Observer wrote: Hmmm Considering you support the party that promoted slavery, segregation, jim crow laws etc it's a bit rich for you to stand on your high horse looking down at the party that opposed all those things. Maybe a "History of the Dem party" 101 course would be a good place for your re-education? On second thoughts scrap that idea. I really do believe you are beyond being educated. You need the new birth!
Well said brother! There is nothing we can say that will convince Jim of his lack of salvation. Only the Spirit has the power to do that.
I used to envision him getting a blank look on his face; shaking his head a couple of times and then just marching on.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I will point out there are many frivolous attacks on Trump. For example, one I just read yesterday, is almost silly, actually I will say it is silly,
Jim, your psychological ploys will not work here. Most of the posters on this forum are born again believers which mean we have discernment and can see through your worldly agenda. Your method is similar to a good cop, bad cop scenario although your technique is more sophisticated. If memory serves me correctly you once mentioned that you had a masters degree in psychology.
I know that I and Shane have asked you in the past if you are a paid troll or simply a troll. I donât remember you answering that, but your answer is pretty much irrelevant. Keep the below paragraph in mind.
One plain and simple spiritual statement uttered by a poor impoverished humble servant of God has more power and glorifies God more than all of the books ever written by liberal theologians, scholars, philosophers and anyone else of their ilk.
Christopher000 wrote: Frank Wrote: "...A moral and just society would prosecute those women and doctors who have or perform abortions for murder." Hi Frank, you got that right. What a barbaric nation and world, and talk about utter blindness. Like I said to Dolores earlier, while expounding on her comment...murder a baby just moments before a delivery, and life goes on...no big deal. Murder that same baby moments after delivery, and that night on the national news, the talking heads are trying to figure out what happened to you as a child that you could commit such an heinous act. I know I've repeated the scenario before, but it's just crazy to consider the hipocrisy. One of those "simple but true" things you brought up one time that I had never even considered is why father's don't have any say in the murder of a child. The mother can arrive home one day and simply say, "Oh, by the way, no new baby boy next week...I decided to abort. I wasn't ready".
Hey Chris! In a secular, worldly sense, I blame abortions primarily on feminism. It is a woman's way of saying, "see look how powerful I am". Or, it's my body, etc.
Who else has the power to decide life and death outside a court room.
Somewhat off topic, but I couldn't resist. Every time I hear the expression "mother nature" the below comes to mind.
Isnât it odd that a woman does not legally need the permission of the father of her unborn baby to obtain an abortion, whether he is her married spouse or not. And yet, if she is married, then she would have to have the permission of her husband to give their baby up for adoption or if divorced or if not married, she would of course be eligible to receive child support. So what our culture is saying is that the baby belongs solely to her if it is in her womb, but when it is born it belongs to both; the mother and father; hence child support is mandated for the father of his born child whether or not he marries the mother or not. So, the next time a woman says to the father of her child; I am carrying your child, she should be corrected since it canât possibly belong to the father when it is unborn; otherwise she wouldnât be able to murder it without his permission.
"When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the motherâs life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the motherâs 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 above is from the internet. . http://prolifephysicians.org/app/?page_id=2
According to the above, all babies that are targeted for abortion regardless of the reasoning, is murder. I have always stated that 99.99% of abortions are done for the reason of convenience and that is a verifiable fact. Although Jim from Lincoln might bring up headaches and stress as health reasons, it doesn't matter.
A moral and just society would prosecute those women and doctors who have or perform abortions for murder.
Ladybug wrote: Look who sponsored a third gender option in Ca. - the democrats - http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-democrats-propose-adding-1485465341-htmlstory.html Yes, these democrats do have a very sick mind don't they? This is NOT an endorsement for either political party, for BOTH are godless
A gender that is not exclusively male or female, including, but not limited to, intersex, agender, amalgagender, androgynous, bigender, demigender, female-to-male, genderfluid, genderqueer, male-to-female, neutrois, nonbinary, pangender, third sex, transgender, transsexual, Two Spirit, and unspecified.
Above is from the article.
Wow, I have absolutely no idea what some of the above means? But, Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.That I do understand!
Who would have thought that society would thumb their nose at God to this extent and think they will be successful. God is not mocked!!
Isaiah 3:9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.
Just some musing on my part. It only applies to heretics and false prophets!
It is impossible for someone to be completely sincere and honest and become a heretic or a false prophet. That would be the same as saying someone became an alcoholic without taking that first drink. No, someone becomes a heretic or a false prophet because they inwardly abhor or disagree with a particular truth they donât like and agree with and desire the lie they do like. In other words, they entertain a particular heresy because they want that heresy to be true. God then looks into their hearts and âturns them overâ to their own thoughts and lusts and the lie they wanted to believe suddenly becomes truth and the truth they didnât want to believe suddenly becomes a lie. Once this occurs and God turns them over to their own lusts and desires, they often have no way of knowing truth from lies. They then become sincere heretics and false prophets who really have no way of knowing what they are.
Conclusion: be very careful of that first heretical step; it will be downhill!
Dave wrote: Frank, I see you have iguanas freezing and falling out of trees. Maybe not as cold as Rhode island mate Christopher, it's been reported here that it's 5Â°c in Florida and minus 10Â°c in Massachusetts, now that's cold
Yes mate it is cold here. I think it is supposed to get down to 37 Fahrenheit tonight which equals 2.7 Celsius in my neck of the woods. ( I had to Google that ï) But notice I am not a wimp like some who live in Rhode Island.
Ladybug wrote: Brother Frank, The question of when is enough enough is easy to answer....when we breathe our last, then our battle for truth is over. We should correct, rebuke, whatever is necessary when it is necessary. God forbid someone stumble on these threads and think they can follow a 'method' to be saved. How careful must we be in handling God's truth? How valuable is that truth to us? I think the quote on another thread from Spurgeon answers that for us...""'I dread much the spirit which would tamper with Truth for the sake of united action, or for any other object under heaven the latitudinarian spirit which sneers at creeds and dogmas. TRUTH IS NO TRIFLE! Not so thought our fathers, when at the stake they gave themselves to death, or on the brown heather of Scotland fell beneath the swords of Claverhouse's Dragoons for truth which men nowadays count unimportant, but which being truths were to them so vital that they would sooner DIE than suffer them to be dishonoured." C H Spurgeon That is worthy of a post here as well
I voted for Trump for one reason only! I knew that Trump would have to pander to conservatives once he took office. Since this immoral buffoon would pander to conservatives then instead of 1 million babies being slaughtered in this country, perhaps only 999,999 would be murdered. (note: these numbers are not meant to be accurate)
To me, if one child was potentially saved, then I would vote for him and it was worth it.
2 Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Well parrot, for starters the above verse 18 is dependent on verses 14-17; especially verses 16 and 17.
You still take attend the RCC so you are not a son of the most high. That is your testimony and I only posted this for the occasional viewer who "might" be confused by your comment.
You do realize that all of those who belong to Christ "are" Godâs children. 1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
I just read a very informative article about them. Once again, I had never heard their names mentioned before. We take so many things for granted in this country and have never experienced the trials so many people have endured.
I appreciate these referrals and yes, it is good seeing you posting again. I remember I didn't always agree with you on some issues and I hope that you have lowered your IQ somewhat.
Neil wrote: I don't see any SS divisions listed in the Stalingrad order of battle for Army Group B. Regular Heer divisions were pretty "crack" anyway. A small percentage of German POWs survived the Gulags. "Gestorben in Russland" was common in cemeteries I saw in W. Germany. Off topic, but a popular myth, thanks to self-serving memoirs, is that Wehrmacht generals were "good guys in a bad cause." Look up "Konto 5."
Thanks for the konto 5 information. I had never heard of that. I was somewhat surprised that the driving force for these folks was money. But, I have always understood that most in the societies of the world will do whatever it takes to get rich and/or famous. They will lie, cheat, deceive etc. to obtain these things. The love of money ...
Off topic. I once went to Dachau concentration camp outside Munich and all I can say is any German who lived in that area that says they didn't know what was happening at that camp is a liar.
B. McCausland wrote: Please, Frank, you are putting words were they have not been, or belong, which is misepresentation. It has never stated on my part any endorsement of BG. Any comment presented was related to the disjointed doctrinal bias the topic takes here by default
Well help correct my false conclusion. Are you saying that you believe the Grahams are apostates? If you do, can you please tell me why they are?
Dave wrote: Fairdinkum John you're a nong. You swore, does anyone here disagree, or should we not speak truth in this either.
Okay, now I can say it. Thanks for your comments Dave and I agree with all of them. Well those that I read.
Lurker, I have complete confidence that regardless of what I say to someone, nothing can happen unless our heavenly Father intervenes. No amount of wisdom coming from me will do anything at all to change anyone's heart or thoughts. Often He lets me know that I am in the wrong or that I should remain quiet. THEN I DO.
Unless, I believe the Lord wants me to stop, then I usually continue. If I think someone is simply trying to stir the pot, then I often will ignore them unless I believe they could be confusing the body of Christ.
Lurker wrote: I've know Penny since she first came here posting as JPW and I have to say I don't know much about her theology and that because she typically doesn't get involved in theological discussions. However, I seem to recall she is reformed in her beliefs, embraces the doctrines of grace and I seriously doubt she endorses decisional regeneration. That said, if she has ever posted anything which seemed to commend the Grahams, I'd be hard pressed to believe it had anything to do with their faulty theology. So the question I have for you and Ladybug is..... at what point do you realize you have done all you can do to convince others of the errors of the Grahams and turn the result over to God?
Yes, I also remember the JPW days. If she doesn't support the Grahams, then she could make that clear and "say why she doesn't".
Like I said, I believe we shouldn't give credence to the pope. (you must believe there are heretics, so you can plug in someone else if you like) IMO, when we do that we are dummying down the gospel. You do realize that RC is synonymous with Christianity in our culture and in most churches? Why is that?
I try to confront them if "I" think they are confused or they are confusing the body of Christ.
Lurker wrote: You may be right, Frank, but that isn't the issue. What is at issue, at least for me, is a certain poster commended FG for putting a Hollywood piece on human garbage in her place and for that she was piled on as though she had endorsed the theology of FG. Rather than assuming the worse and immediately going on the attack, why not ask for clarification? And if clarification isn't given, take the hint and let it alone. As for me, there was no question what this certain poster was commending.
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I think I and Ladybug understood the issue. I think that Ladybug was using her understanding of how past posters view the Grahams. Penned, BM, Dolores, and John UK have supported them in the past, although in many cases somewhat coyly. IOW, they avoid the issues that Ladybug and others present.
I just read an article that gave a FG quote where he said he hoped the RCC remained strong against sin.
Now, I would say that if FG said that, he is in fact supporting RC by giving them spiritual credence. Who would do that? The Pharisees stood against sin, and?
So, when I read something by a poster are you saying I shouldn't consider the past stances a poster has taken? Wouldn't that confuse an issue even more?