The Director of the CDC, Tom Friedan, and the President of the United States, Barack Obama, are complete idiots. Whatever advice they give, make sure you do the opposite, and you'll be okay. No mention as yet in the mainstream media of the fact that AEROSOL transmission is the most infectious mode of Ebola transmission, not body fluids. Who are you going to believe?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Fuel are the big three revenue raisers for Government coffers in Australia. Government couldn't survive fiscally without them. Conflict of interest? Double standards? Hypocrisy? Why not add cannabis to the list.
"Earlier this year, Grieve said that atheists who claim Britain is not a Christian country are â€śdeluding themselvesâ€ť."
Secularists [so-called "atheists" and people of "other" religions] are too stupid to realise that all the benefits they derive from the western civilisations in which they live, vis a vis the Commonwealth and the USA, were built from the Christian foundation. These are the blessings from God of doing it His way. Those blessings will soon be replaced with His curses should the secularists succeed in destroying the Christian foundations.
Great Sermon! It's no surprise that women in general, and Judy below, have difficulty understanding equality of personhood with distinction of roles, since such concept requires reasoning/logical thought; something that women need to be taught by men, which would require submission on the part of the woman. How can women in Judy's position hope to have any understanding whatsoever of the unity of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), yet their distinct roles?
Nat wrote: The reason I only quoted a few men from the past is because to debate such an important and difficult subject online is almost a fruitless exercise. It is predictable that many will appeal to their personal experiences, and not Scripture, as the basis for their position on Worship.
The infallible words of Scripture, and Scripture alone should be our guide on such matters. This is what the Protestant Reformation was all about and why they mostly held to the Regulative Principle of Worship (only what the Word commands is authorised in church worship). This is why all the Protestant confessions rejected the Roman Catholic Normative Principle of worship as idolatry .
Since Scripture is infallible and sufficient on all matters, including important issues such as worship, why would we want to emulate the traditions of men? Since the Canon is closed, God has restricted His infallible Word to the pages of Scripture. Hence God does not inspire extra-biblical hymns, choruses, Christian Rock anthems or anything else. The book of Psalms (Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs in the book of Psalms) are the church's hymn book and it is sufficient and perfect. The real questions are: How do you know that extra-biblical hymns are inspired? God bless.
"Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law......Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him." John Calvin
AUGUSTINE "musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship." Augustine 354 A.D.
"The organ in the worship Is the insignia of Baalâ€¦" Martin Luther
Praise the Lord with the harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes. We do not need them. They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice. Charles H. Spurgeon
Great Sermon! This is a great overview of the prophecy of Daniel chapter 11. These Scriptures from thousands of years ago paint a prophetic picture of the future antichrist.
Dr. Cucuzza gives a nice balance of detail in this sermon. There is enough detail to appreciate this amazing prophecy, but not so many details that you'll get "lost in the weeds".
I think 1517 hit the nail on the head with his use of the term "gender bending." This is at the root of all this nancy-talk/up-talk/sissy-talk; the role-reversing, Satanic, gender-bending society of the end of the end times. Men being transformed into women, and women into men; if not physically, in spirit. Wives assuming the role of husbands (headship), and husbands submitting to wives; "bad girls"; effeminate men; homosexuality of both genders. And, "feminism" at the heart of it. Come quickly, my dear Lord Jesus Christ; come quickly.
As a Christian, and an Aussie, this is indeed good news. However, especially given the bent of the Greens leader (who really just wants to make a name for herself; any name), I fear it is just delaying the inevitable. In this end of the end times, male/female relationships, including those within a true Christian marriage, are difficult enough, without throwing in the chaos of abominable homosexual "marriage". Come, my dear Lord Jesus Christ, come quickly.
Or...a "poof" a "poof"? It would be interesting to do a study on how homosexuals came to hijack the word "gay". Normal people avoid using the word "gay" these days because of the connotations. In their heart of hearts, I believe "gay" people are not even gay in the true sense of the word. How could they be, with such a seared conscience? I'd like to see a campaign to win back the word "gay" for normal people to use again. I suppose it's all part of the sanitisation of homosexuality. It's disgusting, yet to be expected in these end times. Regards from Andy.
According to the article, 'the death of the baby' is considered a 'risk for abortion'. I thought the entire intention of abortion was to get rid of the baby, so why do they call it a risk, rather than a guarantee? I believe death of the mother is a 'risk for abortion'?; perhaps a small risk, but a risk all the same. Am I missing something here?