SITE NOTICE | MORE..Photo Album Improvements! The photo albums feature has been improved for all members to now include the ability to upload multiple photos via drag-and-drop with our new Media Uploader tool! .. click for more info!
I thought when you said a miracle had taken place that an image of the virgin Mary appeared on your toast and you sold it on ebay for twice what you owed in taxes.
Thank God He does still and answer prayer, all glory and praise to Him for His mercies that not only are fresh everyday but endure forever. He truly does above all we could ask or think. Very happy for you brother.
In 2010, the top 1 percent of tax returns included 18.87 percent of all adjusted gross income and 37.38 percent of all federal individual income taxes paid. The top 5 percent earned 33.78 percent of income and paid 59.07 percent of taxes, and the top 10 percent earned 45.17 percent of income and paid 70.62 percent of taxes
70% of all tax revenue comes from the top wage earners and Jim from Lincoln does think that is enough. Almost fear to ask, what pray tell would you think is a fair share? The bottom 50% pay approximately 3% of all taxes, do you think they are paying their fair share?
Phloum wrote: ... Obamacare reaches out to the poor.
Are you sure? Poverty level under Obama has broken a 50-year record. He seems to reach out and create more poverty with his policies. Only slightly over 10% of the previously uninsured have signed up for Obamacare, not helping them. Also, under ACA, Medicare is cut by 716 billion dollars. You might want to reconsider that statement.
John Yurich USA wrote: My Non Denominational brother accepts that I am saved....
I have been silent on this matter for a long while, and will more than likely continue to refrain. However, the thing is John Y, you cannot deny that you practice the RCC means of salvation by attending their services and partaking in their mass. (It is hogwash that you somehow participate only in part, NO ONE watching you would say the same) when you stand in the judgment is your non-denominational brother going to intervene (alas it would do him and you no good)when you hear those awful words, depart from me I NEVER KNEW you???? We should start praying that God will defeat the voices of those who lead John Y down the path to destruction.(that would include SteveR) They are messrngers of Satan set to hinder you. Ultimately only God can open your eyes and heart to the truth but Jesus condemned the lawyers for hindering the path of others. May God silence their witness as He did the girl in Acts 16.
JSC wrote: I want to make it clear I cannot vote for anyone lest I violate my conscience. I do not see the lesser of two evils argument as viable either. Lest one were to prove himself tested by the word I will not cast my acceptance of him nor desire for his leadership
JSC, I am not sure I would brag about excluding myself from the political process and think that it means I am taking the moral high ground. We have been given an instrument to affect the political process locally and nationally and you think that abdicating it is morally superior? Maybe too many have the same sentiments in Illinois and that explains the corruption in the politics there.
We live in a secular society, governed by secular people. If you find a politician that meets your qualifications I would be amazed. We are to pray that God would give us rulers which will allow us to lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Don't you think we should put feet to our prayers? Do as you wish, but remember you were given a voice and you are choosing to silence it by your actions.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Jim Lincoln wrote: UPS, the American Revolution was a rebellion against recognized authority...
Jim,thanks for your response, may I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence and ponder the long list of grievances that they used to substantiate their claim for independence. It was due to the violation by the British not giving the colonists proper treatment under British law. The form of government that was setup by the colonist had as its foundation the Magna Carter, John Locke, and the laws the enacted reflected the British empire from which they came. It was not about changing but keeping the form of government from which they had won independence. They changed from having a king due to the abuse of power by the monarchy. Now the French revolution it was about change.
I might think jpw as an independent but you pretty much draw from one side of the political spectrum, the left. You say you are an independent but are quick to criticize the right, even when the article isn't political in nature, and very reluctant to criticize the left, almost to the point of looking for your criticism of the left is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. We do appreciate you though and your long time dedication to posting here at SA.
Jim Lincoln wrote: UPS,..e President LBJ did a lot of Civil Rights,"
Jim, thanks for your response and the nice compliment. Your CPAC article neglects to point out that there was a civil rights bill under Republican president Dwight Eisenhower (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957 for documentation and quote) that then Senate Majority leader LBJ received recognition "...from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it." That a Republican president "freed" the slaves and that NO democrat voted for the 14th amendment. Even when they passed civil rights legislation a much larger percentage of Republicans voted for it than Democrats. You can LBJ's attitude in a quote from this web site (http://tinyurl.com/n6a5kbh) which for space and so as not to needlessly offend will not post it. LBJ was no friend of the black man. His motivation is seen in the quote on this website (http://tinyurl.com/k2j7956) again not posting it here so as to not needlessly offend. Not sure who gave you the idea about Southern Catholic, very few of those down this way, mainly Baptist.
Also, the revolution was not about changing gov. but conserving what they had taken away, see Declaration of Independence.
Jim Lincoln wrote: .. Apparently, a lot of Republicans would put Jesus on a burning cross, or hang Him? ....
Jim, you would do well to remember some history. Burning crosses and lynchings were a part of the Jim Crow South and the KKK. After the assassination of Lincoln the radical republicans (they were around back then) decided to punish the South. Thus for well over 100 years the South was run by democrats. In fact, during my tenure here in Georgia (about 30 years)we had the first republican governor since reconstruction (2003). The South was solidly democratic during the cross burning/lynching era. Also, the KKK was founded by democrats and the republicans founded the NAACP (you couldn't tell that now) to counter it. So, if you want to refer to cross burners and lynchers, please get your political parties straight, that would be the democrats.
The definer of the term radical, btw, is you and your leftist political partners. The Republican party (a huge disappointment)is far from perfect, but are a much better choice when compared to the radical left democrats that control the Senate and the White House.
What we need in this day and age is not more politicians, but more preachers of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Just a quick thought I wish to share. I was reminded this morning that through much tribulation we shall enter the kingdom of God. I know we would prefer flowery beds of ease. Always beholding our Savior's face and experiencing His smile. We love the blessed fellowship with the One who is altogether lovely. Yet how much more precious does He become when we realize that though we go through the water of trials they will not overflow and the fire of trouble it will not consume us for He is with us to sustain us. We need the furnace of affliction to burn away the dross in our lives. We need the trying of our faith to help take away our affections for the things that turn us from our God. We pray that God would use whatever means to make us like unto the image of His dear Son, that He may see, even in us, somewhat of the travail of His soul May He sanctify our afflictions that we may be found to the praise and honor of Him who has called us out of darkness into His glorious light.
Also, may I join the list of people who will let you know that you will continue to be in my prayers and more specifically about this matter. Agree, get legal help, there are groups that specialize in this type of situation.
Strat wrote: Unprofitable,i have never said any of those things and have no idea how to respond to you,if you can quote me saying those things please do.....any of you quote me if you can saying anything you say I have said. Ladybug,thank you,coming from you that means a lot.I am cruel because I disagree with you,divisive because I have the right like you do to speak my point of view and unlike you with your gender specific theology apply the bible to both sides,and show no love for anyone because your definition of love is twisted to conform to your pseudo christian misandrist views....have a good evening and thanks for the compliments.
Thanks for your clarification, Strat. There is a reason I left an open ended question at the end of my post. I was not trying to say you had said anything about which I questioned you. I was trying to clarify your position because reading the way the thread was going that was how it appeared you were being perceived and I did not figure it was where you stood. Appreciate your stances against liberalism and feminism. God bless.
Strat wrote: Feminism has influenced the Church to the degree that there is no longer any balance to the discussion of the marriage relaitionship....one is always right and the other is always wrong....one guess as to who is always wrong. The bold presumption that a woman will submit to a "Godly" man is nonsense in today's world....unless of course she is allowed to define "Godly"...."yes honey,i agree that we should do it my way"
so what is your purposed solution, throw up our hands and do nothing? Just say it is hopeless? Are you saying that being submissive means you become a doormat? Do you think the husband should give the wife's view any credence or is it now that she is married what she thinks doesn't matter? Does being a "help meet" mean that whatever you think about issues in the home is irrelevant? It doesn't matter "if momma is happy" just that the husband is king in his palace? What are you saying?
mourner wrote: ... I love Isaiah 58 for mining in the word and I'd appreciate any thoughts
Colossians 2:16,17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (see also Ezekiel 20:12 and 31:13)
The sabbath is specifically said to be a sign between God and the children of Israel. The only sabbath observance prior to the exodus was God. Not Job, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc. NONE until ISRAEL observed it as a nation AFTER it left Egypt.
NOWHERE in the New Testament era is the sabbath admonished to be kept, all of the other commandments ARE repeated in one form or the other. The only sabbath mentioned to be kept is in Hebrews 4:9 and it is future.
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church
You serve your wife and love as Christ loves the church, and she probably will have no issue with submitting to you as her husband.
Lurker wrote: I know you do, Mike, and I respect that. Glad I could help. . . . Something new. Is someone willing to take this verse and expound its meaning in context? Zec 11:10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
Well, Lurker, anybody can plainly see those verses teach that circumcision will be replaced with baptism. In fact, in the 3 pastoral epistles the baptizing of infants plays such importance in the church that Paul mentions it....ahhh....errrr....zero times.
Wait do they state God is breaking His covenant with ALL 12 tribes of Israel?????
Surely, there must be something in Calvin's Institutes, or the WCF, that shows that these verses are saying what was mentioned earlier. Maybe a catechism. Gotta be somewhere, a commmentary ....
This will probably not be a popular opinion here, but I believe the court was wrong. The applicant did not state at the time he was hired that Saturday work was an issue, even though he knew it was and that the plant operated on Saturdays. He didn't go to work for the Psychic Network (they are a bunch of frauds anyway), they can't read his mind. It would be different if he had worked there awhile and was granted Saturday's off due to his religious beliefs and they took it away.