Jim Lincoln wrote: Evangelicals Toadies for the Romish Church.đź‘Ž excerpt from, "After 50 years, the U.S. bishopsâ€™ focus on abortion has done little to change hearts and minds." https://tinyurl.com/sjem3g8
John UK wrote: Thanks for sharing that, Dolores. IMHO the best secular novels with any chance of playing a part in growth in holiness are those by Ellis Peters (real name Edith Pargeter), who wrote a large series about a former soldier who turned monk and ended up at Shrewsbury Abbey, and became not only a herb-healer (12th century doctor) but because he was one the brothers who was allowed out of the abbey confines, he was able also to do some sleuthing as a side line. So that he tended the sick and brought criminals to justice. His name (he was Welsh) was Brother Cadfael, and the writing is never offensive, and of a very high standard.
Very good books indeed, John. One of my daughter's favorite series, btw.
Jim Lincoln wrote: https://tinyurl.com/sobex2v (President Trump Has a Long History of Storming Out of Meetings â€“ and It Has Usually Worked) Apparently, a common stunt by Trump, he did it in one his divorce proceedings.
Nothing new to complain about Trump with, so find old news, right Jim?
ps Christians shouldn't be involved in politics. I heard that somewhere.
Douglas Fir wrote: --- 4. Bottom line: all these Dem candidates have nothing to offer, and the debate just showed you their main strength--attacking one another. It reminds you of that old saying about the 'bucket of crabs' where they conspired against any crab who tried to get out of the bucket. If you put only 1 crab in the bucket, he might escape, but with 2 or more, they will keep each other from getting out It is interesting to note there are no more black or Asian candidates among them.
It's because Rush is racist. Or Trump is racist. Or some Republican is racist.
B. McCausland wrote: " ... by grace are ye saved through faith; and *that* not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" Will it not be better to take that that particular *that* in the verse represents the whole sentence preceding, (say the sentence saying 'by grace are ye saved through faith') which summarizes the whole of the matter, instead of trying to slot the sentence apart in segments to see which one is the gift? When considering the whole context of scripture every element of that sentence points to a gift, with each element having a determined function to make the whole work towards the common end .
Yes indeed, B. Separation of the elements would require the verse be written accordingly. Ex. "They are the gifts of God," rather than IT is THE gift. Otherwise we have us a nonsensical, in that grace would not be held as a gift, nor the act of salvation which is also within the verse though the word is not. The struggle to make faith THE gift in Eph 2:8 causes contradiction.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Strange things will happen if an embryo is considered a person "The logic of Alabamaâ€™s abortion law should permit you to claim a fetus on your taxes and collect insurance if you miscarry." https://tinyurl.com/y38jm678 (If a fetus is a person, it should get child support, due process and citizenship)
The fetus, a you call it, is a person. What the Washington Post thinks to the contrary is irrelevant. btw, for the buffoons who think silly notions have importance, citizenship, etc. requires you to be born. This doesn't affect the personhood of the preborn.
John for JESUS wrote: In all fairness, Rush hasnâ€™t had kids so I canâ€™t blame Buttigieg. I donâ€™t even think women were attracted to Rush until he became incredibly rich!
In even more fairness, Rush didn't lecture Buttigieg at all. You'd have to hear it. Like all good lefty liberals, the mayor made it up so as to have something to attack. Rush doesn't have kids; the mayor, being who he is, can't.
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.