Gay Allen wrote: this just got wiped from reddit http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-private-prison-deprived-inmates-of-heat-and-hot-water-for-months-lawmaker-finds-20170225-story.html https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5w8g15/private_prison_deprived_inmates_of_heat_and_hot/ When are we going to take our nation back from the disgustingly rich ? Don't worry, we elected the disgustingly rich guy who promised us he's going to do what he can to basically shoot himself and his friends in the foot for the good of the people! He's... He's gonna keep his promise right? ... Right???? you have to read this if you are a humane person, they plan on making more for profit prisons, we were getting rid of all of them with the last administrations~!
While I admit I did not take the time to read your links, there are undoubtedly people in the billions who live here on this earth who know nothing about heat or hot water. Our troops often serve without either. Inmates shouldn't be mistreated, and I am not against them getting heat and hot water, but having heat and hot water is not something they need to be treated humanely. There is certainly nothing wrong with prisons not being a burden on the taxpayer.
There is a website that grades companies (from 0 to 100 %) on how LBQT friendly they are in their policies and practices. You would find that the vast majority of places you shop (and the people who supply the merchandise, even groceries) get 100% score. Your car manfacturer gets 100% score. The list of those with high or 100% scores includes your internet provider, the devices with which you access the internet, your cellphone, your insurance company, your local, state, and federal government, etc. etc.
The fact is this is just the world acting like the world. A leopard cannot change its spots or the Ethiopian his skin. One would have to literally move to a third world country (and fly on an airline that got the same high score) and live off the land to be consistent.
BJU has always been staunch anti-Catholic, you could ask Ian Paisley if he were still alive.
"The universityâs founder, Bob Jones, was a fundamentalist evangelist who believed that the theory of evolution was an abomination. He called the pope the anti-Christ and dismissed Catholicism as a âSatanic counterfeit.â He once said, âI would rather see a saloon on every corner than a Catholic in the White House.â
Also, there are many articles confirming BJU apologizing for its racist past, just do a search for BJU apologizes for racism, the above link is one of them.
The Judge apparently is oblivious that the "negative stereotype" is a multi-billion business.
Apparently, sadly it is not only city where this is allowed, glad I don't live there. But I can see the silver lining in this, the group we oppose won in court, which means that they won't appeal the judgment and we don't have be concerned that it would go to Supreme Court and they find they same way this Judge did and it becomes the"law" of the land.
2Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.Â
I am not defending BJU and have no interest in the debate but clearly BMac is right information is being put out that is not well researched. First, there is nothing blasphemous about plays. Attending a Catholic university (by the one Bob Jones that didn't ascend to the presidency) is not an endorsement of Catholicism. Going to a Catholic university is not a pro-Catholic statement just ask Sandra Fluke.There are no buildings currently named after a klan member on the BJU campus. If you have a problem with BJU it bothers me not. There are many godly people who attend and work there. Also, they have apologized for their past on not properly handling sexual abuse
âOn behalf of Bob Jones University, I would like to sincerely and humbly apologize to those who felt they did not receive from us genuine love, compassion, understanding, and support after suffering sexual abuse or assault,â said president Steve Pettit, addressing students and faculty in chapel Wednesday. âWe did not live up to their expectations. We failed to uphold and honor our own core values. We are deeply saddened to hear that we added to their pain and suffering.â
John, you keep making this about whether or not you are a member a non-Catholic church. Salvation has nothing to do with church membership. Nobody but you follows that rabbit trail. So please stop the false accusations. Plus you are making salvation to be a mere intellectual consent instead of supernatural work of God from above.
From the Catholic Bible (Psalm 119:104)
From thy precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false path.
Note the person born from above who grows from the milk and meat of the Word, hates every false path. But here is the fruit of your "salvation" you love the false paths of the RCC, you say they worship aright, you practice the same thing they do, (you say no I don't, but let us ask your priest and he would say you do). You even say a false prophet "praying" over the sick is the same as what is in James dealing with those who are part of the body of Christ.
Pretty sure most Catholics when asked, would tell you they are trusting Christ to get them to heaven. You have to pry to get a more definite response that would include sacramentalism and works.
Remember John, those whom God has saved, out of love for God and His truth, hate what God hates and would thus leave false churches that blaspheme His name.
The second thing I would like to address is the fact that words change meanings.
In II Thess. 2:7 the word let (letteth) meant to hold down, today it means to allow
In several passages (like Eph. 2:3) we see the word conversation which meant lifestyle, today it means to talk with one another
In I Cor. 13 the word charity meant unconditional love and today it means benevolent giving.
In I Thess. 4:15 the word prevent meant precede, today it means to stop something from happening.
We, unlike Jim from Lincoln, don't blame the KJV for being arcane, we just realize the etymology of the words have changed.
Even Oxford dictionary states
Gay meaning 'homosexual' became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. ... As a result, the centuries-old other senses of gay meaning either 'carefree' or 'bright and showy' have more or less dropped out of natural use.
Because the terms sodomite and gay are synonymous there is no reason to think oneself more spiritual by not using modern vernacular.
My response will be in two parts, one now and one tomorrow Lord willing.
Here is the setting. In the dark of only a moonlight night we have a young man in the streets. He is propositioned by a lady who uses fair speech and subtlety to convince him to go with her. The husband is gone on a long journey and will not be back for awhile. This is the context (Proverbs 7)in which we find ourselves. It can easily be related to the modern day "women of the night" and their nefarious activities as what they do fits the context of the passage.
What cannot fit is something that happens outside the realm of prostitution or something that happens during the daytime or at a well light gathering. It is in this passage we find the phrase used only this once in the Bible, "the attire of an harlot"
Now according to what you said about the passage of where two or three are gathered, you cannot use this phrase, as you have, to describe girls at the mall, cheerleaders at a sporting event, or ladies in television shows. To do so is clearly out of context.
Christopher, I wonder how many are experiencing this problem I am having and can't get past the validation. After getting the green checkmark that I'm not a robot I still can't post my comment. It says validation incorrect or cookies not enabled. See my post on Wooly Mammoth. I have post from my phone
To SA, I cannot currently post on this site from my computer. I tried five different browsers and even made sure will accept all cookies. I have tried two different operating systems and two different computers. I still get the message about incorrect number or cookies not enabled. I did not have this issue when your first change to the new verification system. I have seen at least three times that there was no server access your site. Would appreciate any help, thanks.
1. While I agree they adopted the term "gay" to lighten the concept of sodomy at this point everyone associates it with sodomy. If you told somebody that you were "gay,", no one would assume it meant you were happy they would all believe you were calling yourself a homosexual.
2. The Scripture has many applications even if it is not the main interpretation of the passage. You would not say a Christian cannot claim the sufficiency of the grace of God in life's difficulties because they are not the apostle Paul to whom that was said about a specific ailment (2 Cor. 12:9). You wouldn't say God won't supply the believers needs because they are not part of the church at Philippi which met Paul's temporal needs in the first century. (Phil. 4:19)
To be clear, are you saying that where two or three believers (or more)are gathered together that Christ will not be in their midst if they are not involved in church discipline?
John Yurich USA wrote: I have a lady friend at River of Life Church(where I attend on Sunday mornings) stated her Catholic father who passed away in early December accepted Jesus as his Savior before he passed away.
Did a priest come to his bedside and deliver Viaticum? Was it a Catholic priest that conducted his funeral? Again actions speak way louder than words.
sc, you should reconsider who has the inaccurate assumptions and presumptions. You are ignoring the context and comparison that was made.
Our Lord made the John the Baptist comparison the key, if it had no significance He wouldn't have stated it.
John came neither eating or drinking.
Did John not eat or drink? Obviously he did both. He ate an usual fat free diet and did not drink wine or strong drink but he drank something or he would not have lived. His diet and drink meant he could not have been gluttonous or drunk. So, they said he had a devil.
Our Lord stated in contrast to John He came both eating and drinking. He stated that they accused Him of extremes in both. Gluttony for eating and being an alcoholic for drinking. The accusation of gluttony was meaningless on John but they used it falsely on our Lord because it was a possibility if He abused it.
John drank no wine or strong drink, so drunkenness accusation was meaningless on him, but they used it falsely on our Lord because it was a possibility if He abused it.
It's the same crowd, if they didn't accuse John because of his habits, they also would have not accused the Lord if His habits were the same as John. Because they were different the contrast is noted.
Did not want to forget to say to brother Frank, thank you for your kind and most gracious words. You are loved and appreciated and I am blessed by your posts here on SA. By God's grace we do try to keep you in our prayers. God blessings to you as you serve our precious Lord down there in the Sunshine state.