1. Five different people from 2 different continents said there was an issue about how you posted. Instead saying you might have misstated something or that you need to reconsider your thinking, you labeled us all hypocrites.
2. You missed my point, which was we didn't get what we deserved. You basically are saying that because the girl is not completely innocent she got what she deserved and does not deserve any compassion for the horrible ordeal she endured.
3. Where did I say anything about your motive?
Note the prayer of godly Ezra
Ezra 9:13 And after all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great guilt, since You our God have punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and have given us such deliverance as this
He was thankful that God did not give Israel what they deserved for their iniquities.
I am grieved for you sc. Only God can open your eyes to the truth that has been expressed about the manner in which you have posted on this article. May He be pleased to do so for His glory.
Unlike sc, I also must confess I have made some poor choices in my life. I am thankful I was spared the full consequences of my bad decisions.
In the sc world, the woman caught in adultery would have been lectured about her inadequate attire and lustful heart and told if she should have thought about the consequences before she made her choice, and bade the Pharisees to stone her.
In the sc world, Peter would not have found a place of love and forgiveness, he would have been reprimanded for hanging out with the worldly crowd and reminded that pride goes before destruction and his haughty spirit led to his fall.
In the sc world the Shunammite woman would have received a lecture from Elisha about having her kid out where he didn't belong with the reapers.
If I got what I deserved I would be in the hottest, darkest, deepest spot in hell, forsaken by God. But God showed grace and mercy to one who was undeserving. Hallelujah!! All glory to God, I, who was without hope and without God in this wicked world, have been cleansed by the blood of the precious Son of God and now know the blessing of no condemnation because He who did no sin took what I deserved at Calvary. Hallelujah!!
Rodney K. wrote: If US is still looking for work, maybe he could join you.
Hey Rodney, thanks for thinking of me I do have a second interview (praise to God) with Knoxville Utility at the end of the month. If the Lord wills it, I believe it would be a good full time job (hard to get these days) for me. Appreciate your prayers there.
I thank the Lord I don't startle easily as a rather sizeable groundhog ambled on by me (about a foot away) as I was resting from my yard mowing. It didn't even look my way and after it left I quickly got up and finished the work I had to do.
Thank the Lord that He does hear and answer our feeble prayers as we certainly don't deserve it. This guy sound like your typical Pentecostal claiming things that are not true (like healings) and attributing them to their faith in God. They say they have a special revelation and go up to people and say, God told me you have a burden tonight. Well duh.
Glad to see SA is back up, it was unreachable earlier today.
I have Windows 10 on one hard drive and Windows 7 on another. I had to download a program to stop the placing of Windows 10 on my Win 7 hard drive. There is a lot of stability to Windows 10 and and an easy transition between it and the previous versions.
There is a reason people don't write viruses for Macs, it is less than 10% of the market, helps with their security, which is top notch.
translated lasciviousness 6 times (Mar_7:22, 2Co_12:21, Eph_4:19 (2), 1Pe_4:3, Jud_1:4) wantonness 2 times (Rom_13:13, 2Pe_2:18) and flithy once. (2Pe_2:7)
never does it mean immodest (a word not found in Holy Scripture) In fact the word modest (I Timothy 2:9)means orderly.
Barnes "In modest apparel - The word here rendered āmodestā (ĪŗĪæĢĻĪ¼Ī¹ĪæĻ kosmios), properly relates to ornament, or decoration, and means that which is āwell-ordered, decorous, becoming.ā It does not, properly, mean modest in the sense of being opposed to that which is immodest, or which tends to excite improper passions and desires"
If I have ever suggested or hinted that I thought that dressing immodestly was an acceptable practice for those born from above, or that immoral thoughts should be entertained and/or that any should make provision for the flesh to fulfill the lust thereof, I stand corrected and offer my humblest apologies and beg the forgiveness of my brethren.
s c wrote: Unprofitable,your understanding is lacking when it comes to interpreting my posts.And if the post doesn't apply to you,then you should not take offense. We are all to be a light.
1. The more you post in this thread, the more you prove the accuracy of my 5/23/16 7:14 p.m. post.
2. The sad thing is what you miss about your own post. You said in your 5/24/16 12:07 PM post that I was lacking understanding in interpreting your post. However, you made a comment in your 5/23/16 6:52 PM giving your interpretation of several comments made by other people. Several of those people advised you that you were inaccurate in your assessment. Yet you reiterated your interpretation in your 5/24/16 12:07 and 3:05 PM post. What is sad is that you didn't even see your own duplicity when you made the comment. It is wrong for someone to allegedly misinterpret you but it is okay for you to misinterpret someone else.
3. There was a story on abortion on 4/26, no sc comment, a story on adultery on 5/18, no sc comment. a story on affairs on 5/18, no sc comment. You have opportunity to comment on these things and don't.
4. We should rejoice that people are against all this transgender stuff coming out.
The problem with your reasoning, penned, is you are assigning the motive for what Target or another company does what they do is simply because the are a corporation and they would act otherwise if they were not
1. The article is about an LBGT issue and we are being told to stay on topic, not to delve into other areas.
2. I don't know which Christian crowd with which you have dealings, I have yet to meet the pro-abortion brethren who are sacrificing their children. Why do I say that, you used the pronoun "we" and in case you haven't noticed it is Christians who post here with rare exception.
3. The assumption you consistently put forth is that the Christian community is or has been silent on areas of heterosexual sin (or whatever area besides a LBGT issue), you don't have one ounce of proof for your assumption and I have basically shown it to be false.
4. Your motive for posting comes across as you are the light on the hill, the shining example to be followed and all who say something against a LGBT issue are hypocritical (note your last sentence as proof of what I am saying) because they are not on your level of "disdain" on supposed heterosexual (or whatever area besides a LBGT issue) issues.
If you risk your own capital to start a business, you have NO guarantee anybody will have an interest in your product. A corporation saves you from losing it all (your house, your property, etc) if your business goes bust. It certainly doesn't save you from being taxed. There is nothing wrong with incorporating, they are not the big evil that some here make them out to be. It would be helpful if people took the time to learn economics before making inaccurate statements about corporations.
We wish there was a Chik-fil-a in town as we appreciate their stance and enjoy their food.
Buckeyes wrote: @US. As far as the IP address thing goes, all we have to go on is what Moderator Beta said that day.
Okay, that would mean he did not steal ip addresses because Moderator Beta wiped out a bunch of posts because he said they were the SAME ip address. Geff said he stole your ip addresses and posted, which would mean different ones. There were no previous posts where you came in and stated, hey that is not me, so it points to Geff was lying again but doing so as to not implicate you and crew. The plausibility of him stealing 2 or 3 poster's ip addresses in this forum is very minuscule.
I, like Lurker, would take anything Geff said with a grain of salt as he has not been forthright. It is more likely that he posted under TMC and family monikers from his own IP address or addresses. The likelihood of him stealing their IP addresses on this type of forum is pretty slim since SA stated they were not hacked. He probably was trying to get them off the hook with his statement as he knew he stole their identities. If I were TMC and family, I would look back and question the wisdom of taking the views he expressed. Just my opinion.
Probably, people of faith (even if its is not genuine) would experience much less stress than those whose whole realm is this wicked world in which we live. Remember, Paul said if we have hope only in this life we are miserable and most to be pitied. That may be a reason for church goers to live longer as a whole.
It probably would be more accurate to say people of faith regardless of whether they attend church as there is nothing magical about walking into a building.
If we have brothers and sisters who help bear our burdens, and the Lord who shoulders those burdens with us to sustain us as we cast them upon His omnipotence, they become lighter and our lives less stressful. The joy of the Lord is our strength.
from the article (it always pays to read the article before posting a comment)
"The largest conservative congressional caucus is calling into question the legality of President Barack Obamaās transgender bathroom directive for schools.
Chairman Bill Flores, R-Texas, is encouraging Republican Study Committee members to sign on to a letter, pushing the Departments of Education and Justice to detail how, and on what authority, they plan to enforce the new guidelines.
By Wednesday night, the letter, which will be sent Thursday, had attracted 73 signatures from GOP lawmakers. To date, it represents the most significant development from a Republican Congress thatās been reluctant to challenge Obama on the issue.
In a sweeping proclamation last Friday, the Obama administration instructed local schools to extend Title IX protections, which prohibit sex-based discrimination, to transgender students
*While the bathroom directive caught Republicans off guard, The New York Times reports that the Obama administration had been working on the new guidelines for months* .
The lawmakers asked the Education and Justice Departments to respond by May 23"
So a quick response to an unseen edict shows that the people who are trying to stop this are just posturing cowards??????????
fiftyplus wrote: I did work within the boundaries provided by this site. The facility to use different monikers was one of the "boundaries" provided by SA which attracted me to their site. Now that some "criminal" element have decided to abuse this facility apparently we ALL have to pay for the crime. Is that just and fair? As for your analogy of the "store" I wouldn't have used the store in the first place had it not offered what I wanted or required. This site did offer multi moniker facilities so I accepted their offer. It is SA/Mod.Beta who now have decided to change the rules in the midst of their 'commodity/service' extended.
Since they run the site, then either go with the flow or just go. Complaining doesn't change anything. They have done you no wrong.
Observer wrote: Dear sister, I hope you will reconsider. I didn't see your post, but don't care what the reason if you are indeed the same person using 2 monikers. You have done nothing wrong. There was no rule previously that stated that only one moniker must be used. I'm sure on occasions we have all done it, and not as was suggested by BM for reasons that would compromise one's integrity. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider and continue to post. You are loved and appreciated by so many here. It would be a great shame to see casualties from some insane things done by one person. The reason I put "confused" faces was to intimate that I could not see why the Mod had outed you when so many others could have been outed. That was wholly unfair, and especially as you had nothing to do with Geff and his alter egos. Blessings to you.
May I also add it would be sad to see the dear sister (and brother Lurker) stop posting in this forum. We need godly voices in our midst to help restore the forum from the circus Geff (et al) tried to make it.
The Scripture states we are not ignorant of the devil's devices and one he uses quite often is to cause discord among the brethren. Hope we don't lose the good wisdom God has given MS an
fiftyplus wrote: I have no wish to comply with your request. I have served on this site for over ten years now and have always used different monikers and see absolutely no reason why I should not do so. If because I exercise a right which is made available on this comments board, that of different alias choices, and you wish to ban me because I have exercised said right then so be it. Freedom of choice is presumably no longer available around here.
You don't run the site and pay the bills. If you or I wish to post here then we must work within the boundaries provided.
You can walk into a store that has signs out front no shirt, no shoes, no service with you bare feet, but they also have the right to give you what they promised, no service. You don't have "rights" to demand your way at a site you do not own. They are trying to address a problem and should be commended not condemned for their effort. You can post here all you want, as long as you don't violate the rules is what is being said. If you don't like the rules, start your own site and do whatever you wish on it.