I had several more minutes thinking about the Wikipedia article on UKIP. It looks like they made a stab at trying to be fair , and I'm somewhat certain they may have done it , but with the mixture of good and bad comments about it, it leaves a person confused. It needs to be better organized. How that should be done I'm not quite sure. There needs to be a better demarcation between even what they think, is good or bad , then there is now. Perhaps all the material you need to make a decision on this party is in the article, but you will have to arrange the material in your mind by yourself.
Wikipedia has been criticized for example for making unfair remarks about Israel. I'm not sure if their remarks about this political party are fair or not , but the mixture of positive and negative remarks leaves a person ideas about the party disorganized. Probably a --lengthy-- commentary from the party itself could make the article in Wikipedia a little more fair?
Some of the ideas that this party has I have complimented. I am anti-EU, pro-united Britain, and I support some of their social stances. Of course I would have no use for their support for the Anglican Church. I'm glad the British after worried about this one.
The main thing about the UK Independence Party, is that it does keep plugging away. The Wikipedia article on it, for what is this worth --and it is long, has material that is both favorable and unfavorable to it. http://tinyurl.com/mwlwrjm (UK Independence Party). You'll find quite a few hostile comments about it , though some positive ones as well- -with a variety of sources which you could decide to look at or not. You'll have to figure out on your own, the value of any of the comments to you. You can find plenty of comments that will support either positive or negative feelings towards this party.
Just about the only certain thing you can say about it--it isn't popular in Scotland.
Good for you Carl! I'm an Independent also John MacArthur did an excellent attack on the Democratic Party when they adopted a platform of immorality, q.v.,
John MacArthur wrote: ...as you know, Iâ€™m not one to talk about politics as such, but I was essentially amazed that one of the historic parties here in the United States adopted the sins of Romans 1 as their platform. This is a new day in our country. Parties which used to differ on economics now differ dramatically on issues that invade the realm of Godâ€™s law and morality.
Ben Rosen wrote: Senate Democrats cool to Neil Gorsuch hope to turn the hearings into as much a trial of President Trumpâ€™s respect for the judiciary and legal process as a challenge of Mr. Gorsuchâ€™s conservative record on both the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals and as a high-ranking official in the George W. Bush Justice Department....
Gorsuch will undoubtedly be asked his opinions about common social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, say court watchers. But they also expect Senate Democrats to poke and prod the judge with questions about his controversial opinions on executive power as well as his opposition to doctor-assisted suicide. All in all, it looks likely that there will be an effort to paint Gorsuch as a staunch conservative friendly to big business and a foe of the little guy.
Rev. Bassam M. Madany wrote: To draw attention to the plight of Iraqi Christians at this particular time does not imply that persecution is a new phenomenon for Eastern Christians. Ever since the invasion of the Levant, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and North Africa by Arab-Islamic forces, the condition of the native Christian and Jewish populations has been very precarious. The Islamic invaders instituted Shariâ€™a Law in the lands they conquered and the followers of Christianity and Judaism were subjected to draconian measures meant to â€śhumbleâ€ť them, and restrict their religious and civil freedoms. So the problem for Christians living under Islam has been present for 1400 years. But now in the 21st century, with the marvels and speed of world-wide communication, especially the Internet, more people are becoming aware of the persecution of Christians in the Arab world, and specifically in Iraq.
Charles Spurgeon on the Pope wrote: It is the bound and duty of every Christian to pray against this Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is, no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name.
Popery is contrary to Christâ€™s gospel and is the antichrist and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that the antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of his glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of his atonement and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Savior and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Spirit.
Mike wrote: Ah yes, the Ripon society, more moderates in pursuit of....whatever it is moderates can bring themselves to pursue.
Hmm, I must be getting a 6th sense when you answer on my posts Mike! I bet and I know I wasn't expecting to answer you this fast!
Please tell me what you didn't like about the article? It wasn't complimentary of the U.N.
The John Birch Society isn't Republican,
Wikipedia wrote: Welch wrote in a widely circulated statement, The Politician, "Could Eisenhower really be simply a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory, who is only the tool of the Communists? The answer is yes." He went on. "With regard to ... Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason."
The controversial paragraph was removed before final publication of The Politician.
The sensationalism of Welch's charges against Eisenhower prompted several conservatives and Republicans, most prominently Goldwater and the intellectuals of William F. Buckley's circle, to renounce outright or quietly shun the group....
John MacArthur wrote: The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.
In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).
Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle.
When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.
I think that 4 of the 12 points that John makes.
John points out that another John, John Calvin took a similar position.
Penny, read this from, the SA article, "This is a gracious and unifying statement from @drmoore. https://t.co/yU3FUHyJJl â€” Jack Graham (@jackngraham) March 20, 2017" formerly a severe critic of Moore So, the SBC apparently is patching things up. Naturally IFBers will pay attention to what the SBC does since in many ways we have good relations with them and often intermingle with them, but Moore is their issue.
John MacArthur wrote: .... A certain amount of healthy and balanced concern with current trends in government and the community is acceptable, as long as we realize that that interest is not vital to our spiritual growth, our righteous testimony, or the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. Above all, the believerâ€™s political involvement should never displace the priority of preaching and teaching the gospel.
Penny, John, I would think, has absolutely no worries that Evangelicals won't be interested and participate in politics. As you can see, his worry is that they won't do what they are suppose to be doing as Christians living and spreading the Gospel!
Scofield Notes wrote: # Mr 2:27 (2) Our Lord found the observance of the day encrusted with rabbinical evasions .... # Isa 66:23 (3) The Christian first day perpetuates in the dispensation of grace the principle that one-seventh of the time is especially sacred, but in all other respects is in contrast with the sabbath. One is the seventh day, the other the first. The sabbath commemorates God's creation rest, the first day Christ's resurrection. On the seventh day God rested, on the first day Christ was ceaselessly active. The sabbath commemorates a finished creation, the first day a finished redemption. The sabbath was a day of legal obligation, the first day one of voluntary worship and service. The sabbath is mentioned in the Acts only in connection with the Jews, and in the rest of the N.T. but twice. # Col 2:16 Heb 4:4 In these passages the seventh day sabbath is explained to be to the Christian not a day to be observed, but a type of the present rest into which he enters when "he also ceases from his own works" and trusts Christ.
I feel sad for Russell having being forced in a compromising position.
John MacArthur wrote: Also, many present-day Christian activists seem to be unaware of how much their methodology parallels that of liberal Christians at the turn of the twentieth century. Like those misguided idealists, contemporary evangelicals became enamored of temporal issues at the expense of eternal values. Evangelical activists, in essence, are simply preaching a politically conservative version of the old social gospel, emphasizing social and cultural concerns above spiritual ones. In that framework the government becomes more and more the earthly ally (if he can persuade it to support his special agenda) or enemy (if it stays opposed or unresponsive to his agenda) of the Christian. But the ideal human government can ultimately do nothing to advance Godâ€™s kingdom, and the worst, most despotic worldly government in the end cannot halt the power of the Holy Spirit or the spread of Godâ€™s Word.