It is not something we worship as a god. Is it something we can do without? It certainly is. But is [it] an idol, a profane thing that we worship, in which we place our trust? I think not."[/QUOTE]To my understanding all true religious holy days are commanded by God and so ordered by Him. The only holy day that is commanded and regulated by God for His glory and man's good (that were not given in the OT and mentioned in the NT), is the Lord's Day or Christian Sabbath. All the rest were instituted by man and Christ/mass gives a hint as to it's being man-made, and ornamental thus appealing to the flesh, unlike simple NT worship.
interseting wrote: "Rachel weeps for her children are no more" in Mississippi.
There is a time for every purpose under heaven, there is much we do not know and what we know we know only in part. Rachel would not willingly participate in any of these evils you mention. These evils are not forced on people, they are a choice made by those who have no fear of God.
Mike wrote: 1.Sounds properly spiritual. 2. So was it wrong biblically for Mississippi to put forth a constitutional amendment declaring personhood begins at conception, thus making abortion unlawful and preserving life? 3. Does man have a role in proclaiming God's Truth as practice, or is it sufficient just to relay comfortable words about him being reigning Lord?
1. God's Word is spiritually discerned.
2. It is an inadequate solution to the underlying problem, sin. Neither playing on emotional sentiment nor making men's efforts God's final word on the matter really provides the solution to the underlying problem.
3. Proclaiming God's truth is the job of the ministry, living it and loving it is the duty of God's people. When there is unity of mind there is affection of love. This will cause others to be drawn to the proclamation of the gospel. It is the duty of state and federal government to enforce righteousness in this land. Are you absolutely sure that the change of this amendment will bring that to pass?
Mike wrote: Why is it an either/or question? It is God who designed physical life beginning at conception. Would establishing this truth in law oppose what God has originated?
There is a difference between establishing this truth in law and The Truth by law. Since the Scriptures of both the Old anr New Testaments have clearly revealed David's son and David's LORD is King; "But unto the Son he saith, thy throne O God, is forever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniguity: therefore God even thy God,hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And thou Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the works of thine hands:" Heb. 1:8-10
The Truth reigns whether men choose to acknowledge it or not. Psalm 2 strongly admonishes leaders of nations to do so and not be unwise or uninstructed lest he be angry and they perish in the way, when his wrath is but kindled a little. Blessedness is trusting in this King.
Compare: REV.11:12-14; REV. 14:15-20; REV.16:13-21 These seem to indicate the same time period, but also that there is more time to come after their fulfillment. Not a dispensationalist. For your consideration.
Jim says: the internet was originally for education, government, and the military. Nothing political there. The connection between his UK source of info regarding national deliberation on Net Neutrality and the US FCC is? I know, www. I'm sure someone will correct me, if I'm wrong, but small local internet providers will be replaced and if you can't drive traffic internet sales will be effected. I would think, that would effect SA and those selling here if I understand correctly, something gained and something lost. The UK article had a hint of political correctness, or equality. Then everybody should be happy, right?
It election time again. I have little doubt that SA has valid concerns, and that what Scott says is accurate. This action would have something good to offer, as well as something to gain by offering it. It would appear one either has to choose his losses, or humble themselves under God's mighty hand.