Tag: conversation
VIDEO: This Animated Explanation of Heaven and Earth is Great for Kids – and Adults!
Posted on March 22, 2016 in Family, Home School, Theology by Nathan Cherry
I ran across this video explaining heaven and earth at a blog site I frequent. It’s simple in its composition but the depth of theological insight and teaching is definitely there.
Many people are confused by the difference between heaven and earth. Are they one and the same? Are they totally separate? How will God bring them together? Is God bringing them together now or will that happen in the future? There is a lot of questions and the average church attending Christian does not have many answers.
This fun video illustrates the difference and explains in simple terms what God did, is doing, and will do with respect to heaven and earth. Take a look and see if you don’t learn a few things. Watch it with your kids and start a conversation about how they can come directly into God’s presence each and every day.
If the video doesn’t appear automatically, please refresh your browser.
New Group Wants to Start a Conversation About Marriage Redefinition With Christians. But…
Posted on September 23, 2014 in Marriage by Nathan Cherry
There’s a new group seeking to change evangelicals’ minds about the definition of marriage. It’s not a LGBT activist group or even a “liberal” same-sex “marriage” group. It’s a…evangelical group?
The group calling itself “Evangelicals for Marriage Equality” wants to start a “new evangelical conversation about civil marriage equality,” according to a recent ad by the group.
I’m not sure what is wrong with the old conversation, but, based on what I’ve seen so far from the group, the new conversation isn’t worth having.
The group’s spokesman said that the intent of EME is to show that Christians can be faithful to Scripture while supporting civil marriage equality.
The Trouble With Throuples is That Throuples Are Troublesome Things
Posted on May 5, 2014 in Marriage, Sexuality by Nathan Cherry
Let me make a statement I have been making for several years:
If the government redefines marriage for homosexuals ti was necessarily have to continue redefining marriage for any other group or be guilty of the same “discrimination” it now accuses traditional marriage supporters of.
Try as they may to deny it, every advocate of marriage redefinition knows intuitively that if the arguments currently winning the day to legalize same-sex “marriage” are successful, they will also be successful for polygamists, polyamorists, and even pedophiles and bestiality advocates.
Ask yourself when is the last time you heard a same-sex “marriage” advocate standing up for the rights of polygamists and polyamorists? If their goal is based on “love” and “equality” then surely they would desire the same love and equality for every other minority group hiding in the shadows, right?
But you won’t see these groups standing together or hosting town hall meetings on bus tours across the states. Why? Simply because if every day America knew that redefining marriage for one group meant doing so for every other group the wheels of the political machine churning in favor of homosexuals would come to a screeching halt.
Why I Believe the #CreationDebate Was an Eternal Success
Posted on February 11, 2014 in Theology by Nathan Cherry
Answers in Genesis has released a report with the official number it believes watched the debate between founder Ken Ham and evolutionist Bill Nye. Their best estimation reveals that approximately five million people watched the debate around the world; though they also believe the number could be as high as ten million. The statistics for website hits, trending on Twitter, and overall reach are impressive and you can see them here.
But while these numbers are indeed impressive and show that the world is interested in this very sensitive subject, there was more to this debate than purely arguing over origins.
Steve Golden wrote an article at the Answers in Genesis website with, what I believe, is the key to the purpose of this entire debate. He wrote: