Alien wrote: How much irony is being played out in America's crumbling moral standard! Irony! America's story is satirical, to say the least. We can agree with scripture that tells us, "God has made man upright. But they have sought out many inventions." Hence, continual wars, plagues, and diseases. Consider abortion vs painless capitol punishment; euthanasia vs medical research to extend life; dishonoring the Ten Commandments vs honoring the Confederate flag; wanting laws to protect the lawless; fighting terrorism abroad vs supporting the KKK; wanting our children to be moral vs endorsing immorality. Putin does'n see our God, but division/confusion,
Christopher000 wrote: By the way, look at how fast and furious the assault against God ramped up since Mr OBama took office. Interesting timing. I actually had high hopes for him but he has contributed nothing, hasn't accomplished anything constructive, has fueled the racial divide, and has encouraged, and endorsed a much more deviant way of life as he slaps himself on the back while destroying a country (that he probably hates).
He did say he wanted to fundamentally transform it. That's also the goal when one nation goes to war with another.
The Great Dingo wrote: OK, lets get real. If the Church in America wants to stay pure as the bride of Christ, then it must remove its relationship with the government. It is time for all evangelical churches to give up their 5013c tax status, then you can say anything from the pulpit regarding sin and God. --- Congress cannot impose any law upon the practice of religion: only you can by applying for 5013c.
A bit late for quitting 501c3. The issue has now been redefined as a civil rights issue.
John for JESUS wrote: --- Mike... I will check into the capitalization because at the website I looked at "Union" and "United States" are capitalized. Also, Article IV Section 3 still says no new state can be formed within other states without the approval of Congress. Congress obviously didn't approve and neither did God.
As far as I know, the South didn't form any new States within other States, so that shouldn't be a factor in whether a State is forbidden by the Constitution to voluntarily leave the Union anyway. West Virginia on the other hand was formed out of the original Virginia in the middle of the Civil War, because the folks in the west end of Virginia favored the Union, so it was granted Statehood by Congress.
John for JESUS wrote: Mike... Some Constitutional things to consider. Art III Sect 3 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. I'd say the Confederacy levying war against the Union was treasonous! ---
Wrong premise, John. Assumes the national government is referenced.
First, re-read this section of the Const. Notice the reference to war against "them" and adhering to "their" enemies? It's reference to the States, not the national gov. The US as conceived was a union of independent States, not an "it." The "united" in old documents was written un-capitalized for a reason. "united States." United was a descriptive of the States being in agreement on some things. The national gov was established and given permission by the States for specific and limited purposes, and those limited purposes were written down. It has no further authority. As I suggested earlier, read amendment 10.
Passerby wrote: If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: (Isaiah 58:13). Speak "THUS SAITH THE LORD."
Thou attendeth not the matter, but find comfort so doing. So be it.
According to Thayerâs Lexicon, the Greek word translated âapparelâ in I Timothy 2:9 (katastol?) means âa garment let down, dress, attireâ.Â The Greek word for apparel in this text is Katastole, meaning a long dress. Kata meaning down - a garment flowing down.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Since the only thing that the Republicans wanted to do, was to destroy the ACA, it was a good thing that the Democrats ignored them. --- You can see it wasn't something that Roberts came up in the spur of the moment.
Time to compensate for your continuing support of corruption. How about something about Catholics?
John for JESUS wrote: Pennnelope... There was the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independance, and Bill of Rights on the Union side. Not to shabby! ---
If you wouldn't mind, please point out in the Constitution where a State that volunteered into the Union, couldn't volunteer out of it? Especially include your understanding of what the 10th Amendment means. It would be good of you to teach how lawlessness on the national gov side was a good thing, and how it continues to be a good thing today.
ccording to Thayerâs Lexicon, the Greek word translated âapparelâ in I Timothy 2:9 (katastol?) means âa garment let down, dress, attireâ.Â The Greek word for apparel in this text is Katastole, meaning a long dress. Kata meaning down - a garment flowing down; and Stole - a long garment, covering or wrapping.
John for JESUS wrote: --- Mike wrote: If someone running for president ignores the personal attacks, and has the backbone to stand for righteousness, they would win in a landslide. We've seen in the last few elections that wussiness loses. In context to the issue of homosexuality, I took what you wrote to mean if someone had the backbone to stand for biblical marriage that they would win in a landslide. I doubt they would, but if that isn't what you meant then I misunderstood your point.
Standing for righteousness would include much more than the issue of homosexuality.
John for JESUS wrote: Michael Hranek... Sorry, I got my Mike's confused. I meant my comment for Mike from NY. He was saying that if one of the presidential candidates spoke out against homosexuality that they would win by a landslide. I have my doubts about that!
John for JESUS wrote: It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the presidential election. It seems to almost guarantee a Democrat will win because if a Republican disagrees with homosexuality they will be branded a bigot and if they support it, less people will vote for them. I'd like to believe someone will fight it as it is unconstitutional, but I doubt it will be overturned. Our country isn't to concerned about what God says.
If someone running for president ignores the personal attacks, and has the backbone to stand for righteousness, they would win in a landslide. We've seen in the last few elections that wussiness loses.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- Legalizing unnatural unions doesn't make them natural. For Christians the question of this evil has already been answered, ---
So has your constant support of this evil's most vocal backers.