Jim Lincoln wrote: 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,
Ripon Society is at least GOP!
The article is the article, and there is no indication the author is a member of Ripon, anyway. It's fine as far as it goes. The Ripon Society is composed of moderate Republicans. That's what's wrong with them. That's why they approve of UN reform, instead of more needed reduction of authority. But fence straddling is what moderates do best, right? Hands across the aisle stuff. Things the Dems never do, by the way. I'm not sure why you brought up the John Birch society. I can't seem to find a connection anywhere in your link. Is that a token something or other?
Mark 2:28 "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."
Simply read, within the context wrought by the "also," he is not only Lord of the other days, but "also" of the sabbath. He is Lord of every day. If he said it was ok to eat with publicans and sinners, then it was ok. If he said it was ok not to fast, then it was ok. If he said it was ok to eat the grain as they walked through the fields on the sabbath, then it was ok. Being Lord of all days and all things has its authority.
John Yurich USA wrote: What Alito stated about "Supporters of traditional marriage" is the same thing "supporters of marriage" as traditional marriage means marriage between a man and a woman and marriage means marriage between a man and a woman.
Sorry John, but have to disagree. When you use language like "traditional marriage" it gives credibility to the false idea that there are other kinds. Words mean things. .
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- Yes, Mike of New York, I did see some names in the Wikipedia article. There are social sciences if they are like Pataki are completely unacceptable. You can tell us what you thought of George Pataki. John Y., Many Rockefellers were Eastern Baptist, and if you read some of the material on them they are works orientated. See (Roman Catholics, Mormons and Jehovahâs Witnesses).
Didn't think much of him, but then Republican candidates for governor in NYS have to make some Democrat noises to get elected at all. That's because we have a massive Democrat growth hanging off our southeast corner.
btw, a Rockefeller Republican is like other RINOs except they have more money.
pennelope wrote: "several have been violently threatened because of their political beliefs, and almost all of them feel as though they canât speak up about politics on campus" cultural Marxism. can you believe I heard someone order "French" fries the other day?! I told them, they must be a racist.
Must be. They should be called borderless fries, or non-nationalist fries, or maybe universe fries. "I'll take some universe fries with that soy burger, please..."
Jim Lincoln wrote: Ah, Mike, I bet you didn't read the article, because there are about zero moderate Republicans holding office then you would know got your description of RINOs is reversed. They love their country more than their careers.
For starters here's a few more than zero, Jim, and these are just from the Senate.
John McCain Mitch McConnell Lindsey Graham Orrin Hatch Susan Collins
Judge Alito said "Supporters of traditional marriage are being treated as bigots." He may be commended for saying it, but I'd rather see something done about it. I would also recommend he change his language to "supporters of MARRIAGE are being treated as bigots." Something other than the marriage God created isn't rightly to be classified as marriage at all.
JuneAnnette wrote: --- Christ did not in any way diminish the ten commandments . . He enlarged upon them. Matt. 5 If we love God and our neighbor we must necessarily obey the ten commandments. The Ten Commandments . . the Decalogue are agreeable to the two greatest commandments Christ gave in Matt. 22:37-40, and therefore they are most assuredly written upon the fleshly tables of the hearts of his people . . those truly converted . . those who are born again . . born of the Spirit. No one can keep the ten commandments, nor for that matter, the two âgreatâ commandments which Christ gave us in summary form, as they are found in Matt. 22:35-40 perfectly. The point being . .that the two great commandments Christ gave are agreeable to the ten commandments. ---
Yes June, Christ enlarged upon them, making them, if it were possible, more impossible to keep.
You said we must necessarily obey them. You rightly acknowledge, no one can keep them perfectly. Yet if they are not kept perfectly, they are not kept at all, would you not agree?
James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all"
Who then is not guilty among unbelievers and believers alike?
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- Yes, Obama went too far with the waters of America act, though again it might have been functional if corrected and not destroyed. You know tossing the baby out with the bath water.
Corrected? The only correction for constant overreach is to cut off the greedy hands. EPA is dirty bath water itself, and ought to be flushed down the drain. Someone authorize them to make laws? Please show me from the Constitution.
John UK wrote: Thanks Bro Mike, but I will rephrase: 1. Christ died for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. Which sins exactly of the unjust did he die for? 2. After the first sermon of Peter, it says they were pricked in their hearts. When the Spirit is come, he will convict of sins. What sins does the Spirit convict sinners of, and which they need to turn away from? Or does not the gospel message tell sinners to turn from their sins?
1. I should think all of them, as there are no sins excluded according to Scripture. I'm not sure what you're looking for, bro, unless a definition of sin? Transgression of the law?
2. The Jews were pricked in their hearts because their conscience bothered them at having killed Jesus. Yes, turn away from sin, by turning toward God. When they asked "..what shall we do?" what was the answer?
Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
A change in direction, a change of mind. The pricking of the heart was of no sufficiency, nor was it the repentance of which Peter spoke, else why did he say to those hearts already pricked, "Repent"?
John UK wrote: --- Questions were asked at the close, in conclusion, which are most apt for any of us who directly deal with sinners: 1. If our beloved Saviour offered himself a penal satisfaction for sin, exactly what sins was he dying for? 2. What about our unconverted neighbours? Salvation is through "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ", so what sins do they need to repent of? Open questions to any. ---
1. He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill Mt 5:17. Fulfill means he came to meet the requirements of. Why is this? Because he is the only one who ever could, before or since.
2. Bro, what if repentance is not away from, but toward, as the verse you posted says? Repentance is a change of mind, of direction, not a feeling bad about our badness.
As you stated, Communists loath any religion other than their own religion of Marxism. As well as their atheism. After all, it takes a lot more faith to believe in something totally untrue, than to believe in the true God.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Perhaps, NY state has even higher standards than Common Core? (Q&A: Common questions about the Common Core) As long as the kiddies can count on their fingers and can sign their name with an "X" in this state--they're good.
You misunderstand, Jim. We already have Common Core-uption in NY. They just want to dumb the teachers down to fit in with it.