Youth in Asia wrote: Every generation fails to learn from the past.
Did you read the article?
Just this morning I was thinking of likenesses/pictures. Then I read this article and it's reference to mirrors. Then I think Jas 1:22-25 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
Does that same van not run on Saturdays? You would think so, for the sake of the residents at the shelter you allegedly are in. Wouldn't it be a good idea to broaden your work search beyond the data entry field? Any money coming in is better than no money.
Tom gets 70 percent of Ohio. Jerry gets 30 percent of Ohio. The Ohio delegates like Fred the most. He only received .1 percent. The delegates support Fred and say the heck with these people and their vote because we know better because Tom is like hurler and Jerry is Stalin.
The only thing unbound is the people will see their vote does not count for anything as the delegates do what they want by choosing an individual of their own liking and not the will of the people. Who do they truly represent? Take Cruz and Trump out of the equation and look at what's going on here.
@geff Which means the one with the most votes is not represented? And that's okay just as long as we like him? I thought the one with the most votes would logically be the choice of the people. Doesn't seem to be the case does it.
This is a very revealing process that proves your vote does not mean what you think it does. Seems Trump is finding out too. You would think delegates represent the desire of the voters of the state by the quantity of votes cast. Instead you just need a career politician working the system
TMC wrote: @ Question By even the strictest historical interpretation Cruz is qualified. Something people forget when this comes up is that if Cruz is not a "Natural Born" citizen- then he's not a citizen at all. He's never gone through any naturalization process. And if he's not a citizen he would not have been able to drive, vote, or be a Senator.
It is possible to be a citizen but not a natural born citizen. Those naturally born here and on American soil AKA an embassy in another country are the natural born ones and those who are not can apply for citizenship. Look at Arnold S. He was Gov. of California but was not qualified for POTUS per the prereqs...but he drives and votes.
I am unsure of any process he has or has not gone through. I just happen to hear on an interview on the radio that his mother was a registered voter in Canada, living in Canada when Ted was born. If she was a registered voter in Canada at the time of Ted's birth she could not be a citizen of the US at that time??? or maybe she was duel???
What opinion some guys at Harvard have are of no worth as they can "interpret" what they want it to say. Words have meaning and they are pretty straight forward in the constitution. Obama beat the system.
Would Cruz be eligible for potus under the requirements of the constitution? I heard on a radio interview His mother was a registered voter in Canada, living in Canada, when Cruz was born in Canada. How does that qualify him to be a Natural born citizen?
Mike wrote: Agreed, as long as sin is defined biblically, and not applied to that which is not sin, but rather that which some may take to be offense, yet others not.
Is sin defined quote, "Biblically" by the other theological position really sin?
Is the Romish-Arminian definition of sin a fully Biblical definition?
Is the position taken, conscience and actions of the reprobate all sin?
Total Depravity = "The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not--indeed he cannot--choose good over evil in the spiritual realm"
Thus the discernment of sin is not within the capacity or ability of the reprobate.
Sin of itself is a power and influence over the mortal - True or false?
Is it sin in the mortal which prevents the sinner from accessing salvation? Or is it God's choice alone?