Christian Obedience wrote: God commands ~ 1Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. No Excuses!!
We have no king. Be that as it may, I hope you read v14 again. It's the verse in this context that lays out precisely what authority the king, and his governors have from God. Contrariwise, they have no authority from God that calls for punishment of them that do well, and praise for evildoers.
Hosea 8:4 "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off."
pennnned wrote: --- this is an interesting point, I see you didn't get any other takers on this topic, but it has bothered me that scriptures say not to take oaths but let your yes be yes....
There are oaths, and there are oaths.
John Gill's comment on James 5:12
Verse 12. "But above all things, my brethren, swear not,.... As impatience should not show itself in secret sighs, groans, murmurings, and repinings, so more especially it should not break forth in rash oaths, or in profane swearing; for of such sort of swearing, and of such oaths, is the apostle to be understood; otherwise an oath is very lawful, when taken in the fear and name of God, and made by the living God, and is used for the confirmation of anything of moment, and in order to put an end to strife; God himself, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and angels, and good men, are in Scripture sometimes represented as swearing: and that the apostle is so to be understood, appears from the form of swearing prohibited,
neither by the heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; of the like kind; such as are forbidden, and cautioned, and reasoned against by our Lord, in Matthew 5:34 to which the apostle manifestly refers;"
Looks like it occurs naturally wrote: Fluoride in most groundwaters occurs as the anion Fâ€“. Waters with high fluoride content are found mostly in calcium-deficient ground waters in many basement aquifers, such as granite and gneiss, in geothermal waters and in some sedimentary basins. Groundwaters with high fluoride concentrations occur in many areas of the world including large parts of Africa, China, the Middle East and southern Asia (India, Sri Lanka). One of the best known high fluoride belts on land extends along the East African Rift from Eritrea to Malawi. There is another belt from Turkey through Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, India, northern Thailand and China. The Americas and Japan have similar belts. Fluoride is found in vegetables, fruit, tea and other crops. although drinking water is usually the largest contributor to the daily fluoride intake. Fluoride is also found in the atmosphere, originating from the dusts of fluoride-containing soils, from gaseous industrial wastes, from the burning of coal fires in populated areas and from gases of volcanic activity. Thus fluoride, in varying concentrations, is freely available in nature W.H.O.
pennnelope wrote: Mike, ya, that adding in a heavy metal and forcing you to pull it out is kind of like rubbing your clothes in coffee and ketchup before washing them.... what's up with that? we use dr mercolas filter, and relatively happy with it, definitely noticeable when its time to change it out, it takes out heavy metals including fluoride, arsenic, lead, mercury, chlorine, and hopefully meds through the charcoal (since the pharma industry wants every American on them, and I think they may be up to 71%). With distiller, I hear you should add minerals back in. Does that work well for you all?
We like it, and have used it for some time. We use it for coffee, some cooking, but most of our drinking water is purchased spring water. (Not purified water which is just municipal water in bottles, as you likely know) The distilled water passes through a carbon filter before exiting. Filters are about $38 a pack of 6. I replace ours every three months or so. Ours is a model 4000 from waterwise.com. Not cheap, but cheap to use per gallon. Hunt around their site, somewhere they tell why we don't actually benefit from minerals that come in water. They have a free water scam report available, too.
pennnned wrote: true, lots of people have believed that the otherwise toxic waste is "good for you" and that your entire body should be doused with it, so that your kidneys become the filter for what is not absorbed in the brain... for your teeth. anyone can look on their fluoridated toothpaste and see warning labels if you might ingest it. why are we ingesting it then?? but true to form, instead of getting informed they just decide that because they were duped that truth cannot be had... "what is truth?" they say... while you all pontificate philosophy, I would like to have to quit buying water filters to get it out of my water. ---
I'm surprised you can find filters to remove fluoride. I use a distiller, as the county adds fluoride to the drinking water, so as to medicate the folks involuntarily.
I wonder how many people know sodium fluoride is a main ingredient in some rat poisons? The heart med Warfarin is another. I remember a rat poison that was called Warfarin. We used it on the farm I grew up on.
There's a reason it says on the toothpaste tube, don't let your kids swallow it.
s c wrote: Mike,if the homosexuals are not "married in God's sight" then why do Christians get in an uproar if they want to get "married"? The florist or baker is just selling a product/providing a service. The cake and/or flowers do not "honor" any wedding. ---
Culture redefines marriage, and Christians should go along and bobblehead the idea by providing for a redefined ceremony? It's just flowers, after all. Cultural postmodernism creeps into the body, leads Christians to say it's ok, because other things aren't ok. And they don't even see it. Sad.
A temporary decrease in the price of crude as a reason for not being "economically viable" is not long term thinking. President No is merely doing what comes naturally for him, as his thinking is bent by his global warmist, as well as his anti free enterprise position. 185,000 miles of pipelines already, and they worry about pipeline leaks from Keystone? Anyone believe that?
But I'm sure Warren Buffet appreciates owning BNSF railroad system out that way. Looks like he gets to transport much of the oil, esp if no Keystone.
John Yurich USA wrote: But the official Republican platform is against abortion and homosexuality and thus the Republican Party is the party of Jesus and everybody who is a True Christian is supposed to be a Republican.
There is no party of Jesus. Half baked Republicans are no better than fully cooked Democrats.
s c wrote: --- I'm guessing that Christian business owners can cater to heterosexuals in sexual sin but not homosexuals?
The basis for comparison need be the same. Taking a specific situation, then adding generalized ones changes the basis.
Correct if this is wrong, but it sounds like you see no difference between heteros living in sin, who go to a flower shop for wedding flowers, who by marrying would be leaving that sin, and homosexuals who go to the flower shop for wedding flowers, who by "marrying" are compounding that sin.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- No, we could use more regulations in some areas including banking q.v., --- the FCC is just returning to the practices they had before to make sure there's a level playing field.
There folks is another example of misuse of language to promote a program. One I forgot that is popular among control enthusiasts, "level playing field" But it sounds good doesn't it?
Jim Lincoln wrote: If you're worried about his religion make sure he understands (The Roman Road) the next time you see him. I'm sure Franklin Graham can set him straight on that, if he can ever get over talking politics. If you want a Christian for President, re-elect Jimmy Carter. Thankfully Obama isn't stupid and ignorant like G.W. Bush, whatever he was.
The usual side-stepping, Jim. But a good idea to vote for Jimmy. And don't forget to wear a sweater to save the planet.
I remember when Ma Bell Telephone was broken up by the gov with the reasoning that it was a monopoly which when broken would lead to lower phone bills. Anyone get lower phone bills? They took off is what they did, in part to pay for the attached gov programs. How many times must we be fooled by meaningless false promises? Pay attention to the language used. "Monopoly" then, "neutrality" now. Healthcare, security, for the children, hope and change, better, cheaper, bla bla bla. All meaningless. We need wake up and smell the sewer gases.
Frank wrote: --- Now as you all know I believe that taking the oath of office for any executive level politician is taking an oath to disobey our heavenly Father. See the below for the presidential oath and all other executive oaths are similar. They are taking an oath to preserve and defend something that supports immoralities; abortion,homosexuals,etc "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Are you sure that stuff is in there, Frank? If it isn't, then it doesn't. If what politicians and judges say it says isn't there, then they aren't preserving and defending it. Quite the opposite. Their own form of eisegesis. If the pols and judges were to actually honor their oath, we wouldn't see the garbage being promoted, for there is no legal framework for them to make such decisions. Since the Con. limits what they can do to what is written in it, they go around the law, and don't uphold it at all.
One only has to ask, in what areas, when the govt gets involved, does it remain neutral? It gets involved because it isn't neutral toward that which it wants to get involved with. When the govt seeks neutrality, don't be surprised if that means you must be neutral in your ideas.
I still haven't heard of incidents where people could not go where they wanted to on the internet. Another fix for a non-existent problem?
Scott McMahan wrote: --- Strange that conservatives in general, who have used alternate media to get their message out and consider the mainstream media to be their enemies, would be so vehemently opposed to network neutrality, since without neutrality the mainstream media conglomerates would have a stranglehold on the Internet ---
Not so strange. When something is promoted on the basis of something bad might happen if we don't do something now, the conservative approach is to be skeptical.