Futurism attempting to disprove Preterism....

Today I was presented an article, and the purpose of the article is to disprove Preterism.  To find this article you can visit it here. 

This article is bold to state the following: 

"So lets begin with the basis for this view of prophecy.

Rev 1:9: “I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation” "

Now this isn't true - this isn't the basis.  To make an assumption like this is to err, but this verse could be used as a supporting argument.  What is written in the Book of Revelation?  The "tribulations to come".  Would it not be soothing/comforting for one reading this letter/book to know that the writer is going to be going through those tribulations with you?

Also - would it not align with other biblical documentation?

John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him(Peter), If I will that he(John) tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

Jesus' words again aligning with old covenant laws.  Telling Peter to not worry about what others have or receive. In simple terms - don't covet anything your neighbour has.

Back to the point - if John 21:22 did also mean that John would be alive when Christ returned this lines up with another Bible verse.

Matthew 16:27-28 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

²⁸ Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Every time I ask someone who believes in a future coming of Christ where the people are from Matthew 16 are - I cannot get a simple answer.

You see - there are valid reasons why a Preterist or someone who believes in Fulfilled Eschatology doesn't believe in Futurism.  Futurists can't answer simple questions based on the text.

Which leads us to other topics in the article and how I have a few main arguments to dismiss even those topics.

Things everyone needs to understand when trying to interpret prophecy to fit your view.  Does everything you interpret line up with the remainder of Scripture?  If it does line up then you're on the right track - if it doesn't line up, then it's not true or needs to be tested further.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

If a prophecy is not of any private/personal interpretation - this means that what the prophecy meant when it was written has to mean the exact same thing today.

So, the next argument that was used is the following:

Rev. 3:10 "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.” The whole world will be involved in this trial not just secluded to Israel. This would be the Great Tribulation.

One thing I dislike about how they posted this was putting their opinion inline with the Biblical text.  Where does it say the whole world will be involved in this trial?

The greek word here for World is: 

οἰκουμένη oikouménē, oy-kou-men'-ay; feminine participle present passive of G3611 (as noun, by implication, of G1093); land, i.e. the (terrene part of the) globe; specially, the Roman empire:—earth, world.

Interesting - how the meaning of this word is clear to have in it's definition "specially, the Roman empire".

Know where else this word is used?

Luke 2:1  And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

Now - again this isn't twisting scripture - this is just what scripture says, and demonstrates how the meaning of the word supports that "World" is the Roman Empire.

So if this is the meaning of the word - than the article's argument for Revelation 3:10 - is false, and shouldn't be considered.

The Latter Days argument

1 Tim. 4:1: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith.” These are the same latter days mentioned in Micah 4:1 “Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established on the top of the mountains.” The difference is that 1 Tim. 4 precedes Micah 4.

Last days as used in the King James Version of the Bible appears here:

·         Isaiah 2:2

·         Micah 4:1

·         Acts 2:17

·         2 Timothy 3:1

·         Hebrews 1:2

·         James 5:3

·         2 Peter 3:3

I'm not dismissing that the Bible talks about the last days.  But the point is Acts 2:17 - Peter is bold to state that they are in the last days.  The last days that Joel mentioned have started.  Joel was written before Christ - but the timeframe is up for debate, being written as early as the 9th Century BC and as late as the 4th Century BC.

Here lies the question that nobody seems to ask or answer....

Why have the last days lasted longer than the time frame of when Joel was written through to Acts 2:17?  We're now almost 2000 years in the last days, but it was prophesied at most 1000 years before they started.

So we're in the last days that have lasted almost 2000 years - or are we in the last days?

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

What's interesting about this passage is the word time.  A lot of Bible versions use the word Hour...

G5610

ὥρα hṓra, ho'-rah; apparently a primary word; an "hour" (literally or figuratively):—day, hour, instant, season

It's just interesting how the word here changes the context of time.  We were in the last days - but now we're in the final day.  Or we're in the final hour.

Again - amazing how they were in the last days which was perhaps 30 odd years and all of a sudden they're in the final day, or in the final hour.  What's amazing is how that final day/hour has lasted longer than the other "days" combined.

Think about that..........

The infamous Peace Treaty

I knew it, I knew it.  Everyone uses Daniel 9:27 to support their futurist view when it comes to supporting the Antichrist.

In order to understand Daniel 9:27 - you also need to understand Daniel 9:24-26.  You also need to understand Daniel 8.

Daniel 8 gives a container of 2300 days.  We know this is 2300 years because of the day for a year method.  This can be confirmed in Numbers 14:34, Ezekiel 4:6.

When did Daniel 8 take place?

Daniel 8:1 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.

So - when is the 3rd year of Belshazzar?

548 BC

So we now know that Daniel 8 needs to be completed by (548BC + 2300, there's no year 0) 1753AD.

Then - let's look at Daniel 9.  Daniel 9 - is more detail to the prophecy mentioned of Daniel 8.  Again - we know that Daniel 9 needs to be fulfilled by no later than 1753AD.

But WAIT - Daniel 9 gives a timeline. I'm going to use the Septuagint(LXX) version of the Old Testament, as it was translated from Hebrew to Greek and completed by 132BC.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks have been determined upon thy people, and upon the holy city, for sin to be ended, and to seal up transgressions, and to blot out the iniquities and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy.

Daniel 9:25 And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted.

Daniel 9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him:  and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming:  they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.

Daniel 9:27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many:  and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away:  and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.

Now - re-read Daniel 9:24 - and determine purpose of the 70 weeks.  How does verse 27 all of a sudden become about Antichrist?

Interesting how in the Septuagint it's written and seen in plain text that the verse is about God and Christ.  It is not about an antichrist.

Who establishes a covenant with many?  Christ did!

Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Oh wait - I guess I forgot the timelines, right?

69 weeks from Decree to restore Jerusalem unto the coming of Christ the Prince

The decree was in 457BC.  Add 483(69 weeks) and this will get you to 27AD  When was Christ Baptised?  in The 15th year of Tiberius Caesar aka 27AD.  Then the 70th week simply follows suit.

This 27th verse of Daniel 9 when interpreted with the context of all verses and/or using the Septuagint disproves that this verse is about an Antichrist - and therefore dismisses much of the rest of this website's article.

There's no future Temple - because the Jewish daily Sacrifice has already stopped.  The reason they need a Temple is because the Sacrifice needs to start again in order to stop again.

Again - most futurists don't understand Fulfilled eschatology because many of their current beliefs don't align.  So the question is - do your beliefs align with God's word - or do your beliefs align with someone's interpretation of Scripture. 

Remember this:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

How I'm treated because I believe Jesus already returned......

I’m almost at a total loss.  So many people talk about how Christians are so closed minded and I try and defend Christians on this argument – but the way I’ve been talked to in regards to my Christian beliefs – I can now understand where people are coming from.

 

Yes, I am a Christian, but I’m not a fundamental Christian – perhaps Conservative, BUT I don’t even think that fits the bill.  We call ourselves believers of fulfilled eschatology, and eschatology is “the study of end times” if you will.  In simple terms I believe the entire Bible has been fulfilled and therefore – there won’t be a future second coming of Jesus.

 

So as a result of this – I’ve been told many things:  “You’re believing another gospel and Paul warned us about that”; “that doesn’t make any sense”; “your beliefs are false”; oh and let’s not forget “I’ll pray that God brings you back to repentance”.

 

I almost can’t believe what I’m being told.  The main reason being – the people who say these things don’t even try and understand why I believe what I do.  So instead of trying to understand my beliefs I guess it’s easier to say the things I mentioned above.  How can you love me as your neighbor if you don't understand where I'm coming from?

 

Clearly – these people forget or disregard the part when I tell them “I used to believe what you do, BUT I had too many questions that nobody could answer, so after I praying one day, literally the next day I discovered this”.  So to tell me to turn back to what you used to believe – means I have to go back to reading Bible verses from a certain perspective and again the questions I had before come back and nobody is able to answer them.  Then they say “Well ask God about it” – and as you can see we come back right full circle.

 

I used to believe in a future Second coming of Jesus.  I used to believe in a rapture and trust me, I studied it over and over.  The thing is – I no longer believe in a future second coming of Jesus. 

 

In simple terms here’s what I believe……Jesus spoke to his disciples and apostles around 30ad – saying he would return in the future and that His generation shouldn’t pass until he returned.  So in 70AD – there was a destruction of the temple.  Jerusalem was surrounded by armies(romans) and yes there was a war.  So in 70AD(Future from 30AD) – I believe is when Jesus returned.

 

So – things like the Apostles creed – Yeah I don’t believe parts of it because it says “he will come again to judge the living and the dead” – well I don’t believe that.  So it’s even more difficult to try and find a church that doesn’t have these “futurist” type of beliefs and/or teachings.

 

So to understand my beliefs – you need to start with that.  To disprove them – you have to show me from my paradigm why my beliefs are wrong.  While reading the Bible from this paradigm – I haven’t had any questions that I can think of.  By trying to disprove my beliefs based on questions you now have that you can no longer answer – doesn’t mean my belief isn’t true.  It just means that your belief may not align with this paradigm.

 

So again – Christians judge me because I’m not open to their beliefs.  Trust me – I’m open to hearing about it.  The thing is – I already know everything about it.  The question is – what do you know about my beliefs other than what you watched and/or read on the internet.

 

So people say my beliefs are a “new belief system” and I shouldn’t believe it because it’s “another gospel”.

 

SO let’s start here:

2 Peter 1:20 states:  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 

So – this would mean that what Jesus said 2000 years ago – would have to have the same meaning then as it does today.  Right?

 

So – 2000 years ago Jesus said these things:

Matthew 24:34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Luke 21:32  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Mark 8:12  And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, Why does this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.

Mark 13:30  Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

 

What did “this generation” mean when Jesus said this to people 2000 years ago?  It meant that generation of his time, right?

 

Interesting how Mark 8:12 answers this for us – with the help of the content from it’s former verse:

Mark 8:11 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him.

 

To which Jesus says:  Why does this generation seek after a sign?

 

Somehow – futurists magically make Matthew 24:34 to be “that generation”.

 

Compound all of this with Matthew 16:28 – and BAM I don’t know any 2000 year old person standing on the earth – which means I guess the Son of man coming in his kingdom has already happened – OR this verse makes Jesus to be a liar.

 

Now – does it all line up with “his generation” – yes I’d say so.

 

So before condemning my beliefs – start answering these questions and perhaps you can lure me back to a Future second coming of Jesus:

• How does “this generation” all of a sudden become a generation in the future – when in every other passage it’s referring to the generation of Jesus’ day.
• Why isn’t there any 2000 year old people walking the earth?  Didn’t Jesus also reference this in John?  I don’t see apostle John walking the earth
• Why don’t we have to live by the law anymore?  See Matthew 5:17-18 for this

 

Keep in mind that 2 Peter 1:20 states:  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.   So – I don’t want to be reading ideas nor having “this is what was taught by the elders” – I’d like to read good sound biblical evidence.

 

So – with that said, if you want me to believe your beliefs you need to disprove my beliefs and not just simply discard them by saying they’re false and that I should repent.

 

 

 

Belief Equality..........

This one is a tough one to try and write out and even reason with people.  Especially when these people fight for equal rights, yet reject other people’s rights at the same time.  These people who I’ve come to call liberals.  Yes a liberal will fight for rights of others and rights for themselves even if it limits rights of a select few.  So when I use the term liberals throughout the rest of this blog – I’m referring to this definition of a liberal and not what most people use it as.

You see – liberals are so very easy to call people who disagree with their beliefs “bigots” – yet they do not try and understand why a person has such a belief, nor asks what they believe.  Simply because they disagree with them – they’re clearly deemed a “bigot”.  Isn’t there a saying that goes it takes one to know one?  Simply because one disagrees with your belief, and you’re not willing to hear them – does it not make you a “bigot” as well?

Or how about – you pointing the finger, yet three fingers are pointing right back at you.

Let’s talk about marriage equality for a moment.  Or for that matter, let’s talk about marriage period.  I’ve talked to some people I’d consider good friends over the years.  Some of them gay/homosexual, some of them atheist, and some of them a mix of the two(gay/homosexual and atheist).  What’s interesting about this – is the one thing I generally hear from them is “why would anyone want to get married?  It’s a religious thing.”

Ok – so marriage is a religious thing they say.  So – why are politics getting involved in a religious matter?

I’m a huge fan of separation of Church and State.  So – yes, I’m a Christian.  Why does one need to go to the state to get a license to get married?  Well everyone – it’s pretty clear.  It’s all about money.  You have to pay to go get the license.

So the bigger question is this:  If there was no recognition from the State that you are actually married, would you still want to go and get married?  What benefit would it have?

You see, I don’t want to go to the State and ask for a marriage license.  I simply want to go to a minister/pastor and ask him to simply marry me in an open area.  I want this marriage to be accepted in the eyes of God.  I could care less about whether the State approves or accepts this marriage.

So you see – if you eliminate the State from the subject of marriage, it solves a lot of problems that people always bring up.

People always point the finger at Christianity about marriage, saying they’re against same-sex marriage.  The issue is, for a millennia and even longer – marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman.  This isn’t only with Christianity, in fact Christianity is founded on Judaism, and this was a Jewish thing.  Now Jews and Christians aren’t the only ones with this meaning – but even Muslims have this same belief.

See how it was worded – marriage has been defined as a UNION between a man and a woman.

If the separation of Church and State were to become 100% real – maybe the State could offer ceremonies called “Unions” – while the religious establishments can continue to do what they’ve always done and continue to marry people without the need to seek approval from the state.

This IMO(in my opinion) would provide everything everyone is looking to do.  It would respect the religious establishments.  Let’s keep in mind I never mentioned religions like Mormons or others where they accept polygamy. 

Everyone is rooting and happy that the marriage equality thing has happened – but it still doesn’t accept polygamy.  While many people may feel polygamy is a whole other situation – people have those beliefs.  So, if a religious person is supposed to accept another one’s belief that it is acceptable to have same-sex marriages.  Should the person who accepts same-sex marriages not accept that others have a belief that polygamy is accepted within marriages?

May sound like 2 very different things – but in the end it’s simply accepting one’s beliefs.  So if we’re going to start accepting one’s beliefs – then we should be accepting everyone’s beliefs and not just one group of people’s beliefs – but all groups of people’s beliefs. 

You see – I accept that everyone has different beliefs.  I accept the fact that we do, while I may disagree with certain beliefs – I do my best that it doesn’t change how I act towards the person nor how I feel about them.  I do my best to treat everyone with the same amount of respect as the next person.  Love your neighbour as yourself, right?

If I have the right to believe something, another person has the right to believe something else.  Now it’s great to debate this in a healthy discussion, but it should be done in a way to better understand the other person, rather than calling them a “bigot” – because little do you know how complex the reason or reasons are for why a person believes what they do.

This blog, is only beginning to scratch at the surface as for how I believe about marriage-equality, which we can then start to call belief-equality.

Cheers Uncle Wayne!

Wow – who would’ve thought?!

Exactly one week ago – the real Tom Green aka my uncle Tom lost his battle with cancer.  Here it is a week later, and my great uncle, my mom’s uncle Wayne lost his life after a double bypass that seemed to have worked for a short time, but in the end his heart was too weak to make it through a 24 hour period after surgery.

You know – it’s interesting, as many may or may not know – we’ve been doing many renovations at the cottage, and this isn’t the first renovation or redo at the cottage.  When the cottage was initially bought back in the mid 80s, it wasn’t insulated among many other things.  What’s interesting is while we were working on this renovation – we had asked Tommy who insulated the floor with him down in the tight crawl space – and much to our surprise it was Wayne.

So here we are with these two people gone from our lives here forever.

Now – anyone who knew Wayne will say he was a kind hearted soul.  If he had a beer in his hand – you can be sure if you didn’t – he was definitely offering and more than willing to get one for you, and if you weren’t drinking beer he was getting you something else.

                        

Uncle Wayne was never one for motorized vehicles or tools of any sort.  While he may have never married or had kids of his own – I do know that at different times he looked after just about all his nephews and nieces.  Whether it be buying gifts for them at Christmas, or giving them their first beer(they were all of age of course), or even more simple just playing a game of cards or watching a Sports game on TV – he treated them to the best that he knew and could.

After retiring from Ontario Hydro approximately 15 years ago, he moved back to Pembroke and lived with his brother David and his oldest sister Marie.

While neither David or Marie were his kids or nephews, etc. He did make a claim in the house.  The claim was to be the cook of the house.  Thus finally allowing Marie after years and years of cooking for her sisters, children, etc. was able to receive a break from cooking in the kitchen.

You know – the Bible does teach a few things, but not limited to:

1 – God will write his laws on people’s hearts (Jeremiah 31:33)

2 – To look after widows and orphans (James 1:27)

Whether these are 2 things uncle Wayne ever read or not – it clear that God held up to his promise in Jeremiah 31:33.  Wayne looked after a widows, his oldest sister Marie after moving back home – and while his nephews or nieces may not have been orphans he definitely would look after them if needed.

While everyone may have their different memories of Wayne, we should simply be thankful to have been blessed to have had someone like Wayne in our lives.

For those of you who want Wayne’s Legend to carry on – if there’s one thing he did teach me – was he taught me how to mix Caesars(while I was of age of course).

Cheers uncle Wayne!

The Real Tom Green

I'm not even sure where to start in how I write this out.  This has been a difficult long start to a summer for me.  I started off on a stress leave, which then about 3 weeks into it, my appendix decided that it wanted to get removed(no it didn't burst) - to then find out I have a benign cyst on my adrenal gland, which may be the root cause of a few health problems I have.

Now - generally I write things out about things I've found and noticed, perhaps a life experience for me - but today I'm dedicating this to my uncle:  the real Tom Green.

When someone passes on - it's a period of mourning for those that are left behind.  When the mourners feel that their loved one has passed on prematurely - we generally start asking a whole bunch of questions.  When a loved one passes on prematurely due to cancer it's even more so.

Now - Tommy never really had an easy life.  He lost his dad at a young age, and this in itself would've been difficult.  Now - from that moment, yes he had good moments, but it always seemed that just when he was about to get the next lucky break in his life - BAM - something would go wrong.

All throughout this - he'd move on.  Yes he was blessed to have had a supporting cast around him along the way, and yes this supporting cast did help him move on, and yes the supporting cast does also deserve a round of applause.  The key thing here though is he did move on; he continued on and definitely an applause is also in order for Tom Green.

Perhaps there was something helping Tommy - perhaps he had a passion within him...

Anyone who knew Tommy - knew he was passionate about certain things - to the point that if you didn't believe those things you'd say he sounds crazy or "whacked in the head" - just to throw a few examples:  his talk about aliens or other "conspiracy theories", his talk about natural nutrition, alternative medicine or how the pharmaceutical companies are ripping you off because they want customers and not people to get better; how Big Brother is watching us, etc.

Yes - Tom Green - the Real Tom Green was passionate.  Some will also say compassionate - which while this is true with one of his favourite expressions being "warm hands means a warm heart" - but the purpose here is to also allow everyone to learn something through the word passion.

Everyone has clearly heard of "The Passion of Christ" - whether it be the movie or just the Passion that Jesus had in generally period.  For anyone who's seen the movie - you see the passion in the sense that Jesus is whipped, basically even died before making it to the cross that everyone is so familiar with.

Whether you believe or not - just to understand the psyche behind, Jesus did all that to save His people from the sin that was written in the law.  A sin could only be atoned for through a sacrifice and Jesus became that sacrifice.  All that suffering and pain.  He did it for us

Why do I bring that up?  Well passion - is derived from a greek word:  pathos.  The meaning of pathos is:  suffering, emotion, depraved passion.

In today's day - most people hear the word passion and think a deep love for someone, or a deep love for something.  While this may be true - when you look at the deeper meaning of it all, there is suffering.

The reality that we're getting back to is Tom Green was passionate.  Yes he had a deep love for people, he had a deep love for certain things.  While he did have this, his life did have suffering.

Now, while Tommy did have suffering in his life - yes we can get stuck in feeling how we feel bad for him because we wouldn't want such a thing.  This just shows the strength a person can have, and if we can't handle such a thing - shows how strong Tommy was.

Yes - we can feel bad about Tommy having gone through much suffering - even in his last few weeks after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, there was much pain.  He continued on.  Finally in the early hours of July 10th, he lost his fight with cancer.

As much suffering that Tommy had, I believe that you should now rejoice.  Yes we can say he's no longer in pain, he's no longer suffering - but I see something far more beautiful than that.

If Jesus is the King of kings in heaven - I'm going to ask you to just think about Tommy while reading this Bible verse:

I Peter 4:13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

What is love?

I've been seeing a common theme lately coming up.  The theme is pertaining to one word:  love.

What is love? 

• ·         Unconditional
• ·         Baby don’t hurt me
• ·         Patient, kind, doesn’t envy, doesn’t boast, is not proud, doesn’t dishonor others, not self-seeking, not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs(aka forgives), doesn’t delight in evil, rejoices in truth, protects, trusts, hopes, perseveres.
• ·         Choice
• ·         Passion
• ·         Dedication

First off – lets analyze this.  Studies have shown over time that a majority of people hate their jobs – that’s right hate, they don’t love them.  So if you’re one of those “majority of people” – question for you… Are you passionate about your job?  The answer is most likely “no”.  Are you dedicated to your job?  You most likely are but also because of other reasons.  You’re dedicated because of an image you want to maintain.  You’re dedicated because you need that paycheck to pay your rent next month, you’re dedicated because you want to buy that TV after you get your next paycheck. 

So right off the bat – I can say that in a relationship, passion is more important than dedication.  If you’re passionate within the relationship, you will be dedicated; but the opposite is not true.  If you’re dedicated it does not mean you will be passionate.

From that – I can also tell CEO’s, shareholders, company owners, you want more out of your employees – provide them a work environment that they enjoy.  Provide them a way that they will love their job.  Being passionate will lead to dedication and this dedication is not simply I’m doing this to pay bills – it’s I’m doing this because I want to.

But what is dedication?  What does it look like in a relationship?  Within a relationship – love walks and talks.  Ever hear the actions speak louder than words expression?  This is it, this is what they’re talking about.  This is dedication.  Dedication when love is involved looks like this:

 Patient, kind, doesn’t envy, doesn’t boast, is not proud, doesn’t dishonor others, not self-seeking, not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs(aka forgives), doesn’t delight in evil, rejoices in truth, protects, trusts, hopes, perseveres.

Baby Don’t hurt me – a song brought to us by Haddaway.  While yes it is accurate to say “baby don’t hurt me, no more” – again, what’re signs of this?  Again – keep in mind, nobody wants to get hurt.  Nobody wants to be told certain things.  I think the big one though is the ultimate “what is love” question.

Love is a choice.  Love is a choice you make and basically you’re saying I love you as much as I love myself.  If you love yourself more than the other person – then I’d have to say you don’t love the person.  You may think you love them.  You may enjoy their company.  This person though is your cherry on top – rather than your everything.  If you’re thinking about entering a relationship with someone remember this.  Because trust me – if the person is solely your cherry on top – someone is going to get hurt real bad.  Somebody.  That somebody may not only be the other person but will also be you.

While this love is a choice – this choice is an unconditional choice.  You choose to love this person not because anything they have to offer you.  You choose to love this person for the purpose of you wanting someone to feel loved the way you want to feel loved.  That my friends is not conditional as we all want to be loved and that is truly unconditional.  If you love that person unconditionally - the "baby don't hurt me" portion will disappear.

To be or not to be, that is the question – but there is a even a greater question.  To Love – or not to Love, that is the question, that is the choice.