Jessica Dawson wrote:
Didn't Luther allow the Cross and Crucifixes, for the purpose of being a visual aid to those who were illiterate?

meagain wrote:
On the other hand, Cameron is dealing with reality in British society today...
In that respect Westminster and the hoi polloi are being taught heresy by the church - and Cameron, plus the Conservative party, are misled into Liberal theology without them questioning the facts.

That's why they get paid the big bucks, not so that they can just sit there completely gormless ... like a big oil (or auto or bank) CEO in front of a senate committee.

I agree with this point:-

Arthur wrote:
No Cameron is not leader material...

There is something about the nation at this time and experience, that seems to preclude the production of real old style authority and leadership everywhere. It appears to be endemic and not just in the field of political endeavour.
If all authority comes from God(Rom 13) then right now the sign of the times is The Lord has "dumped" us.

Guinness wrote:
Simple fact is that the Conservatives are also pro-sodomite.
Labour calls for equality for sodomites,
Your Tory party calls for freedom to sodomise.

What is most insidious is the pretense at religious liberty:-
"Homosexual couples should be able to register civil partnerships in churches which WISH to hold them, according to the Prime Minister."

Those evangelical ministers who have chosen to remain in apostate denominations will be compelled by synod etc that they "WISH" for all their churches and ministers to perform this abomination.
Come out and leave your pensions and manses to fester and rot!

Cezar wrote:
It is illegal to lie about not being one in order to be elected President.
I'd call it treason.

Time for prominent parliamentarians and congressmen to stand up and make their voices heard when the governments fail.

TrainingJim wrote:
Jim ... Your advice does not seem to agree with the verse 17 you quoted.

Realist wrote:
Socialist!!

FYI2 Your hysterical outbursts and wild accusations show you to be anything other than a realist.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Infidelity --and I don't have to keep count-- has the largest amount of church discipline actions at IHCC, that reach the attention of the whole congregation.

It's a strange and self-refuting notion of a church where only some cases of congregational discipline "reach the attention of the whole congregation".

Neil wrote:
The main area where Obama could be fairly blamed is retroactive - why did BP (according to an AP writer) get to waive the usual paperwork req'd by the Interior Dept? If this had happened under Bush (popularly imagined to be an oil industry stooge), imagine the outcry.

The "categorical exclusion" from NEPA given on 6 April 2009 would presumably be more of a current and future concern.

Wouldn't retroactive concerns impact upon MMS' competency under Bush's administration?

"While the MMS assessed the environmental impact of drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico on three occasions in 2007 -- including a specific evaluation of BP's Lease 206 at Deepwater Horizon -- in each case it played down the prospect of a major blowout.

In one assessment, the agency estimated that "a large oil spill" from a platform would not exceed a total of 1,500 barrels and that a "deepwater spill," occurring "offshore of the inner Continental shelf," would not reach the coast."

Neil wrote:
Surely BP is grateful for all the unsolicited advice.

The advice it seems is not so unsolicited.
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/546759/

This speaks well of their transparency and openness to suggestions.

It does not speak so well to their own competence nor to their ability to interact directly with the world's established authorities on such things.

As noted before on another thread I'm more concerned with the competence of BP and the entire offshore deepwater drilling industry than I am with Obama's.

Mike wrote:
Since no names were provided and no evidence was given in the
"case" cited,

This article was not a piece of formal academic research requiring footnotes, sources and cross-referencing. It would have been quite inappropriate for the director of the Illinois department of insurance to breach confidentiality and provide names without permission. I believe him. You have the freedom to be a cynic.

If you want to question objectivity in the article have you also considered that of all the thousands of people involved in "Faith-Based Insurance" the example they found of a picture-postcard family "just happened" to be the family of a VP of the company? (BTW I suspect this is more a case of lazy journalism than a complete absence of satisfied customers. I may be cynical about journalists).

If I was a member of Lansberry's little 'circle', yes I too would make sure I sent in my cheque for his family's medical bills on time! I would also help him buy a lawnmower too by the look of things.

Mike wrote:
It doesn't seem unseemly that a Christian led healthcare organization for Christian participants might require the members to demonstrate that they are somehow indeed Christian...

Not unseemly but, how does church attendance demonstrate someone is a Christian and prevent abuse of the system? That's a very bold working assumption you are making there. Will just any church do? On what basis are they deciding? Is attendance really sufficient, why not a membership test?

No objection against the smoking prohibition.

Re: the serious car accident, the issue would be whether he found a case, not whether he had a vested interest. There needs to be objective accountability not prejudiced dismissal of evidence.

Can you imagine the 'insurers' investigating whether or not an unmarried pregnant woman was raped or not? It would typically take more than 9 months to wait upon the securing of a conviction in a court of law. Rape victims have described being cross-examined as like being raped all over again, but ultimately the 'insurers' need an additional cross-examination to enforce that stipulation.

Mike wrote:
People who participate know the rules. Limited enrollment, no coverage for every sniffle. That's why it costs less.

Hardly a sniffle.
I trust the scheme members don't share the road with any bad drivers ... ever.

Another observation. A sermonaudio preacher commented recently with regard to pastoral abuses of office:-
"There are plenty of professing Christians out there who can give you their horror stories if you care to look."

Neil wrote:
There's always the [URL=http://article.nationalreview.com/435325/nuke-it/daniel-foster]]]nuclear[/URL] option. But so far only the Soviets have been bold enough (or crazy enough) to try it.
So name your poison: oil or radiation.

"Christians" acting as a law to themselves with no accountability either to the law of the land or the Word of God.

Mike wrote:
He has to be seen seeking out those that are expert. He has to provide the means/tools for the competent to implement expertise, then get out of the way.

It is the technical experts themselves who have so far tried and failed repeatedly to fix the leak so far.

I agree that whinings and threatenings are childish but this seems to be par for the course for what passes for leadership in both private industry and government these days.

A friend was commenting to me just a week ago that he is tired of what seems to be having his job threatened on every conference call he attends. That does not demonstrate leadership, but the childish lack of it.

Neil wrote:
So what sort of test should a journalist take?

In any event, what happened to all the 'conservatives' being enraged about the delineated powers of the federal government?

I suspect the US Constitution has little in the way of explicit empowerment of the Federal Executive in this area. Could the several constitutional gurus on sermonaudio provide informed comment on this?

Are not the States of Louisiana, Alabama etc under the duty to provide 'all other' protections to their sovereign states?

What happened to 'state's rights' in this civil matter?