|
|
USER COMMENTS BY UNPROFITABLE SERVANT |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 20 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
8/27/19 6:48 PM |
Unprofitable Servant | | TN | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
B. McCausland wrote: Whatever you say, it is terribly worrying to observe how much pragmatism governs actions, standards, and decisions in the church today. Realistically is not the Word that governs but what it might work, the innovative, the feeling-good, rationalised opinion, or the convenient. It is understandable for governments to take such line of action as they do not care for the word, yet the church continually goes on paying the price for this accepted and habitual trend. |
|
|
8/26/19 12:04 AM |
Unprofitable Servant | | TN | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
This, Lord willing will be my last post in this thread, although I will take the time as a common courtesy to read any responses that people feel obligated to give.Adriel, John UK, and BMac among others have spent time sharing with us the great need we have to trust God. Great verses, thoughts and testimonies have been shared for which we should all be thankful. I firmly believe the problem is the premise is flawed. The one that says no self defense. On both sides of the Atlantic a woman defending herself and/or her children from an abusive spouse or significant other is not persecuted for any bodily harm they cause even it results in death It is seen by both countries as a lawful act. One would hope we wouldn’t condemn the woman for her actions. Also taking out a person who is about to commit mass murderer before he or she becomes one is a lawful act. Thus, both in my thinking fall under Romans 13. Trusting God is not a measure of blind faith. We still lock doors, have insurance policies and avoid things that put ourselves in harms way. We trust God for our physical well being (Acts 17:28; Daniel 5:23) but still use medicine, physicians, and bodily care. Thanks for giving me your time, God bless |
|
|
8/25/19 5:41 AM |
Unprofitable Servant | | TN | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
B. McCausland wrote: 1. Not interested in your scenarios, US, which are only strawmen at best, but in the Word, which after having been presented has been laid to rest with you. 2. Erraticly over extrapolating some approximate facts, US, but regretfully distorting and misconstructing truth from them 3. Coming a little closer to a real faction of the entire picture Fare well, US, take a rest and God bless you, and yours Thanks for your kind wishes and I pray the same for you. Please tell Adriel to take heart, the NHS should be able to see him in a couple of months at the earliest. |
|
|
8/24/19 9:20 PM |
Unprofitable Servant | | TN | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Jim got his “facts” discombobulated once again. In 1971, only about 32 percent of all Americans enjoyed air conditioning in their homes. By 2001, 76 percent of poor people had air conditioning. In 1971, only 43 percent of Americans owned a color television; in 2001, 97 percent of poor people owned at least one. In 1971, 1 percent of American homes had a microwave oven; in 2001, 73 percent of poor people had one. Forty-six percent of poor households own their homes. Only about 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Seventy-eight percent of the poor have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher. https://tinyurl.com/y2l2jtm6 See also https://tinyurl.com/k9b6nqg https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/15/business/economic-scene-rich-get-rich-poor-get-poorer-right-let-s-take-another-look.html Here are 3 videos to help you out Jim https://tinyurl.com/y65rx6z7 https://youtu.be/J_Bzw8W1rS8 https://tinyurl.com/y6bhpoc6 |
|
|
8/24/19 10:10 AM |
Unprofitable Servant | | TN | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
John I gave you Biblical warrant.  Defending one against bodily harm is doing good for them. (Galatians 6:10). Biblical principles are found in the Scripture which includes both the Old and New Testament. II Samuel 21 Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint. 16 And Ishbibenob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. 17 But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him. Every known instance of what we do is NOT detailed in Scripture.  Where is your Biblical warrant for enjoying a cup of tea, driving a car, taking a shower, using electricity, listening to a sermon in mp3 format from somewhere you have never been?  Are you thus saying that if a child about to enter a busy street that you don’t make an attempt to save their life, because there is no “Biblical warrant” to do that? |
|
|
8/23/19 11:07 AM |
Unprofitable Servant | | TN | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: Ahem, a couple of things here bro. 1. It was "the authorities" who protected Paul. He was in their custody. It was NOT Paul defending himself, nor did he ask his Christian friends to defend him. I can hardly believe you are using this text as a proof text. Yet you are angry with me, who has a just argument, and why is that? You will have to work that through with the Lord Jesus. 2. You are jumping, jumping, away from your proof text, knowing it to be no proof text (the tongue-in-cheek technique) and now are jumping into another argument, hoping that it might fare better (clutching at straws technique). Brother, I am convinced you are fully aware of the futility of your argument, but you fear the Yee Ha preachers and other members who will laugh at you, and force you to leave their circle. Brother John, we will give you your thinking on Paul. Not clutching at straws, don't care what other preachers think, basing my thinking on Biblical principles of my God given responsibilities from the verses cited in my last post. If you don't see that it is not my problem. God bless. |
|
|
8/23/19 9:52 AM |
Unprofitable Servant | | TN | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: Well Christopher, I can post up for your perusal plenty of NT examples of blood spilt or at the very least the churches attacked, members beaten, falsely charged and imprisoned, beheadings, stoning to death, and all the rest of it. And not one peep of any church member fighting for their survival with any weapon. Are you thinking that these battles were just not recorded in scripture? Or would you agree with me that there were no such battles? Read Acts 23:16-35 John, anyone attempting to attack this church member/leader would have been put to death and the protection given was strictly self-defense purposes. And yes he was being tried for his faith. |
|
|
8/23/19 9:06 AM |
Unprofitable Servant | | TN | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
You can skip Jim's link and read what the author of the amendment wrote (from article) The 14th Amendment was actually designed to make citizens of the former slaves freed by the 13th Amendment in 1865, and thus guarantee that they would enjoy all the rights of American citizenship. The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has, of course, been ignored by those promoting the concept of open borders. Clearly, the framers of the 14th Amendment intended that only children “born subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that is, the jurisdiction of the United States, are considered natural-born citizens. This would, by the clear wording of the amendment, not include the children of illegal aliens or “birth tourists,” because they are still under the jurisdiction of foreign governments. Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, an author of the 14th Amendment, said during the discussions over the effects of the amendment, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.” In other words, those who are born in the United States “under the jurisdiction thereof” would only include those whose parents are American citizens themselves, or those whose parents have placed themselves under U.S. jurisdiction — legal residents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|