Dave wrote: Alright this will sound naive at best but,someone could've warned me about the bay whatever it is newspaper was a whateversexual friendly thingy. I just clicked on the link that says read full article.
Dave, this is funny, but I just noticed what you are talking about. I didn't notice that. Thanks!
what about the wrote: democrats, no group has been more pro "queer stuff" than the democrats. No president has pushed through their agenda more than the current one. Let us see you condemn Obama, Hilliary or Sanders on their support without any mention of the republicans since you just did a statement against the republicans without a mention of the democrats. Please don't worry people, I am not holding my breath.
Jim is simply a liberal troll. If Obama visits a RC church, he condemns catholicism. If Obama visits a mosque, he condemns the mosque or Islam. If a conservative does something conservative, he condemns conservatism and of course this list goes on and on. The only individuals or political parties he goes after are the republicans; the only ones who get a pass are the liberals.
My guess is no one is confused by him anymore, but then who knows. He calls himself an independent so that he can sort of avoid his obvious liberal agenda. He admits to voting for Obama and we can all rest assured he will vote for Hillary or Bernie.
I think you are correct that voting for anyone likely desensitizes some folks, but not all. I despise all the candidates so if I vote for someone it will be for someone I despise in a Christian sense. They are all lost and none of them are good or even capable of doing good things. The only time I didnâ€™t vote was in 2008 when Palin was on the ticket because I felt she confused the genuine church of our Lord; especially the women who are so easily led astray. I voted in 2012 because I couldnâ€™t imagine Romney confusing anyone.
I have still not decided about the upcoming one. There are no Christian nations on this earth and there never will be and that includes our founding. The last godly government was the OT Jewish theocracy. And, it is impossible for any born again, practicing Christian to be elected to any executive level position. Anyone who argues that has already been desensitized and that probably represents most of the professing church. I want so much for babies to be allowed to live and breathe and if I believe voting for someone will decrease the number of murders, then I might vote this time as well. But, I can only say from the bottom of my heart that in my case, I wonâ€™t be confused.
I did enjoy your comment and your train of thought.
Lady_Virtue wrote: Yet another ploy by the devil and those he uses to do his bidding to invert God's order. Our Lord created men first and gave them the responsibilities of protection and provision of their women and children (Nehemiah 4:14; I Timothy 5:8). When women usurp this, confusion follows, which God did not author (I Cor. 14:33). Feminism is rebellion, which is as the sin of witchcraft (I Samuel 15:23).
What a great comment and perspective sister. Thanks for providing it!
â€śFranklin Graham told the Indianapolis Star (6/3/99) that his father's longstanding ecumenical alliance with the Catholic Church and all other denominations, "was one of the smartest things his father ever did."
Case in point- Franklin Graham. In August at the Three Rivers Festival (Franklin refuses to call the gatherings "Crusades" like his father,) the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association hosted a Catholic Bishop on stage, partnered with the city's Catholic church as part of the "evangelistic outreach." Bishop David Zubik was the Catholic representative, and he was invited to give the opening prayer. Worse, seekers were encouraged to come to the Catholic church for counseling, since they were 'right next door.' Here are the Bishop's words. This is from the August 10 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
Bishop David Zubik said the [Franklin Graham Three Rivers] festival dovetails with calls by recent popes to a â€ťnew evangelization,â€ś bringing back cradle Catholics who drifted or became estranged from the faith.â€ť
The above is from the internet and it specifically deals with FG, not BG. Also, FG never condemned his fatherâ€™s ecumenicalism and as noted above the apple didnâ€™t fall far from the tree.
Dorcas wrote: Robertson is an elder at his CoC assembly. So yes we are to judge his doctrine and his fruit. He has bad theology concerning original sin, that people are not born sinners, and other strange ideas..go to you-tube and watch some of his speaking engagements that he has given in evangelical churches.
Thanks sister. The only thing I was aware of is he believed in baptismal regeneration. IOW, the water and the ceremony somehow saves someone. Like God is some type of genie, rub Him a certain way and He will respond in a certain way; or something like that. The RCC thinks the same way.
Scihte backwards wrote: Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do. --- History shows that where ethics and economics come in conflict, victory is always with economics. Vested interests have never been known to have willingly divested themselves unless there was sufficient force to compel them. -- Economics forces the word ethics to be defined as fitting the definitional needs of "the love of money". Revelation is required to know truth. 2 John 2. For the truth's sake,which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us forever. The Bible must be used to define ethics or a lie is forced upon you.
What a great comment thanks. It was a blessing to me and others for sure. Our holy scriptures are being defined by the different cultures instead of scriptures defining cultures. We have it backwards.
Dave wrote: Gday Frank Lord bless, I would ask, are you saying what he said regarding same sex union/ marriage is incorrect. With no ill will toward you mate, And I'm talking about having fellowship with him at all. My belief is the train of thought that lets find common concepts then not worry about the real gospel is dangerous and slippery slope, don't get me wrong. :-)
Dave, your question as to whether or not I believe that homosexual marriage is evil is pretty complicated, so I will have to think about that.
I believe that we can agree with what someone says without supporting them. And, I can disagree with someone and support them personally.
Yes, there is a fine line between contending for the faith and heresy hunting. Sounds a little like John UK accusing Ladybug and me of being "primarily" heresy hunters. Why someone wouldn't want to expose a heretic is a better question.
To be honest, whenever I read or hear anything from a person, I generally try to find out what their doctrines are before I comment. IMO agreeing with someone is different than supporting them. My way is not absolutely necessary, but that is part of my theological bent. If you want to call that judging or heresy hunting, then I disagree.
Rodney K. wrote: Oh, well. If it's legal, I guess that makes it ok. As for your solution, it's the same solution liberals have for everything. Throw money at the problem. That fixes everything. What if I said, "I'm going to find Jim and slaughter him (not really) unless everyone on this forum shells out some serious dough." Do you see how rediculous that is? Good grief.
No brother, he does not see how ridiculous his thoughts are. But, I want to thank you for engaging him because he could confuse others by his comments. He appears to have a poor understanding regarding the Holy Spirit saying we should obey God and not man. It appears he wants to pay them to obey.
I'm pretty sure he thinks that since God is responsible for our leaders, then when those leaders establish immoral laws, we should obey or condone those immoral laws. No, when there is conflict, we obey Christ and not some court's decision.
Hope all is well with you and your family and you have a blessed day!
Jim Lincoln wrote: http://tinyurl.com/boyhvql (What Reduces Abortion Rates?) from which, " (Many social ills tend to diminish with economic growth, and many pro-lifers would agree that a general increase in prosperity and human flourishing can do as much to reduce the abortion rate as any law or custom.)"
Ah Jim, I guess that means you will vote for Bernie instead of Hillary. Bernie would probably agree that if you give thieves more money, they won't steal. Give drug dealers money and they won't sell drugs. And now you are saying that women are such a pitiful group that if you provide them with healthcare and paid maternity leave (I am guessing) they won't commit murder.
Dave wrote: Can't we agree when someone points out sin, even if we don't agree with their rake on doctrine. Ie: Roman catholic official stance on same sex union/marriage. I think as a whole we are fed up with church authorities deceiving and manipulating scripture to suit their own agenda, that being said ( I include myself here) ; Really anyone who declares things that God finds abhorrent we should support them inn that particular statement, not give credence to their incorrect doctrines though. But then we're left with the dilemma that we can't allow apostasy to creep in just because we agree on one aspect of the bible? I almost sound like the one here who harps on about only taking part in the scriptural parts of rcc mass ( is there any! No). So I suppose I'm saying yes Phil is right , regarding homosexuality and moral decline. That doesn't mean I agree while heartedly with anything else he says of God . Its a fine line between contending the faith and heresy hunting some times.
If they aren't in Christ, then they are being used by satan regardless of what they say or do. Are you saying a bad tree can bear good fruit? The signers of the Manhattan declaration and the ECT said the same thing; sort of the greater good concept.
Moses wrote: Other religious leader like Dr. James White, the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a prominent militant anti-KJV guru, thinks otherwise. In fact many Chrislams agree
I have never read or heard Dr. White suggesting those who read the KJB are sinning or that someone should do them harm. Or are you using the word militant for emphasis. What did this post have to do with the KJV?
If you are a KJVO fellow and believe that using any other version is sinful, then just say so. We have plenty of "textual critics" that will agree with you on this forum.
Also, can you provide a link where Dr. White said or suggested that Islam was okay in any way?
Oh and for the record, I know who Dr. White is but not "all that" much more. I have listened to few of his sermons and none were heretical. I remember years ago emailing him about a topic that I disagreed with him and he ignored me.
Dr. Jeffress is a media, political pastor and I ignore him. Anyone who is a FOX news commentator must be ecumenical even if he doesn't admit it from his pulpit.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Thanks for your response, still waiting for the Bible verse that backs up your position.
Luke 17:10 Hello brother! I think what you are saying is if I look upon a woman to lust for her; that isnâ€™t as bad as if I commit adultery with her. If I am angry with someone, that isnâ€™t as bad as if I murder them; if I marry a woman that isnâ€™t saved, that isnâ€™t as bad as if I marry someone of the same sex. And of course my list could go on. I understand how evil lust is, but I donâ€™t want to be like some of the Pharisees who walked with their heads down so they wouldnâ€™t lust and then ran into things. All sin is evil and any sin keeps us out of heaven unless we are in the Lord.
I remember years ago now where you corrected my thoughts on this subject and I admitted you were correct. I said that being angry with someone was the same as murder and you corrected me on that issue. Now with that said, you would also say we shouldnâ€™t wink at or overlook any sins in our own lives and when we reprove others, we should always analyze our motives and our personal walk with the Lord before doing so. I often have the beam in my own eye and donâ€™tâ€™ see my brotherâ€™s/sisterâ€™s sin correctly.
NeedHim wrote: Martin Luther King, Jr.] once said, â€śThe Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.â€ť How can the â€śDreamâ€ť survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.
But, MLK received the Margaret Sanger award and his wife made the following statement prior to giving his acceptance speech.
Mrs. Coretta Scott King delivered her husband's acceptance speech on his behalf.
Before reading Dr. King's speech, Mrs. King declared, "I am proud tonight to say a word in behalf of your mentor, and the person who symbolizes the ideas of this organization, Margaret Sanger. Because of her dedication, her deep convictions, and for her suffering for what she believed in, I would like to say that I am proud to be a woman tonight."
Me again. And, I have read he was a unitarian in his beliefs and southern baptist for political reasons. He did not believe in the trinity or the resurrection. And like I said on another link, he openly committed adultery on his trips. Not sure what all of the following covers, but it was definitely anti-King being a Christian.
Christopher000 wrote: Frank wrote: "When I was baptized and confirmed by my RCC priest as a young man, it meant nothing. My heart was full of lies and I understood nothing." I cringe when I see infants baptized into the Roman faith, which according to them, imparts salvation, sealing the eternal deal as long as they don't commit a mortal sin, like leaving the church. I also cringe when I hear about confirmations, post catecism. All part of the "process" of salvation. Makes me so angry that these kids are indoctrinated from childhood into such a false system and encouraged not to read the bible, but to get all they need and any questions answered, even forgiveness, through a minion of Satan, disguised as an angel of light. Enraging.
Actually, even though I attended the RCC throughout my childhood, I wasn't baptized and confirmed until the age of 14. I was given a baptismal name confirmation name at that time. But, after entering into a real discussion with a real catholic apologist, he informed me that I had "excommunicated" myself. He said, you truly understand catholicism and still reject it, so you are excommunicated. THANK GOD.
Thanks Rodney, I am pretty sure the Campbellites believe in baptismal regeneration.
The more Christians study their scripture and work out their faith; the more kind, loving, generous and peaceful they become. The new birth demands that we follow the teachings of the Holy Spirit and what a loving God He is. IOW, they become Christ-like; slaves and disciples of their Lord.
The more an Islamist studies their scripture, the more terroristic and hateful they become. So, if Obama is leading folks to study Islam more by saying it is intrinsically peaceful, then he is leading them to become terrorists or at a minimum hateful. If we want to do away with terrorism, simply ban Islam and that will go a long way in doing that. Can we do that under our constitution that so many worship; of course not.
Ironically as the end times become closer and closer, Christianity will be the one that is banned as a hate group.
Water baptism is a ceremonial command that â€śall Christiansâ€ť if given the opportunity are to undergo. It tells the church as a public testimony that you truly have been born again and now belong to Christ. You have been symbolically buried with Him and risen with Him and baptism is a symbol of the new birth(Ro. 6:4, Col. 2:12). Mankind has nothing to do with their spiritual new birth; the same as their human birth and baptism is something that is done by mankind. All aspects of salvation are heart issues only is easiest way for me to understand it.
When I was baptized and confirmed by my RCC priest as a young man, it meant nothing. My heart was full of lies and I understood nothing.
If baptism saved, then the apostle Paul would have certainly worded the below differently. We should use all scripture before we arrive at any theological point.
 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;  Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.  And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1Co 1:14-17 KJV)
Well Jim, as you know the alternative I would give them is imprisonment. Now since you often bring up the life of the mother, read the below and let me know if that exception still holds.
This is from a pro-life site so it is biased towards doing the right thing. Notice how it is worded versus your pro-death agenda. 99.99999 percent of abortions are for convenience sake; plain and simple. Whatever percent that is left, should be done in accordance with the below. This is just so you donâ€™t confuse anyone.
The below was written by medical doctors.
"When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the motherâ€™s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the motherâ€™s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.
s c wrote: Since a lot of MLK's material was not original and was plagiarized,maybe they're questioning the wrong source to begin with. A rotten foundation is of no use.
I didn't read the article!
If memory serves me correctly, which is unlikely, then MLK did not believe in the virgin birth or the deity of Christ. He also freely committed adultery on his wife when travelling and simply said that God wouldn't want him to be lonely. IOW, he practiced adultery openly.
I remember attending a church once when the pastor started using MLK as an example of true Christianity. I never went back.
But I did the same thing when another pastor extolled Rick Warren.
MLK was simply a social activist, no more, no less. And, I could care less what he thought.