If Iâ€™m not mistaken I heard Trump say that whenever someone attacks him, he attacks them back. That is such a childish attitude, but fits perfectly with his arrogant persona. I would have thought that the immensity of being the president of the U.S. would have matured him, but it appears I was wrong.
He is simply an immoral buffoon. The next 4 years will be interesting for sure.
Lady_Virtue wrote: Amen to you both, Frank and Diane. I'm convinced one main reason so many women are unhappy and on antidepressants is because of their rebellion against God's will, place, and design for them. Women were not made to live or be like men and to compete against them.
Once again, I want to thank you and Diane for your support which is very encouraging. I am amazed that feminism has been redefined by our culture and our churches. I agree that men are the most responsible. Women tend to be prone to manipulation and men simply took advantage of that for their own selfish and immoral reasons.
But the Lord is never confused and He sees our hearts and intentions completely.
I listened to the Conway interview. She never mentioned motherhood or submission to someone husbands and never mentioned having a gentle and quiet spirit and of course I could go on and on. And her kind, along with Trump's wife and daughters are now defining "conservative" feminism.
Adriel wrote: She makes a very good point and an accurate one! Of course Satan and his followers, such as Liberals, Democrats, socialists and other human satanic dogmas and religions, would not agree with her definition. They would seek to deceive by misleading, misconstruing and verbosity.
Were you referring to my below comment? If so, then I have a response I will post. It seems like you are but I just want to make sure first.
The war against women is when society encourages women to be what God did not call them to be. Our holy God designed them to be helpmates to their husbands; to have children and raise them in a godly manner; to be keepers at home, study the word of God, cook and prepare their houses for their husband and children. Not be independent. If they have time for charitable work then that would be a wonderful act of obedience to our heavenly Father. Now our society and our churches have come far from these noble commands given by scripture.
Now the Conways of the world or those â€śsupposedâ€ť conservative women on FOX news are the ones that are held up as feminine heroines by conservatives and at the same time Hilary and the Pelosies are held up by the liberals. In reality, both sides are just as wrong as the others. They are different shades of the same color. Both groups are those who can supposedly juggle their lives so that they can quote have it all. Our society has changed the natural roles of women for that which pleases the flesh of both men and women.
Oh and a carnal man would have it no other way, so in my way of thinking they are the ones mostly responsible for this cultural change. Now their responsibilities are shared in an unhealthy way.
Trump is wealthy and scripture warns against that.
Trumpâ€™s wife and daughters are now the definition of liberated women. His doing since he supports each of their lifestyles publicly.
Trump, like most conservatives supports abortion/murder in some circumstances.
Trump supports the LGBT agenda.
Trump supports the concept of greed, which as we all know is idolatry.
Trump says he never has to confess his sins to God.
Trump said that he was led to the Lord by Paula White. I wonder what gospel that was?
Just look at his inaugural religious speakers. Would a genuine Christian invite Rabbis, catholics, Muslims and whatever Paula White is? Please!
Now if someone has heard his testimony as to his Christian walk and being born again, please refer me to it. Are the rich and famous held to a different standard? They are if they pander to evangelicals.
Christopher000 wrote: Hey Frank...I'll admit that you got me thinking this over a bit. The question asking if people would feel the same if this was about the OBama's or Clinton's, etc, made me think it over a bit more.
Yes, it was at least interesting. But, I have heard both of them quoting scripture so the scenario was real. I was simply trying to get folks to ponder why we accept some folks and reject others and the ramifications of doing that.
What Christians tend to do is accept those who are conservative and reject those that are liberal. So, it becomes a cultural issue and not a spiritual issue.
Look at Mike saying I had to have a serious imagination to set that up? What imagination did I use? How is Trump "spiritually" different than Hillary or Obama. All three claim they are born again or at a minimum members of Christ's family. If someone thinks or imagines that Trump is in the faith, then all I can say is perhaps Obama is in the faith.
Oh and yes I voted for him. I will support him, but never promote him.
Lastly, there is not sufficient evidence over the years to conclude there is no difference between Trump and Obama? What exactly is the difference?
Dave wrote: Taking the Lords name in vain isn't swearing as I'm sure you all know. When we take the banner of Christ, given to us by God, Then we're trying to display examples of correct Christian values and application of scripture. In short idolatry and pretending you're someone you're not, Is taking the Lords name vain.
Thanks mate and I agree. To many, like JohnY and it appears others below, the issue is really one of a political stance. So if someone is a conservative, they are praised for something. That is what our parrot does. Now what would he say about let's say Hillary or Obama quoting scripture which they have both done. My guess is they would not stand up for them as they would Melania.
Melanie was a model who publicly posed in the nude and I have never heard her repentance. Maybe I missed that. Maybe Paul White led her to the Lord also.
If anyone is interested in understanding more about what it means to use the Lord's name in vain, simply google "using the Lord's name in vain".
NeedHim wrote: See what happens to you if you walk through a No Go Zone, basically Non-Muslims, not welcomed, & ben't deceived, right here on US soil, despite of those who don't want to face the facts, that proof is in the pudding. Regardless what polictal stance you choose to stand by. Just like Jesus says, either You are for Him, or you are against Him, their is no myth of being Neutral towards Him, either one is born again, fighting the good fight, of faith, or one is still spiritually dead in the First Adam, still amen. http://www.barenakedislam.com/2016/10/28/hillarys-islamic-america-is-already-here-where-muslim-no-go-zones-are-popping-up-all-over-michiganistan/
Good comment and I agree. The politicians in those European countries will keep those things hidden otherwise it would cost them votes. I correspond with a Christian doctor in Germany and he tells me of the stealing, rape and grabbing women that takes place and is not prosecuted at all. I'm sure Sweden does the same.
Islam also teaches it is not wrong to lie to infidels, so they do that without hesitation. But, all practicing Muslim believe they must live under a caliphate. So, they lie to gain a foothold.
John Yurich USA wrote: Starnes is correct that it is despicable of the liberals to criticize the recitation of the Lord's Prayer by Trump's wife. Dave, Naturally Starnes is pro Trump administration since he is a conservative Republican.
Well John, I am one that criticized her citing the Lord's prayer because I felt it was using the Lord's name in vain.
If using the Lord's name in vain is the issue, then I am right and it is not a liberal or a conservative issue, but a spiritual one. My guess is you don't understand the difference.
connor wrote: As far as I'm aware of, they never publicly apologized for the interracial marriage rule, they covered up a rape incident at their university, they bought paintings worth millions of dollars that are Catholic like (you know the types where it seems everyone is a homosexual...all the guys are feminine looking) I'm very suspicious at this bible college, if I want to do a 4 year bachelor's degree it would be $100,000...doesn't that seem suspicious with all that was said?
Thanks for the information! I knew about the rape issue and the interracial marriage issues, but not the other things.
I actually went there once way back when a Romanian Pastor was being given an honorary doctorate.
The interracial thing is interesting. Most don't know, but years ago it was not uncommon to teach that blacks had the mark of Cain, so they were ostracized. Even Jerry Falwell taught that for a while but then apologized and changed his thoughts.
Dave wrote: I'm sorry but I'm anti union. And I'm anti blackmail. So they should loose their jobs.
Yes,this stuff is really getting out of hand. If someone misses work without permission and the company fires them, so be it. I'm sure there will be lots of civil rights attorneys that will step up.
I am amazed at all this immigration controversy. We allowed them to illegally enter our country and then even though they committed a crime of being illegal, many don't want them prosecuted or booted out of the country.
Now, if I was poor and shop lifted to get food, I would be prosecuted and I couldn't use the excuse that I was poor and that I had a wife and kids at home. I would suffer the penalty of stealing.
I see no difference between those who are illegal immigrants. They broke the law and should suffer the consequences. I will also agree that 95% of them did it to better their lives, but we are supposed to be still a land of laws.
American citizens cannot break the law and neither should illegal immigrants be allowed to.
Kev wrote: A good thing to keep in mind is all the people who think Trump is now a Christian because he prays and so forth. Already half the country at least hates Trump now they will associate this hatred with Christianity. Liberals already hate Christians and Trump proclaiming to be a Christian well... I think a lot of this is a form of politics. Trump knows who backs him and who is against him. I hope that their prayers are real but I can very well imagine it as more of a political thing than anything else which like some have pointed is horrible to use the name of the Lord for such things as politics if that is their agenda. God knows though.
Yes Kev. Things like this tend to dummy down the gospel. The general public regards true Christianity as the only Christianity they see. Anyone that names the name of Christ regardless of whether or not Christ is really their Lord and Savior and they have been born again, from above.
Mike wrote: Having heard much about the idea over the years, we'd have to first ask if the prayers of unbelievers are heard? Most will say no. Then we'd have to ask, what is a devout unbeliever? Yet that is what Cornelius was before conversion. Anyway, you can see where it would lead. But honestly, I never thought of Acts 10 as an exception to a rule, but appreciate your thoughts Frank. What I haven't figured out is how the words to the "Lord's Prayer" can achieve disrespect or blasphemy merely by being said by the wrong person.
The Holy Spirit described Cornelius as a "devout" man. I have thoughts on that, but too long for this forum.
Read John 9:31 blw.
Anyway, there is so much on google, but the below gives my thoughts. If you want the unsaved to "act" like they are saved, then so be it. How about when a RC priest recites the Lord's prayer? Is that in vain? Does Melania understand the grace of God?
As the law of God requires of us not to take His name in vain, so Jesus teaches us to pray, â€śHallowed be your nameâ€ť (Matt. 6:9). Prayer expresses our desire to keep the third commandment. It also expresses our need for the grace of God to that end. Prayer is a recognition that what God requires of us, He also provides for us.
Acts 10:2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
2152 eusebes yoo-seb-ace' from 2095 and 4576; well-reverent, i.e. pious:--devout, godly. see GREEK for 2095 see GREEK for 4576
5399 phobeo fob-eh'-o from 5401; to frighten, i.e. (passively) to be alarmed; by analogy, to be in awe of, i.e. revere:--be (+ sore) afraid, fear (exceedingly), reverence. see GREEK for 5401
Well, I have my thoughts about why God heard this manâ€™s prayers. But, if you want to find something in scripture that might be an exception to the rule, then go for it. I tend to view the rules much more thoroughly than â€śpossibleâ€ť exceptions. Google â€śusing the Lordâ€™s name in vainâ€ť and you will find some good examples. How about Obamaâ€™s prayers? Would you consider that to be taking the Lordâ€™s name in vain?
Letâ€™s simply change the article to say; Melanie a devout woman who feared God with all her household, etc. and then I might agree with you.
John 9:31 â€śNow we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.â€ť
Dave said, Any how, what sort of a Christian wouldn't want the Lord lords prayer heard publicly?
As I stated, I believe that when an unsaved person prays a Christian prayer, then they are taking the Lord's name in vain. Now if someone believes that Melania might be saved, then they probably wouldn't object to what she did.
I am not trying to play God, but we all draw lines in the sand and that is not unhealthy.
There are many lost and confused catholics who hold to the sanctity of life. She is in the Lordâ€™s hands now and He can see her heart and will decide according to His perfect justice.
All this lady did was help legalize the murder of innocent lives. But, those who have had this procedure wanted to do it and our laws simply accommodated their desires. The law doesnâ€™t make us sin, but simply allows us to do what our hearts wanted to do in the first place.
U.S., SC has contacted me via email and asked me to forward the below message from her to you. She is apparently having trouble posting.
So, U S, should we alter the KJV of the word "gay" to be progressive? You see the problem with that.Some words change meaning with little effect but in this case, you are left with the Bible using what it uses for lighthearted as a "legitimate" word for that which is abominable. Better to leave that one alone. What if the culture changes the word "sodomy"? Same deal. And,the prayer of a righteous man avails much. We may pray corporately but that verse is in regards to discipline and is frequently misused. It's not good to take verses out of context. The use of Two or three in the verse is relevant in regards to discipline. Two or three to pray,however,is not. Otherwise, the prayer of one would be of no effect.
Diane, what a blessing it must have been for you to be delivered from feminism. Women were assigned specific roles by our heavenly Father and men different ones. But, both are equal before their Creator.