Just a Guy wrote: "We know that every life has meaning" Donald Trump Except when Congress puts a funding bill on you desk, and Planned Parenthood gets 500 million of it...
I agree completely with your thought here. He did sign a budget that included 500 million to murder babies. IMO, his pro-life stance is a farce. But, he has to pander to his conservative base and that means that perhaps just one precious life will be saved!
Douglas Fir wrote: Did anyone see coverage of the March for Life on any network other than Fox? I noticed one major TV network news spent their time on the Winter Storm to affect NE US this weekend; it was so typical that they could have just used the same reports from a previous storm and kept their reporters in the bars they usually hang out at.
Yes, believe it or not I watched some if it on the catholic channel. I have always thought it is okay to learn about them, but not from them. Anyway, after there were so many ecumenical speakers that werenât even interesting I flipped the channel. IMO, it is wrong to come alongside apostates even if it is to agree on a moral issue. 2 Cor. 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
To me most of these marches and such are simply cultural movements that blur the lines. I did hear some doctor who used to perform abortions speak and I simply thought wow a reformed serial murderer who no longer murders. Praise God!
As most know, I voted for Trump because I knew he would have to pander to Christians. They were part of his base. But because he is obviously not a politician it appears we are going to have a tough time ahead. I am glad he is holding his position on the wall and am really glad he took away Pelosiâs travel agenda. Our politicians are only interested in their personal agenda of getting elected and they will do whatever that takes.
The next couple of years will be very interesting indeed.
John Yurich USA wrote: There are scriptural Episcopal Churches who are against homosexuality. So Christians who are against homosexuality could unite with an Episcopal Church that is against homosexuality.
Yes and there are some catholic priests who donât molest children. The episcopalian churches normally align themselves with catholicism and therefore they should be shunned.
Chris, just noticed your comment and I couldn't agree more with you. Even Islam doesn't promote abortion or homosexuality. Does that make them moral; of course not.
John UK wrote: "The Nordic countries were long a bastion of strong fertility rates on an Old Continent that is rapidly getting older. But they are now experiencing a decline....." No surprise there.
I agree! The commandment to not love this world is ignored by the unbelievers of this world. So, women and men would simply not want their lives complicated by births and the responsibilities that follow. Be fruitful and multiply has become a choice instead of a command and we are reaping what we are sowing.
No Christian, regardless of their stance on this issue should be named among this denomination.
2 Corinthians 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.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with a woman working part-time as long as she has her husbandâs blessings. There are of course some occupations that would not be permissible, but teaching art certainly sounds okay.
John UK wrote: Frank? Interesting piece of info concerning that Lutheran church, thank you brother. That is astonishing. Just not sure why you mentioned that in response to my post. But it sure is interesting. "As a Reconciling in Christ congregation". Hmmmm, sounds like another movement, part of the ecumenical movement.
Well I donât think the forum should be used as a social platform; I use emails for that. So your post indicated that Anglican literature in those bookstores simply showed they were apostates. I was under the impression that some Anglican identified themselves as Lutheran so I felt I was somewhat on topic?
And I have never run across a religious church that actually said the things I noted on their web page. So, I just thought you would find it interesting.
John UK wrote: "The Archbishop of Canterbury is being asked replace a new ambassador to the Vatican after reports surfaced that he doesn't believe Jesus physically resurrected from death." Go into any large second-hand bookshop in the UK, go to the religion section, and you will inevitable find some very old, musty books written by Anglicans, about religious subjects. You won't have to read very much before coming to the conclusion, "This man did not know the Lord Jesus Christ."
I donât know a lot about the Lutheran church or the different kinds of Lutheran churches. The below is from the website of a Lutheran church that is very close to me. And yes, they have a sign outside that says they marry without moral stipulations.
As a Reconciling in Christ congregation, we welcome you
...without regard to race or ethnicity, income level, abilities or disabilities
...without regard to whether you own a home, rent, or are homeless
...without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity: straight, gay, lesbian, transgendered or bisexual
...without regard to age or marital status: single, married, separated, divorced, remarried, widowed or partnered.
Christopher000 wrote: Governor Cuomo of New York, held a press conference the other day to announce and promote a new abortion rights bill in the works, to loosen the murder laws, and Hillary Clinton was at his side to voice her approval. Currently, a pregnant mother-not-to-be, can only murder her baby up to 24wks following conception, in New York State. The bill he's introducing, and threatening not to sign off on a budget if not included, and approved, will allow these mothers to murder their babys right up to birth, and even for "fetal" abnormalities, but he included the word, "fatal" in there. Right up to a baby's birth, and his proposal was met with cheering, clapping, and jumping around with excitement. Barbaric, and sad.
Good comment Chris!
I wrote up two other responses and cancelled them both. Nothing was meant to be negative to you by the way! I just didn't want anyone saying I was on my feminist "soapbox" Anyway, without the women's vote, he wouldn't be Governor and without their votes, Bill C. wouldn't have been successful ergo neither would Hillary.
The thing I try to remember is there is no law that requires a woman to murder her unborn baby. At least not yet.
Jim Lincoln wrote: The evolution News and Views site gives a variety of arguments. How effective John Ankerberg has been over the years in trying to argue logically for Christianity may be up for debate, but I still think it's good that he made a stab at it. I welcome the people who try to make a rational stand for intelligent design. Some at least of the IDers in the beginning were not Christian even.
Well Jim, I didn't read the article, but I will make a comment regarding Ankerberg. Ankerberg believes and teaches what is called an Old Earth Creation. He believes life and death happened for billions of years prior Adam and Eve and the fall in the Garden. His idea of intelligent design is simply theistic evolution dressed up so Christians won't be thought of as ignorant.
And to make matters worse, his group twists scripture to coincide with so-called scientific findings.
Dr Roger Clark wrote: nothing new to "Lutherans". Ministers of this persuasion have been preaching this for years here in Germany. According to them - Jesus supposedly did not rise in his physical body but only spiritually in the "kerygma" - ie: in the Church - pace John 20;27 :- "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thine hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." None so blind as those who will not see.
Hey brother! Glad to see you posting.
Well if someone ever claims they have found the body of Christ, I will simply say they are deceived or they are liars.
I remember years ago reading that men will die for bad second hand knowledge, but not for bad first hand knowledge. All of His disciples died for their faith except one. When Christ appeared to His disciples; that would be âfirstâ hand knowledge.
John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.
Christopher000 wrote: "Instead of a biblical account of Christ's return, it depicts Jesus as a failure who disappointed God by getting crucified when he first walked the earth. He is sent back to learn how to be a real Messiah by learning from the superhero "Sun-Man. An all-powerful superhero, named Sun-Man, has to share a two bedroom apartment with Jesus Christ. The conceit is that God was so upset with Jesus's performance the first time he came to Earth, since he was arrested so soon and crucified shortly after, that he has kept him locked-up since then," Sickening, blasphemous, and just one of the signs that this nation has turned against The One, in pompous defiance, who can destroy body and soul. Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Very interesting comment. I agree with everything you said. All of the societies of the world are against the Christ of scripture without exception. And He is the only one who is capable of destroying the soul.
Yes, Bourgoin! And I am glad you added "so called".
Bourgoin wrote: My question is why did the pastor post this statement. Was it out of correctional love or hate. Everything we do should be to glorify God but we all fall short in that category. That being said a church that want stand behind it's pastor because of the fear of man deserves what it gets. We need to pray for that church and the former pastor. Satan is out to kill steal and destroy. Maybe this was what it took to get this pastor away from a legalistic politically correct church.
Well said! We will probably never know much about this pastor's true motive.
1. I was informed by our other elder that he felt he could no longer follow my lead as Pastor of TBPC.
2. I was informed that essentially all but one couple in membership would leave the church if I continued as pastor of TBPC.
3. Our other elder and the couple felt that those who left would likely return if I would leave.
4. Our other elder was agreeable to stay and assume the pastoral responsibilities.
Therefore it was determined that it would be in the best interest of the local body for us (TBPC and the Hoke family) to part ways.
Well, I canât imagine why this pastor would even want to be a member or the leader of this apostate church. According to 2 and 3 above, the church leadership was only interested in the numbers. I normally refer to them as âhirelingsâ. So, I will simply say without additional knowledge that this pastor is being blessed by being kicked out. Letâs pray he is genuinely in the faith.
Thanks for the comment brother! Yes, the feminist movement is probably the most evil movement we have. It not only destroys women, but men, children, governments, cultures and especially the churches. Most churches toe the line and are very concerned about offending women who attend.
Why is it that when Pastors preach against feminism and for the necessity of married women to be submissive and obedient to their husbands as unto the Lord, they almost invariably assuage their comments by interjecting the duties of married men to love their wives as Christ loved the church and to not treat their wives as inferior or as slaves or objects in response to their submission. The usual sentence goes something like this; ânow men this doesnât give you the right to be dictatorialâ. Or worse than that is the comment that God didnât take Eve from Adamâs foot, so âŚ Some would say these folks are simply teaching the whole council of God. If that is true why is not the converse also true? Why when they teach about the roles of men do they not normally interject the roles of women in any assuaging fashion.
Men are to love their wives as Christ loves His church and women are to obey and be submissive to their husbands as unto the Lord. See that wasnât hard at all!
I have heard and read many arguments about the inadequacies of men and that society needs for them to change. Has anyone ever, and I mean ever heard any secular media say that women need to change? The only change that is ever noted is they need to become more like men. In other words, a traditional woman isnât wrong, but is the way they are because of men. The truth is that men and women who are not in Christ are both as deficient as each other.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Try rearranging the above in any way. Can someone say that Christ is the head of God or that man is the head of Christ? The answer is of course not, but society will and has said that man is not head of woman!
All of us, including myself, are guilty of furthering this abominable feminist movement. But when we recognize what is taking place, we should fight against it.
Men were designed to lead and women were designed to follow and complement men. Satan has reversed Godâs perfect design. The most common movement even in our churches is egalitarianism and it should be complementarianism.
John UK wrote: Frank, you got my drift precisely, and yes we are in agreement concerning that. If I say to you, "I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," and you say to me, "I also believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," then that is our confession of faith. And you can then say to me, "Blessed art thou, John UK of Wales, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is heaven." And then I can say to you, "Blessed art thou, Frank of USA, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is heaven." What a blessing!