Jim Lincoln wrote: --- What's all this talk about Christianity on this thread? Everyone knows that Who Are the Evangelicals?--Gallup at least the White American Evangelical has almost nothing to do with Christianity ---
Oh thank you for qualifying a racist remark, Jim. You did say "almost" after all.
btw, we need not pretend too much- Gore won more Catholic vote than Bush, yet lost, and Obama won more Catholic vote than McCain or Romney, and won. Not sure why your concern over Trump winning it this time.
From the news: "Affirming the aim of â€śeradicating discrimination,â€ť McCloud wrote in her opinion that the stateâ€™s nondiscrimination law takes precedent over religious belief, even if it â€śsubstantially burdensâ€ť constitutional, religious, free-exercise rights."
She has declared herself unfit, and should be recalled. Her opinion is not only unlawful, but illegal. The First Amendment cannot be lawfully superseded by a judge's opinion, nor does any State law take precedent over the Constitution. Where is the law that requires obedience to the unlawful? The law of the land is on Stutzman's side; the judge's opinion is anti-law.
I hear what you're saying, Jim. But all I said was liberal Catholics voted for Clinton. They did. And liberals of any stripe are the ones promoting the things of 1 Cor 6:9. It doesn't matter if conservative Catholics voted for Trump. This is merely your way of diminishing Trump's win. After all, if Catholics voted for him, it must be an invalid election, right? And since you incorrectly imagine you can say nothing directly about a sitting president, you can say it indirectly, right? Isn't going to work, waste of time. A bit dishonest, too. Let me ask a very simple question, did liberal Catholics vote for Trump or Clinton?
Jim Lincoln wrote: Mike of N.Y. Ah, once again, God had this to say: 1 Corinthians 6 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.---NASB There wouldn't be any or very few Romish priests left in Washington D.C. either, Mike. Catholics were big supporters of President Trump so their support of homosexuals will not go unnoticed. (Catholic Priests: It's 'Empirical Fact' That Many Clergy Are Gay).
I'm afraid JY is more accurate than you are on this one, Jim. Liberal Catholics voted for Clinton, not Trump. You know the type, the ones who are always all for those things of 1 Cor 6:9?
From the news: "Federal emergency officials approved Gov. Jerry Brownâ€™s requests to pay for winter storm damages and to support Californiaâ€™s unfolding response to the emergency at the distressed Oroville Dam, the White House announced Tuesday"
You mean the problems that have increased because they were ignored 12 years ago by the California Dept. of Water Resources? I can see why Gov. Moonbeam should get money from the citizens of the other States. Not.
John UK wrote: I wonder if there was a specific reason why alcoholic wine was used at Passover every year?
Bro, there seems an effort to overcomplicate the issue, (which man seems fond of) but here's my take. Grape harvest is later in the year than Passover, with early harvest no earlier than mid to late May in that part of the world. So that which was used at Passover would have been from the previous harvest. No refrigeration requires storing it another way, and fermentation into wine is how it is done. There was no grape juice as such available at Passover time. The simplest answer may be the most reasonable, no?
The priority of any Christian is the salvation of lost souls. Peter and John healed the lame man through Jesus. The lame man then was praising God indicating a salvation by Jesus. Pete and John did not give him money or food or a place to feel safe. The lame man received much more through Jesus Christ our Lord.
"The Democratic governor (Jay Inslee)of the state of Washington recently issued a proclamation recognizing Sunday, the 208th year of Darwinâ€™s birthday, as â€śDarwin Day.â€ť
â€śDarwinâ€™s strength of character is evident in the great courage, wisdom and honesty required to explore and publish the findings supporting natural selection as the mechanism by which biological evolution occurs.â€ť
Definition of natural selection: "the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution."
Gov. Inslee also supported "gay marriage" in Washington, even running it as an issue during his campaign. I wonder how this defender of natural selection by which organisms "survive and produce more offspring" works into his thought process, the self extinguishing, non offspring producing "gay" lifestyle? But he is a leftist, so he need not have any dot-connecting faculties whatsoever.
s c wrote: --- Mike,really? Not a good analogy. No one is getting drunk using toothpaste. 1 Corinthians 6:10...drunkards shall not inherit the Kingdom... ---
You bring up drunkenness so you may strike it down, but here is my previous post to which you refer:
"One does wonder how many are there who think any amount of wine is bad for you, yet have no issue with brushing their teeth with sodium fluoride laced toothpaste."
As you can see there is nothing about getting drunk at all, but a question of why some see ill effects from any amount of wine, however small, yet those same folks cannot see the damage daily fluoride presents to their bodies, and don't seem to care. Selective pet peeves?
How can that be?. According to your media bias link, Common Dreams is in the category of "left bias," which is defined thusly:
"These media sources are highly biased toward liberal causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy."
Adriel wrote: "Logical reasoning itself only makes sense in a biblical worldview. To make a logical argument about anything, we have to use laws of logic. But if the universe is just matter in motion (as many evolutionists believe), laws of logic wouldnâ€™t exist since laws of logic are not made of matter. Laws of logic are â€śrulesâ€ť that help us distinguish correct from incorrect forms of reasoning. But in an evolutionary universe, why should there be a standard for reasoning, and who is to say what that standard is? How could we ever really know for certain the laws of logic? --- https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/darwin-unwittingly-a-creationist/
logic, word, reason, all derived from logos. Quite interesting when you think about it.
pennelope wrote: sometimes it seems the mainstream church is more afraid of poisons that can lead to destruction if in excess than poisons that are sanctioned as healthy, even when filled with human diploid cells.... the momentary pause for disclosure continues... Title: WHAT'S GOING ON WITH AUTISM? President Donald Trump Asks Educator About Increased Disorder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaQzBRAAItc
One does wonder how many are there who think any amount of wine is bad for you, yet have no issue with brushing their teeth with sodium fluoride laced toothpaste.
Adriel wrote: Fiction and man's imagination have never sat well together with truth. But fictional religions such as Roman Catholicism, JW'ism and Arminianism together with free willism should appreciate the movies better than the Bible! Then of course there is the greatest work of fiction - Liberalism - Whose author is Satan .........
I don't have free will, so I can't decide to go to the movies.