I'm definitely not against imprecatory prayers. I sing some of them every Sunday. I'm also not against strong speech for wolves in sheep's clothing (i.e. those who lead God's sheep astray).
What I'm talking about here is pretty targeted. The general manner by which Christians should guard their tongues, especially when speaking to and around unbelievers and weaker brethren.
Trying to get a rise out of people isn't demanded in the Scriptures, quite the opposite. Everyone here knows full well, if you do a 66 book study on how, in general, we should speak, it is in reverence, humility, seasoned with grace, temperance, etc. That's the default expectation. It's the rule, not the exception to the rule.
Belittling what all women do, including Christian women, doesn't fall into the category of imprecatory prayer or harsh words for false teachers.
good Some apps may not work for some days due to server problem or something. [URL=https://ishowboxdownloadapp.com]]]ishowboxdownloadapp[/URL] Whereas for the iOS gadget users, I'll provide you an IPA file and laptop nice.
The Qur'an states that Judas was crucified, not Jesus. Qur'an 4:156-159 The Qur'an States that Ishmael, not Isaac was the promised child. Qur'an Sura 37:103. In Islam, you must never call God your "father",..not even your Heavenly Father" This is blasphemy,.He is your eternal Master,..to be feared, to be respected,..but you may not place yourself so near to Him as to call God your "father", a true Muslim will never address Allah as "Father".
So,..what is to dialogue about,..? About Mohammad consummated a marriage to a 9 year old little girl when he was 54 years old? (Qur'an Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62)
Here is the only "dialogue" I am willing to engage in: If you are offended by our U.S. Constitutional freedoms and if you demand the anti-freedom and unconstitutional Sharia law then please do not live here,..stay where such insanity is the norm.
Let these justices obey God rather than man by ignoring the immoral dictate imposed on them, until they are forcibly booted out of office; and let God the sovereign Judge of all the earth, be their Rock and their Advocate. Persecution for the sake of righteousness-- even if it involves loss of money, influence, office-- is cause for rejoicing, not lamenting. By standing firm, these justices bear solemn witness to the truth that man has no authority to change a divine institution.
The theory of evolution not only denies the special creation of Adam; it denies there ever was a 'first man.' Evolutionists believe the species homo sapiens gradually emerged from earlier 'primates' and that from the beginning, homo sapiens was a community of evolving creatures. In other words, there was never an original human couple; never a first man; hence, there was no historic fall in time of the first man, bringing disastrous consequences upon the human race.
My point is this: there is no reasonable way to harmonize evolutionary theory with the plain declarations of the Bible regarding human origins. The Bible teaches beyond all doubt that the entire human race descended from a single couple, Adam and Eve, who were specially created by God thousands, not millions of years ago. The man was created first, and from his material substance, the first woman was created. Then the two of them were brought together in the first marriage. If all of this is but a parable or symbolic tale-- with no contextual evidence suggesting that it is-- and if the apostolic writers were wrong to base theology on the historical order of events that never took place-- we might as well throw out the Bible as incomprehensible. The school does well to maintain its position.
What many people fail to grasp is that the Confederate flag does not today, and did not in the minds of many Southerners who fought in the Civil War, stand for racism, white supremacy, or pro-slavery sentiments. Many Southerners-- including Lee himself, saw slavery as a social evil that needed to be eliminated, but they also believed in the sovereign freedom of individual states to leave the Union and then to solve their own social evils internally; so when the Southern states voted to secede from the Union, and then were attacked by the North, they supported the South in its efforts to defend state sovereignty, though they did not defend the institution of slavery or desire its perpetuation. They believed that states are responsible before God to correct their own social evils, without being forced to do so by foreign invaders (which is how the federal troops sent from Washington were viewed). We believe in the same principle, don't we? Do we think the U. S. has authority to attack Muslim lands in order to "liberate the women" who are being held as slaves in those lands? No, we believe Muslim lands are responsible before God to correct their own social evils. It would be wrong to attack them under the claim we are "liberating the oppressed."
It is so obvious that evolutionary dogmatists will go to any length to make it appear as if there were a consensus on every aspect of their theory, since it is so "obviously" true in their eyes. I recently saw a children's book promoting materialistic natural history that stated as fact the following theory of the moon's formation: the earth was hit by an asteroid shortly after it creation, the asteroid exploded, poured its metallic contents into the earth's core, while the rocky fragments that were left floating n space came together to form the moon. This was stated as scientific fact, to impress children with what scientists know about the formation of the universe; but in actual fact there is no consensus even among scientist's regarding the moon's origin. This is a 'just so' story presented as fact-- typical smoke and mirrors indoctrination by evolutionary dogmatists. And they wonder why people are skeptical of their theory!
The ruling of this judge is the very definition of state tyranny-- the sort of thing Daniel responded to with an open act of civil disobedience, continuing to do what he had always done, without regard to the unlawful decree of the state. The day has come for all Christians to follow Daniel's example, and I'm afraid that those who chide their fellow Christians for political involvement will soon find themselves embroiled in acts of civil disobedience that will result in their being dragged into the political spotlight whether they want to be there or not, as they are called to defend their actions before the civil authorities.
Those trying to force the public to change the way it thinks, speaks and acts in public with regard to the issue of marriage must be seen for what they are-- wicked, thuggish bullies-- and they should be treated as all bullies should be treated-- by refusing to yield to their imperious demands. There is no proper way to respond to the petty cowardice of bullies but by courageously resisting them.
Human governments have no right to censor God. When they do that, they overstep the bounds of their legitimate, God-given authority, and their unlawful mandate (at that point) must not be obeyed. It appears that England is now repeating its prior history of religious intolerance by the state toward Christian preachers. May God raise up more John Bunyans in our day, who like that noteworthy Christian, are willing to go to jail for preaching without compromise the unvarnished Word of God.
The judges should refuse to comply with this accursed ruling, and at the same time, they should refuse to resign their post as judges. Then when they are removed from the bench for non-compliance with an unlawful order, they should challenge the violation of their first amendment rights all the way to the Supreme Court. It is part of our God-given stewardship to fulfill our civic duty by challenging unlawful laws, decrees, rulings, and refusing to comply with them. That is at least part of what it means to be "salt" and "light" in our benighted and corrupt culture.
This is really not surprising at all. Once people reject biblical authority and start declaring that the opposite-sex gender requirement for marriage so clearly laid down in Scripture is "bigoted"-- in other words, once people have gotten themselves into the habit of exalting themselves above God by calling His judgments unjust-- then it is simply a matter of time before they throw out other features of the biblical definition of marriage. If the gender restriction on who may marry whom is deemed irrelevant and outmoded, why not the number restriction, as well? If consent is the only thing that matters in sexual relationships, and if the principle is established that each individual has a "right" to define the shape marriage takes to accommodate his/her sexual preference-- for to deny individuals that "right" is hateful-- then of course, you must grant that polyamorous as well as same-sex marriages are demanded by the 14th amendment (legally) and by the principle of "social justice" (ethically). This is all very disgusting, of course, but once you arrogantly exalt yourself above God in the manner of the "man of sin" described in 2 Thessalonians, then it becomes par for the course to live and operate in the realm of the "disgusting."