9.4/ 10stars

≈ ×××××××

≈ STREAM@WATCH

≈ ♡♡♡♡♡♡♡

Coauthor - Dave Day
Biography: Mostly harmless.

64 Votes. 95 m. year=2018. . Genre=Documentary. Ofra Bloch. Watch afterwards online. Thank you. this made my day. Level 1 Not sure how League Pass works black-out wise in the US, but they probably have a decent deal for it. It'd be €9, 99 for me right now and if the US version is the same as the international one, you'll be able to watch it any time afterward. level 2 It will be available Monday at 7am for League Pass subscribers in the U. S. level 1 My bothers in Europe and he downloads torrents of full games (usually available the next day) level 2 Is there like a subreddit off r/nba that has downloadable links?

Don't give up! Never give up.

I'm her boyfriend I'm too Imagine this is you, Your Bias, and Your Bias Wrecker

I love how this movie steers clear of the typical racial stereotypes, the sexual stereotypes, the gay and lesbian stereotypes, and the cultural stereotypes that we typically see in most Hollywood trash films. Oh wait. Why didnt they add bud and lou instead of brUcE it's like they're trying to get rid of animated harley completely. These questions get asked a lot here. It's probably one of the most common questions I see on the other online ministries I participate in as well. My response always starts the same way: Before answering, you need to understand the lack of relative significance in the answer. Don't get me wrong - I recognize that there are some situations where the question is legitimate and needs to be addressed directly. I do give the benefit of the doubt on more occasions than I ought. But the reality is that the majority of people are asking this question from the wrong place. ARE WE UNDER THE LAW? When we ask the question this way, the answer is obvious: no. The Bible says plainly, "For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace" (Romans 6:14). Yet for some reason, people still want to use sin as the measure of their life to God. Doing this still makes sin your master. The questions of "is this sin? " or "is that sin? " mean that your life is still dictated by an avoidance of sin. Yet where does sin come from? Romans 3:20 tells us, "through the law we become conscious of our sin. " This statement raises lots of questions, so Paul clarifies this a couple chapters later: "To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law" (Romans 5:13). That is, if there is no law, then it doesn't matter if "this is sin" or "that is sin. " There'd be no way for you to know if it is or isn't, so God's not going to hold it against you. Jesus affirmed this when he said to the Pharisees, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains" (John 9:41). Because we are not under the law, we shouldn't be worried in the first place whether or not the "this is sin" or "that is sin" because "sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law. " WHAT ABOUT THE MORAL LAW? It's inevitable that someone tries to argue that there are three types of law: moral, civil, and ceremonial. They then claim that the civil and ceremonial laws were "fulfilled" by Christ, but not the moral ones, which remain valid commands over us today. There are countless problems with this view. Not to derail the conversation, the two most persuasive to me are: This classification system is arbitrary and man-made. God never declares there are three different types of law, and even if he did, there's nowhere in Scripture that says which fall under which category. Accordingly, there's incredible room for moral laws to be excluded by accidentally calling them cilvil/ceremonial; or for civil/ceremonial laws to be lorded over people as moral laws when they're not. This classification system ignores context. Consider Leviticus 19. Verse 18 says, "love your neighbor as yourself. " Let's call that moral. Verse 19 says, "Do not mate different kinds of animals. " Interesting; let's call it ceremonial. Verse 20 addresses punishment for sleeping with a female slave promised to another man. Let's say that's civil. Then 21 requires the man to bring a ram as a guilt offering, which I assume is ceremonial. A few verses later, in 26, we're told not to practice divination or seek omens. I assume that's moral. But 27 says not to trim our sideburns or edges of our beard, which must be... ceremonial? So, the tripartite distinction means we should obey verse 19, but not 20 or 21... oh, but 26 is back in, but not 27. This makes no interpretive sense - especially when Jesus says verse 18 is the second greatest command in all the old testament, then we all act like verse 19 means nothing at all. Suffice it to say, I don't buy into this distinction, and I discourage others from doing so also. For more reading: (1) this is one of my old posts; and (2) this is a more scholarly paper on the subject that's been used at a number of seminaries. WHAT ABOUT THE NEW TESTAMENT? Lots of people have made the mistake of re-branding the law. They agree that the Old Testament Mosaic laws are out. We don't need to sacrifice animals, avoid two-fiber clothes, etc. because all of that was satisfied in full on the cross with Christ. But the covenant of obedience to the law was so much easier to follow on psychological and emotional levels than a vague expectation of God's grace that we have developed for ourselves a new "law. " That is, some Christians will appropriately stop quoting OT verses to condemn people, and instead they will find a NT verse that says, essentially, the same thing. In doing this, they are re-canonizing the New Testament as "The Law v. 2. 0. " We are then taught that the old covenant of having our relationship with God being defined by the degree of our obedience to "the law" is still in place - we just don't have to sacrifice animals anymore because Jesus died once for all. See how easily that could be confusing? Do you think when the apostles were writing the new testament they believed they were re-establishing a newly codified law in which we should operate? Obviously not - which is clear enough from the fact that they intentionally avoided clarifying questions on some issues, leaving room instead for disagreement and dispute over the boundaries of right and wrong. Hebrews 8:13 says, "By calling this covenant 'new, ' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. " The old covenant was a written law, but the new covenant is the law written on our hearts. God explains this clearly in Jeremiah 31:33 - "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. " Ezekiel 36:26 words it this way - "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. " Notice here that the emphasis is not on understanding the written code as the means of obeying it; rather, it is the internal compulsion of the Spirit that prompts this result. Accordingly, we should stop looking to an external written code for technicalities if "sin" or "not sin. " Do you want to stand before God on judgment day and argue technicalities to him? Or do you want to show him His own indwelling Spirit, received through Christ's blood? Oh, but that does seem a bit vague, so let's clarify. WHY CAN'T I JUST FIND A VERSE TO TELL ME THE ANSWER? When someone asks if "this" or "that" is sin, I always conclude the same thing: *Even if I told you it is not sin, and I could show you a verse to prove it, all I have done is allowed a written law to exonerate your behavior. But that exact same written law will condemn countless other behaviors you engage in regularly - or even ones you fail to engage in. And if you want to let a written code (even the NT) be what judges you "not guilty" on one point, then you are subjecting yourself to all the other times that it would say "you ARE guilty" - and that's not a standard I'd ever want to be measured against. Even answering the question, in such a situation, can lead someone to the conclusion that their relationship with God is defined by their obedience to the Bible (OT or NT) and not by the law written on their heart. This is what the Pharisees did and it did not go well for them. In Matthew 5-7 Jesus goes through a litany of examples where people, who believed they were obeying the written code, found out that they were really violating it more than they realized. The degree to which the written code condemns you will always outweigh the degree to which it exonerates you. You're better off not using the any written code as your judge in the first place. I often ask people at this point in the conversation: When's the last time you discipled anyone? After all, Jesus discipled people and we are called to walk as Jesus did - not to mention the great commission, among many other passages that compel us not merely to share our faith, but also to raise up those who would become our children in the faith. This is what Paul did when he gave his life as a model for those in the churches he established, and then he wrote (such as in Philippians 3:15-17) that others should live in their model, and so on. Why get hung up on something that MIGHT be "sin" OR "not sin" when there are other very clear expectations given in Scripture of our lives that we KNOW with great certainty we're not living up to? No sense splitting hairs over a speck when we still have the plank. [Again, this is where I will give some people the benefit of the doubt - because I recognize that there are some who already hold this view, and do their best to address the plank, yet still have curiosities over sin issues. ] ERADICATING THE WRITTEN CODE Let's take cussing as an easy example. Some people will debate about whether or not " sapros " in Ephesians 4:29 includes cussing or only telling dirty jokes, or something else entirely. What they're doing is saying: "There is a verse that tells me not to do something. Even though it doesn't purport to be a law, because it is spoken as a command and it's easier to live by a law than an internal compulsion, I'm going to treat it like it's a law - and therefore I will conclude that everyone who violates Ephesians 4:29 is sinning. At that point, we just need to figure out where the line is that this law creates to discern who is a sinner or not - the cussers or the dirty-joke tellers. Then, because of this written verse-law, I will know how not to be a sinner anymore. " I was caught in this trap for a large portion of my life before I discovered Romans 14. The chapter, as a whole, addresses a variety of issues, noting that there are disputable matters without clear answers. "Well that's annoying, " we often think. "The world would be much better if God just told us which things are sin and which aren't. " Yet this wouldn't be practical because Romans 1 also tells us that people will "invent ways of doing evil. " Even if the New Testament did create a comprehensive law, we would never be able to have a closed canon because we'd have to keep adding to it every time someone invented a new way to perpetrate evil. KNOWING THE LAW OF THE HEART And now we come to the real meat of this post. If we ignore the written code and acknowledge Jeremiah's declaration that the law written on our hearts is the basis of the new covenant, then how do we know what is written on our hearts? What do we do with all of these disputable matters? For one, Paul says at various points in Scripture (1 Cor. 8 and Romans 14 being obvious examples) that there are some things that used to be obvious sins - like eating food sacrificed to idols - that really aren't sin after all because we have freedom in Christ from those laws. Now, that doesn't mean everything is back on the table and there is no sin anymore, as Paul clearly notes in 1 Cor. 6:12 and 10:23 that while everything may be permissible, "not everything is beneficial. " So, we could use a very basic test: "Is this beneficial/uplifting? " If it is, then it's not sin. If it's not, then it is sin. But Paul gives us further clarification in Romans 14, using what I would say is a two-part dynamic in the way we can understand the position of our hearts and the sinfulness of our actions. Part 1: Heart - In 14:14 Paul notes: "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. " That's some STRONG language. This is Paul's way of saying that EVERY behavior can be done in a non-sinful way. I often delve into a somewhat extreme example. What about watching child porn? Everyone agrees that watching child porn is sin, right? What if I'm an investigator with the FBI and I'm watching the video to discover clues hidden within the video that lead to the whereabouts of the perpetrator so I can stop him from harming other children this way? Now is it sin? Trick question: this is a 2-part test, not just 1. Part 2: Faith - In 14:23 Paul adds, "everything that does not come from faith is sin. " In part 1, Paul says that everything can be done in a non-sinful way. However, in part 2 he's now saying that if it's not coming from our faith, it's all sin anyway. This means that we cannot take the possible exoneration of 14:14 and assume that as long as our conscience is clear, we are fine. Instead, we must be able to conclude through our faith that our faith is what prompted the behavior before it becomes "not sin. " Yes, I recognize that this means that many mundane, luke-warm behaviors we have that don't have anything to do with our faith are sin, and therefore we are far more sinful than we realize. I'm okay with that - because I look to Christ to exonerate me, not technicalities of Romans 14:14, 23 to exonerate my behaviors. My life is no longer plagued with worry over whether or not "this" or "that" is sin; rather, I worry about whether or not I'm doing what my faith compels me to do. So, let's go back to our FBI agent. Suppose he catches the perpetrator through watching the child porn video. Let's add that his motive for doing this was to advance his career over one of his co-workers who he really wanted to beat out for a promotion. Now is he exonerated? No. Because his faith did not compel him toward the behavior. It is still sin. At that, Isaiah 64:6 says that even our good deeds are as "filthy rags" to God, and Hebrews 11:6 says that "without faith it is impossible to please God. " To be clear: just being a Christian doesn't change the dynamic here. Even Christians can do things with wrong motives. But suppose that same FBI agent is a Christian AND he recognizes that those children are loved by God and God has given him a role in life to protect those kids, and their protection is his primary goal. He appreciates the fact that he might get a promotion over his rival co-worker, but that's not his underlying motive for doing it - his faith is. Now, for him, it is not sin to watch that child porn video. DOES THAT MEAN I CAN'T WATCH TV? Some people get fixated on how sinful they are and can't get over that. The easiest solution is to admit it and move on with your life. Be a better person tomorrow than you are today. I believe (probably worth a separate post to back this claim up) that our God is a directional God, not a destinational God. This means that he's more interested in seeing you move in the right direction than for you actually to achieve some "ideal" (which is technically impossible on this earth anyway) and feel as though you have "arrived" and have no more room for growth (I know: the "total sanctification" crowd will differ here). So, is there room to watch TV? Read a secular book? Enjoy music? Take a nap? In these types of things, I love Brother Lawrence's statement in Practice the Presence of God: He said that "[o]ur sanctification did not depend upon changing our works. Instead, it depended on doing that for God's sake which we commonly do for our own. " There was a new guy in my congregation a year or two ago. I'd seen him a couple times, but he and his wife were always by themselves and seemed to leave without talking to anyone. So, I initiated a conversation. He didn't seem particularly interested in building a relationship, but I don't like leaving people behind, so I followed up the following week. I still got a dull reply... until I asked him if he'd seen any good TV shows. His eyes lit up as he went on about some shows that he really loved. I'd seen some, which helped build the conversation and we started to bond. He recommended another of his favorite shows that I hadn't seen. As I watched it, I began texting him about it. Shortly afterward, he begins texting back about how he shares an alcohol problem with the main character. We then started discussing his alcoholism, which had been affecting his marriage and parenting and was ultimately the reason why he wasn't interested in building relationships in the church - because he was afraid of people finding out. But because of our bond over TV shows, he was willing to tell me, and I was able to help him through that issue and find greater stability in his life. Through further conversation, it became apparent that he didn't even know if he was a Christian or not - and likely wasn't (he thought he was just because his parents took him to church for years, so he attended as a continuation of his upbringing, but didn't know if he even believed what was taught). I was able to share Christ with him and through the healing Christ gave over his alcoholism, he saw the reality of Christ's power and believed. This happened because I watch TV. And I have leveraged my enjoyment of TV shows for the sake of the Gospel countless other times in my life - and will continue to do so. I know others who do this same thing with music, and others with books, or friends who would go rock climbing and share the Gospel with those who climbed with them. Again: all these things can be done in non-sinful ways; but are you doing it because your faith compels you or because you're lazy and want to placate/waste some of your time? It's perfectly appropriate to enjoy the things we do, but becomes inappropriate if we do them with no hope or intention of leveraging them for the Gospel. This, then, encompasses basic things for our own life maintenance. Do I need to invite a non-Christian over every time I make a meal? No, because part of my job is to share the Gospel with my own family and live as a model to them. What if my family is out of town and I'm all alone? I can't very well share the Gospel if I don't keep my body, as God's temple, nourished. Yet I can also over-eat and fail to work-out, which means I cannot use "nourishing myself" as an excuse to eat whatever I want, when I want. After all, I have found that people are more prone to my influence for Christ in their life when I am fit and attractive than when I go through phases of being overweight and out of shape. That's the reality of the world we live in, so I devote considerable time to staying in shape so that the appearance of my body is not a hindrance to the Gospel - and sometimes I'll meet people at the gym who I'll build relationships with, whereas other times I'll workout alone, and that's fine too. You see, in the end, you don't have to worry about giving up all the things you enjoy. What you do need to do is transition your heart so that you can begin leveraging your recreation for the Gospel instead of for purposes that aren't produced by our faith. WHERE DOES SCRIPTURE FIT INTO THIS MODEL? I want to be clear: this model should drive people TOWARD scripture, not away from it. Those who say, "Well, if my heart is what decides what's sin and not, so I'll just go off of that, " are ignoring the second prong of Romans 14:23. We must know Scripture thoroughly in order to understand who are God is and what he expects of us - because our faith should compel us to live up to the reflections of His image that we were designed to be. The idea here is that we don't say "this" or "that" is sin "because this or that verse says so. " That's where we revert to a written code. Instead, we live a certain way based on who we see our God is. Note that the times the apostles condemn others (especially Gentiles) for "sin, " it's rarely followed by, "Because the law says so. " Rather, they explain who Christ was and how this should create an obligation in us to live better lives. That is, if we believe in Jesus and want to be like him, then our actions ought to conform to Christ-likeness. In this, the NT verses identifying various sins are not meant to be a codification of a new law; rather, they are an expression of what more mature men and women have learned about the kinds of things that are inconsistent with the character of Christ or the influence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. We should learn from those who are more mature than us - such as the authors of all of Scripture (NT and OT alike), not because their word is a law unto itself, but because they know God better and God has revealed himself to us through them, making their word a reliable way of discerning what our faith is compelling us to do so that we have a measure of whether or not our hearts are oriented in the right direction in the first place. CONCLUSION Here are some main take-aways: Don't get hung up on the OT law or use the OT law to thump people over the head. It's valuable for understanding God and our history, but the covenant that gave it any authority has passed away. (Hebrews 8:13) Don't try to force your life under the old covenant by pretending the NT is the "new law. " It's not. Don't get hung up on whether trifles are "sin" or "not sin" if you've still got bigger things to address in your life. Haven't shared your faith lately? Struggling with that quiet time? Not discipling any other believers toward maturity - or haven't asked anyone else to disciple you? Deal with these larger issues first. When you are ready to start filtering the small stuff, recognize that no behavior is automatically sinful, but that all behavior is deemed sinful if it's not prompted by your faith. Once you're at that point, contemplate ways to redeem your behaviors so that they may become a vehicle for the advancement of the Gospel, and then actually begin utilizing them that way.

The Bideogame Master of Legend. Watch online afterwards. I've listened to this at least ten times this week. I love it. Your lyrics are what get me. And that voice :3 <3 love it. Happy for u! I wish i could experience this some day. No mention of the jets literally breaking the record for injured players in a season. I watched this movie at first I was sad and I cried basically the whole movie Than I got f ing angry. Gotta love when a trailer shows the entire movie! Now all I have to do is go to the movies to see the credits. 😂.

Hes probably seen the results and doesn't want to keep going and take donations that is hard on people. It was a fight for sure. The ending is fantastic: Seliph thanks everyone for their efforts in the Liberation War, peace returns to Jugdral with new kings, queens, and heirs to the royal houses, and Seliph is remembered throughout history as a legendary divine king. Omg I love them they are just like yeah thats cool. Looks stupid. But I had no idea Mena Suvari was even still acting. Thanks for the memo. Bedtime can wait.

Watch Online afterwards. Myspace is the pits, for sure. You just hope he's regained his leg strength after being carried for a decade by Aaron Rodgers! I fell out when I heard that line. I can't believe this entire movie was over looked by the academy.I mean not 1 single nomination,then again why am I disrespectful to Alfre Woodard after all these years and great work she has consistently delivered throughout her now almost 50 year career,Phenomenal film❤.

We all this is gonna be the 2.0 Kalvin from “LIFE”. ( applause. ❤️❤️❤️❤️. Dónde puedo ver la película no la encuentro por ningún lado. Watch online after earth 2013 hindi dubbed. Linda linda Depois de partir filme trilha sonora do filme Depois de partir.

Someones Playing Kris Jenner🤨. The modern music really kills the vibe of this trailer.