KK, I believe you are painting a completely inaccurate picture of dear sister ladybug. She is one who has shown great love for the Lord Jesus Christ and His kingdom. She is one who diligently defends the Word of Truth, the propagation of the gospel of the grace of God and the life of sanctification in the believers. She does not think that we should please her but exhorts us to please the Lord.
There was no voting people into official government positions back in the day of Christ, thus there is no direct Biblical teaching on the subject. Therefore, all of us, have to draw from Biblical principles we find in God's Word and ask God for guidance in how to best glorify Him with our actions in these regards. I don't believe we can bind the consciences of other believers with our own thinking on this subject. You will find many who will dispute that we have been a "Christian" nation. We can see a Judeo-Christian stamp on our founding documents and early governance, but there is a reason we had two great awakenings and that was at a time when righteous thinking was far more known in our inhabitants than now.
You make valuable comments, an attack on ladybug is not among them. Instead of criticizing her, consider holding her up in prayer.
This would be an interesting topic for those who are missionaries in lands where demon possession is strong to comment.
Particularly the "Word/Faith" crowd has taken the lead with inaccurate and false teaching in this area. (you see some in our camp abuse it too, with that demon rum, or whatever other vice you can chose to name) We do battle daily against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, and an ever lurking devil out to devour us. But honesty would have to say our worst enemy is our own flesh and we are sadly drawn away of our own lusts. I know the best thing in mine own life would be more ardent mortification of the flesh through the Spirit and a greater mourning, contrition, and brokenness for the sins of both omission and commission. May God give us grace to be overcomers for His glory and see Him increase and us decrease in our daily walk with God.
Paul had no problem with Patriotism according to Romans 10:1, it spurred his burden. Even the Lord used term dog in referring to a Gentile. The disciples were sent to the lost sheep of Israel. God rebuked nations for not treating the nation of Israel properly.
Loving something doesn't mean that one is putting it ahead of God. I love my family but it isn't the level I love my Lord. (yes, I know it should be as hate in comparison) I love the fact that we have running water and power but not because I am taking delight in this world and ignoring the next but because I enjoy the way it makes my life here better.
If it wasn't for America, there would more than likely be no SermonAudio. I am glad to live here than say Cuba or Venezuela. That does not mean I don't look for the city whose builder and maker is my God.
1Cor 7:21,22 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
We are not electing a spiritual leader to a spiritual position. Let everyone be persuaded in his mind what God would have him do. Let us uphold each other in prayer that God would give us wisdom.
MasterDummy wrote: Not Spurgeon said it, but it's Michael Marcavage said the statement â€śOf two evils, choose neither"
A guy (part of Repent America) who lives nearly 100 years after Spurgeon made up the quote which is in Spurgeon's writings???? Maybe his moniker is suggesting he made the statement tongue in cheek
"Let us, whenever we shall have the opportunity of using the right of voting, use it as in the sight of Almighty God, knowing that for everything we shall be brought into account, and for that amongst the rest, seeing that we are entrusted with it." CHS
Buckeyes wrote: (TMC) @John UK one major reason why Churches compromise is so they donâ€™t offend those who pay the bills.
I believe it too broad a brush to paint churches with to say they compromise to get congregants to pay their bills. That may be true in some instances, but I have never seen that in any of the churches with which I have known. They obviously met somewhere besides their house in the church at Corinth. (I Corinthians 11:22) The building doesn't make the place sacred, the presence of the Lord in the midst of the gathering of His saints (Revelation 2:1;1:20) to worship and hear the Word of God. Just like a house doesn't make a home. There is definite warning in Scripture about not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together. It is the argument of silence that says meeting in a "church" building is not acceptable. Just like it easier for us to get from place to place in our current transportation rather than by foot or riding camels, donkeys, or horses. We don't decry it because it isn't found in the Bible. The church is not and has never been a building made by hands. The convenience of a central place to meet for worship, preaching and fellowship is simply good stewardship of the resources God has given us.
Texan wrote: . As you should know from reading in Acts, everyone lived collectively and shared everything that they owned with one another...No burden on anyone.
Not true, the brethren met a need to feed and house thousands of those who stayed up in Jerusalem after the feast of Pentecost to learn doctrine who normally would have gone home. Prior to the need arising, they owned lands and did not see the need to sell them or simply distribute wealth to others. Note the message of Peter to Ananias, was it not your own and did you not have power to do with profit of sale as you pleased. Paul said the laborer is worthy of his hire and they that minister of the gospel should earn their living of the gospel. I don't know what churches you are used to Georgia, but I never met a pastor who lived high on hog while his congregation suffered in need in over thirty one years there. Most pastors were sacrificial in their living and giving.
Now if you are talking about the false prosperity gospel preachers that is another story. Taking care of those who labor in the ministry isn't a burden it is a privilege. Paul praised the Philippians for so doing and gave them the promise of God's supply on their behalf because of it.
The Lord talked about a specific day and hour of His return. No events except the passage of time and the saving of those whom the Father had given were needed for that promise to be fulfilled. Regardless of one's eschatological viewpoint we are commanded to occupy until He comes. We are commanded to watch and pray and keep ourselves pure as He is pure. We are to walk in the fear of God cleansing ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit perfecting personal holiness in our own lives. I have to daily take up my cross and say with Paul I am crucified with Christ and mortify sin through the power of the Spirit and the means of the Word of God. My responsibility is to obey His Word, evangelize the lost, and to pursue holiness. We are to love our God wholeheartedly. Taking time to pinpoint blame is just a means to deflect from my own shortcomings. May our prayer be for more Christlikeness, more compassion, more contrition, more carefulness, more circumspection in our walk, more contemplation on Scripture, more courage in our witness, more consumption with things above, and more considering one another to provoke unto love and good works.
penned wrote: Title: Millions of Evangelical Christians Want to Start WWIII to Speed the Second Coming... and Atheist Neocons are Using Religion http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/millions-evangelical-christians-want-start-wwiii-speed-second-coming-and-atheist-neocons
Not a single quote from any pastor or so called evangelical leader that backs your point in this article. Everything is from the writers analysis of what he thinks is true. You gotta stop going to sites for backing your point of view where those who oppose dispensationalism define what is being said and believed. Find a site where a dispensational leader, church, preacher says what you allege. Besides the fact that evangelical leaders have NO voice in the policies implemented by this or any previous administration. In case you have not noticed they have NO voice in the armed services.
Bush has not been president for 8 years now. Current policy is and has been set by BHO
It is getting old penned, you trying to blame those who don't hold your eschatological view for all the evils in this world. It would be like me saying all the a&post mill people support ISIS because they want to see Israel destroyed because they believe the church replaced Israel.
Jeremy wrote: Sc Why would compare watching sports to watching naked people? That's a little weird.... I'm sure the Holy Spirit would do it first though.
Brother if sc gives you a rational discussion on this topic it would be a pleasant change. Following her interpretative principle on the passage she uses, a women without a veil would be considered naked. However, because she doesn't believe that her argument falls apart and involves inaccurately dividing the Word of Truth. She presses for things we all believe in, modesty, she fails to acknowledge that by her inaccurate definition we live in a world of naked people and would sin her "pet" sin just by leaving our house.
If you want to get an idea of where she is coming from, here on SA, Jason Cooley has a sermon, The History of Sports Idolatry - Bread and Circus
Jeremy, sc is wrong in many of her inferences on what is going on in a football game but would have to agree with her, the church, in my opinion, is not a place to gather to watch any sporting event. We are there to worship our God, learn from His Word, fellowship with His people about the things of God and to help meet the needs of each other as members of the body of Christ. Such an event would send a wrong message and could easily be misconstrued, believe it falls under all things are lawful but not all things are expedient.
NFL ratings are dropping in large part because fans are upset about the disdain for the country shown by players who would more than likely be dirt poor if they lived somewhere else.
pennelope wrote: how is this any different that harvesting the organs of an unborn baby and replicating the cells to inject into everyone's body to "give us life"? is it any wonder there is so much autoimmune disease and autism as a direct result? we call them pagans because instead of using words like science and efficacy and slicing organs under white lights and in sterile rooms, they put organs on display on an altar. there's no difference.
Not even addressing the inaccurate assertions and false implications from your statement. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Why get on to others about bringing up their pet peeves when it doesn't relate to the article about which they are posting. There is no corrolation between what you said and the article that is posted except in your mind. Not trying to be unkind just answering your assertion there's no difference.
s c wrote: if the bakers maintain Christian standards then why don't they ask more questions from all potential customers? Or is ignorance bliss?
My guess is they don't ask personal questions. If the "gay" person had simply came in and asked for a wedding cake without specifically stating that it was for a "gay wedding", they would have got the cake. If I run a public bakery shop and I get a reputation for asking questions about everybody's private matters before I fulfill an order, I am pretty sure I would go out of business without the aide of a lawsuit. You seem to miss the distinction between serving sinners, (as GS stated) which is everyone who walks into the bakery, and baking a cake for a sinner who specifically told you it was to honor their vile union. They would have turned down a cake for a guy who was trying to add his 10th bride to his fold if he had stated that was why he wanted the cake.
Actually, you have made the argument for "ignorance is bliss" by saying sell a generic cake, what they use it for is their business.
We can't expect the bakery to only serve godly people who live close to God. Thing is, even then there is much to be abhorred, mortified, and forsaken in the lives of their clientele.
penned wrote: a true dispensationalist needs ISIS, its a kamikaze position.
If you disdain dispensationalist that is fine, it does not mean you have to make false and denigrating comments about those who hold those beliefs. You didn't even link to a site run by Christians, it was a Jewish site.
You are dear sister, but this is getting old. These are my people in the churches I attend. We are just like you we want ISIS destroyed, we value our families, our brothers and sisters in Christ, our property, our fellow citizens, and our country. The persecution of our brethren in other parts of the world saddens and concerns us and we disdain any involvement by our government that supports these terrorists. I would appreciate the stopping of the broad brush approach and am asking politely that you please stop. Thank you.
None of this is intended as comment or position on replacement theology.
s c wrote: In answer to your question,a cake which "gives honor" to whatever,would then cease to be generic. That's the key.Provide generic cakes as it appears that these bakers offer any way. Customers can take 'em or leave 'em.
so if a lady walks into your shop and want a cake and she tells you she using it to celebrate her upcoming lesbian marriage. You say go ahead and take one of my generic cakes (btw, if baker's have any generic cakes sitting in their shop which they made, they are few, nobody likes stale cake and the business can't afford to make cakes to just throw away) She says she doesn't like any of the ones you have ready, not the right flavor or frosting combination. She orders a generic vanilla cake with strawberry topping, a certain flavor frosting and pink flowers around the edges. (btw not sure how you saw a website for this couple when they are permanently closed) No words or characters are on the cake. Would you make the cake?
s c wrote: Unprofitable, one cannot promote anything with a generic product. Pretty elemental. I'm sure that these Christian bakers have sold many generic cakes to all types of sinners. Just because they don't make the bakers privy to which sin they embrace,doesn't make them more or less "responsible". They aren't promoting their sin unless they are "marrying" the couple or promoting sodomy on the cake in some way.
alrighty, to avoid being wrongfully accused of misunderstanding what you are saying. Are you saying that if...
You own the SC Bakery. People walk in or call your bakery and specifically say (this is key) they want you to make them a cake to celebrate and honor (let's make a list of any one of the following) jihad, adultery, polygamy, satanism, sex trafficking, wife beating, incest, or drunkenness. Your response to them would be, well as long as it is a generic cake, I will make that cake for your celebration?
Jim Lincoln wrote: No apology from me UPS. I didn't call her a liar. I called Donald Trump a liar, and a chronic one at that.
ok Jim, if Trump lies more than Hillary, it is because he actually is out in public. Been nearly 290 days since her last press conference and because she isn't getting her usual $20 million for a speech she rarely makes campaign appearances and keeps them short. You can pretty much tell when she is lying by whenever her lips are moving. For instance, she used the "c" to classify her emails (they have her signature on them) but she claimed she did not know what it stood for. She couldn't even tell the truth about her own grandparents or after whom she was named
sc, still no apology for the false accusation of saying that ladybug called you a liar. She hasn't used the word in her last 100 posts with the exception of one time and that was just to reference what you said.
It does not seem that you can find it in yourself to admit you wronged ladybug. Ladybug is correct to offer unconditional forgiveness regardless. You would think as often as you tell people they are falsely accusing you (even when they aren't) and how it offends you that when someone points out that you did that to them you would be very forward to show contrition and sorrow for your actions.
May I suggest sister sc that you go before the Lord and ponder Matthew 5:23,24
This is not what about so and so or shifting the blame to someone else. Her 9/11 post clearly stated, "when you call those for whom Christ died, "wicked" (a word you hadn't used in a post for over a month) and she also referred to you in the third person. For you to say you didn't know she wasn't writing the post to you shows your lack of attention to detail and how you jumped to conclusions without thinking. (which also, btw, says a lot about the way your think and how you feel) It started as an honest mistake. May God guide your steps to paths of righteousness for His name's sake.
She wrote a book with the title, It takes a Village, should tell you something right there.
In the chapter that MRS. CLINTON WORKED ON, titled â€śProtection of Childrenâ€™s Rights,â€ť it reads â€śit has become necessary for society to make some piecemeal accommodations to prevent parents from denying children certain privileges that society wants them to have.â€ť
The chapter goes on to explain that some of these â€śprivilegesâ€ť should be allowing children to consult doctors for pregnancy and drug-related issues without parental consent, and prevent schools from expelling or suspending disruptive students. Itâ€™s most outrageous claim, however, is the adoption of a â€śpublic advocate,â€ť who are people that can speak to childrenâ€™s issues, upending the parentsâ€™ wishes
Christopher Lasch, a historian and LIBERAL in public policy, wrote in Harperâ€™s of Mrs. Clintonâ€™s essays on child rearing, that â€śa careful reading of [her] argument. shows that she objects to the family much more than she objects to the state
from the article.
They did not use the false quote that Snopes argues against, Jim your "defense" is against something not stated in this article. Take it up with your fellow liberal historian and have them take out her chapter in the book.