Michael Hranek wrote: John UK Your post reminds me of when I was raised Roman Catholic and how they repeatedly sought to enslave us into the bondage, 'If you ever leave the Roman Catholic Church you will die and go to hell.' To which I am now seeking to find an appropriate comment for this and other damnable lies Satan gives people to believe and destroy the lives of others with. So let me ask, 'Do any of you have a way to express utter rejection of what is a damnable lie of the devil, in a better way than the worldly expression like: "I'll be damned before I will "go along such poison"?
How about "If you truly believe that, you are already on the way."
penned wrote: does anyone know the phone number to Mr. NSA because he said he knows everything about everyone, so maybe he can help us find our missing plane? thanks.
They may be too busy monitoring Facebook addicts who are busy revealing what they had for lunch. This is about national security, keeping America free and safe, so they can't spare any personnel for less serious matters.
Observer wrote: Extract from Randy's potted bio here on SA: "After being ordained to the ministry by a Southern Baptist Church in 1983........In 1992, he and his family became members of Westminster Church (PCA) in Baton Rouge. While at Westminster he grew in his understanding of the covenant of grace, and in 1995 he was ordained as a ruling elder by Westminster Church. He served in this capacity until 2003. In 2003, he and a deacon, David McCormick left Westminster Church with their families and began meeting in their homes." 1. He was ordained by a SBC. So he was a Dispy Bapsie himself! Would you credit that?! ---
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Public schools is a relatively new phenomenon relatively speaking. (used to be only the wealthy sent young 'uns to school and home schooling was quite prevalent) Much newer if we consider the current format. How did kids learn to interact socially for the thousands of years before they came along?
The parents didn't have liberals telling them it couldn't be done.
mike falsia wrote: Christians with tatoos? Oh what a wicked and crooked generation we live in! Many are called but FEW are chosen! Even so come Lord Jesus! Make your calling and election sure dear friends for wrath of God is going to fall severely on this apostate generation!
One thing is sure. Your calling and election won't be based on lack of tattoos.
R. K. Borill wrote: --- R. K. Borill responds, --- If we do not Baptize our children then the command of God to Abraham to Circumcise his children makes no sense, and neither does Acts 2:38-39: ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and TO YOUR CHILDREN and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. ---
John 1:13 "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
V13 makes clear to us that the new birth is a birth of the Spirit. It does not come of blood(one cannot become a Christian via his parents Christianity) It does not come of the will of the flesh(one cannot in his own flesh bring about the new birth; the self cannot save. It does not come through the will of man(no other man can save either)
"Children" here are descendants of Israel, yet no different in Acts 2 application than the "afar off" which is you and me. Promise is received upon turning to God through Christ.
Duh wrote: Observing context to determine meaning is making the word 'flexible'? One would think that Dispys of all people would carefully determine how the Jews understood words like 'world' before accusing anyone of putting a meaning that was not intended.
Sorry if I'm dense, don't know what you're talking about. But to assume there is an "accusation" is interesting, nonetheless. Thanks for the flexible interpretation.
You get a prize for making me larf, a box round the ears. p.s. let me give you all a clue; no, on second thoughts, no clue. And I want to know the COLOUR of the Black Box Flight Recorder, and WHERE on the aircraft it is located. Thank you. Anyone else?
over here wrote: Now I wonder who your aiming that remark at Mike? At least your not aiming your AR at them. Coming from a nation which bans guns of all sort and who doesn't even have a local gun shop anywhere near me all this talk of guns is completely alien to me. Why is your nation obsessed with arming themselves to the teeth and shooting whatever? Does it come from the cowboy history and colt 45's? ---
Not directing my remark at anyone in particular, just in general at those who cannot bring themselves to understand it is the fallen man who kills. If you feel personally attacked, you have no reason for it. If you were my blood brother, I would tell you the same.
While the weapons fallen men use have varied over the centuries, it has not diminished the desire to use them. There are no civilized countries, only self deluded ones that think empowering fallen government but not the governed with weapons makes them so. But as you know it is governments composed of fallen corrupt men, not the governed that start wars, use and kill people, and destroy property, in a fashion and scope that individuals with guns cannot even conceive of doing.
asdic wrote: "Edward Snowdenâs release last year of National Security Agency documents detailing the extent of government surveillance of the Internet" The British Guardian newspaper helped Snowden with his criminal activities. The Guardian is of course a Liberal newspaper which demonstrates the insidious anarchic ie criminal activities of Liberal factions. Their agenda seems to be to destroy all authority in society. This includes morals and marriage as well as the church. Liberalism is widespread in the western nations and as the true church and her doctrine fades into oblivion all authority, morals and decency disappears. This will undermine society and traditional standards.
Interesting that you would support illegal, immoral and indecent govt operations, by calling exposure of it criminal.
Lurker wrote: --- I liked your reply to Mike. Another is Romans 15:12 compared to Isaiah 11:10 in context. If the bible demands we "spiritualize" we should obey God and not subjectively impose a literal hermeneutic. Let scripture interpret scripture. (Mike, no disrespect to you, brother. I just can't agree with a literal interpretation for a multitude of objective biblical reasons.) ---
No problem, bro. I don't insist anyone believe what I may or may not believe, and am content for the most part to let all wait and see how things unfold. (Methinks the Lord must get a chuckle out of watching some of the interaction on SA) I don't care much for arguing pointlessly with people for whom I have respect, nor for the personal negative aspects it sometimes tends toward.
I asked Observer two questions calling for simple answers. It was not a request for questions in return, nor a self-invite for me to take Mr Borril's place. It takes much tastier bait than that for me to bite. Jim/Lincoln on the other hand knows which buttons to push. He makes little sense to me, which is hard to ignore.
The only people who are obsessed with guns are liberals who imagine guns walk down the streets all by themselves, looking for people to shoot. This article is from the LA Times, a liberal rag. What it doesn't reveal, is how many gun deaths are there in LA, vs Kentucky, where those gun lovers live. Anyone can look up the info, if they aren't possessed by irrational fear of inaminate objects.
Maybe if older people were to get circumcised, sprinkled, and dunked, they wouldn't be in such a plight. Unless they aren't elect, in which case they should not get circumcised, though dunking is always refreshing.
"Tyson, who said that science and religion âcan be compatible,â told WNYC host Brian Lehrer that he believes problems emerge when religious people start looking at the Bible and faith-based texts as the basis for their scientific views."
Tyson starts by using two faulty assumptions.
1) The "scientific" view is the source of truth, therefore the biblical view is wrong.
2) The materialist/evolutionary view is "scientific," therefore any contrary view is not.