10 votes

The Will of God in Christ Jesus Concerning You!

Good morning Friends of Liberty. I am addressing Believers, so as not to offend anyone. But you, if you are not a Believer, are welcomed to take a look and comment as well if you like. Peace.

In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you! I Thessalonians 5:18

What a rich chapter 1 Thessalonians 5 is!

Look what else it says:

verse 15:

See that non render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.

It is not just our Christian brothers and sisters to whom goodness is due. We are to do good among ourselves and ALSO TO ALL!

Chapter 5 starts with these words:

But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with childe; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

continue reading: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/1-thessalonians/5.html

or listen: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/1-thessalonians/5-audio.html

I was just overwhelmed at the words this morning while preparing to teach that I wanted to share with my Friends of Liberty here at the Daily Paul.

I leave you with vs. 14: Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. (I couldn't help but add vs. 15 again.)

Those sound like marching orders to me. What a wonderful Lord we serve. We are bound but by 2 laws. The first to love God and the 2nd to love people. (read about it in Matt 22:35-40) What is so hard about that? It is pretty simple language isn't it.

What if all Christians -those who have placed their trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin- had forgotten everything else and just followed those 2 rules? What would the world be like today?

What if we started now?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


When gardening, we typically desire to grow one or more specific plants. We carefully prepare a place for them, moving the earth.

We sow seeds. We know not which seeds will sprout and which will not. We don't know which seeds will produce the most beautiful or abundant plants. We wait and care for our garden, watering it and removing weeds that are an impediment to growth.

We don't hate the weeds, yet they must be removed so that our desired plants may grow.

There is a will to grow a specific plant and from this will to see something live, we must inevitably destroy the life of the weed. If we do not do this, our garden will be overrun with weeds and nothing we desire will grow there.


Your picture does not speak of true Christianity.

It does however, speak of religion, but what fails to be shown is
the 3rd picture of Satan.

To the religious of His day, Jesus said:
John 8:44 KJV
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer fromthe beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.



A picture is worth a thousand words. Thank you for restating my position with pictures, ZeroFiction. Sums it all up.

This one has a thousand words but no picture to back it up.

Nonna, I don't know how we have hit such a rough spot, but it is very discouraging to me. I am not trying start any wars. The picture above does not show a view from below. It is only half 2/3 of the story. There is a war, but it is not between you and me, but for some reason I feel like you continue to knife me in the back. I have found you pointing to my post here saying that I am starting up some kind of ministry at the Daily Paul. It seems to me that you do not mind talking religion. Am I not allowed any input. Have you set the agenda and the rules for what is acceptable? Do I have to be in agreement with you in order to say something without being attacked? I had nothing but good intentions when I posted this post. This post was about Christians allowing love to be the rule. Why did you find that so objectionable? Are Christians not allowed to be encouraged to show love?

Ephesians 6:12 KJV
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.



Is Jesus in recycling "Green" business?

Alan Watts has a great lecture....

On what God is and it's goes something like this: God is everywhere. In, out, up, down. He is all-knowing and penetrating. So, if he knows everything what would he do for fun? He would play hide and seek. Each of us is God, hiding from himself. So he divided us all up as parts of himself down here. (Deuteronomy 32:8) This is why the bible says that Gods laws are written in the hearts of man. The law is to divide himself up and block himself off from himself and experience life without knowing who he is. That's the fun of it. So in this way he can enjoy his creations. He can discover new things like cave exploring, fly around in airplanes etc. If not for this division it would be pretty boring for Him.

So think - why is it that the expression says "that guy wouldn't hurt a fly". Or you cringe when you see someone else hurt. Or someone beating a kitten? Because you see that you are in fact hurting yourself. You literally feel it, but chock it up to evolution. If you see a little kid die of cancer you think - "how can God do that to that poor child"? Well, that IS God. Experiencing everything as individual units of consciousness. That's why you can't blame God for such things. Because we are all Him. The "image" of God.

That's why Jesus proclaimed to be the son of God. And also why he had to die for the statement. He's a glitch in the game, he would destroy the fun in it. So, we make heretics out of people who talk like that. It's by design.



Anyone who believes in talking snakes, talking asses and that a man could live inside of a fish have profound mental problems and needs to recieve phycotherapy. These insane members of society need to be ignored and they should be prohibited from participation in the electoral process, just as we don't allow children to participate.

I think what's odd...

...is somebody starting out with the belief that miracles are impossible and then ridiculing people who start out with another belief for not coming to the same conclusions as they have. You have to step inside one or the other belief system, and then work from that to see what 'makes sense' within that context.

If all of reality is fundamentally emanating from Person, Love, etc., then what would be the big surprise for there being miracles of all sorts? It would be strange if there were not, under such circumstance.

Don't try to argue with an ontological

materialist. They accept materialism on faith and then condemn you for believing in God on faith.

"should be prohibited from participation in the electoral

process". You mean we should have a religious test for participation in the electoral process? Such a freedom lover!


I would imagine you as being pro-liberty since you are here on the DP, andd you would like to strip Christians of their Natural Rights as well as those set forth in the Bill of Rights.

I am actually shocked that you would put such words into print here. You have just suggested stripping me of more rights than congress has in the recent years.

IMO, Your words are reminiscent of social cleansing methods used by tyrants and dictators and are far from the Voice of Liberty as you would squash freedom of conscience.


haha yes i agree!

In fact, let's just round up everyone who even *talks* about religion and make them sit in a corner with no playtime!

That'll show 'em!!111

A signature used to be here!

Wow, You want to get rid of the 1st Amendment?


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


bookmarking to share with a loved one . . .

later. Yes, indeed. How, I wonder, did the pure teachings of Jesus Christ become so corrupted--

in practice at any rate?


When dark times come, we look to the Light.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I read your reply earlier today and was thinking about it.

Your words: "How, I wonder, did the pure teachings of Jesus Christ become so corrupted--

in practice at any rate?"

Caused me to think,

What if Believers were taught to ask just 1 question when considering a course of action:

Am I showing love?

with caveats:

a. to God

b. to Man




it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

godsfavson New Comment Here

"You just claimed that you could speak to God, but now you say he chooses to communicate only through prophets. Are you a prophet? Would you like to be?"

No, that is not what I said. Use quotes please instead of saying I said something that I did not say.
There is a difference between talking TO God and God talking THRU a prophet.

To your new questions: No I am not a prophet. No, I would not like to be a prophet.
"A points that no scientist with agree with the bible:

Age of the earth."

No, that is not true. There are scientists that hold to literal creation and a young earth.
"The list of scientists you gave above contains exactly 1 astrophysicist, which is the relevant field when it comes to creation of the universe."

I could ask you how many true statesmen have been in the US federal government since its inception. You could reply with an answer and we could decide the rest are mere politicians tainted by lobbyists and self-interest.

Or I could give you a few more to look at

These folks are not necessarily Christians, but they indicate a supposition of God. http://www.christian-astronomers.org/?s=astrophysicist
“Question Posed – Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”. (4)

Paul Davies: “The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”. (5)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” (9)


Does god talk back when you

Does god talk back when you speak with him?

That's it? Here is my team

To summarise, around 7% of scientists in 1998 believed in a personal god of the biblical variety and 7% believe in immortality of the soul.

Please keep it short Bear, it'll put off other people to have such long posts. Can be a long conversation but lets keep posts short.

bear is a much better person than me

How can you say this

Please keep it short Bear, it'll put off other people to have such long posts. Can be a long conversation but lets keep posts short.

and not come off as someone who needs to control the situation/person you are having a discussion with?
I think the only one 'put off' by bear's lengthy comments, which really aren't all that lengthy, is you!
I've read the comments you've written on page one only so don't know if it carries to other pages, But I really don't know what your point is. What is your point? Science trumps religious belief? Tosh! Science can't be greater than its Creator. For me, God is not a 'belief' but a fact. My personal experience of God, which cannot be disected in a lab, is my proof. My journey, my 'tests'. Bear has her own journey and 'tests' which led her to her belief. That these tests can't be duplicated in a lab in a physical sense does not make them void. It just puts them outside of the current realm of science. And may it stay that way. We don't need a GMO'd God.
Bear, you may not be a prophet, but for your patience with favson, you are a saint! ;-)

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I'm stipulating general

I'm stipulating general guidelines for the debate and if bear has a problem I'm sure she will mention it. I don't know what there is to be offended about.

Ok, she may have her own tests and she is stating what they are and I am questioning her conclusions. Again, I do not see why you should be offended.

My point is to show Bear that there is no positive, objective proof of the god of the bible, and in a wider sense, those of all the other religions.

Why do I do this? Because I believe truth is important and belief in things without evidence, dangerous and degrading.

Does god talk back when you speak with him?

I have never heard God with my ears.
From your link: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

"Larson and Witham close their report with the following remarks:

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools.... The booklet assures readers, 'Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral'. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: 'There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.' Our survey suggests otherwise."

Are scientists subject to what they have been "taught" in a censored situation? And now children are being subjected to a censored situation?

Do you believe that majority consensus dictates truth and reality?
When multple questions and/or topics are in a single comment, it is difficult to answer each one while keeping the complete comment short. I will do my best to meet your requirement.


Has he answered you in your

Has he answered you in your mind, or psychically? If no, does that mean it is a one sided conversation?

Statistics are what they are. I don't know why scientists would feel any pressure in an anonymous survey.

Were you not constrained by your family, upbringing, marriage and environment to believe in Christ? Was not Osama Bin Laden due to similar constraints compelled to believe in Allah?

No, truth is not subject to majority opinion. But when most scientists whose very brief is to investigate the nature and subleties of reality do not believe in something, you have to believe one of 3 things:

That they are ignorant (their profession does not suggest they are)
They are lying (No particular reason to think so)
They have found that god is not required to explain reality.


Re: "Statistics are what they are. I don't know why scientists would feel any pressure in an anonymous survey."

I wouldn't go to a chemist to answer philosophical or historical questions. Experimental sciences (i.e. physics, chemistry, etc.) use different criteria than philosophy and historical sciences to come to their conclusions. Problems occur when experimental scientists try to answer questions not suited to their training. Why would you even care what a chemist thinks about theology or philosophy? That's sort of like asking a gardener to fix your car.

Aside from that, the bulk of scientists who thought differently were probably weeded out and fired before the survey happened. I don't think you would have the same numbers if you extended the time frame of the survey into the past.

If all the people who study

If all the people who study different aspects of reality come to the conclusion then god is not a good answer to any questions therein, it means to me that there is no positive proof of god in ANY field.

The latter bit is true. But as science casts its light into more dark corners, there are few places left where god can scurry and hide. That is why the number of atheists is rapidly growing.

As to the last bit, that is an unsubstantiated allegation. Trust me, if a good scientist is doing good research and publishing papers, no uni versity will let him go.


Re:"If all the people who study different aspects of reality come to the conclusion then god is not a good answer to any questions therein,"

Which conclusion are you talking about? I missed something.
If 'all' people came to the same conclusion on anything, I would be surprised.

RE: "it means to me that there is no positive proof of god in ANY field."

Why should someone expect proof of God in automotive science? Shouldn't you be looking more at philosophy? I suppose someone could use a transcendental argument to say that automotive science couldn't be accounted for apart from the existence of God, but that would still be in the field of philosophy. There are plenty of positive arguments or proofs for the existence of God (eg. cosmological argument), but they are in philosophy and meta-science. If you don't know about them you probably haven't been paying attention. Atheism on the other hand has no positive argument; it merely resorts to a denial of positive arguments for God, which is not a positive case for atheism.

RE:"The latter bit is true. But as science casts its light into more dark corners, there are few places left where god can scurry and hide. That is why the number of atheists is rapidly growing."

Don't underestimate the social factors involved. There are a lot of social and political factors involved in these sorts of things, and atheism is pushed socially in the same way religion can be pushed socially. So I'm not convinced your argument about why there is a number change is valid.

RE:" Trust me,"

heh heh.. that's not an argument.

RE: "if a good scientist is doing good research and publishing papers, no uni versity will let him go."

Ben Stein's 'expelled' movie disproves that.

The best I can explain

"Has he answered you in your mind, or psychically? If no, does that mean it is a one sided conversation?"

is that Scriptures that I have read or have memorized come to mind when they are needed.

As far as communication with God:
Prayer is me talking to God
Reading the Bible is God talking to me
The Bible says that God created man in His own image. When humanity is cast down from that "position" life is cheapened. People and collectives are content to dominate and/or kill other humans like they are animals.

Who does that set of circumstances benefit?
IMO Any argument that can be made with your words:

“But when most scientists whose very brief is to investigate the nature and subleties of reality do not believe in something, you have to believe one of 3 things:”

Can be answered with what do Big Pharma, Vaccinations, Global Warming, Carbon Taxes, Congressional Lobbying, Insider Trading, Censorship, etc. etc. etc. have in common?


Dear Bear I am quite

Dear Bear
I am quite well read. Often when I need it, a quote from a book or a proverb or piece of information comes up exactly when needed.

Our brains are neural networks that store pieces of information and create interconnections between them. If you have read the bible, the answers will come via the bible, if you have read a science book, the answers will come via science.

You will ask what is the difference? It is in that science is based on experimental or empirical evidence and changes to incorporate new discoveries whereas the bible claims to be perfect, unchanging truth though it was written at a time when mankind's sum of knowledge was very poor compared to today.

Who does that set of circumstances benefit?

Just here Bear, we are concerned with truth. The implications of truth are for another discussion. The point that it is simply too terrible to believe so it can't be true is called in general terms, denial.

Bear, at the end you bring up a lot of points which I will be glad to address in another post, but I'll just ask, do you believe scientists are lying to the public about their belief as a larger conspiracy to bring down faith? Who are they doing this for? Who coordinates the effort?

Or are they too scared to come out as religious even though they are?

I am not well read.

I will not trade, though, the promises in the Bible. You see, I do not believe "men" wrote the Bible at a time when their learning was limited. I believe that God wrote the Bible using men. Why would I trade the words from the Creator for another mere human's thoughts on life?

I cannot tell you about scientists. I have watched videos before that had to do with people loosing academic jobs because they did not tow the politically correct line. I tried to do a quick youtube search to see if I could find anything and everything that came up was ridiculing creationists and saying that creationist’s are the ones doing the censoring.

You are right, the human mind is powerful. God made it that way. IMO, It takes more faith to believe that your human mind evolved into what it is today than to believe God, who is greater than you spoke it into being.