Frank wrote: Good comment brother. And let me add that normally these folks resort to the same methodology that they are accusing others of doing. I thought I made a scriptural argument for the way I address Jim and I never attacked Steven Hamilton at all. His response was either I was not a Christian or lying to myself. AMAZING. Anyway, thanks for your wisdom!
Amazing indeed, brother. And thanks for you wise and tempered comments. Too bad they probably won't be heeded.
Steven Hamilton wrote: ... the constant attacks against one another (from people who CLAIM to be Christian) I find genuinely repulsive!!!!!! I most definitely do not agree with most of Jimâs viewpoints, but I also do not agree with the actions of others on here professing Jesus as their Lord and Savior who do not even try to follow his commands in regards to interacting with others inside and outside the body of Christ!
Every few month we get someone who wants to "fix" what's wrong with this comment board. And it's always the same.... chastise those who do what they believe they must to keep this board from being overrun by godless liberalism. Or put another way, they seek to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.
If you want to do something worthwhile, enlighten the liberal troll who haunts this comment board. And if you're unwilling or unable, may I suggest you hold your peace.
Dolores wrote: Lurker, on your last comment to Jim, we can say to all the Dems today after Kavanaugh is put on the Supreme Court.đ Praise The Lord.
Hey sister Dolores,
Good to hear from you.
Yes, this most distasteful chapter in our nation's history has finally come to a close just the way God wanted it. But I fear Kavanaugh's swearing in will just become the opening paragraph of another chapter even uglier. The liberals and feminists are not going to ride off into the sunset quietly. And, of course, we can always count on Jim to cheer them on.
Gal 1:16-17 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
If "reveal his Son ?? me" speaks of Paul's conversion on Damascus Road it may best read "reveal his Son to me".
If "reveal his Son ?? me" speaks to Paul's calling into the ministry of the Gentiles it may best read "reveal his Son in me".
The context clearly speak of both Paul's conversion/regeneration and his calling into the ministry as they both were necessary to God's plan for Paul.
However, "immediately" gives the sense that Paul is speaking about his calling into the ministry of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles as "immediately" excludes the three days of his blindness from the time Jesus appeared to him on Damascus Road until he was indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
That said, either way doesn't change anything significantly. At least, not in my opinion.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Lurker, it matters little if some of these professors are liberal or conservative. Their complaint wasn't about the political status of Brett Kavanaugh, it was about the way he expressed it amongst other things.
Plain Old Tim wrote: Good point, Lurker. I seem to recall that there was a foreigner down in Egypt many years ago who was falsely accused of sexual assault but was nevertheless confirmed for a high government position.
Hmmm. Never thought of that, Doc, but Potifar's wife sure seems to be an apt figure of Christine Blasey Ford, pot hole digger (Phd). Thanks for bringing that up.
Oh.... btw, you may need to draw a picture for Jim to get it.
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpt from, " More than 2,400 law professors urge senators to reject Kavanaugh " [ https://tinyurl.com/y92lcc7s ] It is a very short article and will not take long read at all. It also has nothing to do with the women such as Dr. Ford
Key word.... law "professors" from liberal academia?
Give it a rest, Jim. It'll all be over sometime tomorrow. Might want to stock up on dry hankies.
Rodney K. wrote: That's because excommunication leaves a much smaller carbon footprint. https://babylonbee.com/news/pope-apologizes-for-catholic-churchs-carbon-emissions-from-burning-heretics-at-stake
VATICAN CITYâThe Pope has apologized for the Catholic Church's past acitivites burning heretics at the stake centuries ago, admitting that the practice was a carbon-emission-heavy activity that did not reflect good stewardship of the earth.
"It's clear now that the Catholic Church made missteps centuries ago, by not finding a carbon-neutral way to dispose of heretics," he said in a special address. "I am filled with regret when I think of the large carbon footprint left behind by the Reformers and other heretics previous Popes tortured and incinerated."
The Pope confirmed that going forward, the Catholic Church will be purchasing carbon credits to offset the footprint of any heretics they decide to burn at the stake, as well as any documents they decide to torch before investigators get too close.
What I find sobering is the nature of these proceedings will become the new standard in the future. If Kavinaugh's confirmation goes down in flames, the dem's will repeat the same dirty tricks till they get in power and confirm a liberal judge knowing the conservative repubs won't stoop as low as them before the mid-term elections.
And if Kavinaugh goes down in flames, what conservative judge in their right mind would submit themselves to the same treatment? Which is why, I believe, Trump is being advised to nominate Kavinaugh again if he is not confirmed and appeal to the voters in the states of the hold out senators before the mid-term elections. Threaten them with the loss of their jobs and they may come around.
sc wrote: We also know by his testimony that his religious background and alliances are questionable. His "god" is not the God of the Bible. So,when his supporters like to make mention that he believes in God, it is good to note which "god".
I never checked into the accusers religious background. Can you enlighten us in that regard?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: You find error in others theological thinking for not interpreting Scripture correctly but would you please consider your own response. Would you be so kind as to show where the Lord, or anyone in Scripture broke the law into separate parts of ceremonial, moral, and civil. The words that you used, ceremonial and moral, are not even found in the Bible. Thanks for your response .
It's a good and fair question, brother. And I'd be interested to hear an answer too.
The Quiet Christian wrote: 1) Jesus did not supercede the Ten Commandments but summarized them. "Love the God..." summarizes the first half and "Love the neighbor..." summarizes the second half.
2) The Decalog itself is a summary of the Moasic Law...
1) Just a summary like shorthand? Why not call the great commandments the fulfillment of the Decalogue as Paul did?
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Jesus said He came to fulfill the law, yes? If yes, can it be said that this "summary" is actually His finished work? His righteousness? Did Jesus not tell the lawyer when asked about inheriting eternal life under the first covenant economy "Do this (keep the great commandments) and live."? So are not the great commandments life? If yes, why reduce them to a mere "summary"?
2) Wrong. The Decalogue was the first covenant and the Levitical Law was the "tenor" of that covenant. Paul sums up the Levitical as the letter of the law which killeth.
This love affair most Christians have with death and condemnation has always fascinated me. Like moths drawn to the flame.
Normally brother, I quite enjoy your comments but in this case.... not so much.
Blasey had an opportunity to gain the compassion and support in the courtroom of public opinion but she willingly traded that for ulterior political and personal reasons. If the Senate Judiciary Committee actually does their job they must apply the following principles to the upcoming hearing come Thursday:
1) The accused is innocent till proven guilty.
2) The accuser bears the burden of proof.
3) Proof must be beyond a shadow of doubt.
Although the hearing is not a courtroom, any other method of weighing Blasey's accusation will be a mockery of our standard of justice.
When all the rhetoric of the past several days is sifted through, along with her testimony, there is no proof. And it's doubtful Blasey has an ace up her sleeve.
Cora Suither wrote: Lurker, 1) â...mind made upâŚâ about what?
2) You add to the polarization simply by saying âdemsâ and making accusations about them.
I'll keep this brief lest I say something I may regret.
1) 9/20/18 9:44 PM Cora Suither: "White men." I'm a white man. Senator Chuck Grassley is an 85 year old white man. He is also the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and my Senator. I voted for him every time he was up for re-election. I have met him personally. He is a man of the highest integrity and is bending over backwards to see to it this woman is heard by the 20 members, 10 of which are dems and 4 of which are women. Quite frankly, I don't like your blanket insinuations about people you know nothing about.
2) "Dems" bothers you? Really? It's just an abbreviation, not a pejorative. In case you haven't noticed I also refer to the repubs on occasion.
Honestly Cora, I have no idea what your deal is but I'm pretty sure I don't want anything to do with it.
Marty McD wrote: He said, ""Senator" Hirono needs to shut up her office and step up to the stove, the sink and the washing machine and perform the role God intended for her."
In case you missed it, what Doc wrote was based on the format of what Senator Hirono said:
"I just want to say to the men of this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change."
Doc did, in fact, answer this liberal fool biblically and according to her own folly with the exception that he stopped short of telling her or the women of this country to "shut up". Why this caused so much uproar is beyond me.
Cora Suither wrote: Lurker, Forgiving someone doesnât necessarily set you free. This kind of offense can often make you more vulnerable. Please donât misunderstand me. I donât think all men are alike. No broad brushing here. It just seems that there is a group who think only along âwhiteâ lines. We see this going on with the confirmation issue. The testimony of a woman against a powerful man is dangerous still. Look at the opposition Doctor Ford is encountering even now. They will vilify her without blushing. This is why the senator said what she did. She knows they are dishonest. I wish they would shut up. I wish they would do their jobs with integrity. Better I wish they would vacate their offices.
Thanks for you reply, Cora.
Again, you have my sympathy for whatever happened long ago. And I can understand that wounds may heal but scar tissue remains.
As for Kavanaugh and his accuser, you seem to have your mind made up so I won't say any more. The situation is very polarizing and I'm disgusted that it's turned out to be a huge political game of brinksmanship. The dems don't really give a hoot about this woman.... they just want to defeat Kavinaugh and this woman is a useful pawn. When it's over, you won't hear any more about her.
Marty McD wrote: Lurker, what does any of that have to do with clear, plain, unambiguous,simple, universal commands for Christians as to how they should speak? Is the Apostle James too unclear? Did Peter stutter? Is Paul unintelligible? Cherry-picking? Welcome to theological liberalism.
I have no bone to pick with you.
Please quote exactly what Doc Tim posted that has caused such an uproar and we can discuss it. Or better yet, you can tell me what is wrong with it from a biblical perspective.
Marty McD wrote: Sorry Lurker, that someone canât, on a single occasion, correct Christians with the Word of God. Feel free to make room for respectable sins. Letâs just rip out the pages in the Bible that regulate Christian speech. Who needs that, right?
So you and Berean have a lock on the truth? Will you also correct John the Baptist and Jesus for calling the unbelieving Jews a "brood of vipers"? The bible is a huge book and anyone can cherry pick to make a point.
Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
From this text I can make the point that if Tim was unjust in his comment, it is commanded to you to leave him be unjust..... not to try to "fix" him. That is, if I were a cherry picker.
. . .
I'm sorry for what happened to you years ago. But may I respectfully say that you paint with an awfully wide brush.
But what is more troubling; as a professing Christian you still carry this around as an open wound, refusing to let Jesus heal it. Have you been forgiven much when Christ called you unto Himself? Yet you still carry this incident around apparently unforgiven.