Jim Lincoln wrote: --- 1 Corinthians 6 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.--- https://tinyurl.com/has82mk (NASB) For politicians verse 10 is lot more important than verse 9 when it comes to the list of sins
For you the sinfulness of sin seems to somehow vary according to the party of the politicians.
Amishchristian wrote: Mike. Was I wrong in thinking that a personâ€™s morals did matter when choosing a new president?
No, just wrong for you. You said your church does not vote. Therefore the perceived moral condition of a politician cannot or does not matter. To you. You are neither for nor against, because you stand apart from it. Wisdom would heed QC's post 10:01 AM.
Amishchristian wrote: I donâ€™t mean to offend anyone here. But our church doesnâ€™t get involved in politics meaning we donâ€™t vote. Will Americans now have to choose between a openly homosexual with a husband and a openly adulterer on his third wife. I believe both are wrong. What if it was the other way around and the homosexual was the conservative? Who would you vote for? The way I and my church see it Jesus is the only one who will ever get our vote. Iâ€™m glad I donâ€™t have to decide on anyone else. And by the way our store is doing alright. January was very slow but business picking up now as the weather begins to warm a little. ---
Not offended, but have questions. Is there something in Scripture where God says sinners cannot be leaders of countries? Does he not put governments in place, and take them down as well? Should you not be grateful you live in one where your principles of not being involved are protected by the principles of those who are involved? I wonder how your store would do in Communist, Islamic, or tribal lands?
John UK wrote: Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV (8)Â For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9)Â Not of works, lest any man should boast. Similar to what St James said earlier, it is necessary simply to look at the sentence construction: what is THAT referring to? It is either:- 1. grace (that grace) 2. saved (that saved) 3. faith (that faith) Obviously we can remove number 2 because it makes no sense. We can also remove number 1 because we acknowledge that the grace is referring to the grace of God, which is God showing undeserved favour. Therefore, "that not of yourselves" must refer to "faith", which is the gift of God to the sinner; it is a work of the Spirit of Jesus, who is the author and finisher of our "faith". To those who believe salvation is the gift, well it could have been if the text had said, "For by grace ye have salvation through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God". But it doesn't so it cannot be. _______________ ---
Instead of saying "that saved" and rightly pointing out it makes no sense, let's say "that" refers to being saved by grace through faith that is the gift. Why? Because being saved by grace through faith is not of works. v9. That makes sense, no
Dr. Tim wrote: Bloomberg may have qualified for the Democratic debate, Jim, but he isnâ€™t fit to be a garbage man, let alone President of the United States. His beliefs and policies are almost without exception contrary to the Bibleâ€”but so were Obamaâ€™s, and he was the greatest thing since Ovaltine as far as liberals are concerned. And by the way, is it only a sin to be rich and white if you also happen to be a Republican?
Good question. Makes you wonder why Jim doesn't mention that all the Dem candidates are rich white people.
Jim Lincoln wrote: This is already taken care of on the federal level --and little doubt on state level as well. I see the article has been recently updatedâť—
Anna North wrote: --- â€śThe bill maligns and vilifies providers and patients to push a false narrative about abortion later in pregnancy,â€ť Dr. Kristyn Brandi, a board member of Physicians for Reproductive Health, told Vox in an email last year.excerpt from, 'Republicans are bringing back a bill to protect â€śabortion survivorsâ€ť' --- "Gilding the lily"?
I assume by "false narrative..." that it means the one they don't want to think about, the fact that the unborn, or late term, or newborn, are all humans made in God's image, and that killing them is murder. But it would make sense for a group calling themselves "Doctors for Reproductive Health" that they see destruction of life as health. Death culture at its finest perversity.
John Locke wrote: You people should be ashamed of yourselves you sound like high school bullies. You like shaming people who are poor and need help and insulting people who want to help the poor. I will be sure to laugh in your face when you get replaced by a robot and your children have no house to live. Second depression part II is coming upon America.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- Why, Mike, seems to me you can't pursue happiness if you're sick, and people who are skinny as a rail can be sick. You ought to like Mike Bloomberg, I believe he is against universal healthcare.
Again, In what way does the existence of sickness demonstrate health is a human right?
Bloomberg is a liberal who hasn't had the courage to debate other the other liberals, who aren't afraid to debate each other. When he was a Republican, he was a New York Republican, which downstate is no Republican at all. He's trying to buy the presidency. There is nothing to like about him, and I hope he flops so bad he'll never recover. Do you really want Nebraska to be like New York City?
QC, crimes motivated by hate do exist, but the State can only pretend it knows when a crime is motivated by it. We should never be ok with that, for it will be used against the innocent. In some cases, it already is. Selective prosecution on the basis of thought is scary and unlawful, whether legal or not.
One doesn't have to hate a bank in order to rob it. A soldier doesn't have to personally hate an enemy soldier to shoot him. A State has no authority to prosecute a crime on the basis of the feelings of the criminal, but on the criminal act itself, it does. Abortion is murder, and should be treated as such. The mother hates being pregnant, but does not hate the baby, for in her mind it isn't human to start with. "Hate crime" is a political construct, not a moral one.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Yes, Carl, America has its share of guilt. excerpt from, "Explaining the numbers behind the rise in reported hate crimes" It probably would be even better if the Indiana attorney general did pay more attention to the living, while they are still aliveâť—
No matter how many times you hear it, there's no such thing as hate crime. How a bad guy feels or what he is thinking while committing a crime cannot be known. At best, hate crime is a more self-justifying way of saying thought crime.