- This topic has 514 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 07 2008,16:11) Hi kj,
That folk will not grasp the lifeline of salvation?
That they don't realise there is no one holding on to the other end?Stuart
Hi Stu,
And we do fall but
Deuteronomy 33:27
The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms:and
Ecclesiastes 4:10
For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.Hi Stu:
You ask:
Quote Hi 942767 Do you know of the circumstances of this termination that you are praying to stop?
Stuart
Under what circumstances would you say that an abortion would be justified?
Quote (942767 @ April 26 2008,14:57) Hi Stu: You ask:
Quote Hi 942767 Do you know of the circumstances of this termination that you are praying to stop?
Stuart
Under what circumstances would you say that an abortion would be justified?
Mother's life is at risk; conception as a result of rape or other situation where the mother's psychological wellbeing is at risk; mother's health at risk especially in a case of chronic illness; fetus is so malformed that it will not survive and therefore the act of giving birth birth presents an avoidable risk to the mother. Um. can't think of any more off the top of my head. What about you?Stuart
When I was a nurse (so many years ago now), there were many girls that would come into the office for post abortion care and/or counseling. It was always sad. But there were sometimes when it wasn't sad. One case especially haunts me and it was of an incest case. The girl was relieved to not have to give birth to her father's child! She wanted “that thing” out of her as soon as possible. I remember it was difficult for me because at the time I was an orthodox believer, but I also felt for her. I agreed with her that I could not go through with such a pregnancy either.
I suppose there is always adoption, however as Stu mentioned, psychologically it may be too much for some to bear.
I worked for a Pro-Life organization when I was in my 20's. But later I quit because I realized that I was no longer a “Pro-Lifer” in the way that they defined it. In fact, I was “Pro-Choice” because I believed (and still believe) that God is Pro-Choice.
Quote (Stu @ April 26 2008,16:38) Quote (942767 @ April 26 2008,14:57) Hi Stu: You ask:
Quote Hi 942767 Do you know of the circumstances of this termination that you are praying to stop?
Stuart
Under what circumstances would you say that an abortion would be justified?
Mother's life is at risk; conception as a result of rape or other situation where the mother's psychological wellbeing is at risk; mother's health at risk especially in a case of chronic illness; fetus is so malformed that it will not survive and therefore the act of giving birth birth presents an avoidable risk to the mother. Um. can't think of any more off the top of my head. What about you?Stuart
Hi Stu:I agree with you on this. Perhaps, I should have asked the happyman what were the circumstances.
In the “Fallen Angels” thread in the “Boy Scout” section (Stu reference) Colter said
Quote As an FYI, anti Lucifer or Satan advocates often point out Jerome Vulgate translation wherein he Used Lucifer as being synonymous with “day star”. Isaiah was incorporating the well known story of the planet Venus and it's representation of being the Devil in his indictment against Lucifer and his betrayal of our God and our world. People who try to make Lucifer into a simple Babylonian king fail to realize that the name Lucifer had been around for a long time in regions outside of the Hebrew religion. Isaiah was a bit of a thorn in the side of the Hebrew priest class and quite frankly they did not like what he had to say nor did they believe him. That problem is still prevalent today. There is no “day star” on the Babylonian kings list, Isaiah was referring to the Devil or Lucifer.
While there is no “day star” on the list of the kings of Babylon, it is not meant as a naming reference. The “helel” of the OT depicted Venus, also know as the “day star” or “morning star”. Lucifer from the Latin means “light bringer”.
Simply put, there is no name involved in Isaiah 14:12 at all — this was just a reference to Nubychadnezzar.
What is interesting about both “morning star” and “light bringer” is the Greek word “phōsphoros” found in these 2 verses
- 2Pe 1:19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star (“phōsphoros”) arises in your hearts.
Rev 22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star (“phōsphoros”).
According to Strong's “phōsphoros” means
- From G5457 and G5342; light bearing (“phosphorus”), that is, (specifically) the morning star (figuratively): – day star.
So if Christians (and UBers) want to equate “Lucifer” with “satan”, and the word means “light bringer” or “morning star”, what then would you say about the 2 NT verses above?
Yes, I've encountered the above before. And it supports what I am saying: Lucifer, as an actual entity, is mythological and borrowed from other mythologies, both Greek and Canaanite.
Did you know that El, Elyon, and Shahar were members if the Canaanite pantheon? The Israelites, prior to the Moses story, were polytheistic. Shahar was the god of dawn, thus the tying in of the whole myth.
Also, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion
- The pantheon was conceived as a divine family, headed by the supreme god El; the gods collectively made up the Elohim.
El Elyon also appears in Baalam's story in Numbers and in Moses song in Deuternomy 32.8. The Masoretic Texts suggest
When the Most High (`Elyōn) divided to the nations their inheritance, he separated the sons of man (Ādām); he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of Israel
El Elyon is mentioned as 'God Most High' occurs in Genesis 14.18–19 as the God whose priest was Melchizedek king of Salem.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. At first you seemed to be relating Lucifer to Satan, and now I'm not sure what you are saying. In any case, there is absolutely no reason — beyond needing to see it in there — to view Isa 14:12 as “satan” or the “devil”. The first person to even relate Isa 14:12 as being “satan” was Origen, well after the NT was written. And this relation has been a mainstay of Christianity since.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that Lucifer != Satan in the UB. Rather, Satan is Lucifer's right-hand man and was the first to be converted by Lucifer?
Please, refrain from posting chunks of UB. A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
Guess the religion (some words changed or blanked to take away obvious clues).
“We were taught never to question the truth of XXXX and to believe in DEITY and his messenger(s) with blind faith. We were told that DEITY would forgive all sins but the sin of XXXX. But we committed the ultimate sin of thinking and questioned the belief that was imposed on us and we came to realize that far from being a religion of truth, XXXX is a hoax, it is hallucination of a sick mind and nothing but lies and deceits.“
Quote (kejonn @ June 01 2008,01:43) Guess the religion (some words changed or blanked to take away obvious clues). “We were taught never to question the truth of XXXX and to believe in DEITY and his messenger(s) with blind faith. We were told that DEITY would forgive all sins but the sin of XXXX. But we committed the ultimate sin of thinking and questioned the belief that was imposed on us and we came to realize that far from being a religion of truth, XXXX is a hoax, it is hallucination of a sick mind and nothing but lies and deceits.“
Wait, let me guess.
Was it Mandaean Nasaraean Sabeans?Tim
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
