Pornography causes men to see women only as objects that can be used by them. It is an evil that is the cause of much immorality throughout the world. Women understand this and the feminists simply cite it as one example that shows the inferiority of men. It affects men, much more than it affects women. So, the sexual harassments, etc. are simply examples of the evil of being a man and the victimhood of women. IOW, they take no responsibility for their tolerance, participation in and their promotion of pornography.
Just look at the Stormy Daniels issue. Millions, including me criticized Trump for what he did, but it is rare that anyone criticizes her. The only thing I have heard negative is she extorted money from him, but her lifestyle "normally" simply gets a pass.
Plain Old Tim wrote: Now I recall. Frank, you said that Mr. Trump is an immoral buffoon. Isnâ€™t a buffoon a person who operates a buffer? I heard the current president doesnâ€™t receive a salary, but is he moonlighting as a janitor?
Did you know that when Elvis Presley was in the military, he used to receive his money and then turn around and give it to the person who was behind him. I remember those pay lines well. I kept mine because I needed every nickel. My pay was something like 70 dollars per month and I if I went drinking I would run out of cigarettes before the end of the month.
Now for Trump. I think it is a nice gesture that he doesn't receive any salary. We agree on that! By the way, Jim will find fault with that as well.
Plain Old Tim wrote: Do they mean welcoming other queers in addition to the queer priests they already have?
Now brother, we must all remember their rules concerning homosexuality. They can say they are, but they have to say they are celibate and have been for a period of time. Then they can go to seminary, get confirmed and confess their acts of sodomy to one another when necessary.
You and I both would say that their entire clergy are either homosexuals or condone homosexual behavior.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I should have updated this! I think it's the latest one but the Don is probably exhausting the people who are trying to keep track of him? https://tinyurl.com/ycuto2nr ( In 601 days, President Trump has made 5,001 false or misleading claims) We know that our president will set a record in one thing anyway compared to all the other presidents. I assume this will make his supporters proud?
Jim, I think that the majority of us understand that Trump is an immoral buffoon. There are few comments from conservative republicans on this forum that could be construed to say something different. Most of us simply think that liberal democrats are a greater abomination.
John from Oz wrote: Plain ol Tim is right. The left will always accuse people of the exact thing they do, even if the people they are blaming never did such a thing. Still waiting for the muslim imposter to take up seat 666 at the united nations......
Very interesting! During my musings of the end-times and the antichrist, I have thought that the antichrist will be a secular Muslim and be part of the U.N. A good example for me would have been if Obama (a secular Muslim) took a position there after his presidency.
Godâ€™s building blocks for society is not governments or commerce, but the family. In the beginning, God made man and then made him a helpmate. And He told them to be fruitful and multiply; build families. So, it is clear the family was the beginning and the most important thing in creation. He made the male to lead, the wife to follow and children to come under their parentâ€™s headship; to include corporeal punishment. So, anything that destroys this original concept is from satan.
The feminist movement, the LGBT movement in its various forms and the state attempting to usurp the authority and commandments that God gave the parents is IMO the most important theological issues we have since in a sense everything else stems from them.
There is nothing that mankind can do to undo the destruction of the family, but we can individually resist furthering that agenda.
Well, I remember the time when Eastern European countries guarded their borders with land-mines and armed guards more so to keep people in, but... Those who wished to ignore those things did so at their own peril. Countries back then had a sense of sovereignty and felt that if someone got blown up by a land-mine, then they were the ones who were responsible since they knew that was a possibility.
Even in Western Europe there was a time when you had to go through check-points and get your passport stamped, etc. Now of course there are no limitations. In Germany, the migrants molest women and shop lift and they donâ€™t even normally file police reports.
If someone breaks into my house and I shoot and kill them; who is responsible; me or the thief that did it. I was only trying to protect my wife and they were trying to steal or cause harm to us. Both of us made a choice, but my choice was driven by love and loyalty.
Anyway to the point; I believe this caravan was solely politically motivated.
The one world order of the anti-christ is forming.
Plain Old Tim wrote: Good post, Frank, but Iâ€™m sure you know that facts bounce off of Jim like BBs hitting a rhinoceros. Each morning after he shaves and brushes his teeth he sprays himself with truth repellent and puts on a cast iron helmet just to make sure no sensible ideas are able to penetrate his skull.
Thanks Tim! Yes Jim fails to see how his views are antithetical to scripture. Like Obama and Hillary, he doesnâ€™t believe that a baby in the womb is an actual person until it is fully born. He uses the life of the mother often because it gives him a sense of piety. And, he side-steps any arguments that prove he is wrong. I remember for a long period of time he quoted some Jewish theologian. Ladybug and I showed from scripture where he was wrong, so he stopped doing that. Anyway, what the paragraph said was it is never correct to â€śtargetâ€ť an unborn life and he avoided it. I also wish SA would ban him, but Iâ€™m sure there is more to making that decision than I am aware of.
Okay, here we go again! Why don't you specifically say what you disagree with about the below. How many times have you read this by now?
This is from a pro-life site so it is biased towards doing the right thing. Notice how it is worded versus your pro-death agenda. 99.99999 percent of abortions are for convenience sake; plain and simple. Whatever percent that is left, should be done in accordance with the below. This is just so you donâ€™t confuse anyone.
"When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the motherâ€™s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the motherâ€™s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary."
The Quiet Christian wrote: O Lord, be with our Brother Wayfarer Pilgrim who's heart is broken. Bind him up O Lord thru the repentance of his son who is bent on pursuing idolatry and demands acceptance. Please, Lord, for Your own glory and the relief of Your people we pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: My guess is whoever posted it did not know what the "A.M." stood for in the name and didn't do the research on the person as the quote is excellent advise
Thanks! It is possible that it was simply a mistake. There are no female preachers in their inventory. I would write them and ask, but I don't see any email access to them. Years ago I actually emailed the founder and he responded in a prompt manner.
It is not natural for me to give someone the benefit of the doubt, but I think I will do it in this case. But, if I am ever sure they are entertaining feminism, then I am gone.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Although cannot dispute the truth of the admonition of Today's quote, one wonders why SA would chose to use a quote from what looks like (unless I a missing something in my research) a woman "preacher" on their site
Brother, I would have to agree with you. She was not only a preacher in churches, but one of the earliest feminists who did much harm to society.
If they ever get around to explaining why they did this, someone please let me know. My guess is someone posted that without the founderâ€™s approval or they are simply frauds. But, IMO, their explaining this is a necessity and not a choice.
Let me start off by saying that murder for any reason is condemned by our Holy God. Those who are not in faith suffer just as much as anyone when one of their loved ones is taken. These Muslimâ€™s goal is a worldwide dominion where someone must either convert, pay the infidel tax or die.
Now, I am also upset because like most articles this notes folks that arenâ€™t in the faith as being Christian. Many ministries whose purpose is to serve the persecuted simply say someone is a Christian if they claim it. Now one of the groups noted in the article was the Cherubim and Seraphim movement. I had never heard of it so I looked it up and all I can say is it is a Christian cult that makes our Charismatic movement look dull.
One day when the antichrist finally reigns on this earth, all genuine Christians will either take the mark of the beast and worship him or suffer death. The wheat and the tares will be truly separated for all to see.
Plain Old Tim wrote: The movie is playing at two theaters near me, but â€śHalloweenâ€ť has two to three times as many showings. That, of course, is simple economics. Two or three people would want to watch something demonic for every one who would prefer something even remotely â€śChristian.â€ť I wonâ€™t tell you how long itâ€™s been since I went to a movie, but it was a drive-in and â€śSnow Whiteâ€ť (yes, the animated Disney version) was playing. Iâ€™m not necessarily opposed to going to the movies. I just donâ€™t enjoy it anymore.
Good comment Tim and I donâ€™t disagree with anything you said.
You do realize that most people who post here have no idea what a drive-in is! They are about as archaic as phone booths and phones that use switch boards and rotary dial.
It is amazing how much the cultures of the world have changed.
Is your goal to convert people to Amish? IOW, do you believe that most of the posters here are in fact Christian even if they reject your movement? We are familiar with catholics who frequent this forum that have no real desire to fellowship, but to simply give credence to their movement.
How about this scripture reference? David was a man after Godâ€™s own heart. David committed adultery and murder therefore it is okay to murder and commit adultery. What I am saying is without the Holy Spirit I can make scripture say anything I want it to say.
I have never studied the Amish faith in any detail, but have always felt like others have said that they are completely works based and consider their separation and other idiosyncrasies to be the basis for their salvation. IOW, it is man centered.
Grace, repentance and salvation come solely from our Lord and there is nothing we can do to merit it. And our Lord keeps all those that belong to Him.
Oh and to the article. None of these statistics surprise me in the least.
Here is what happened to me. My wife and I made plans to see the movie and it was sort of an outing for us. The theater wasnâ€™t real near us and the show times made it such that we had to go near there for dinner. Anyway, they had advertised on the internet a showing time of 7:30. We got there and they said the last showing was at 4 and the 7:30 had been cancelled. She didnâ€™t have a pleasant look on her face either.
My guess is many folks got the same kind of treatment. Shame on them! The secular segment of our society that can exercise influence is simply growing worse and worse.
The Quiet Christian wrote: One of the biggest problems is the issue of hypocrisy. If priests can be active homosexuals, why can't individual parishioners? They've completely gone overboard and cannot get back into the boat.
Good point! I remember in years past they would accept someone into the priesthood even if they admitted to being homosexuals. The only criteria was them saying they were not "practicing" homosexuals. If memory serves me correctly they had to say they had been celibate for a certain period of time.
They do their thing and then simply confess it to one another in the confessional and all is okay.
Well, Iâ€™m sure that Jim supports this site because they support abortions. I reviewed their homepage and that is very clear. (Open Arms Pregnancy Clinic located in Northridge, California) And, yet like Jim they refer to themselves as â€śfaith basedâ€ť.
Reminds me of a FOX news anchor saying abortions should be rare, safe and personal. There is no difference between this statement and Hillaryâ€™s or Obamaâ€™s views. Just think about it; all abortions are rare for each woman. It just sounds sort of pious the same as our black liberation troll.