Should I Date An Unbeliever?

This topic is for the young lovers out there who are still in the dating stages (but interesting for all). Today's topic is basically discussing whether or not you should feel comfortable dating someone who is not a Christian (assuming you are a Christian yourself).

This can be a difficult question to ask as there are two different ways of looking at this scenario (as there are every scenario).

Some believe that Christians should only date other Christians because of scriptural references. Some say it's okay for a Christian to date an unbeliever because they can use they're relationship to draw a lost soul to the Lord. So, should we or shouldn't we?

For those who believe a Christian should be able to date an unbeliever, they use the whole "Missionary Dating" excuse (as mentioned above). They believe that through this relationship, they can lead an unbeliever to the Lord through their witnessing. This could be okay if looked at this way, however, it's very rare that this actually takes place. Usually it ends up where the Christian has found themselves in un-Christian-like situations or places. Instead of the unbeliever drawing closer to the Lord, the Christian begins to stray as they pick up bad habits.

Then there's the argument, "I can't find any good single Christian people. They're all dating someone already or they're a geek." Something along those lines. Yes, sometimes people confuse kindness with weakness or geekness. But keep in mind that there are always new people becoming Christians every day. There are many current Christians whom you have not met. How can you meet them? Start attending more Christian events. Get out there in the Christian world and begin to socialize.

God already has someone for you. You and that person are on two seperate paths. At some point, God will intersect these paths. The question is, are you where you are supposed to be on that path? God cannot force you to walk that path, but he does encourage us. Some of us fear that even if we "are" on the right path, how do we know our "special" someone is where they are supposed to be to meet there? The best way to find out is to be everywhere the Lord tells you. If you havn't found the person yet, then your path wasn't meant to intersect yet.

With all explainations aside. If I had to answer the question to this blog with a simple "yes" or "no," I'd have to say "no."

I try to base all of my opinions on scripture (as we all should do). This is a sure way not to go wrong. Here's what scripture has to say:

2 cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

This tells us basically that if you mix black paint with white paint, you'll have gray paint. In other words, an unbeliever (black paint) mixed with a Christian (white paint) results in a less obediant/less faithful Christian or worse (gray paint).

As Christians, why tempt ourselves by allowing a sinful lifestyle to enter our own. Is it lust that sways us to deny scripture? Usually. Some people choose kissing and cuddling over what is right... a pair of lips over God.

If you like (have a crush on) someone, and they are not a Christian. You should be more concerned with their soul burning in Hell than how good they kiss. Your goal should be to lead them to the Lord... as a friend. Once they find the light, then date them if you must. With God in a relationship, trust me.... MANY problems that "would have" taken place will not now.

So, put hormones aside and read the Word. If you really cared for someone so much that you wanted to date or even marry them, you should care about where they end up after they die or when the rapture takes place.

Lead them to the Lord... then it will be mixing "white paint" with "white paint," leaving your paint "white" (Christian) still.

Can we "Backslide?"

There are debates on this topic as to whether or not a Christian can really "backslide." What does it mean to backslide?

Backsliding is when a person is on the path to salvation and "slides back" into their sins, turning their back on God. This may not revoke your salvation but supposedly can lead up to it.

There are many Christians that believe this is possible to do, while others believe this is impossible to do. So, what are both points of view on this?

Christians that believe you "can" lose your salvation, they believe that a man can live out 50 years of a dedicated life to God, but can give in under certain circumstances to Satan's deceptions. Maybe a man of God lost everything and everyone he every loved... permanently. In having so much faith toward God, he was hurt when things didn't work out. Turned cold hearted. Gave up hope and sight of the light. Then turned to a life of sin (a drunk for example) to forget his sorrows. This is just a scenario, not a true story.

However, other Christians believe you "cannot" lose your salvation and believe that if you were once saved, you're always saved... no matter what you do from there on. They either believe that if you end up turning to a life of sin (like the above situation) that you were never "really" saved in the beginning; or that no matter what you do, as long as you do not blasheme the holy spirit, you will still go to heaven as you are forgiven.

So, which is the right way to believe? Can you lose your salvation or not?

Here's some scripture:

heb 6:4-6 4. For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5. And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6. If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

To me, this verse can be taken two different ways. In a general sense, it states in verses 4 & 5 that if you were once saved... (then verse 6) and turn away from God, you will not be able to come back and be forgiven (impossible to renew them again unto repentance). Scary huh?

The other way this can be taken is that if you're a Christian, there is no way you can get to that point in life where you turn your back on God. That if you truely worshiped God in the past, that it would be almost impossible for you to actually get to the point where you have no fear of God. And it says that if you do get to that point where you have turned, then something has obviously deeply convinced of this (brainwashed you) and you are so far gone that there's no hope for you anymore.

My overall point. These verses state clearly that you "can" lose your salvation. It is very hard to do this, but can happen. In my opinion, you can lose your salvation when you get to the point that you "do not" fear God anymore. If you can look to the skies in sincerety and tell Him you don't believe in Him and that He is not real. If you can honestly say that to Him, then I believe you have lost your way (salvation).

There are several scriptures in the Bible that reference to backsliding. The fact that this word even exists in the Bible shows that it can happen. If it can't happen, then why does the Bible even mention it? It's like skipping over those verses and saying "those verses don't aren't in the Bible."

Here's further references of "losing salvation."

exod 32:31-33 31. And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. 33. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

psal 69:27-28 27. Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness. 28. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.

Does God and Jesus have seperate books of life? Sounds like a name can be erased from that book.

There are more references. These are just a few.

So, what do YOU think? Can we backslide? Can we lose our salvation? Once saved, always saved?

Part of me reads these verses and thinks "yes," we can lose our salvation. The other part of me says (other than the one unforgivable sin) we are forgiven for all of our sins and pardoned by Christ once we become Christians.

So, what's your conclusion?

The Wife Must Submit

eph 5:22-28 22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. 25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

Okay, before you get too "big-headed" guys, this does not mean that your wife is supposed to be your slave (even though that would be nice sometimes). It means you're supposed to love your wife as Jesus loved the church and we all know Jesus did not use the church as slaves. If anything, He gave the church freedom.

Let's break down the verses.

Verse 22 is basically telling the wives to talk with your husband about your problems, trust him to support you, allow him to support you and respect him in his decisions as you would the Lord.

Verse 23 is saying that in a Christian relationship, when the husband is a man of faith and follows the word of God, the wife is supposed to follow him and look to him for answers as the church does to Christ. This will result in protection from harm, sin and emotional pain as this responsible husband will be as a savior of the wife's body.

Verse 24 is again saying that as a Church believes, trusts and follows what Christ leads us to do, the wife of a Christian husband should follow, believe and trust in where he leads.

Verse 25 is speaking to the husband stating that he is responsible for leading his wife in the right direction should she follow. That he is supposed to lead and love his wife, even if facing death, just as Jesus did for the church.

Verse 26 is saying that the husband is supposed to cleanse and purify the lifestyle of himself and his wife by following the guidelines and teachings of the Bible and is supposed to be sure that he leads his wife to follow the Word.

Verse 27 states that just as Jesus tries to purify the lives in the Church and give them a light to follow, a husband must do for his wife. The husband must strive for perfection in teaching his wife to live a life for honoring God. There should be no stray moments and if there is a moment where the wife is astray, the husband is supposed to do his very best to keep her on the right track and lead her back to the Word. The husbands job is to create a flawless relationship between the Lord, himself and his wife.

Verse 28 says that a man should look at his wife's soul as his own in a manner. The more he loves his wife, the more he loves himself. The more he lets his wife stray, the more he lets himself stray. The husbands job is to see himself and his wife as one, and as one make sure this new joined heart is on the right path for God.

I know that was long, but many men misunderstand those verses. They immidiately build their pride and preach to their wives that they must serve him and respect him no matter what. But I believe that this passage is saying that "yes," a woman should respect and obey her husband... IF he a man of faith and follows the path of God. If your husband's every move is based on prayer and is lead by the Lord, then yes, the wife should most definately follow without question.

Some may argue or try to contradict this passage with Matthew 19:6.

matt 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

This verse says that a man and his wife are equal. One flesh. Looked upon and one person. This is where some people say, God said we are equal so why does a wife have to submit to her husband and not the other way around.

If you read the first passage of this blog, you should realize that it was all equal from the beginning. The relationship is 100% equal. Just as the woman is given the responsibility of following, the husband is given a responsibility of leading. Both have a job to do that can't be done without each other. One can't follow if there's no one to lead just as one can't lead if theres no one to follow. They must work together. Yes, a woman must submit. But a man is supposed to do even more. The man is supposed to work his heart out (spiritually and physically) to support his wife in return and to make sure their newly joined heart is right with the Lord.

How do you feel about this passage ladies?

Is God Breaking Commandment?

Is God Breaking His own commandment? Jealousy would be breaking the 10th commandment and it clearly states that our God is a jealous God.

10th Commandment

exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.

Envy - (synonym: Jealousy) a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc.

God Is Jealous

exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:

Does He break His own commandment?

My answer... "no."

What's your answer and why?

God's Native Tongue

I sort of have two topics in-one today. One kind of sprouted the other.


Okay, so we all know God can speak any language that He wants including the language of the mind where He doesn't actually have to speak to your ears but more so to your heart and mind.


However, I was thinking the other day about what the first language was in the Bible. I'm not sure if its actually known or not, but I believe that a good educated guess would be that the language was Hebrew or Adamic.


I've often wondered what language God prefers to speak and then I thought to myself... His so-called native tongue is probably whatever language He gave humans in the beginning when He created them in His image. So, if they spoke Hebrew or Adamic, then maybe that's what God's preferred language is (even though He can speak/understand all).


After digging around and looking into this, I decided to switch tracks a little. I've always believed that there was one language that the world shared before the "Tower of Babel" incident. We've all heard that God seperated the languages during the Tower of Babel episode in order to confuse the builders. If you look back in Genesis, you'll see that were already multiple languages before this event took place.

Gen 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

Gen 10:20 These [are] the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, [and] in their nations.

Gen 10:31 These [are] the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.

These verses, to me, point out that there were different nationalities and different languages in different parts of the land already.

So, when the incident happened at the Tower of Babel, this was not the first moment that there were new languages (as many including myself may have believed). Yes, God did seperate the languages at this moment (maybe even created new ones), but this was not the first time a new language was presented. God could seperate your language from mine right now, it can be true that He seperated our languages, but that doesn't neccessarily mean this is the first time a new language has been heard (as many have believed from reading that story about the Tower of Babel).



Thoughts?

The Unforgivable Sin

Can a sinner enter the gates of Heaven? As all of us are sinners and as Christians, we are frowned upon but allowed mistakes, yes we can still go to Heaven. However, what about an unforgivable sin.

mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation

What if someone has done this? Are they doomed for eternity already for a mistake like this?

When does this "damnation" count? What if someone commits this sin before they were a Christian and before they had knowledge?

Does this only apply to Christians?

What does this mean... to "blaspheme" the Holy Spirit? Does this mean to make fun and mock it. To speak against those who speak in "tongues?" Speaking in tongues is supposedly the Holy Spirit speaking through someone (look at my last post).

So, over all question for you... the reader: If you are a Christian, and you commit this sin; are you destined for Hell?

What do you think "blaspheme" against the Holy Spirit means?

Give me some constructive feedback people!

Speaking in Tongues

Now here's an on-going debate. Is speaking in "tongues" wrong? Is it real?

For many Christians, this is an ordinary, spiritual, touching part of a prayer meeting. For others, it's scary, strange and puts off a bad vibe.

So how should we feel when we hear someone speak in tongues?

Well I believe this all depends on your comfort level and what you're used to. Now, there are people out there who fraudulently speak in tongues. These people are ones that just do this at any request. This is hard for me to take in and believe. I don't think any of us on this Earth have learned the language of the Holy Spirit by memory to speak it instantly.

But is it "all" fake? I don't think so. Even though I have never spoken in tongues (not even the urge), I cannot completely put down it's possibility of being genuine. The Bible does mention these events (speaking in tongues) taking place.

Acts 2:2-4 KJV Suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Based on this scripture, this allows me to believe that when one is in deep (I mean deep) prayer, that the Holy Ghost can enter the room and take over and move the congregation with the Spirit.

As we all know, one unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Now if the Bible claims that the Holy Spirit (Ghost) can enter a room and cause one to speak in tongues, I'm not going to be the one to mock it and accuse it of being wicked or strange. In fear of the unforgiving sin, I have to just mind my business and hope that person is really being lead by the spirit.

I've often wondered if when someone speaks in tongues, if they are giving a message to someone in the church. Maybe there is one person (or more) that can actually understand what was said. Maybe the Lord intended to directly give a message and used a human speaker to transmit.

Have you ever been to a church where someone randomly stands up and begins to speak as if they are the Lord talking? For example, a man or woman may stand and say "and the Lord sayeth unto you, fear not for I am beside you, you've called on me and I will be there for you. Have faith and I will support thee, etc..."? This is not an actual saying, I'm just using this as an example of what one might stand and say.

Maybe you've understood a powerful, random message like this but to others... maybe it was tongues.

I don't know. My over all question was... "Is it real?"

My answer: Yes.

Have I spoken tongues? No.

Am I against it? No. I can't be against something that the Bible says exists. Especially if being against it may be considered blasphemy.

I will just mind my business and continue my personal journey with Christ. If He allows me to speak in tongues, I believe it will happen naturally... I don't believe in training.

There's my opinion.

What do you think?

How Did They Live So Long?

I've often wondered how people back in the beginning of the Bible lived to be so old. Some lived to be around 200 years old (or older). I never quite understood this so I've recently looked into it. Turns out, our calendar that we follow today has changed quite a bit.

How many months are in a year? Well, on our calendar there are 12 months. On the original Roman calendar, there were only 10 months.


Due to the unbalanced arrangement of the calendars back in those days, where the seasons began to fall out of order (hot in the winter months, cold in the summer months), a change was called for in order to predict the seasons and temperatures. This called for at least 2 more months to be added.

When the first two leaders of the Roman empire (the Caesars) attempted to solve this problem, the months were originally:

January, February, March, April, May, June, September, October, November and December.

Think about it...

December ("Dec" means 10)

November ("Nov" means 9)

October ("Oct" means 8)

September ("Sept" means 7)

This corresponded with the months it portrayed. However, when the two Caesars stepped in, they added two months. First attempt was Julius Caesar adding the month of "July" as we know it. Next was his successor Augustus Caesar adding the month of "August."

So, this means that the years in the past were different than now. Who knows, maybe back in the beginning there were only 6 months in a year (or less). Maybe when someone lived to be 200 years old, they were really 100 years old on our calendar. 150 years old then could be 75 years old to us now. I just thought this was interesting to think about.

When we hear the age of a man all the way back in the beginning, we relate this to our calendar today, however a lot has changed since then. This may open things up as far as the age topic goes to see things more realistically.

Another thought... Did they have "24" hours in a day? This would have an affect as well.

What do you think?

Did Lucifer Have a Choice?

As creepy as this topic may seem, I had this question and thought it would be interesting to ask.

As a Christian in this sinful world, we struggle on a daily basis between right and wrong. Between good and evil. Heaven on Earth and Hell on Earth. In a human's situation, we have Satan on one end trying to call us out and we have the Lord on the other end calling us out.

As a Christian in our daily temptations, we must learn which path to choose.

My question today is... "Did Lucifer really have a choice?" Us human's have a choice, every day. But it's because we have two different influences to choose from. Lucifer, back when he was created and was a beautiful angel next to the Lord, did he choose to become Satan, full of evilness or was this instilled in his mind by God?

The reason I ask is because, where did these thoughts come from that made him turn? For a human, the negative thoughts come from Satan. But to Lucifer, where did these thoughts come from. There was no other side. There was only God. One side.

So, did God create Lucifer to be the demon he is? If not, who influenced him?

Let me know what you think.

Heaven, Hell & Suicide

This can be a touchy topic for many people as some people may have loved ones that have committed suicide. I'll go ahead and tell you my answer from the start and then I'll explain. My answer is.... I don't know.

I've been raised to believe that if you commit suicide you will go to Hell. But looking for Biblical facts to back this up or put it down has yet to be found. Here are my thoughts:

The Bible (to the best of my knowledge thus far) has not clarified on this topic. However, we all know that God's most precious gift is life. I mean can you imagine if you created or bought someone the best gift you've ever created or given, and as soon as you hand it to them, they slam it down and smash it on purpose because they were having a bad day. How would that make you feel? I'd like to imagine that by committing suicide, you would greatly be insulting and saddening God.

Yes, I know it's a commandment that we "shall not kill" and by committing suicide, we are taking a life that did not belong to us (it belongs to God). But we've also discussed in the past that just because you sin right before you die, you don't neccessarily go to Hell.

Here's my opinion. As a Christian, we are all supposed to put our trust in God's hands. We are supposed to have faith that God will work things out in our lives if we simply come to Him in trust and sincerely ask Him. If a Christian were sitting there about to commit suicide, I believe that they have lost they're way with Christ. You have obviously drawn away from the Lord at this point... regardless of the cause. If you are not right in your heart with Christ (which at the moment of suicide, you most likely are not), then it's wise to not purposely face death when you're heart is astray.

I'm not saying anything for a fact. Just an opinion.

However, those of you who believe that you can kill yourself and go to heaven... if this were true and as a Christian you REALLY believed in Heaven, then why wouldn't every Christian be committing suicide to hitch an early ride to the Kingdom of God. This would make cult leaders in the past who claimed to be Christ followers whom have led mass suicides be correct in their judgement because all they wanted was to leave this world and go ahead on to Heaven. I don't agree with these cult leaders which is why I can't completely agree that it's okay to commit suicide and go to Heaven.

Here's another aspect of this topic...

I'm more leaning toward Hell for suicide than Heaven (my opinion) but for others who believe like I do, what about a suicide that saves a life. For example, I jump infront of a car to push a child out of the way, knowing I could get killed... if I died, is that suicide?

Our God is a fair God. He has a plan for each of us on this Earth. By committing suicide, we are disrupting God's plans. Its like walking up to your boss (God in this case) and saying "I quit!" This is not a very nice thing to do (especially if that boss has treated you with the up-most respect).

So. Heaven, Hell & Suicide. Which is the truth? To live out your life as a Christian and to die naturally is a sure way into Heaven. To commit suicide is questionable. Why would any Christian even take a chance of going to Hell. As a Christian, I would take the route that "definately" gets me into Heaven. Suicidal thoughts come from Satan. At that point he is hanging over your shoulder telling you how worthless you are and how you will never be any better. Committing suicide is a way of telling Satan "you're right." We don't want to do that. At that point in life we need to tell Satan he is a liar. Then pray for as long as it takes... then live. Live out your years on Earth and then for eternity in Heaven.

I want some opinions on this!

I'm Gonna Sue You!

This thought crossed my mind the other day and I'm interested to hear some opinions on this.

Sue - To petition for redress of grievances or recovery of a right.

As a Christian... should we sue if the opportunity arose?

We are taught about forgiveness and so forth. So, if someone else makes a mistake, should we sue them or let it go?

Is it alright to sue for money? Should we only sue to fix the exact problem that was brought up (like injuries)? Is it okay to accept more?

Is it alright for us to persecute someone else for their mistakes or should we just leave it in God's hands to be resolved?

What would Jesus want us to do if the situation came up?

This is a tough question I know... and I don't even have an answer to it. So think about your response before posting.

Thoughts?

Can Homosexuals Go To Heaven?

Okay. Let's start off by saying that homosexuality is a sin (an evil spirit that dwells within someone). I believe this is a spirit similar to the spirit of perversion which is a sinful demonic spirit as well.

In church group, we've discussed how the Lord will forgive you for anything. I believe the topic came up about whether or not you would go to Hell if you sinned right before you died without asking for forgiveness. For example, I tell a lie to someone and immediately turn around and get clipped by a fast car, killing me instantly. We've concluded that this would not neccessarily send me to Hell.

The Lord understands that we were born into a sinful world and that we are FAR from perfect. Therefore we all will make mistakes (even the mightiest... if that's a word... of Christians). Since we are born into this world and are destined to make mistakes at some point, the Lord can see your heart and knows if this is something you've made a mistake with or something you "practice."

What does any of this have to do with "homosexuality?"

Well, I know people who live homosexual lifestyles and they believe that just as telling a lie, or committing a sin before you die... if they were once saved... they'll still be alright and go to heaven (that the Lord will over look this humanly mistake and forgive them... giving them entrance to heaven).

Here's my opinion on such a thing. I believe that if we make a mistake in our life, that the Lord will understand and even forgive you IF you sincerely come to terms with why it was wrong that you committed this sin and change that path. If we "practice" that sin and already have a plan to continue that sin (even after asking forgiveness) then we are not truely repenting and are not truely forgiven (because the whole prayer was a fraudulent prayer from the beginning).

What do I mean by "practice?" Think about when you practice anything. For example, band or music practice. You play a song over and over and over until it becomes a part of you and is embedded into your brain. You've done this so many times that you're comfortable with it.

Someone who lives a homosexual lifestyle is "practicing" that sin every day that they are in that relationship. Asking the Lord to forgive you while continuing to live that lifestyle couldn't be more insincere or insulting to God.

So, do I believe that a homosexuals can enter the gates of heaven (even if they have been saved supposedly in the past)... no. Read the scripture below.

1 cor 6:9-10 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Effeminate means (according to the KJV Dictionary): "Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous."

Sounds like a "homosexual" to me.

Some of these people I know that are homosexuals are extremely nice people, very polite and generous. But kindness does not get you into heaven. Being a "good person" does not get you into heaven. I do feel sorry for these people as I do EVERY sinner that's on the wrong path and I wish they would get back on the right track, but scripture is scripture. There are rules and guidelines to enter heaven. They are simple.

Regardless... it's a sin. We all know that. Just don't be mistaken that you are forgiven when you never truely asked for forgiveness. That goes for any sin in your life that you commit repeatedly... not just for homosexuality.

Thoughts?

Is Baptism Required?

I've questioned in the past whether or not you "have" to be baptized in order to go to heaven. I thought that surely if one is saved, then baptism should not affect the destination of your soul.

First off let me just say... no. I belive you "do not" have to be baptized to go to heaven in death or rapture. My reasoning?

First of in simple terms... as Christians, we all know that there is only one way into heaven and that one way is through Jesus Christ, not through baptism. To deny this is to deny scripture.

John 14:6 - "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

As humans and sinners, none of us are worthy enough to even be in the presence of God or heaven. Therefore, we have to know that special someone to get us in... and that someone is Jesus.

Back to my topic.

Baptism ceremonies existed before even Jesus did. Jewish culture used this ceremony as a way of publicly expressing that they are proud to serve God. That they strive to live a faithful life to Him. Baptism is simply a public announcement stating that you have changed your life and are metaphorically "washing" yourself clean from your sinful ways.

When one goes to church and the preacher or speaker asks if anyone would like to give their life to the Lord and accept Jesus into their hearts (in other words... get saved), when someone is ready to accept Jesus, the preacher does not schedule a baptism before guiding them to salvation. No. At that very moment... if you're sincere and you confess with your tounge that you are a sinner and believe in your heart that Jesus is the son of God and died for your sins... then your salvation has been placed on your soul in that instance. A place was instantly created in heaven on your behalf.

In my opinion (which I consider fact in this case), baptism is very important as it expresses that you are proud to be a Christian and have changed your life to honor God, however, it does not earn or decline you a ticket into heaven.

Is baptism required? No (but its still reccommended).

Any thoughts?

What is Rain?

I've recently (in my studies of the Noah's ark and the flood) began to wonder whether or not there had ever been rain before the "big flood" of Noah's day. I've come across some different points of view but I'll do my best to express them both in hopes of feeding the curiosity of the reader to want to study into it.

Based on the verse in Hebrews where is says:

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

It can be easily interprited that there had not been rain before. Let's break it down. Noah was warned by God about something that would happen that he had never seen before, and in faith and fear, built an ark to save his family and home.

I've believed in the past that this was talking about "rain." That the "things not seen as yet" were referring to rain. However, with more thinking outside the box... I can't help but wonder... maybe it was a "flood" that had never been seen... not neccessarily "rain." Maybe all the people knew what rain was but never really had a lot of it, therefore doubted a so called "flood."

If there had never been rain, how were there fields, crops, plants, trees, etc... What did the animals eat? What did they drink? I know what you're thinking... so did I. There were lakes, streams, rivers, springs... but all of these things (other than the ocean/sea are caused by rain). It rains, flows down the hills and land, forming streams/rivers, leading to lakes and ponds. Without the rain, there would be no stream/river and be no lakes/ponds. We all know you can't drink ocean water. I mean, if there was an ocean, there would be evaporation, which means there would be clouds, which would mean there would be precipitation (rain, snow, etc..).

Maybe there were springs. People drank from springs where water came up from the earth. But how did the plants survive? Trees, crops and so forth. To my understanding there was a great "dew" that fell every night/morning (the Bible actually refers to it as a "mist" that came up from the ground in Genesis 2:4-6). This dew supposedly watered the entire earth, as some believe, all the way up to the point of the flood.

The Bible, to my knowledge thus far, doesn't really say specifically that there was no rain before the flood. It does state, however, that there was no rain before Adam and Eve but not before the flood. The "things not seen as yet" mentioned in Hebrews could have been referring to "rain" or it could have actually been referring to a "flood."

Any thoughts?

Stoned!

Growing up, when I heard or read from the Bible that someone was "stoned," I pictured an angry mob surrounding a criminal/victim chunking stones at them, blow after blow until the accused was dead. As the years have gone by and I've studied further, I have come across other possible options for the term "stoned" from that time era. I'm not saying one way is correct. I'm simply asking a question about what do "you" think is correct.

Option 1

The criminal/victim was chained or bound to a wall or post. Executioners (people casting stones) surrounded the criminal/victim or lined up infront of him and simply threw stones, brutally executing the accused.

Option 2

Some believe that in that time period, a criminal/victim was laid on his back on the ground. His arms and legs bound. His body stretched out tight as the hands and feet were firmly pulled in opposite directions. While in the position, a flat board of some sort was placed on the criminal/victim's chest. At this point 2 or 3 men would begin to slowly stack large stones on this board. The criminal/victim would, in short time, be smashed/pressed to death by the weight. This was known as being "pressed" to death or a.k.a. "stoned" to death as it's referred to.

Option 3

The criminal/victim was buried in the ground up to their head. With just a head being exposed from the ground, the criminal/victim could not struggle or move and the target was clear. Executioners would then cast away, smashing the skull of the criminal/victim.

Option 4

In this time era there were professional slingers that could sling a baseball sized stone at over 60mph with amazing precisicion. These slingers could often hit a target over 400 yards away. Just as terrorist execute some victims today by bounding them to a post and shooting them, maybe there were executioners back then that acted in a similar manner. Maybe the criminal/victim was bound to a post while about 3 or 4 professional executioners lined up infront of him and fired away, each stone delivering 60mph impact, crushing, smashing and breaking the head and torso of the criminal/victim... all at once, each with a lethal blow.

The evidence that option 1 is correct is that in the Bible, Jesus says to the people that he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

I'm not pointing out that any of the above is the 100% factual way that stoning executions took place. Maybe they all have happened in time. I'm not sure. I'm leaning toward option 1 but again, maybe all 4 options have taken place.

What do you think?