Oh well, that's alright then - "we will put up with sin, and go along with it this year, but next year we will deal with it (maybe, possibly, hopefully, if all goes well, and if the Shinners agree etc.,)". So much for the fear of plan B!! "We don't want Dublin/London rule....we have saved the Union..blah..blah...blah.."
Alan wrote: Nothing can be changed unless all are agreed so in this case since the funding is already allocated by Peter Hain and the Nationalist are pro-gay rights it cannot be reversed but come next year when such proposals can be vetoed unless all sides agree.
Sorry, but he is to blame as he signed up for the job KNOWING what he would have to do this year. Next year he has to fund them as the Equality Laws and his Ministerial Code are binding on Ian Paisley. His only option is to resign and his actions over the Civil Partnerships and this year's budget demonstrate that he certainly will not do that!
Well I agree with all your points apart from the bits blaming Dr Paisley - as stated the Secretarry of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain, the British Labour Party member allocated the funding, the British Labour Party introduced SOR`s despite the overwhelming majority in UK and Northern Ireland being against. The funding is controlled by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister which is a joint office, for Dr Paisley to remove funding already aloocated by someone else to to seek to remove the SOR`s legislation would require the Deputy First Minster to agree and to pass any legislation would require atleast 50% of Unionists (mostly Protestants) and 50% of Nationalists (most Roman Catholics) to agree. Next year when these things are to be decided by the reverse token Dr Paisley should beable to block the funding as he has a veto, just as now others have a veto now that the funding was already passed beforehand. Nothing can be changed unless all are agreed so in this case since the funding is already allocated by Peter Hain and the Nationalist are pro-gay rights it cannot be reversed but come next year when such proposals can be vetoed unless all sides agree.
Alan wrote: "PROMOTE EQUALITY and prevent discrimination;" AND? Are you seriously saying that that is at odds with Christianity? Pete- I read your article and it says "This funding package was launched by Secretary of State Peter Hain last year" - so I was wrong in part.
Promotion of equality is how it is defined in the legislation ie Equality Acts. That means that gay marriage, gay adoption etc must be actively promoted by Ian Paisley. I hope you could understand how unbiblical that is.
The SOR preevnt Christian guesthouses in NI from refusing sodomites from sleeping together in their guesthomes -this effectively puts them out of buisness. Again, I hope you understand why so many Free Presbyterians are furious with Ian Paisley for sending his lawyers to defend these laws against his own church.
The funding is curently controlled by Dr Paisley - how is this "Christian Stewardship?" I agree we interact with sinners every day but we should not enter into agreements to be joint-partners with them knowing we would have to work with them to promote iniquity.
Daniel refused as did Joseph, Luther et al but Big Ian says it is fine!
Stingless wrote: Sorry you are being completely irrational or else a blind leader/led of/by others who cannont hold reasoned debate. I`m not interested in any more communication with you. Wear that cap in Luke 11v53 it is a perfect fit for you
AND? Are you seriously saying that that is at odds with Christianity? That is a blanket term in reference to all people to live life free from violence and discrimination. I totally agree with it so long as it does not interfere with my right to free speech and right to civil and religious liberties (ie the right to voice my opinion against homosexuality etc - which the high court judge in Belfast has just upheld)
Pete- I read your article and it says "This funding package was launched by Secretary of State Peter Hain last year" - so I was wrong in part. The department is involved but the funds were allocated BEFORE paisley took over. It was allocated by Westminster minsters.
"interacting with sinners with this unholy alliance." - do we not interact with sinners every day? have the very same politicians not sat in Westminster, Brussels and local councils for decades with the very same people with not a peep of opposition? And what is the difference between this unholy alliance and sitting in government with any other unsaved sinner be they murderer, adulterer or liar of any party? None I would suggest.
Sorry you are being completely irrational or else a blind leader/led of/by others who cannont hold reasoned debate. I`m not interested in any more communication with you.
Wear that cap in Luke 11v53 it is a perfect fit for you
Unfooled wrote: Whose hearts? The nasty comments I heard about were from Paisleyites - just as it is still them coming out with the bile. If he is so "happy" to stand down, and it was his idea (one stooge said he had been thinking it over for months)then why are the duped people all so bitter about it?? The reaction of the pro-FM lobby proves he jumped before getting pushed!
Stingless wrote: From what I have also heard there was a united spirit among all those men on Friday BUT ONLY AFTER the Lord came among them and softened their hard hearts...
Whose hearts? The nasty comments I heard about were from Paisleyites - just as it is still them coming out with the bile. If he is so "happy" to stand down, and it was his idea (one stooge said he had been thinking it over for months)then why are the duped people all so bitter about it?? The reaction of the pro-FM lobby proves he jumped before getting pushed!
What utter rubbish? sorry mate Grace Repentance and Revival is not rubbish. Love for WHAT AWFUL TRUTH ABOUT IAN PAISLEY - WHAT HAS HE DONE AGAINST SCRIPTURE? From what I have also heard there was a united spirit among all those men on Friday BUT ONLY AFTER the Lord came among them and softened their hard hearts - pity you do not read so well you should change those pharasee spectacles before you read 1st John Ch2 try it!
the Lord be with you too, mr or miss or mrs seaton
i have long observed the high opinion of the rev. dr among the Lord's people as these boards have long witnessed.
i have also long held unease about the said gentleman. despite now being a covenanter, my family were very involved in the dup in the 1970s and 1980s.
i never felt it seemly for an ambassador of Christ to lead men to the top of the mountain to wave their gun licenses, or to set up a paramilitary "third force".
i am deeply troubled about where both the fpc and the province find themselves. it may be that you are simply not old enough to appreciate that Rev Dr P. agitated and brought the collapse of many attempts at peace, and now what was previously unacceptable becomes acceptable(the only difference now being he is in charge).
as to the fpc, she exercises discipline in some dubious circumstances, yet refuses to deal with this matter in a presbyterian way.
if what paisley and others was doing was biblical he had nothing to fear. but the fpc couldn't even bear to examine his conduct in light of scripture.
now the JR of the SORs is over, i wont be holding my breath for paisley to either condemn or try to repeal them.
ba and Pete; I'd better make this my last one on the subject. Apparently I have become a liberal and presumably much less of a Christian than the honest folk of Ulster.
However May I just add that up until a few months ago, Dr. Paisley was the best thing since sliced bread, as we observed on this very board.
Now he is one of Satans very own, in the midst of the sinless people in Ulster, who have now promoted themselves to judge and jury on him.
You will have heard of the phrase "Fair weather Friends," I didn't know that you could have fair weather supporters too, especially in the church.
Whatever good Ian Paisley has done in the past, you, holding yourself so highly above him in judgment, have sadly provided a whole different perspective, on how you guys choose to see him now. Emphasis on "NOW."
There is a saying "Those who love you the most, can hurt you the most."
ba, I am a Reformed Christian and Presbyterian, and Psalms only to boot. Therefore not the character you painted in your assessment of me. I also am very aware of the painful sufferings and trials of this life more so since I became a Christian.
On Dr. Paisley I would add. "A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity." Prov 17:17
Seaton wrote: ba Ok you keep preaching to the converted and "The" Church will go amongst sinners to work. Matthew 9:11 "And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? 12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. 13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Ian Paisley has gone in to partnership with the IRA - he signed the agreement and negotiated it! Please do not blaspheme our Lord in equating His evangelism which resulted in Him interacting with sinners with this unholy alliance.
Secondly, our Lord, Daniel, Joseph etc refused to engage in any practice, pass any Law, obey any Law that contravened the principles of Scripture. Ian Paisley has done this - so please don't dare to put him in the same category.
Finally, Ian Paisley "claims" to be in politics to witness - where are the Nicodemuses and Theophilus that he has reached with the gospel in 30odd years? Name one MP he has led to Christ!
... and heres the oath pledge of office, just to remind you!
to serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally, and to act in accordance with the general obligations on government to PROMOTE EQUALITY and prevent discrimination;
as to arminian thinking, its a bit rich you calling me that, when you are the one who is in effect saying it is beyond the providence of God for one standing on a clear and transparent christian ticket to be elected.
maybe you want to introduce your *reality* to the church to. maybe a little bit of dance, drama, philosophy, street theatre, cinema, whatever .. as that what is wanted *TODAY*..
alas for evangelical ulster if what you say represents its thinking. what you are promoting is in effect situational ethics. give them what they want, tailor your manifesto to what is popular, hide any unpopular biblical belief in case people are offended by the biblical position on these things.
ba Ok you keep preaching to the converted and "The" Church will go amongst sinners to work.
Matthew 9:11 "And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? 12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. 13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
b.a. wrote: what you are suggesting is to devise your manifesto according to what is popular and expedient, so as to get elected in the first place.
Just live in the real world.
Sin is all around us.
How much today do you see the Sabbath broken by this evil society. This is the 4th Commandment.
What do YOU do about it?
What does your congregation do about it.
Yet this is sin - just like homosexuality is sin.
The Christian has to start somewhere and anywhere is surrounded by sin.
You remarked "so be it" at my point about not getting into politics and government, if you try on the full Christian ticket. What in effect you are saying is that Christianity should not be involved with politics - or indeed the world around us - because of sin.
In your community are two types of people those who belong to Christ, the others to Satan. You deal with both in everyday life. Stormont is the same as the community and the Christians must yes witness - but NO try to force others to accept Scripture.
That comes from the Popish/Arminian humanistic belief that that God does not do the electing.
Live in this world, ba, as God has allowed it to become "Tares amongst the Wheat." See Matt 13:30.
"I cannot believe any professing Christian here is seriously defending the fact that Ian Paisley was justified in givng money to sodomite groups from his budget for a parade that carried a banner calling Jesus Christ a sodomite. I am not saying that Ian Paisley was happy about doing this but the fact that he was prepared to do this says a lot about his relationship to the Lord and his love for power." ______
Herod did not want to kill John the Baptist, but he had him beheaded for his word's sake. He had made an oath and was ashamed to back down. He is eternally guilty.
Pilot pronounced the crucifixion of Jesus against his will, but he sentenced Him to "silence an uproar" among the Jews and save his position. He washed his hands claiming innocence but he is eternally guilty.
Rev 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days; be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.