Your new refrigerators, coffee makers, let alone new t.v. sets could really pose a threat to you.
Spencer Ackerman and Sam Thielman in New York wrote: Online threats again topped the intelligence chiefâs list of âworldwide threatsâ the US faces, with the mutating threat of low-intensity terrorism quickly following. While Clapper has for years used the equivocal term âevolvingâ when asked about the scope of the threat, he said Tuesday that Sunni violent extremism âhas more groups, members, and safe havens than at any other point in historyâ.
Domestically, âhomegrown extremistsâ are the greatest terrorist threat, rather than Islamic State or al-Qaida attacks planned from overseas. Clapper cited the San Bernardino and Chattanooga shootings as examples of lethal operations emanating from self-starting extremists âwithout direct guidance from [Isis] leadershipâ.
Neil Ormerod wrote: Having lived with this issue for some 20 years, the only solution I can find is a "one strike" policy - one strike and you're out. In the face of credible evidence of abuse, a priest should be "reduced to the lay state." This is not about being unforgiving; surely forgiveness is available to all. But forgiveness does not equate to full restoration to a position of trust within the Church once that trust has been so wickedly abused. No second chances.
Rodney, please read the one I just put up but Phil Johnson did an excellent job of Christians acting like Muslims and Catholics involving themselves in politics!
Phil Johnson wrote: ...Americaâs moral decline has accelerated dramatically since evangelicals became politically aggressive in the late 1970s....they have been remarkably ineffective when it comes to using politics to reverse Americaâs moral and spiritual decline. In fact, if you measure their success or failure according to their own stated political ambitions, evangelicals have failed spectacularly in Americaâs political arena. Over the past quarter-century, they have not accomplished any of their long-term legislative or constitutional goals. ....Evangelicals have become accustomed to compromise. They have abandoned (or else are in the process of abandoning) virtually all the doctrinal distinctives that made them distinct from Roman Catholics and nominal Christians whose faith amounts to a kind of civil religion. Evangelicals have pretty much forfeited whatever real moral and spiritual authority their movement ever had.
A good article to read, I think most here will approve of it.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.... 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, âThis was he of whom I said, âHe who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.ââ) 16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.---ESV
Penny, I have little problem of you trying to pass laws against abortion, with alternatives for mothers. If you think that is really going to accomplish something what a foolish waste of time!
'If "Christian activism" is God's will, Paul would have been the first to pursue it fearlessly at whatever cost. Yet Romans 13 tells us to obey rulers, and 1 Timothy 2:1-4 to pray for them -- not to attempt to change them by coercion. It is not only foolish but counter-productive to attempt to persuade the unsaved to live like Christians. They can't do it -- and if they could it would only blind them the more to their sin and need of a Savior.
'"Christian activism" involves today the well-meaning but foolish attempt to force "Christian principles" upon a godless society through more effective lobbying, larger demonstrations, and greater "social upheaval" than the homosexuals, abortionists, or pornographers can produce. But rather than pressure the ungodly to live like saints, we must win them to Christ that they might live wholly for God.' excerpt from, ---http://tinyurl.com/ypago4 "Christian" Activism?
The people you're trying to force to Christian ideals thinks it moral for women to have abortions
Actually, when it comes to elders there were a few who did stand up for what was right, and got relieved of duty. I found this interesting commentary about the whistleblowers in the Driscoll problem. Silver Lining in the Mark Driscoll Scandal. It's an interesting read. And like a bad penny, Mr Driscoll has seemed to returned.
John Yurich USA wrote: Why would anybody in their right mind believe that Billy and Franklin Graham do not preach the biblical doctrine of salvation that salvation comes only through embracing Jesus as ones Lord and Savior and trust in Him alone for salvation? They have preached in every Crusade that the only way to become saved is by embracing Jesus as Lord and Savior and trust in Him alone for salvation.
Laura Turner wrote: It is possible that Driscoll has learned from his past mistakes, and that he moves to Phoenix a wiser man. But a slight increase in wisdom isnât all that is required of him, and he certainly hasnât shown enough to bow out of church leadership altogether. He should find a new job for a while; one that doesnât involve leading anyone or taking a paycheck from a church. His family needs to heal. His community needs to heal. Real wisdom in this scenario would involve humility, a total accounting of mistakes and responsibility, repentance, and a lot of unglamorous work. I donât think heâs ready for that. Sadly, neither is Phoenix.
excerpt from the article that SA highlighted. As I said, it is a good article and should be looked at it in its entirety. It is not a long article either.
Ah, GSMontana read the excellent article that SA put up about Mr. Driscoll! The answer is no, to your questions
Laura Turner wrote: Driscoll has left a wake of destruction so severe that the entire network of churches he founded had to shutter its doors. He has never taken full responsibility for his abusive tactics, never apologized to many of the individuals who he wronged, and doesnât appear to have absorbed much of a lesson at all from his failings. But heâs back again, like a whack-a-mole. This is what happens when church leaders donât take responsibility for their actions, and donât engage in the kind of counseling they need: They simply pop up somewhere new to wreak the same havoc in a different place.
Katie Zezima wrote: "Not to take corrective action is tacitly saying eh, itâs okay, or as Hillary Clinton said after Benghazi, 'what difference did it make?'" Carson asked. "Iâm not saying it levels to the level of Benghazi, Iâm saying itâs the same kind of attitude ... itâs water under the bridge, letâs not deal with it."
You had better point out those lessons, Mike (Mike that is you isn't it? and not Tony ? ) and how it applies to my commentary. Oh, something that is pretty good in that particular neck of the woods. Christian Fellowship Church. Billy Graham's old haunts, I would have some difficulty with.