Oh, I thought that was blazingly obvious. Except the Edomite thing, not sure what you're talking about.
Last edited:
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Your thoughts about Harry Potter!
- Thread starter Rose of Sharon
- Start date
Oh, I thought that was blazingly obvious. Except the Edomite thing, not sure what you're talking about.
There are different prophesies for Israel and Edom, but the two peoples were mixed at the time of Christ.
Herod's father was an Edomite (descendant of Esau) and his reign began an Idumian dynasty that reigned in Jerusalem until its fall.
The people called Jews that hated Christ and were denounced by Him as not being sheep were likely not Israelites, a term that means descendants of Jacob/Israel.
I believe the animosity that existed in biblical times lives on, but most Christians are ignorant of the hatred these people have for Christ and his followers, and do not see the warfare and doctrine of Baalam that are used against all by these who "Call themselves Jews but are not."
I recently saw a slogan of sorts on a new members Facebook page "Lover of God and all lovers of God" I like that and feel the same. Fruits count...labels are worthless.
Herod's father was an Edomite (descendant of Esau) and his reign began an Idumian dynasty that reigned in Jerusalem until its fall.
The people called Jews that hated Christ and were denounced by Him as not being sheep were likely not Israelites, a term that means descendants of Jacob/Israel.
I believe the animosity that existed in biblical times lives on, but most Christians are ignorant of the hatred these people have for Christ and his followers, and do not see the warfare and doctrine of Baalam that are used against all by these who "Call themselves Jews but are not."
I recently saw a slogan of sorts on a new members Facebook page "Lover of God and all lovers of God" I like that and feel the same. Fruits count...labels are worthless.
Happy spring equinox! 
We had a picnic today. I suppose all I will say about it is that it is like celebrating New Years, and Thanksgiving, and that God made spring and the seasons.
While Halloween is a pagan holiday, and trick or treating being a reenactment of evil spirits on a rampage and/or druids seeking donations/human sacrifices on pain of cursing: with Christmas on the other hand, every central tradition of Christmas is Christian in origin.
The date of the 25th of December is never the winter solstice: where did it come from? Yes it was not Christ's birth: it was a calculation of his conception, which was placed on either the 25th of December or the 6th of January (nothing to do with the solstice), hence the twelve days of Christmas until Epiphany. I think the Orthodox churches focus more on the 6th of January.
Incidentally, though this is not so common knowledge as what I just mentioned, the twelve days and Epiphany were celebrated before Saturnalia was moved from a summer to a winter celebration. So it is more a situation of pagan's trying to interfere with an originally Christian celebration.
The Christmas tree was set as a replacement of the thunder oak of Thor by the missionary Boniface. This is practically a biblical quote, where the evergreen (cedar in the Bible) is connected with worship, while the oak is connected with paganism. Though the oak is in one place connected with Christianity (Isaiah 6:13).
Santa Claus is St. Nicholas, who did in fact have give gifts secretly and in at least one case put them in people's shoes. Yes it is better I believe to teach about St. Nicholas than to pretend about a made up version of him, but I have heard many strange things against Santa Claus, and many who celebrate Christmas make a point of leaving Santa Claus out. This would be to depart from the original meaning of "Santa Claus" as much or more than pretending he is some magical character who can fly.
This pretty much leaves the Yule log and mistletoe, and yes, we do not include these in our celebrations.
Pagans will have celebrations in winter; but this does not mean that winter, or the solstice, is at all pagan, or off limits to the people who follow the God who promised that the seasons would forever be under his command.
We had a picnic today. I suppose all I will say about it is that it is like celebrating New Years, and Thanksgiving, and that God made spring and the seasons.While Halloween is a pagan holiday, and trick or treating being a reenactment of evil spirits on a rampage and/or druids seeking donations/human sacrifices on pain of cursing: with Christmas on the other hand, every central tradition of Christmas is Christian in origin.
The date of the 25th of December is never the winter solstice: where did it come from? Yes it was not Christ's birth: it was a calculation of his conception, which was placed on either the 25th of December or the 6th of January (nothing to do with the solstice), hence the twelve days of Christmas until Epiphany. I think the Orthodox churches focus more on the 6th of January.
Incidentally, though this is not so common knowledge as what I just mentioned, the twelve days and Epiphany were celebrated before Saturnalia was moved from a summer to a winter celebration. So it is more a situation of pagan's trying to interfere with an originally Christian celebration.
The Christmas tree was set as a replacement of the thunder oak of Thor by the missionary Boniface. This is practically a biblical quote, where the evergreen (cedar in the Bible) is connected with worship, while the oak is connected with paganism. Though the oak is in one place connected with Christianity (Isaiah 6:13).
Santa Claus is St. Nicholas, who did in fact have give gifts secretly and in at least one case put them in people's shoes. Yes it is better I believe to teach about St. Nicholas than to pretend about a made up version of him, but I have heard many strange things against Santa Claus, and many who celebrate Christmas make a point of leaving Santa Claus out. This would be to depart from the original meaning of "Santa Claus" as much or more than pretending he is some magical character who can fly.
This pretty much leaves the Yule log and mistletoe, and yes, we do not include these in our celebrations.
Pagans will have celebrations in winter; but this does not mean that winter, or the solstice, is at all pagan, or off limits to the people who follow the God who promised that the seasons would forever be under his command.
Last edited:
I was just doing some study on Valentine's Day, and apparently it did in fact fall in line with the date of Lupercalia accidentally, and was not even associated with romance until hundreds of years after Lupercalia ceased to be celebrated. Apparently what we know of the origins of its customs is entirely speculative or invented after the fact. Thus it would be innocent enough, though of course modern romance often consists of fornication. Interestingly, Islam bans it both to discourage fornication and because of its Christian connotations. For myself I would prefer a celebration more solid in the heritage of its traditions, ideally something centered on The Song of Songs, if there is any such celebration.
On the subject of "magic" (or cobha) in fiction, I have a sampling of the sort that is used in one of my fictional universes, and am curious as to your opinions on it. Here is the link to it:
Andrew Fearus vs. Harshade
This kind is generally impossible to use for evil, since it is used by negotiating with a sentient portal, which is not evil; though sometimes people have tricked the portal, or used quasi-mechanical objects that are set in motion by the portal's power, but are more under the control of the user. The main use of the power is to counter attacks by evil beings on the parallel earth called the Front.
In my other main universe the main cobha (there are other forms) is used by invoking the Name of God (with vastly varying degrees of directness). Thus to use it for evil is even more blackly evil, I suppose, than even witchcraft in this world; the one being alliance with spirits who saw the very face of God and rebelled, while the other is more like becoming a miniature Satan yourself, enacting one of the deepest forms of blaspheming God's Name.
On the subject of "magic" (or cobha) in fiction, I have a sampling of the sort that is used in one of my fictional universes, and am curious as to your opinions on it. Here is the link to it:
Andrew Fearus vs. Harshade
This kind is generally impossible to use for evil, since it is used by negotiating with a sentient portal, which is not evil; though sometimes people have tricked the portal, or used quasi-mechanical objects that are set in motion by the portal's power, but are more under the control of the user. The main use of the power is to counter attacks by evil beings on the parallel earth called the Front.
In my other main universe the main cobha (there are other forms) is used by invoking the Name of God (with vastly varying degrees of directness). Thus to use it for evil is even more blackly evil, I suppose, than even witchcraft in this world; the one being alliance with spirits who saw the very face of God and rebelled, while the other is more like becoming a miniature Satan yourself, enacting one of the deepest forms of blaspheming God's Name.
Sounds like a familiar spirit. You're jumping through hoops to make something feel ok.
Real witches will invoke literal scripture in their spells, still evil. People in occult circles invoke God, but they mean a different entity than we mean.
My response would be that angels and demons are the same beings, the difference being that one rebelled against God and the other did not. Perhaps the severest words in Scripture were spoken against the Pharisees who said that Christ cast out demons by the prince of the demons. It is not the ability but the fruit by which one must judge what a thing is morally.
An invented being may have any form and any ability, so long as it fits into the moral framework deduced from Scripture. The portal in this framework would be closest to a plain man making use of a "plant" (a thing with life but no will).
As to its plain "creepiness" in appearance, one should remember that Satan appears as an angel of light, and the ministers of God are flames of fire and wheels full of eyes. The militaristic nature of the portal also gives it a grim aspect. Both Moses and the wizards summoned snakes, frogs, and blood.
Jumping through hoops to make something feel okay would apply to something that is wrong, and altered in non-essentials to seem right. This would apply to "angel therapy" (which seemed to go through a fad of popularity here in Ireland), which was technically demonic but made to look innocent. The portal however is technically righteous, and, as I pointed out, does not appear evil either.
I definitely agree that consorting with demons is evil whatever the method. Not much else to say, other than that in this invented world they do indeed draw power from the Name of God, though indirectly.
A friend of mine has written hit songs for George Jones, George Straight, Reba McIntire, etc. He makes sure his songs are moral and do not reflect things of this world. He directs his church band and takes care of IT in his church. He could easily (very creative guy) make a lot more money drifting from his beliefs, but doesn’t want to lead anyone down a wrong path There are times where our ethics in our beliefs must override our desires to make money, friends and even family. Sometimes, we need to require of ourselves more than the standard good guy stuff. I guess the question would be, by what standard should a ‘child of the King’ conduct him/herself?
I hope this post doesn't hurt anyone's feelings!
We must have a higher standard than merely not sinning. In fiction we must have high quality, not relying merely on not having bad content to get the approval of God or man. First and foremost in following a high standard is what standard we set and what we set it by: whether a godly standard or a man's standards.
If someone covered something with a cloth, and uncovered it full of hideous disease, covered and uncovered it again and it was clean, what would an English speaking western minded person assume about this kind of power? Yet this was in fact what God told Moses to do to prove to the children of Israel that he had the Holy Spirit. If a strange creature with four different heads, wreathed in fire, and covered in countless eyes appeared to someone, what kind of spirit would a western thinker conclude it was? If a man received the supernatural ability to slaughter heaps of men with a skull, what would a western thinker decide was the origin of that ability?
The standards of the English speaking and other European cultures are very high, simply because they have for over a thousand years maintained a godlike level of pure, concentrated pride. In the dizzying heights of their conceit they have imagined their culture to be the root and fruit of Christianity, and have convinced nearly the whole world of this. Yet if Christianity appeared in their time, and its characters and events repeated, it would be to them a savage, barbaric, bloody cult from Asia.
Their standards are an abomination in the sight of God.
If people turning to a different path than these high western standards means turning to paganism, we must remember that the Christianity of the Bible has been placed with paganism. I would rather be thought a pagan because I follow the true God (who breathes fire and rides a winged ox), than to be for a moment associated with the paganism of the European world, which is by far the most poisonously pagan because they believe they are the very image and truth of Christianity.
Incidentally, it is of course this same pride that condemns polygyny and marks it as barbaric and foreign to Christianity. In fact the reason people supported outlawing it in America was because it was a "vestige of barbarism". The self-righteousness of the "civilized" world was strong. Though the main practical goal was of course to curb the Mormon cult.
To bring it back to fiction, if what I write looks like paganism to a deluded world, that's probably a good sign. To a truly Christian mind paganism appears evil because it is evil: against God and for murder and lewdness. Whereas to the common, effeminate perversion of the Christian mind - which is ironically almost purely pagan in origin, heritage, and tradition - to such a mind paganism is evil because it is "creepy", "strange", and "dark". Again ironically the power of demons is to the western mind so strange and dark because it originated in God: given to them as ministers of God's throne, it is the very strange and dark power of God now put to perverted uses. If anything the power of God's own hand and his unrebelling angels is stranger and darker (as Moses proved).
The books I write may be burned in "churches", as I have little doubt the Bible would be burned in "churches" if it was not so completely misrepresented.
As a final note, books often call something witchcraft that is not witchcraft: to say it is indeed witchcraft is to fall into the same error, and by ignorance of the Scripture condemning as witchcraft what is not witchcraft does far more to encourage witchcraft than the confusion caused by misusing the word. We must have a higher standard than that.
We must have a higher standard than merely not sinning. In fiction we must have high quality, not relying merely on not having bad content to get the approval of God or man. First and foremost in following a high standard is what standard we set and what we set it by: whether a godly standard or a man's standards.
If someone covered something with a cloth, and uncovered it full of hideous disease, covered and uncovered it again and it was clean, what would an English speaking western minded person assume about this kind of power? Yet this was in fact what God told Moses to do to prove to the children of Israel that he had the Holy Spirit. If a strange creature with four different heads, wreathed in fire, and covered in countless eyes appeared to someone, what kind of spirit would a western thinker conclude it was? If a man received the supernatural ability to slaughter heaps of men with a skull, what would a western thinker decide was the origin of that ability?
The standards of the English speaking and other European cultures are very high, simply because they have for over a thousand years maintained a godlike level of pure, concentrated pride. In the dizzying heights of their conceit they have imagined their culture to be the root and fruit of Christianity, and have convinced nearly the whole world of this. Yet if Christianity appeared in their time, and its characters and events repeated, it would be to them a savage, barbaric, bloody cult from Asia.
Their standards are an abomination in the sight of God.
If people turning to a different path than these high western standards means turning to paganism, we must remember that the Christianity of the Bible has been placed with paganism. I would rather be thought a pagan because I follow the true God (who breathes fire and rides a winged ox), than to be for a moment associated with the paganism of the European world, which is by far the most poisonously pagan because they believe they are the very image and truth of Christianity.
Incidentally, it is of course this same pride that condemns polygyny and marks it as barbaric and foreign to Christianity. In fact the reason people supported outlawing it in America was because it was a "vestige of barbarism". The self-righteousness of the "civilized" world was strong. Though the main practical goal was of course to curb the Mormon cult.
To bring it back to fiction, if what I write looks like paganism to a deluded world, that's probably a good sign. To a truly Christian mind paganism appears evil because it is evil: against God and for murder and lewdness. Whereas to the common, effeminate perversion of the Christian mind - which is ironically almost purely pagan in origin, heritage, and tradition - to such a mind paganism is evil because it is "creepy", "strange", and "dark". Again ironically the power of demons is to the western mind so strange and dark because it originated in God: given to them as ministers of God's throne, it is the very strange and dark power of God now put to perverted uses. If anything the power of God's own hand and his unrebelling angels is stranger and darker (as Moses proved).
The books I write may be burned in "churches", as I have little doubt the Bible would be burned in "churches" if it was not so completely misrepresented.
As a final note, books often call something witchcraft that is not witchcraft: to say it is indeed witchcraft is to fall into the same error, and by ignorance of the Scripture condemning as witchcraft what is not witchcraft does far more to encourage witchcraft than the confusion caused by misusing the word. We must have a higher standard than that.
Most don't realize the the same Greek word for sorcery is where we get the English word Pharmacy.
Mind or body altering drugs are thought of as "medicine" by most Christians today, but once upon a time they would have been condemned by believers.
Drugs in prophecy was a paper written in 1989 by a pastor who even connected the chemicals and poisoning by insecticide of a woman reported in the newspaper (my grandmother) to the sorcery of Mystery Babylon the Great.
How we perceive "normal" is more about what is familiar then what is right, healthy, natural etc.
That is why scripture is important, as well as letting the scriptural use of a word determine its meaning.
The congregation of the lord was not the people who showed up on sabbath at the temple or synagogue. Gentiles is not a synonym for non Israelites....or non Jews.
And Goy WAS used of the Israelite people/nation. Facts are facts.
Mind or body altering drugs are thought of as "medicine" by most Christians today, but once upon a time they would have been condemned by believers.
Drugs in prophecy was a paper written in 1989 by a pastor who even connected the chemicals and poisoning by insecticide of a woman reported in the newspaper (my grandmother) to the sorcery of Mystery Babylon the Great.
How we perceive "normal" is more about what is familiar then what is right, healthy, natural etc.
That is why scripture is important, as well as letting the scriptural use of a word determine its meaning.
The congregation of the lord was not the people who showed up on sabbath at the temple or synagogue. Gentiles is not a synonym for non Israelites....or non Jews.
And Goy WAS used of the Israelite people/nation. Facts are facts.