B. McCausland wrote: However they are universal because they represent God's will for man.
Then why is it not commanded or commended by God to man for over 2500 years? No Sabbath observation by any of God's people until after the nation of Israel left Egypt. If its is universal to all men, why does God say that His law was made to distinguish Israel from the heathen nations?
BibleSays wrote: Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. In other words, if you have evil in your heart, and you are not reddemed by Christ, your actions will often be evil.
Don't want to sound like a Trump supporter and agree that what is in the heart comes out in the external. But you have remember, we are not electing a dictator and there would be those who would say that none of the candidates are born from above. If Trump uses his private jet to carry a critically ill 3 year across the USA for treatment, is that something that is bad? Have not checked, but am sure his charities have helped many people. It is not done for the glory of God, so it doesn't measure up to God's standard, but to say that everything any candidate does is bad because they are not redeemed might be a stretch. Even Jehu received praise for the right that he did.
TMC. you use the example of voting for Stalin and Hitler, is one that you would not have without the backward look of history. You would not have known(using your analogy) that at the time they were "running" for their position that they would be the despots they turned out to be, because they did not "run on a platform" of executing millions.
It appears that the compromise of which you speak is one of supporting Trump's casino's, marital infidelity, clubs, etc. Thing is, as UPS has stated, that is not the positions on which he is running. So a vote for Trump, if he is the nominee, is not a support of his lifestyle or business practices. As the Republican nominee, he would have to run on their platform, which might even include the defunding of Planned Parenthood.
Shane wrote: Just wondering... You specifically called out those who didn't/aren't voting as being the ones who put the most evil ones into power. Sorry, not true, no matter how you want to reason it in my opinion. The other posters you brought up were discussing politics. Not necessarily calling out those who stayed home. Agree to disagree. Mike... The assumption is that a Mormon would have not advanced evil causes as the current pres. does. I see the logic behind that. But it's still an assumption that tells believers who stayed home "shame on you, look what you've done." I don't agree nor do I think it right. I remember voting for Bush because he was a "Christian". Well, he turned out to be a liar. Also,Installing the Patriot act (which will never go away) to allow the government to spy on you, amongst other things. I understand 9/11 was the reason, but that's a discussion for another time perhaps. Frank... Thanks for the encouragement brother. The conscience is a precious thing. Precious.
Ok Shane, I will agree to disagree with you my friend. You can sit there and say that my conclusion is wrong but as Mike pointed out we have an election results in 2012 that says it is correct.
Shane wrote: Thanks for your help response. I think your biblical example validates my point about prayer. Although God already has his plan. But you didn't answer my first question. If you think it important to vote in an election for the lesser of two evils, for whatever your reasoning, fine. But throwing a guilt trip on other believers for praying instead of defiling their conscience?
Oh no, I realize that people don't answer to anybody but God Almighty. I was just saying there is more than one side to this story. Fine if you don't agree with me, just putting it out there for people to ponder. I never said you shouldn't spend time praying about this, not sure why you thought I did. However, if you are talking about dictating to people's conscious then maybe your thoughts should have been directed to Geff who has told anyone supporting Trump they are out of the will of God. Or maybe to John 8:32 who has called anyone who votes for Trump a compromiser. Nothing wrong with pointing out Trump has problems, being judgmental because others don't see things your way is quite different.
I can't predict the future and I certainly hope that Donald Trump is not the Republican nominee. But here is the most likely scenario if Hillary wins the election that certainly would not happen under a President Trump. Illegal aliens will get citizenship or at least the right to vote. There goes your Republican Congress and no more Republican will win the White House again. Yes, there is good reason to vote against Hillary even if its for the Donald.
I believe God works through means Shane, read Ezekiel 36, after God specifically said several times what He was *going to do*, we find the verse at the end of the chapter, I will yet for this be enquired of by the House of Israel.
Geff wrote: Just Wondering, Did I ever say anything about voting for Hillary? To say I did would be a lie. And under the same logic, a vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, because Trump has no chance according to the numbers of beating Hillary. Hillary beats him by a land slide in conservative numbers! If I'm not pulling a ballot for Hillary, then don't give me this garbage about how I'm voting for Hillary! P.S. Thanks J. B. Adams!
yup, even if you ignore the obvious, your are not voting against Hillary, he is that is not against us is for us to turn a biblical statement around, and you absolutely cannot prove that any polling done this early was ever an accurate indication of what will happen in the general election, they said Carter/Reagan was too close to call right up to the election day and Carter conceded before voting was over. Jay Jay, I fail to see how President Hillary is doing what is right. She is far more radical and evil than Trump. Yup, a R by his name, that is current way our system works in case you haven't figured it out. But you, TMC, you don't think Hillary would be worse than Trump? It won't bother your conscience that you help put her in office? okay.
Geff wrote: Just wondering wrote: what are all you "principled" people going to do if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee? I'm gonna vote third party, or not vote at all. It is much better than forsaking principle and voting for evil!
translation, my principled stance is to not vote against Hillary winning the election, my principled vote is for Hillary. Interesting. But wait, that is not voting for evil.
what are all you "principled" people going to do if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee? Stay home, strategy worked "great" in 2012, gave us the disastrous last three plus years of the current administration with its economy destroying edicts, the pushing of the sodomite agenda that is now being used to persecute Christians and allowing of immoral men into women's bathrooms and locker rooms, just to mention just a couple, well, that didn't work out very well. Vote third party, that gave us Bill Clinton and his disgrace of the office of the presidency, the cause of the financial collapse at the end of the Bush administration with the Community Reinvestment Act being enforced, and his wife as a presidential candidate, another failing idea. Just wondering
Geff wrote: Just wondering writes: "Geff wrote: THBCC, And please stop boring us all with your reasons you're supporting a God hater for president. Really, we've heard quite enough Trump propaganda lately! if you would stop writing stuff because he told you too? You think only your opinion has a right to be posted? You the new moderator in town? Just wondering" No that's not what I'm saying. Of course he has the right to post on here, I'm just asking him to stop it with all of the annoying shouting about Trump. My ears are begining to wring from all of the all caps and exclemation points!
Well have you consider looking in the mirror? Seems to me the easiest way to avoid it that which you say is bothering you would be to skip over it and not read it. That is what most everybody else does. It is not like it is hard to pick up which post are his.
GSMontana wrote: sc may be referring to the women on the show being immodest. I've never watched it since I don't watch tv (and wouldn't watch redneck reality shows even if I did), but I have seen pictures of the family on a book and remember one of the women being immodest.
got it, thanks, sc is saying If ladybug goes to a family reunion and there are relatives and friends there who don't share her view of modest apparel and the she is having a discussion of the perverseness of the sodomite movement, the fact that she is willingly at that gathering silences her witness. Jesus was teaching moral perfection before you could speak out against sin, not humility and self-examination. Got it
Ladybug wrote: The Robertsons believe in baptismal regeneration. This is interesting as well- http://pulpitandpen.org/2013/08/16/why-christianity-doesnt-need-duck-dynasty-or-other-celebrities/
appreciate the link, thus it is good not to follow his doctrinal teachings. Probably he has other issues when you think of the entertainment business, still doesn't explain the sc comment about sexual immorality, especially when the thumbnail bio has him speaking against it. Just wondering
s c wrote: Some moral endorsement- like the kettle calling the pot black. Maybe Robertson should pull the beam out of his own eye when it comes to immorality so that he might see more clearly to deal with the speck in others. So many "Christians" who protest sodomy are steeped in sexual immorality themselves.
sorry, not an endorsement of Mr. Robertson, but what are you talking about, he has what is describe as a rock solid marriage and has not been involved in any infidelity that I could find.
s c wrote: ...just the fruit of a nation that wants to do it their way. No surprise. We embrace lewdness,promiscuity,glamorize prostitution,wink at infidelity,cram porn/immoral pictures down the throats of all to see,encourage our little girls/young women to dress like whores,watch slutty television programs like nfl football and dancing with the stars and other "reality" shows and then we wonder why men are so uncommitted.
so that makes it ok? Elbret from Belfast lamented the effects on the children. Tell me where you show any sympathy for those who are suffering. They got was coming to them, is that the attitude we should have? just wondering
because the person immodestly dressed isn't demanding a cake celebrating nakedness. Because the fornicator is demanding a cake celebrating immorality. Because the drunkard isn't demanding a cake with a bottle of whiskey as a topping. Because the thief isn't saying you need to bake a product that honors stealing. These same businesses would turn down a cake honoring abortion or rape. If you can't see an agenda being pushed by the LGBT group to shutdown and silence any opposition is different that what others are doing, then you haven't been reading the news articles here at SA.
It would be nice for a return to morality and decency in our society.(see II Timothy 3:13; Matthew 24:37) However, spending time condemning those who take a stand for righteousness because it is not at the top of your list of ungodly practices seems a little over the top.
We all struggle with sin, so technically all of us are hypocritical. Should your witness be silent because you sin against God? Should you stop reading the Bible because you have disobeyed it? What happened to a bruised reed shall He not break and a smoking flax shall He not extinguish attitude? Are we not to bear the infirmities of the weak? Far different than saying they got what's coming to them.
Now Lurker, not sure how that is a fair response when I actually did what you requested. Not only that I have neither stated my position nor condemned yours. You stated that if I read Isaiah 49 and compared with Acts 13:47 I couldn't help but see your view. I believe I demonstrated that it does not necessarily do that. (sorry I don't get your Holy Spirit comment,are you saying my examples are inaccurate?) I do not question your scholarship or even the many fine points made by others.
I am trying to point out that in the area of prophecy it is just not all black and white. My questions were legitimate questions and I appreciate your answers. I am thankful for your willingness to exhort in these areas.
It is obvious not all viewpoints can be correct. I don't believe if a pre-trib rapture occurs anyone will be saying I told you so on the way up. I don't think Christians will be comforted in the tribulation they face by someone saying I told your eschatology was wrong. (not saying you have said or insinuated that)
Not trying to press this conversation beyond your willingness to respond. So, will drop out of discussion and just read whatever your response is, if you chose to give one.
s c wrote: If wedding-related businesses hadn't already compromised in catering to the fornicators and adulterers, they may not be in the position of having to set boundaries now when it comes to the homosexuals. Soon, we may be asking the same question when it comes to the union of pedophiles, beast lovers and incestuous partners. Welcome to the land of the "free".
So, are you saying. 1. business should only serve people they have checked out as living a godly lifestyle? 2. Are you saying businesses shouldn't have any boundaries because they served a person involved in sin? 3. Are you blaming the business for the actions of its customers? 4.Are you saying that only businesses with signs that say we don't serve fornicators and adulterers can also turn down homosexual wishes to honor their lifestyle? 5. Do you truly believe that homosexuals would not persecute these businesses had they done as you had said and not served fornicators and adulterers? 6.What is your understanding of first Corinthians 5:9,10?