "what church service do you put your tithe in" to be a gnat to strain at. This matter is something completely different, this is something that is openly displayed towards all, so we must be sure that what we do is right. Discussion on something like this is healthy and causes us to look to our position and understand the biblical concepts behind them, if any, and examine the subject in light of what the Bible teaches. If our practice lines up with Biblical teaching, then it displays a Biblical truth practically. If it does not line up with the Bible, then why do we do it?

The Bible teaches:

"That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." - Titus 2:4-5

So we must ask the question, does sports teach young women to love their husbands? Does it teach them to love their children? Does it teach them to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, and obedient to their own husbands? This is what we must ask. What is right with women playing organized sports? What does the Bible teach women to do and demonstrate and does this display that practically?

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;" - 1 Timothy 2:9

Now we must ask the question, does sports teach or display that women should wear modest apparel? Does it teach or display shamefacedness? Does it teach or display sobriety? Does this display or teach practically this Biblical truth?

Those are the questions we should be asking.

Hope that all came out as I intended. :D

#276159 Discussion Topic - Women in Sports?

Posted by MadeFree92 on 01 August 2011 - 12:28 PM

My primary objections, are first, the attire, it is unfeminine in almost every way. Even if they do play in feminine clothing, they still look and act decidedly masculine. Second, what is the principle of sports? To defeat others through competitive physical rigor, does that sound feminine in the least? In fact, it sounds the polar opposite. Third, this does not teach them to be meek and submissive, but rather to go forth and dominate. Not exactly feminine.

Plus, as was before pointed out on this topic, women were simply not designed to play many competitive sports. God did not make their bodies to sustain that kind of physical rigor. Simple fact.

Great discussion topic.

#274517 Is it ever right to lie?

Posted by MadeFree92 on 09 July 2011 - 07:04 PM

No. God never said that it was okay,. It was listed in the Ten Commandments as things God said not to do, and He hates lying and liars (Prov 6:16-19).

#273326 John Piper and Christian Hedonism

Posted by MadeFree92 on 22 June 2011 - 12:34 PM

I believe God did know that Hezekiah would live another 15 years, and he knew that Hezekiah would humble himself and pray to Him. Thing is, God didn't just kill Hezekiah outright; but he sent word to Hezekiah. So Hezekiah KNEW he was going to die and this did afford him opportunity to repent which otherwise he would not have had. Even though God KNEW what Hezekiah would do, the choice was still Hezekiah's. He could have chosen to get mad or feel sorry for Himself, instead he prayed to God.

The same thing happened to Nineveh: God sent word that it was going to be destroyed. He didn't say "I will destroy it if you don't repent". NO, God fully intended to destroy it and said so. It was impending doom. But temember also that it was God who sent Jonah to tell them.

Perhaps it is hard for some people to accept how God can KNOW the future, while at the same time, not CONTROL every event and outcome.

I am not saying that God is not all knowing, but rather that he chooses not to know some things. As to Hezekiah and Nineveh, if I told you I was going to be at your house to (for example) fix the roof knowing full well that I would not be there for some reason (I knew you would fix it the next day) what would you say about me? Was I honest that I was coming? Or was I giving an idle dishonest threat that I knew I would not carry out??

As for Hezekiah and Nineveh, I am sure we would all agree that the problem was on man's side. God sent warning, and this prompted response. If God had not sent warning, would there had been a response? I think God sent this to prompt the response and then showed the mercy He intended to show from the beginning.

Much like with salvation, all are condemned, but God saves them (those who are saved) anyway, they hear the warnings of wrath and hell, but God was going to save them anyway. Would we have fled to Christ had we not known the sins we had committed against God and the wrath that was coming? Would mercy have seemed merciful if we were told "you're saved, don't worry about it"? No. It took the Holy Spirit conviction us and telling us "You're lost, and you will burn in hell because you are a vile, wretched lawbreaker, and you have sinned against an infinitely holy God, and He demands from you repentance and faith in Christ Who was made sin for you on Calvary to rescue you from the wrath the come. He was raised for your justification and offers you mercy now." Only when we realize what we deserve does mercy make sense, for mercy is to withhold that which is deserved.

Would it have been mercy to Hezekiah and Nineveh had there been no wrath to come? If they had not known of their malady the cure would not have been important. God sent word to Hezekiah that he would die, and he would have were it not for God, but Hezekiah needed to pray to God and ask God for mercy so that it would indeed be merciful.

Nineveh needed to repent so that they could see the mercy of God. If God would have just spared them anyway they would not have repented, if He would not have made it known that they deserved death and destruction they would not have repented and continued on in their wickedness. But by showing them what they deserved, causing them to repent, and then showing mercy, they were the better for it, although later they were destroyed (a very long time later). Thus mercy was shown, and it was merciful because it was contrasted with what they truly deserved.

I hope that was clear came out how I wanted it.

#273188 Romans 8:29-30 exposition

Posted by MadeFree92 on 20 June 2011 - 11:26 AM

I didn't say He predestined anyone to Hell.

If you don't think that then your out of step with a lot of other Calvinists on that issue.

Yes, it is a choice. But man cannot make it without God, because he hates God.

I could agree with that, but only with the stipulation that God has given to all men through grace the ability to turn to God if they choose. As it is written: "Romans 5:6-8 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

But He does not love all (Psalms 5:5-6, etc., etc.),

He loved the world enough to die for all mankind(I know, Calvinism believes in limited atonement, another heresy).

He does not intend to save all.

He knows all will not choose salvation, but they choose to reject him rather than him choosing to reject them. God as presented by Calvinism is so petty and humanlike. He says I love you, but not that other guy, I will redeem you for no reason and will let the other guy burn because I don't feel like helping him out. Even most people(on their better days anyway) wouldn't do something like that. When asked why the answer is because "he can". Calvinism essentially makes human life worthless when Christ valued it enough to die for it. As a child might build a sand castle at one moment and kick it down another so God(as portrayed by Calvinism anyway) lifts some people up through mercy and smashes others based on whim just because "he can". If that were so not only would he deny his word by being untrue to his revealed character it would also mean no one would be secure in salvation for who is to say such a being would not at some point grow "weary" of the "elect", destroy them and do something else? After all if the answer to other moral defects of God(again, as he is unjustly presented by Calvinism) is simply God can(and does) do anything moral or immoral simply because he feels like it, his own laws do not apply to him, and he is in charge then God would not be even slightly trustworthy. In reality he is trustworthy precisely because he never violates his own laws, is, good, faithful, righteous, holy merciful and on and on. In character God is far better than man could ever be, he is not a super powerful version of fallen man. When carried to its logical conclusion I feel Calvinism is far closer to blasphemy than taking a high view of God. It takes an exceeding low view of the character of God.

As for kicking down sandcastles the child built, that is an inadequate illustration. God did not make man ruined, man did. Man has sinned, man hates God, man is corrupt because they have corrupted themselves, God did not make them to be destroyed they have made themselves fit for destruction through sin and corruption. God does not destroy people on a whim, it is because they deserve it, the same thing for the elect, they deserve damnation, but they have a substitute, that's the only reason they are spared. If God punishes a lawbreaker He is just, if He pardons some for the reason of the death of One Who died on their behalf He is just because atonement has been made. This does not make God a monster, man is the monster here, not God. The question we must ask is not "why doesn't God make it so everyone can be saved?" The question is: "Why did God make it so ANYONE could be saved?"

They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. -Psalm 14:3

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. - Ecclesiastes 7:29

#273187 Romans 8:29-30 exposition

Posted by MadeFree92 on 20 June 2011 - 11:15 AM


If you don't think that then your out of step with a lot of other Calvinists on that issue.

As for double predesintation, Crush is not disagreeing with all other Calvinists, if you study the systems there is a difference in the lapsarian systems, some don't believe in double predestination and others do. Here is a summary of the systems,

"Those are the two major Calvinistic views. Under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin. Infralapsarians tend to emphasize God's "passing over" the non-elect (preterition) in His decree of election."


1. Elect some, reprobate rest.
2. Create.
3. Permit Fall.
4. Provide Salvation for Elect.
5. Call Elect to Salvation.

1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Elect Some, Pass over rest,
4. Provide Salvation for the Elect
5. Call Elect to Salvation

Like, I assume, Crushmaster believes, I do not believe in double predestination. I am infralapsarian.

#271978 Discussion Topic - Is It Wrong To Call A Pastor "Reverend?"

Posted by MadeFree92 on 28 May 2011 - 05:58 PM

A man is a man, human and finite like the rest of us, and only God is to be revered for He is the only One worthy of reverence. :twocents:

#271971 What Is Your Favorite Gospel?

Posted by MadeFree92 on 28 May 2011 - 05:35 PM

I would have to say John that is the one that has impacted me most theologically. But I really like Matthew as well.

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500