Well, it's a lot closer, and this sort of thing should be encouraged. I'm sick and tired of women holding the double standard where they are either claiming that they are no different from men, and that they should fight and bite and claw to get to the top, but then whenever docility is advantageous, all of a sudden women are to be protected because they are gentle and should be handled gently. Pick one. This woman has. Does she get everything exact? No. Does she submit unto the Lord? Maybe, maybe not (I don't know her). But this decision to willingly submit is a breath of fresh air, believing or otherwise.
I don't see a problem with it. I reject gay marriage, but I see no reason to withhold financial benefits from a gay couple that we hand out to a married couple (though they should add unmarried straight couples too). As I've said before, we can't punish worldly people with worldly things, simply because they are worldly. They will receive their due punishment at the Judgment. Let the tares grow.
Overturning Roe v Wade is useless. Sure, it might make abortion illegal, but that will do nothing but make abortions less safe for the mother. The goal is not to make abortion illegal. We need to learn from Prohibition. The goal is to convince the people that abortion is wrong. Once that happens, making abortion illegal is easy. Just look at what happened when the government tried to take away something that the general public didn't see as bad.
Curtis wrote: No matter what anyone says, a persons theology does matter.I can not vote for Mitt Romney, his religion is sending people to hell. To votee for someone who believs. That Satan and my Lord Jesus are brother is hertical. Now that doesn't say that iLm going to vote for Pres Obama either. Before when vote we ought be asking God to give us a true Christian for president.
Please don't throw around that word; it weakens it's power.
Believing those things is heretical; voting for someone who does is not.
The way I see it, we have Obama, whose religious and practical affinities are clear and have been discussed by many a member here.
Then we have Romney, who, while also heretical in his views, is more conservative and altogether closer leaning than Obama, particularly on the two hot-button issues of our day: abortion and gay marriage.
Finally, we have Ron Paul, who has all but withdrawn from the race.
While nobody here agrees with Romney's theology, if we have a desire to vote, and to vote in such a way that has any weight (if the electoral college has left that option, that is) then sad to say Mitt Romney is our best bet.
eyesclosed wrote: 'the view of religion which takes you to the theater is so far off from mine that I cannot commune with you therein.'
It must be a strange school for virtue which attracts the harlot and the debauchee. It is no place for a Christian if it is best appreciated by the irreligious and worldly. http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/christia/spurgeon.htm
I would certainly hope that Charles Spurgeon is denouncing Christian theatregoing on grounds further than this. By that logic, the house of the tax collector likely had the same such "sinful" types of people coming and going, but that did not stop Jesus from going in. And a shared experience is a fertile ground for evangelism. "what did you think of that part where . . .". "do you think it's okay to do that in real life?". Such great conversations can spring from movies, even if the movies themselves are not biblically-based. (that is of course very different from going to see an unrated or NC-17 film)
2 and 2 wrote: ""What happened up in Aurora ... was the product of pure evil. It was the result of a depraved individual taking his free will to the extreme," said Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family, in a statement Friday." In Calvinism, Total Depravity is often defined that every cell in one's body is tainted with sin. But this is not to imply that a sinner could be Utterly Depraved -- or is 'pure evil.' Therefore, how can a Calvinist describe himself, and everyone else, as 'Totally Depraved' while labeling Mr. Holms as merely 'depraved' -- making him, at least on paper, seemingly more holy than 99.9999% us? Something just doesn't add up.
I've never heard this cell definition. I also would like to know what sources you use.
The way I've been taught the concept of total depravity is that sin has tainted every part of the individual. What this means is that I cannot trust any part of me to make a decision that is not influenced by sin. My intellect, my emotions, my sense of justice, love, and peace, all of it is rendered untrustworthy. Now the level to which these things have been tainted varies from time to time and from person to person, but they have all been tainted to some degree.
R.gr wrote: Those in hollywood worship satan and with the name dark knight rises, we all, i hope know who that is refering to and its not the charactor in the movie its all about symbolism with them!
Certainly you don't suggest it merely because of the word "dark". Dark can be a godly thing. "Then spoke Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness" (1 Kings 8:12). It isn't often godly, but if darkness is equated with evil, then what does that say about God, who surrounded Himself with darkness?
But regarding the movie, I don't see anything wrong with it for an adult to watch. It is actually a good showing of how the secular world thinks concerning good and evil, pragmatism and honor.
Also, this article is for The Dark Knight, which came out 4 years ago. Why not use an up to date article for the new film?
I think Salman's in the wrong here. 30-40 people in a house just doesn't seem legal to me, and where would they park? Plus, if that fact sheet is accurate, he actually tried to claim church status in order to obtain tax exemption, and yet pleads that it isn't a church so that he isn't in the wrong. You can't have it both ways.
They are hurting themselves more than they realize. To say something like "legalize love", while it currently refers to same-sex marriage, is a dangerous phase. It opens the door ever wider for the acceptance of pedophilic relationships and beastiality.
mama's way of thinkin' wrote: The glitch is this: Luther said the church is belly up if you add to sola fide. But the SBC has added sola ora (lit. prayer alone). Either Luther is right and the SBC is adding a damnable work to faith or his sola fide was a tempest in a teapot all along and the SBC, the largest Protestant denomination, has finally come full circle -- back to a Roman Catholic soteriology.
Where do you get Prayer ALONE? Can you show me the evidence where the SBC suggests that prayer alone is enough?
Because the article itself says this: "The 'sinner's prayer' is not an incantation that results in salvation merely by its recitation and should never be manipulatively employed or utilized apart from a clear articulation of the Gospel."
Please explain what you meant, because otherwise you come across as thoughtless and not even reading the article.
Daniel B wrote: Sinners prayer is not found in the Bible but I guess that doesn't matter now days with tongue speakers and women preachers.
Odd how you denigrate the sinner's prayer by stating it isn't in the Bible, but then imply that "tongue speakers" are on the same level (see Acts 2).
And the sinner's prayer is very useful, if the person has a clear understanding that the words mean nothing regarding their salvation, and serve only to act as a temporal statement of how they intend to live from that point on. Used this way, the sinner's prayer is very helpful.
The problem, of course, is when people think that saying those words gets them saved and then we can go on sinning so that grace may abound.
Glad to see that all the references are not removed. Wrong as evolution may be, the fact is that many scientists do believe in it, and that should be reflected in the textbook. We don't want it to go the other way.
honestly wrote: When an online "church" resorts to using "naked ladies" as its search criteria as this one does, chances are, their "100,000 viewers" are but momentary. This "pastor" needs to get honest with himself, his god and his statistics.
I disagree with the sentiment here. Adding something like that puts the church website right where the unsaved are likely to look. It is the modern day equivalent of eating with "Sinners". Not only that, but the church does not even use explicit language. "Naked" is a fairly clean expression of the concept, and "ladies" is a respectful term for women. I don't see the problem here. But if you can explain it, I'd love to know.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Do you think a deathbed confession and the last rites is going to save you? Don't believe it for a minute, the doors of Hell will open wide for you. You are already on the broad path.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that one cannot be saved in their last moments? If so, Luke 23:43 beckons.
jj slater wrote: That's what i took away from the article and video.
That's what I got from it as well, though I do not agree with a couple of his conclusions.
As has been mentioned previously, The similarity of the 10th commandment to a prior commandment makes me think that he is likely overlooking something. With very little Hebrew study under my belt, I can't say for certain that the meaning is "covet" but I don't think the original meaning strays too far from that. Also, when he speaks of the shepherd's imagery, I think of how David had to convince Saul to let him fight Goliath, which does not seem to make sense if Saul would have had the image of a ferocious man in mind when he heard the term "Shepherd".
John Yurich USA wrote: Torpy and the other atheists in the military are fools as well as being enemies of the United States by being on the side of Satan instead of on the side of God who is on the side of the United States military.
What evidence do you have to suggest that God "is on the side of the United States military"? Even Joshua-led Israel did not have that distinction. It seems like nothing more than blind patriotism.