John UK wrote: Well Frank, my dear bro, if there are three men in a room: A, B, and C. It is hardly kosher for A and B to talk with each other about C, while he's sitting there feeling ostracised and patronised. But hey, Johnny Yurich calleth thee and wishest thy response. So I leave that to thee.
Now the below definition is from the Oxford dictionary so Iâ€™m sure you will agree with it. Note; my conversation was not casual or unconstrained and to the best of my knowledge, it was not regarding details that were not confirmed. Yes, it was about another person, but it certainly wasnâ€™t behind the other personâ€™s back. NOW, IF THE PERSON IS PRIVY TO WHAT IS BEING SAID, IT CAN'T BE GOSSIP. Anyway, this is simply to let you know that your newest rabbit trail will not work. It may work with some but not all. Now I hate it when someone argues words that I use, but in your case, you used the word and then defended using it. Definition of gossip follows:
Casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true:he became the subject of much local gossip
Last one Pilgrim. You don't need to apologize because I know you meant it anyway. But, I forgive you in Christ.
Dorcas wrote: John Y, The biblical Lord Jesus Christ is revealed in the pages of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. He is my living Lord, Master, Prophet, King,and intercessor to God the Father. Not some emancipated corpse hanging from a 6' 'crucifix'above a pagan roman altar, where some man in a dress pretends to sacrifice him to his father. You can fool yourself all you want , that's your business, my issue with you is the constant blatant lies you parrot day in and day out concerning this satanic cult on the board. May God in His Mercy grant you repentance unto life. ---------- Frank, I did not see your comment as gossip. I saw it as an encouragement.
Thanks sister! Yes it was simply meant to be an encouragement. But apparently it doesn't qualify under JohnUK's definition of proper Christian behavior. But I will have to admit that is the first time I have ever told someone they did something well and then been judged as to my motive. Go figure.
John UK wrote: Thank you brother, I'm glad you saw my point.
Yes, and I just noted you think that when I post to you in a very pleasant way, that I am actually guilty of gossiping. On the contrary, I was simply trying to show you appreciation as an encouragment and besides, I didn't think I could add anything to what you said regarding John Y. One of my motives on this forum is to encourage; perhaps you might ponder your motives. Remember there is nothing wrong with trying to encourage the brethren.
Or perhaps the word gossip doesn't equate to the same thing as here in the U.S.
John UK wrote: Dear bro, I do wish you'd get rid of your ignore list, and talk with these people who need Jesus Christ, instead of gossiping about them in front of their very eyes. But bro, if you really want to ignore certain ones, please do so wholeheartedly rather than halfheartedly. Just sayin' bro, and fellow pilgrim.
I don't have an ignore list. In fact, if you look through my posts, you will see them for JohnY, SteveR and even you. What I don't normally do is get into a back and forth exchange with someone who I think are simply trolls. You recommended to me way back when that it is sometimes necessary to respond even to those I thought were heretics and I took your advice.
John UK wrote: Tear yourself away man, and give up all things of self, that Christ may be all in all. The Lord Jesus tells you to receive him as Lord and Saviour, but you only want the Saviour part, you have no intention of repenting. If you were indwelt by the Spirit, you would need no advice from folks here, it would be YOU telling us how evil is the Roman Catholic Organisation. You're not fooling anyone here with your nonsense.
Good comment regarding John Y. What he does is take a verse IN CONTEXT, but he then divorces that verse from other comments that pertain to the same truth. So, he rightfully finds a verse that says if we believe on the Jesus as Savior, we are saved, but then he doesnâ€™t look at other scriptures that touch on the same issue; like repentance, coming out from among them, being born again from above, confessing Jesus as Lord, etc. It would be like saying since David was a man after Godâ€™s heart, then God doesnâ€™t mind adultery and murder. If he isnâ€™t a troll, then he is only fooling himself. He has the same mindset as any of the cults that are out there. They manipulate scripture until it suits their carnal needs.
s c wrote: For the most part, it's just another device of satan. How many marriages have been broken up or,at the very least, compromised because a spouse got on facebook? Of course, everyone on facebook creates a preferred/overrated image of themselves which they want others to see. It's very much like self promotion. I know of a lot of teens that use it simply to get seen by many.They're "popular" that way. It's no wonder that the end result would be viewer dissatisfaction. If one cannot vicariously live through their entertainment/sports idols or try to "hook up" with someone on facebook, then,unlike the pretense/fantasy aspect of movies, facebook will just leave many discouraged with themselves.
Your comment brought up an articleI read years ago. A pastor somehow found out how many marriages and some in his churchy were destroyed by facebook and he banned his staff from using it. Apparently, people were connected to old childhood sweethearts and were leaving their spouses for them. The attractions for their spouses were wearing off and they thought their old H.S. sweethearts would revive passion. Now even though, like I said, I have never used facebook at all, I'm not all that sure if I agree with the pastors logic but he agreed with you.
Tim Gregory wrote: Thank you Franklin Graham for having the Christian backbone to tell the truth. We need more like you. Merely having a United States president with the name Barack Obama should have been a clue of things to come@
Well I don't know how much of it was due to backbone and how much was due to being in the media spotlight which gets him over 1,000,000 per year income. But,then I don't pretend to be able to speak authoratively about why he spoke out and neither do you. I say it is because he needs the spotlight to remain famous and you believe something different. I will also say that the amount in our bank accounts in and of themselves is meaningless, but Christ warned of the dangers of being rich.
Had you said you were glad he spoke out I would have left this alone, but giving him credit for having a backbone is too much.
Dorcas wrote: Btw: this organization is where the BGEA sends their RC 'converts' that they make Christians, back into.
Thanks for posting this and your previous post. You are such a blessing because of your faithfulness to the truth. The RCC has simply reinvented a Christ who is not the Christ of scripture. The only thing that is similar is the name of Christ. Well I do pray for the salvation of JohnY and SteveR and I hope the Lord opens up their eyes to see the real truth of the glorious gospel of our Lord and they are born again from above.
Now if your quotes are accurate and they are because they were simply taken from the source, then how someone could supposedly lead a sinner to salvation and then send them back there is a mystery indeed. No one could argue the legitimacy of doing that; that is for sure.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: I Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any I Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. I Corinthians 10:31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. 20 These are the things which defile a man.. Facebook is not the problem. If one is envious of their friends on facebook, getting rid of facebook will not solve the issue. It may reduce a stumbling block but it doesn't go to the root of the issue. They need to learn not only to rejoice with those who rejoice but to be content with such things as they have.
Luke 17:10. What a great comment. I have personally never posted or read a facebook page, but my understanding, especially seeing my kids, is that it is addicting to many and they can't leave it alone. Today's culture certainly is driven by something to do this whereas us old folks are "not all" tempted in that area. Good comment!
Dolores wrote: I am not debating this issue with anyone because everyone has a right to voice their own opinion of someone or some group or whatever. It's a free country,so far, and I will as long as I can. Peace and blessings to all this morning.
You have never debated this issue, so your comment wasn't a change of heart. Those who speak out against the Grahams cite evidence which clearly speaks of the ecumenicalism of their thoughts. No one has said the evidence isn't true and no one has said what they are doing is correct. Discussing the evidence presented and how that evidence is either supported or not supported by scripture is debating; not simply saying you don't see it that way. But, you are correct, you have a right to simply disagree, but please don't call it a debate.
In my opinion, you should simply be honest andsay that someone can support catholicism and salvation without Christ and still be a Christian and leave it at that? Your thoughts are that works based salvation or some form of kindness and love, trumps true knowledge. Do you think "it is likely" that Obama is a Christian or Martin Luther King? One is a pluralist and the other a Unitarian.
But, since you are not debating this issue, then I don't expect a response.
Van Shorlea wrote: But that is no excuse to concoct a religion out of it.
I like your comment. Not only is it not a reason to concoct a religion out of it, it is also no excuse for practicing idolatry, which the RCC does. All of us are guilty of doing adolatrous things, but the RCC practices and defends what they do. Remember SteveR will defend the system behind the idolatry at all costs. Notice he blamed the members and not the system. He is part of the emergent church movement and that is simply the way they think.
Was America established as a Christian nation? Now I suppose in a real sense that might depend on how someone defines something that is Christian and thereby dedicated to serving Christ, but clearly there has to be some reasonable basis for saying something or someone is Christian. What if a Christian church with let's say 200 members decided they would open up their church to other faiths. Let's say after that was done, there were 200 Christians, 50 Buddhists, 60 Muslims, 30 Jews, and the others amounted to 150. Worship services would be divided equally if possible among these religious groups. Now let's say the Christian founders of this church stated that although they felt their beliefs were in fact true and superior to the others, all of the otherâ€™s beliefs would be deemed equal in practice to the Christian's. The church would have to accommodate all of the other faiths equally and would have to conduct their church life in a manner that would not subjugate or dictate their particular mandates to any of the of the other faiths. So in all respects they were equal to each other in practice, although each faith was permitted and even encouraged to believe theirs was in fact superior. Now the question is can this church call themselves a Christian church?
reader wrote: As the ref was to the #Year of THAT Lord's reign And we know that Is the ref to the Birth of The Lord Jesus Christ, it would be dishonest to think Lord could refer to anyone else. As was clearly stated. To ignore that would be like cutting a reference to Christian so that it looks like you refer to Christ. (As I did in jest)
Anno Domini AD is scorned by pagan modernists and transformed to CE. That means CHRISTian era. Even the pagan refusal to translate the Latin year of our Lord is a concession that that Lord is Christ. Given the reverential predilection to refer to Providence rather than God ( similar to orthodox refs to G-d ) it can cause some to miss the amount of times the Triune God of the Bible is cited by the founders. Btw ,like the Feds; All 50 states reference God in their Constitution.
Well like I said, your litmus test is simply much lower than mine is. But, I agree that what you noted was a reference to Christ, and I always thought that AD meant after death and BC meant before Christ and I hope I didn't give you the opinion that I didn't think that.
John UK wrote: Good post Frank. It seems to me it is becoming increasingly necessary to hear preaching which correctly defines "SIN" in all its ugliness, and what GOD thinks of SIN. The gospel itself must define sin and sinners, and its consequences for the impenitent, as well as the great news that through Jesus Christ all manner of sin and blasphemy can be forgiven, and the sinner washed white as snow, clean and perfect before God, ready for heaven straightway. I also think one of the reasons why believers are not very conscious of their besetting sins, is because the church at large is no longer being led into the immediate presence of God, through the veil, and into the holy of holies. It is there that I will always cry out, God be merciful to me, a sinner."
Thanks for your post Pilgrim. I think that easy believism is rampant and many who claim the name of the Lord claim Him as their Savior, but not their Lord; similar to JohnY. He is either Lord, or He is not Savior. When I and others write things against homosexuality it is not hateful. It is simply saying the same thing our Lord said regarding sin in His word. But, someone who is practicing homosexuality is practicing an abomination and God's true church should simply call it sin.
Judy Berisford wrote: As Christians, we should be BETTER than hateful slurs! I think homosexuality is a sin; but the one dealng with it are PEOPLE whom God still loves!
Hey fellow Floridian! Most of the folks that post here are posting against the sin of homosexuality and those who have no desire to repent, but simply want Christ and their sins. God called it an abomination and the penalty was death in the OT and it is also referenced in the NT as an abomination. Practicing homosexuals will suffer the wrath of God if they die in their sins and most of us simply want to warn them. That is not "my" judgment, but the word of God as you know. In fact, I have never seen a post discussing homosexuals who are trying get out of that lifestyle or an article for that matter. Most of the articles are trying to make that sin acceptable to the body of Christ. So, if someone is in Christ and they are not practicing homosexuality, in other words, like most of us we bring our baggage to the cross and some is difficult to get rid of but we constantly deal with it, then God does love them the same as He loves all of His children.
Reader wrote: Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. "our Lordâ€ť refers to: Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. "in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty sevenâ€ť refers to: The birth of Jesus Christ.
Thanks for the post. So what you are saying is if someone uses the term Lord, then they are referring to something being a Christian. I have heard that argument before but discounted it because it sounded like it was really stretching things. But, I understand your point of view and thanks for posting it. Just remember, bc and ad also could be thought of as being a reference to Christ and you could make the same argument. What I am referring to is the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They donâ€™t use the name of Christ in either document and I would think if their intention was to form a â€śChristianâ€ť nation that would be a major omission. All those things simply acknowledge that Jesus in fact lived and died. Your litmus test my friend, is much lower than mine; that we can agree upon.
"Lillback points out that the Founding Fathers specifically included four references to God in the Declaration of Independence and opines that they are indications that more trust needs to be put into God when it comes to leading and governing a nation that is supposed to be free of tyranny.
Lillback added that God is also present in the Constitution, although others might disagree. Things such as the president having the option to take Sundays for sabbath and the president having to swear on the Bible when he takes his oath of office are clear reminders of how the Founding Fathers intended for the light of God to help drive the success of the nation, and protect it from human imperfection.
Some people have said that the Constitution is a godless constitution, but it's actually remarkably Christian in many ways," Lillback asserted."
Above from article.
Well as long as we stand up in the public square and proclaim the gospel. Christ is God in the flesh who took on humanity, lived a perfect life, was punished on the cross in our stead and rose for our justification, then I donâ€™t object. The problem is that will never happen in any country. Also, if the author thought this was a Christian nation, then why was the name of Christ excluded from any of the documents?
How someone can continue to support the Grahams after reading the evidence against them is truly a mystery. Why they donâ€™t argue against the evidence presented against the RCC but blindly support the Grahams who support the RCC is to me very telling. If they donâ€™t understand the RCC, then why do they object to those who do understand that evil system and speak out against it? If someone doesnâ€™t understand the truth, but they desire the truth, wouldnâ€™t they simply debate the evidence being presented and not the people? I have not noticed anyone who supports the Grahams refuting or arguing against the evidence being presented. Where is the love of Christ and the Spirit, and His word in that thought? Why would someone support their ministries in spite of all the evidence that has been shown them? When the issue of the Grahams first came up months ago, I had no idea of the extent of their ecumenicalism, but as soon as I found out through the links and comments by other posters, I immediately said to myself â€śoh they are then teaching heresies and should be avoided, reproved and corrected, NOT JUDGEDâ€ť. But the comments are twisted and those that know and are speaking the truth are considered judgmental and unloving for speaking the truth. Go figure.
Well, all I can say is if the Christ of the Muslims is said to be here, he is not the Christ that I am looking for. Muslims believe that when their rendition of Jesus returns, he will apologize for making folks think that he was God. No, when my Lord returns, I will go up and meet Him in the clouds. When my Lord returns, He will defeat His enemies, to include the same Muslims that this article is speaking about.
Matthew 24:4. And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.5. for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6.And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
23. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.25.Behold, I have told you before.26. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.27.For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.