Why would God protect a nation that murders a million children a year; that allows and promotes homosexual marriage and sodomy; that promotes and encourages greed; that promotes feminism and lastly that is ecumenical. Does He also protect Russia, China, etc.? If not, why not?
 Behold, the nations [are] as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. (Isa 40:15 KJV)
 All nations before him [are] as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. (Isa 40:17 KJV)
 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying],  Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.  He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.  Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.  Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. (Psa 2:1-6 KJV)
 But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision. (Psa 59:8 KJV)
ladybug wrote: "Yes, Christ was the foundation of the RCC" -- this is an erroneous claim. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. With all that said, it's a lie to claim Christ is the foundation of this devilish religion.
Great comment sister! The only time Christ addressed the RCC was in Matthew 23, when He condemned them. I say that because they are simply the modern day Pharisees with a christian bent. There is absolutely no doctrine they have that is biblical, absolutely none.
And, they actually pray to someone that was a pro-created being; Mary, and they demand others in their devilish cult do the same. Only divinity should be worshipped. I remember growing up in the RCC and they prayed to statues, relics and numerous saints.
ladybug wrote: sc Pointing out the obvious is not bashing, if he is going to speak evil of Trump, then he needs to be forewarned what the bible states. If you are blind to his liberal agenda, God help you. It would appear you delight in falsely accusing, which stems from your legalism being exposed perhaps? In any case, have a nice day PS - if you are going to accuse, at least make sure you have proper grounds to do so. I would think you'd be too busy gearing up for Easter to take time out to 'correct' me Seems odd you would accuse anyone of 'bashing' considering your rants about immorality, immodesty, etc. against any and all who dare correct you
Hey sister! I will personally stop bashing Jim when he ceases posting. Why wouldn't anyone want to expose a troll's agenda? Are we supposed to let them get a foot-hole and fool folks? I don't enjoy in the least engaging trolls and I'm sure you don't either.
Rodney K. wrote: Wouldn't you say that the masculine references are an indication of God's authority? To refer to Him in a female or gender neutral way undermines that premise.
I agree fully with your logic brother. It really isn't much of a mystery. Only those who don't adhere to male leadership and authority would debate such a thing. He is spirit and He is my heavenly Father!
Now this is meant to be simply a general comment; not meant to include every chaplain in the military.
For many years chaplains have been restricted in what they can say and do. Like the article said; they donâ€™t have religious freedom, although they are supposed to protect our religious freedom. If their commanding officer tells them they canâ€™t do something, then they either obey or risk being court-martialed out of the military and lose their pay checks and their retirement.
The military, like our government, is run from a pluralistic viewpoint, similar to the Masons. A chaplain has no right to refuse council to anyone and they definitely cannot speak out against the religion of the other chaplains or even the soldiers. IOW, they cannot tell someone they are worshipping a false god.
And here we thought that feminism was just about abortion, egalitarianism, independence and promiscuity. (okay and also tattoos )There is much more to that evil movement than meets the eye. All Godly societies were meant to be patriarchal just like scripture teaches. The men were to be the leaders and the women were to follow in subjection as unto the Lord.
If we just look at the western cultures, we should easily see that feminism cannot be undone; our economies would collapse. Once Pandoraâ€™s Box has been opened, it canâ€™t be shut. But, keeping it out of the church is something that Christâ€™s body can and should address. Many pastors in our pulpits are intimidated against speaking out against womenâ€™s roles in their churches because if they did, they would lose their positions.
My Father in heaven refers to Himself and His holy Son in the masculine sense and He is our Bridegroom, not our bride. Since our triune God is of the same essences, then all three are to be thought of as masculine.
There is no one genuinely in the body of Christ that would alter His referenced gender regardless of how innocuous they may try to make it.
A Texas lawmaker has proposed a bill that would ban all abortions in the state except for cases in which the life of the mother is in danger.
"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. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary."
The parents of a Colorado middle school student are charging that the districtâ€™s sex-ed program allows students to access pornographic content and images from an educational companyâ€™s website while blocking parents from examining the objectionable material.
We should all remember what Jimâ€™s female political heroin said: â€śIt takes a villageâ€ť. So children who are not an inconvenience and murdered in the womb should be brainwashed by public schools; evolution, greed, feminism, sexual perversion and the list goes on.
So many parents have abrogated their responsibilities to raise their children in a Godly manner and simply turn things over to their schools, aka Hillaryâ€™s villages. Religion and sex education should be left â€śsolelyâ€ť up to the parents â€“ period.
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
He was a preacher who led an infamous march against same-sex marriage and denounced homosexuality, but he also settled a lawsuit by four young men who said he pressured them into sexual relationships.
He was a man who gave away cars and paid the college tuition of needy people, but he also was investigated by Congress after a charity he created had provided him with a million-dollar home and a Bentley luxury car.
The above is from the article.
Yes, he appears to have been simply a Pentecostal charlatan who cheated and deceived many. No Christian would settle a lawsuit unless they were guilty of the charge.
I have always been amazed that if folks act as a group then they can avoid being arrested. They can loot and destroy private property and the media gives them sympathy because they pretend to have a cause. The police for the most part simply look on.
Mike wrote: After so-called sex reassignment surgery, check his DNA. Lo and behold, he will still be a male.
I agree and they will still have an Adam's apple or the lack thereof.
I can't believe that Jim is so brainwashed that he doesn't think Obama's pro homosexual agenda hasn't affected society. In the history of politics, there has never been anyone that has come close to him.
John UK wrote: Sister Ladybug, if you were to hearken to Sister B's admonitions and wise counsel (as coming from a "mother" in the faith), you would sooner begin to mature as a Christian. You see, although you responded to my post, you could not even bear to mention my name, which shows me just what you think of me. Now, I still love you, which shows you in plain language what I think of you. I will always love you, no matter how immature I think you are. Indeed, I ought to be more mature than you, having had longer on the road. And I can assure you that Sister B is more mature than either of us, and I would have been happy to have had her as a mother, she would have saved me from much distress and waywardness.
So you are saying sister Ladybug is immature and unfulfilled? I consider her to be kind and loving with much discernment. Now why is it that you and I would differ on this? Could it be that she often confronts some of your posts and BM doesnâ€™t? I understand the need for posters to have folks that support and encourage them, but that should never interfere with the truth presented. BM has never said anything that would make me think that she was a â€śmotherâ€ť in the faith or someone who had elevated wisdom.
â€śIn like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety.â€ťâ€”1 Timothy 2:9
Excess and sensualityâ€”both of these bear on modesty. Christian women must self-consciously control their hearts and passions, instead of arraying themselves elaborately, expensively, and/or sensuously. If they are modest, they will not draw attention to themselves in the wrong way. Their dress will not say â€śSEX!â€ť or â€śPRIDE!â€ť or â€śMONEY!â€ť, but â€śpurity,â€ť â€śhumility,â€ť and â€śmoderation.â€ť
FromBMâ€™s article above.
The issue of proper Christian attire is a valid one of course, 1 Ti. 2:9,; however like many are saying it is not black and white. I believe it deals primarily with women, but I also believe a male can enter into a church with letâ€™s say shorts and flip flops, then that is also inappropriate, but of course does not violate the modesty issue. Dress is more of an issue of the heart when it applies to women, but the husband is the one who should primarily decide if his wife is dressing immodestly. However if a pastor notices someone who is dressed inappropriately, he should confront them in a loving manner.
We should never forget Jamesâ€™ admonishment in chapter 2 when he references welcoming the poor man. My guess is this poor man was poorly dressed.
I remember that my third grade teacher used to pass out candy to the kids who memorized the most bible verses. I had a good memory, so I got lots of candy. But, I donâ€™t recall any Christian teaching taking place, but we did have prayer.
But now I would say that the bible shouldnâ€™t be taught in any way in public schools. If I had small/young children, I would be the one responsible for making sure they received proper biblical teaching and not someone the school has designated. How can those parents be sure scripture is being taught properly? If I had a child in public school and found out they were teaching scripture, I would strongly object.
So, IMO, Christian parents shouldnâ€™t object to this issue. Those who are objecting to this Christian teaching, The American Humanistic Association, are right even if they are right for the wrong reason. What would legally stop a Mormon or a catholic doing this teaching â€“ nothing. If someone cannot afford to send their children to a Christian school of their choice, then they should home school, or make sure Christian teaching was not part of any curriculum.
From the internet. Tattoos were part of pagan cultures. Israel of course was not to mimic them. And if something is associated directly to paganism, we shouldn't either.
"What's so wrong with a tattoo? Cutting and tattooing were done by godless pagans of the land to which Israel would soon enter. And so God forbade His people from this practice, which they otherwise might be tempted to do in order to imitate the. Tattooing was sometimes accompanied by shaving the hair from the forehead.
MEMORIAL CUTTINGS-TATTOOING - The custom of scratching the arms, hands, and face as tokens of mourning for the dead is said to have existed among the Babylonians, Armenians, Scythians, and Romans, and is practiced by the Arabs, Persians, and Abyssinians of the present day, and also by the New Zealanders. It was sometimes accompanied by shaving the hair from the forehead. See Lev. 21:5 ;Dt 14:1; Jer 16:6, 48:37. Some suppose that reference is made in Zech. 13:6. to this custom of cutting the hands as a token of mourning."
This is usually taken to be simply a prohibition of pagan mourning rites, but there is more to it than this. Mourning was not discouraged, only those customs which involved physical disfigurement."
Rodney K. wrote: And an excellent meditation it is! Jim, you should avail yourself of this resource. It references actual Bible verses, rather than links to websites. Most of us here prefer that sort of authentication. We find that God's word is life-giving. (Hmmm... a meditation on the sanctity of life grounded in the Word of Life. Sounds like a good idea to me.) G'Day dear Bro. Frank. I pray you are doing well!
Thanks brother and I am continuing to pray for your "loved" one! I am doing fine except for the normal aging issues.
Jim is simply a liberal troll with an agenda and when cornered by the truth, he usually ignores it or posts some silly link. In other words, his ignorance is intentional.
But, I think I will add the Exodus verses to my meditation. They are easy to discount, as is his death of the mother mantra, but if they confuse some, then I will note them.
Jim is actually building an abortion doctrine based on some Rabbinical interpretation at the expense of all the other scriptures that pertain to the unborn. Amazing.
Letâ€™s look at what the word of God says, not some Rabbi who does not have the Spirit!
Rabbi Shunley Boteach wrote:
According to the ancient rabbis, The Bible talks of a woman who is hurt by a man in a fight and miscarries as a result. Monetary restitution is paid for her miscarriage. But if the woman dies, then one must give a life for a life. The passage thus implies that the fetus is not alive, but that the mother is....
The above para is yours
Why not simply say that the word "miscarriage" didn't mean the child was born dead and that the NASB term yasa simply means to come forth. You do realize that God's word will not contradict itself? The normal word used for a miscarriage that led to death was:
nephel: miscarriage, abortion
But, like I have always said, you fool no one on this forum so I wonder why you continue posting? I only respond to you for the occasional reader who stops by.
Eisegesis:-The process of taking a preconceived belief and interpreting a biblical passage in a way that supports that belief. This is a very common phenomenon, although the interpreter is not generally conscious of the process.
Oh, I wrote a meditation on abortion. Although I am not a conservative Jew, you might find it helpful.
ladybug wrote: The Jesuit troll mocks and states "Never say I made a valid point, someone unstable will call you a heartless liberal troll." Now, anyone that would consider J. Lincoln anything BUT a liberal troll must be as deluded as J.L. is. Being unstable is to follow a Satanic religion and defend it, then attempt to paint oneself as a 'Reformed believer'. Being unstable is to side with what God hates, which includes false religions and the murder of innocent babies. Being unstable is to try and defend a political system that condones homosexual marriage and slaughtering the innocent - yet claiming to be a 'Christian'. The hypocrisy of the trolls that frequent these threads is astounding. I wouldn't give any of you an Emmy for your performance at pretending to be a 'Christian', your continual defense of all that God hates gives you away. The Jesuit troll has failed his 'mission', no one here is interested in uniting with Rome. The liberal troll has failed his mission, no one upholds politics or liberalism as their 'god'. Apparently no other forum gives either of these trolls a platform.
And thanks to you and some others, they will confuse no one.
put your thinking cap on wrote: So it would be okay if someone murder your best friend, because laws against killing are morality by legislation. It be okay if your car was stolen, because laws against stealing are morality by legislation. It would okay if they burned down your church, because laws against arson are morality by legislation. It would be okay sexually assaulted your neighbor, because laws against such crimes are morality by legislation. It would okay if they came in your house to make illegal drug deals, because laws against trespassing and illegal drugs are morality by legislation. It would be okay if they blew up your sibling's house, because laws against this crime would be morality by legislation. The list could go on and on. Laws are not amoral for the most part. Your statement is what is ludicrous.
Your comment and logic are outstanding. But, let me tell you what our liberal troll is going to do. He will get a blank look in his eyes, shake his head a couple of times, and then simply march on.