Phillip Mezzapelle wrote: Setting aside the never ending debate about whether or not the New Testament believer is still required to keep the fourth commandment, regarding which, in my own humble opinion, we are still commanded to observe. If one of us were to petition the NFL to schedual its games on a tuesday or thursday I don't think they would respond back to us in a kind civil way. There's a big reason why the games are played on Sunday. Finally, just one more reason why I can thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for helping me gradually get off the pro sports fix.
Maybe they might consider Saturday. You know, the seventh day of the week.
Elmer Gantry was fiction, Jim. Really. Sinclair Lewis who made him up was agnostic. (He isn't agnostic anymore, btw) Ever question why an agnostic's view of Christian life should be taken seriously, as the character Gantry was? As far as Graham not being welcome in Vancouver, the left wing of Canada, that says he must be on the right track.
You said "..other people could do it, probably even better then Frankie,"
First, what did he say that you disagree with about homosexuality and Islam, and second, have you suggestions the mayor of Vancouver might be open to?
From the news: "A federal judge has ordered the city of Fort Collins to stop enforcing a policy that bans women from showing their breasts in public.
It started with one woman asking, "If men can go topless, why can't women?"
Of course, yet another federal judge ordering something over which he has no authority. As far as the woman's question goes, it is not one asked by those who can still think. Because women aren't men, that's why. The hidden agenda is the same as the others of late. Destroy gender, family, marriage. The rightful response to the fed judge would be to deny unlawful authority. Can he have the entire city arrested? The idea that a judge is final arbiter of these issues does not exist in the Constitution. That is myth.
Peculiar, Exellent Sermon This isn't just an excellent sermon. There are qualities to this message and other sermons from this speaker that clearly set it apart from other broadcasters. His messages are peculiarly organized, every work carefully spoken. The messages are lacking personal opinion and heavy on scriptural references. He takes the time to prove his assertions from scripture which makes these messages IDEAL to use in the company of other believers with different backgrounds. The applications are common sense and often indisputable.
We invest the money to transcribe these sermons for our work bible study. We use a projector to display the .pdf file while we listen to the message. Periodically we pause the message for discussion. Overall we find these sermons from this speaker very edifying and provoking. The discussion is real. The overall effect is that these messages are propelling men towards God in a life of faith and obedience. Thank you!
Sad how those you'd expect to know better, fall in line using the language of the offenders:
From the news: "The White House today rescinded the Obama administrationâ€™s transgender directive, a policy that required schools to allow students to use the restrooms and locker rooms that corresponded with their gender identities."
Why even use such nonsensical language? Would it not be more truthful and accurate to have it read:
"The White House today rescinded the Obama administrationâ€™s transgender directive, a policy that required schools to allow students to use the restrooms of the opposite gender."
It isn't about tradition vs rights, it's about reality.
John Yurich USA wrote: Say what? I did not copy any URL. And I am not nor have I ever been a Hindu. Where did you get that nonsense from that I am a Hindu also? ---
Jim's take is a little different than mine, John. Maybe the idea of Hinduism comes up because you have said in your next life you are going to be an eastern Colorado rancher who travels with a country band.
Here is what the Media Bias/Fact Check link says about the New American.-
"Displays right wing bias in reporting and does not always follow the consensus of science."
I didn't realize that consensus of science was the basis for unbiased fact. Evolution is true then?
They also rated New American factual reporting bias as "mixed." Now that may well be, but I checked what they said about "Black Lives Matter." Though they are classified "left bias," their factual reporting was rated "high." I thought the contradiction interesting.
From the news: "Susan Creamer, a Merritt Brown Middle School teacher in Panama City, Florida, berated her students on a Facebook page designated for local atheists, where she claimed that the middle schoolers teased and harassed her by inviting her to go to church with them."
I suppose to an athiest it is harassment to be invited to church. But the teachers aren't to proselytize, right? Somehow she made known to the students what she was about. Now she doesn't like their response of inviting her to church. Poor thing.
We can set up a "what if" scenario, but doesn't the premise have to at least be possible? We may ask what if it were Obama or Clinton, but it takes a serious imagination to set that up. Why? There is already sufficient personal, political, and policy experience for a number of years with those two to safely conclude there could never be any such what if for us to ponder. We already know what they think about it.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I was looking around for material why Albert Schweitzer was a heretic. I I came upon this article by Phil Johnson. He really earned his pay on this one! Besides his short remarks about Schweitzer he goes on at length about, http://tinyurl.com/jprh5g6 (Whatâ€™s Wrong with Wright: Examining the New Perspective on Paul). " review of an influential book by Anglican author N.T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham. The book is titled 'What Saint Paul Really Said .' This is a book written by a well-known Anglican Bishop , who has found too much favor in the Evangelical world. After reading this, I'm beginning to wonder if a Christian should pay any attention to the Anglican Church or anybody in it before the 20th century? My advice would be no
It's one thing to take a day off work, quite another to not even call in the absence. Employer is fully in its rights to seek new employees who will respect the organization rules. I wonder if the rule breaking employees are illegals? Their unhappiness would make some sense then.
Trying to understand. Is it the Boy Scouts want to admit girls who think they are boys, or is it boys who think they are girls? Will they have to become the LBTGSA? And they think it ok for homosexual men to be BOY Scout leaders? Guys who like guys in a most inappropriate way? Someone needs check what they're drinking, and what they are looking at on line.
From the news: "While the majority of Americans think self-described Christians who commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity aren't really Christian, only half of the public says the same about those who claim to be Muslims and are violent."
Let's see, when was the last time someone calling themselves a Christian committed an act of violence in the name of Christ? Surely there is actual data to compare rather than vague generalities with implied conclusions like this?
Kev wrote: A good thing to keep in mind is all the people who think Trump is now a Christian because he prays and so forth. Already half the country at least hates Trump now they will associate this hatred with Christianity. Liberals already hate Christians and Trump proclaiming to be a Christian well... I think a lot of this is a form of politics. Trump knows who backs him and who is against him. I hope that their prayers are real but I can very well imagine it as more of a political thing than anything else which like some have pointed is horrible to use the name of the Lord for such things as politics if that is their agenda. God knows though.
More important than whether or not the leaders are believers, or whether they pray properly, is whether believers pray for those in authority as Scripture calls us to do. (1 Tim. 2:1,2) As for half the country hating Trump, most of the hatred is irrational anyway, especially that from liberals. He hasn't been in office long enough to engender hatred via actualpolicy, so it's obvious it is manufactured for political reasons.
Frank wrote: --- Well, I have my thoughts about why God heard this manâ€™s prayers. But, if you want to find something in scripture that might be an exception to the rule, then go for it. I tend to view the rules much more thoroughly than â€śpossibleâ€ť exceptions. Google â€śusing the Lordâ€™s name in vainâ€ť and you will find some good examples. How about Obamaâ€™s prayers? Would you consider that to be taking the Lordâ€™s name in vain? Letâ€™s simply change the article to say; Melanie a devout woman who feared God with all her household, etc. and then I will agree with you. John 9:31 â€śNow we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.â€ť
Having heard much about the idea over the years, we'd have to first ask if the prayers of unbelievers are heard? Most will say no. Then we'd have to ask, what is a devout unbeliever? Yet that is what Cornelius was before conversion. Anyway, you can see where it would lead. But honestly, I never thought of Acts 10 as an exception to a rule, but appreciate your thoughts Frank. What I haven't figured out is how the words to the "Lord's Prayer" can achieve disrespect or blasphemy merely by being said by the wrong person.
Jim Lincoln wrote: How's that, Mike, what states are trying to get the Affordable Care Act, killed? It isn't the Democratic ones! The GOP will try to practice euthanasia on a much larger scale, but want to pretend that isn't exactly what their doing. ---
What States? The States that rejected Obamacare via the election. The only way Obamacare could possibly be affordable is if corners are cut, and charges increased. You know, corners like the sick and elderly? Did you read the title of this news item? It's the system that is important to the bureaucrats, not the patients. Why do you defend this abomination of bureaucrat "healthcare"? May Obamacare be relegated to the graveyard of stupid ideas, where it belongs.