Jim Lincoln wrote: ... especially trying to make secular people moral by force, instead of by conversion
Just wondering where exactly you are going with that statement. We do understand that even the plowing of the wicked is sin to God, so their good works are nothing but filthy rags to Him. But when are NOT talking in the realms of the righteousness that is given at the new birth, then moral laws, which though may be broken, are ways that "force" people to act morally. Would you say, well it is ok that my neighbor is a cannibal because we cannot force morality or would you rather there was a law against murder. Would you mind if someone broke in and stole your stuff because you cannot force morality or are you glad there is a law against burglary. Would you rather live in a society where rape is acceptable because you cannot force morality or are you glad that there are laws against it. We are not making them moral but getting them to act morally. I would much rather live next to a moral person than a known felon, although both need Christ for salvation.
To soldier I would hope you would not use an assault rifle in a spiritual battle of the sword of the Spirit in a physical one.
Matthew 26:52 Then Jesus said^ to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.---NASB
There certainly is an The Inadequacy of Moralism, especially trying to make secular people moral by force, instead of by conversion
But note this outfit portrays itself as Christian, Just how does this behavior agree with,
Luke 6:29 "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. 30 "Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. 31 "And just as you want people to treat you, treat them in the same way. Titus 3:2 to malign no one, to be uncontentious, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. ---NASB
with what is described above? It's laughable to call this church, Christian. Since it denies what the Bible says. It's not that they aren't politically correct -- they aren't Biblically correct.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- As I already pointed out, I sure hope that there is an actual Christian Church in Troy, N.Y., because one's that give away assault rifles, certainly aren't Christian, ---
Actually it's neither Christian or non-Christian to give away a gun. But to make things all better, what if they gave away an automobile? That would present a nicer image to sensitive and/or politically motivated types, even though auto related deaths are significantly higher than gun related. Dang facts, just keep getting in the way of emotion.
JustJames, Davey was like many Sotherners and he just switched parties that was more aligned with his goals. To Bush Sr.'s credit, he condemned Duke and made it plain, at least his type of Republican wanted nothing to do with him. But, yes, I do assume you pay much more attention to his types than I would, not that we don't have these types in Nebraska, but he is in your neck of the woods.
Jimbo, you keep referring to David Duke as a republican. But Duke was a life long democrat until..he changed parties to try to run as a conservative. The republicans tried to shut him out of presidential races. I believe he was merely a Trojan horse anyway.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: 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. --- We do appreciate you though and your long time dedication to posting here at SA.
You have a kind way about you, US. Seems to be missing from me, at least where Jim is concerned. He makes no more sense to me than JY does.
A recent one: he says Nixon should have been impeached. For hiding the fact that some of his men broke in the Watergate bldg to spy on Democrats. Now this spying thing is policy, against the people, supported by the present president, who cannot cease from lying. Yet no call for impeachment. Makes no sense. If he's an independent, I'm a tree.
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.
UPS, the American Revolution was a rebellion against recognized authority, something I think, the British are still somewhat disgruntled about -- we'll have to ask some our British visitors about that. But, there's no argument that American Revolution was much more civilized than the ones that followed it, and it preserved much of the status quo, and except for the large black population wasn't a bad thing.
But, I believe I pointed out I'm a blue-blood --Northern-- Republican. The reasons I became an Independent is for the likes of Nixon (He should've been impeached), and the Party, turning into a Catholic Dixiecan party, has kept me away from it, as it has many other Northern Republicans. It was the Northern Republicans that brought Civil Rights of the 19th Century.
LBJ, I'm surprised he did say such strong things for Civil Rights and against the KKK. I only really saw that recently. When he was saying that, I happened to be a draftee for fighting his war in Southeast Asia. So, I was isolated from civilization for a year. But, you can see, I have no fondness for the man. Oh, Southerners, Sen. Sam Nunn a Southern Catholic Demo., struck me as level-headed. General Lonstreet became a Repub., when it wasn't stylish. So, I'm not trying to stereotype
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: --- President LBJ did a lot of Civil Rights, q.v.,History Channel KKK, unlike David Duke, Republican. There are some places you can see the whole HC's video on the "The KKK, a secret history."
But we mustn't forget LBJ's Vietnam War fiasco, even if inconvenient. The Great Society wasn't so great for the 50000 plus Americans or the millions of Viets who died in a totally pointless war.
Jim Lincoln wrote: UPS, I found your thought out comment interesting. However, you seem to forget that the Republican Party in the South came from the Dixiecrats who became Dixiecans. and ruined the Republican Party, by turning it into a Old white man Southern Catholic dominated by people usually of poor educational background--You proving the exception to the rule of course. Another interesting commentary, In Honor of CPAC, Hereâ€™s Why Being a Conservative is so Terrible. from which I get this Merriam-Webster Dictionary quotation . As the author of the article pointed out, we wouldn't have an American Revolution, freeing the slaves, or woman's voting rights (I don't know if I'm very keen on that last one ) So, while he's certainly not my favorite President LBJ did a lot of Civil Rights, q.v.,History Channel KKK, unlike David Duke, Republican. There are some places you can see the whole HC's video on the "The KKK, a secret history."
Who cares,the "Inadequacy of Moralism" makes it moot.
"Grace Baptist Church in Troy, N.Y. distributed a flier proclaiming, â€śWin a FREE AR-15?"
Who needs the Sword of the Word when you can own your own assault rifle?
Alternatively Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
UPS, I found your thought out comment interesting. However, you seem to forget that the Republican Party in the South came from the Dixiecrats who became Dixiecans. and ruined the Republican Party, by turning it into a Old white man Southern Catholic dominated by people usually of poor educational background--You proving the exception to the rule of course.
MW-Dictionary wrote: Conservative: believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society; not liking or accepting changes or new ideas
As the author of the article pointed out, we wouldn't have an American Revolution, freeing the slaves, or woman's voting rights (I don't know if I'm very keen on that last one ) So, while he's certainly not my favorite President LBJ did a lot of Civil Rights, q.v.,History Channel KKK, unlike David Duke, Republican. There are some places you can see the whole HC's video on the "The KKK, a secret history."
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.
Jessica, guess, except for several on this forum, many can't get around the idea where you have to have license and show some competence in handling a lethal called a motor vehicle, and any moron in this country can have a gun. You'd be surprised how many morons are fanatical gun supporters and of course cause by accident or on purpose so many deaths in this country.
An AR-15 costs a least a 1000 dollars, and more than that usually (at least for a good one). It seems to me that money would have been better spent getting the gospel out, and fulfilling the great commission. I have no problem with people owning one, and would like one myself one day. I just think churches have more important things to do than hand out guns at the moment.
I have lived in Canada all my life and have a tough time wrapping my mind around the gun culture of the USA. The promotion of guns by Church groups just doesn't seem gentle to me, and makes me very uncomfortable.
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." ~ Matthew 10:16 KJV
penny wrote: MH -- ya, did you go to their website? have you ever known someone who said such brazen things that if you stood next to them in an open field, you sometimes imagine having to duck as a lightening bolt comes down from the heavens when they speak?
Penny Yes, I visited their website before I posted on this thread. What they have on their site seems quite cult-like and mixes up important issues like Liberty and the 2nd Amendment with some, let me use the word "baffling" to be politely, conspiracy theories and a troublesome KJVOnlyims.