Steve_S

Exactly, he's the one who ordered a bombing campaign to support this regime's rise to power (oh wait, maybe it wasn't him, who knows, it's hard to remember things such as this through all the hope and change our current administration has brought us) and supported the entire "arab spring" debacle, which has been, from day one, an attempt to seize power by the very most radical factions of a very radical religion.

Right now islam has no chance of winning anything against of west and this will remain as such for the foreseeable future. They're just incredibly weak military, INCREDIBLY weak. Do you really not understand who are the ones that are incredibly weak? It was a sin for David to count the men of Israel ready for war for a specific reason. Numbers and military might are not a factor in who wins the war. The twin towers was a sample of what God is going to allow Islam to do to this nation. We are weak and feeble, ready to die as a nation because we have forsaken our God as a nation. Islam is more righteous before God than we are. They have a strict moral code while we have liberal excess of licentiousness. They fast for a whole month each year while we are the most obese of all peoples. The list goes on and on but people cannot see. Brace for impact. In Jesus Name, Gary I don't even know where to begin here. Islam is more righteous before God than we are? There may not be as many as there were, but there ARE at the least tens of millions of Christians in this nation. One of the sole purposes of Islam is to destroy Christianity, more righteous before God? They lie about Jesus being the Son of God, more righteous? They lie about Moses, Abraham, Isaac, more righteous? How many of the 10's of millions of Christians are lying about Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jesus? Understanding judgment is paramount in this case. It is about who God is going to use to judge whom. The fullness of the gentile nations has come in just as the fullness of those nations that Israel judged when they came into the land. Gary You're quite bent on this, I'm sorry to say. Touting the righteousness of one of the most hateful, idolatrous religions on earth is going a bit too far.

Right now islam has no chance of winning anything against of west and this will remain as such for the foreseeable future. They're just incredibly weak military, INCREDIBLY weak. Do you really not understand who are the ones that are incredibly weak? It was a sin for David to count the men of Israel ready for war for a specific reason. Numbers and military might are not a factor in who wins the war. The twin towers was a sample of what God is going to allow Islam to do to this nation. We are weak and feeble, ready to die as a nation because we have forsaken our God as a nation. Islam is more righteous before God than we are. They have a strict moral code while we have liberal excess of licentiousness. They fast for a whole month each year while we are the most obese of all peoples. The list goes on and on but people cannot see. Brace for impact. In Jesus Name, Gary I don't even know where to begin here. Islam is more righteous before God than we are? There may not be as many as there were, but there ARE at the least tens of millions of Christians in this nation. One of the sole purposes of Islam is to destroy Christianity, more righteous before God? They lie about Jesus being the Son of God, more righteous? They lie about Moses, Abraham, Isaac, more righteous?

Right now islam has no chance of winning anything against of west and this will remain as such for the foreseeable future. They're just incredibly weak military, INCREDIBLY weak.

The correct answer to this question, for me, is to find our oil or fuel elsewhere, arm Israel to the teeth with every conceivable weapon, and shake the dust from our feet with regards to the muslims.

Not all the hebrew and greek agree with themselves. MT/TR all the way.

This is not necessarily the case, though, Selene. Look at ancient greece and then afterwards rome. Homosexuality and premarital sex (for men) there were the norms and it was fairly common to own slaves for those specific purposes. So let's not get too caught up in the past, as it's not necessarily as rosy at it may seem at first glance.

The United States Constitution is totally devoid of the concept of seperation of church and state. That is a COMMUNIST concept, embodied in Article 10 of the Constitution of the Supreme Soviet. When Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury CT, his comments were one way comments. The state was not to establish a national church (like the Church of England, the Lutheran Church, etc) but Believers were to influence the way the country was run. I concur. Just as Saul was an Israelite under the Lord, so are governing officials supposed to be of the faith under God but according to what God wrote in 1 Samuel, when the people stop following God, God changes the leadership to put in leadership who stops following God as well. The constitution means nothing to God, it is a covenant of men between men before God. Gary I disagree with the comparisons to ancient Israel here. God recognizes nations as entities and obviously they have to be governed and we are to obey their rules as long as they don't directly conflict with scripture. You're making a comparison to a nation that God established Himself through a direct covenant starting with Abraham because of Abraham's faithfulness. The people of Israel were told directly that God was in charge of them, as a nation, God set up a government with the levites acting as priests and administrators, and God gave them judges to adjudicate and guide. God did not set up the united states of america, but the united states of america was set up by men, a lot of whom were trying to create a country that was free from european style religious oppression (think catholic) so that they could have a place that they would be able to worship God freely. We aren't in an Israel type situation here and drawing the comparison between Israel's demise and God leaving the united states is without merit. What about the early Christians, some of whom walked with Jesus, many of whom were very faithful and were in the scriptures constantly? They were crucified along the roads going to rome by nero, who was a pagan. We don't know why God does what He does in every single instance or why God allows what He allows in every single instance. You cannot, in my opinion, successfully draw a parallel to a country falling away from God as Israel did without that country having been given what Israel had to start with, which the United States hasn't. Do I think the United States has been blessed? Yes, it seems like it has. Can I prove that? No. Do I think that the United States has now been abandoned by God? I don't know. There are Christians here, a lot of us are yelling from the rooftops that things need to change or we're going to lose the wonderful life that we have. That's not really what THIS conversation is about though. The main crux of this matter Gary is that we just don't know, there's a logical line of reasoning whereas you could draw a reasonable conclusion, but that doesn't pass scriptural muster so I cannot use it in this situation. All I know for sure is that the united states is in a spiral downward quickly and God CAN save it if He so chooses because He's God and He can do what He wants. Whether He does or does not save it though and why he didn't or did not if he weren't or were to, that we will never know for sure.

True; the Constitution does not indicate separation of church and state. It only prohibits the establishment, or the confirmation, of any religion by the government. I prefer to look at this concept as a separation of state from Church.

Technically, yes, but it wasn't the "government" doing it, so this almost certainly won't be considered that by the administration.

The muslims should feel very contented in the fact that the west doesn't fall upon them with its fury every time they insult something that is important to it, because if it did.... Islam wouldn't be around too long. (I'm not advocating the west do this, at all, I'm just saying, thinking about it from a reverse perspective, about all they can do is storm embassy walls due to how weak and inconsequential their actual militaries actually are, as the west is many orders of magnitude more powerful than the muslims, militarily - it would not end well for them).

Awesomeness.

I took some time to meditate on that which was said and sent another letter to the pastor to address his accusations toward me, to which I never received a reply. Be careful who you sign what with as covenant agreements with local bodies are designed for the purpose of control. Once you agree to do that which their covenant says, you are obligated to be under their form of government and control even if it is contrary to that which Jesus said church government would be. In Jesus Name, Gary The main question here would be what your doctrinal differences with him were, because, quite frankly, if you did have significant doctrinal disagreements and he believed that you had went down a doctrinal path which was errant then he would need to do what he did. There were no doctrinal differences specifically addressed in my letter to him or his letter back to me. The letter simply stated that for conscience sake I had to remove myself from the covenant agreement. But my point is still that we need to be careful as Christians not to enter into written contractual agreements as there is a real danger of placing yourself into harms way without knowing what we're doing. Gary I'm not exactly disagreeing with you on that point. But if there were clear doctrinal differences that had been delineated outside of the letters and he saw it as a progression he may have been well within his rights. I'm not advocating for or against you or him, but since he's not here to defend his actions then I think it's important that we not jump to conclusions without all of the facts. If you think it is important not to jump to conclusions then why are you jumping to the conclusion that there had been doctrinal differences delineated outside of the letters? I posted simple excerpts from a letter I received to relate a warning to others who may find themselves in a similar position. What was your motive for responding to it? Gary I'm not assuming for a 100 percent fact that there were doctrinal differences. My main motive for responding to it was this sentence.... Be careful who you sign what with as covenant agreements with local bodies are designed for the purpose of control. With this (to me, anyway) there was the tacit implication that this applied to your situation. And if this applied to your situation then you were making the accusation that the church in question, and furthermore its pastor, had brought you into a covenant with them for the purpose of control. I just believed that, in fairness since this man is not here to defend himself personally and all we have is a snippet of an email from him and nothing further, that it be pointed out that there could have been valid reasons for him doing so, but I didn't say that there definitely were valid reasons for him doing so. This is not a personal attack on you, Gary, I just thought it important that what could very well be a man of God not have intimations leveled at him lightly without any recourse in a forum such as this with us getting only one part of one side of the story. He could very well be entirely in the wrong, I don't know, I don't know much of the situation, but the statement you wrote before and after the email had a slightly accusatory tone in my eyes. I apologize if that was not your intention and was not the case. Having said that, I will ask, were there indeed doctrinal differences between you and he?

I took some time to meditate on that which was said and sent another letter to the pastor to address his accusations toward me, to which I never received a reply. Be careful who you sign what with as covenant agreements with local bodies are designed for the purpose of control. Once you agree to do that which their covenant says, you are obligated to be under their form of government and control even if it is contrary to that which Jesus said church government would be. In Jesus Name, Gary The main question here would be what your doctrinal differences with him were, because, quite frankly, if you did have significant doctrinal disagreements and he believed that you had went down a doctrinal path which was errant then he would need to do what he did. There were no doctrinal differences specifically addressed in my letter to him or his letter back to me. The letter simply stated that for conscience sake I had to remove myself from the covenant agreement. But my point is still that we need to be careful as Christians not to enter into written contractual agreements as there is a real danger of placing yourself into harms way without knowing what we're doing. Gary I'm not exactly disagreeing with you on that point. But if there were clear doctrinal differences that had been delineated outside of the letters and he saw it as a progression he may have been well within his rights. I'm not advocating for or against you or him, but since he's not here to defend his actions then I think it's important that we not jump to conclusions without all of the facts.

And if they were dinosaurs, why not calling them dinosaurs? Ciao - viole This is simple, dinosaur means terrible lizard and is a relatively new term. If they had names that Adam actually gave them then, but the animal itself didn't survive until now, then there would be no cohesive translational history of that term in that time to what term we'd use now in this time.

I took some time to meditate on that which was said and sent another letter to the pastor to address his accusations toward me, to which I never received a reply. Be careful who you sign what with as covenant agreements with local bodies are designed for the purpose of control. Once you agree to do that which their covenant says, you are obligated to be under their form of government and control even if it is contrary to that which Jesus said church government would be. In Jesus Name, Gary The main question here would be what your doctrinal differences with him were, because, quite frankly, if you did have significant doctrinal disagreements and he believed that you had went down a doctrinal path which was errant then he would need to do what he did.

This is bold statement and contains a logical absurdity. Who would be so silly to decide to stop believing God because it interferes with her lifestyle? Suppose I believe in God, but I am gay. I have two options: 1) i join a gay friendly church 2) I stop believing God so that I can be gay Option 2) is irrational. If I believe in God, I would never stop believing so that I can enjoy some freedom for a few decades and geopardize the rest of eternity. It would be like stopping believing in law enforcement because it interferes with what I want to do. No, I stopped believing in God not because I wanted to be free to do what I want (my life did not change a bit, actually), but because of other reasons. I noticed some similarities between what you wrote and what is written in my profile, except stirring the pot, I hope. Then I saw you actually visited my profile before posting this. Sorry, if that disturbed you But I think faith is strong enough to sustain some discussions coming from a little harmless girl like me....is it? Ciao - viole You dont disturbe me in any way at all. What I have found in life is people who have left the faith for their own personal reasons tend to remain in close contact with it through Christian sites either stirring the pot or seeking some kind of solace as if they deserve special treatment because of their now non-belief. To be a true follower of Christ one must get out of the sin business alltogether.One cannot be in sin and in Jesus at the same time. The Scribes and pharisies thought they were Gods people and what did Jesus say about them to their faces? "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." (Matt. 23:27) Oh, they looked clean on the outside all right, but on the inside they were full of rotting flesh and dead mens bones! "ye outwardly appear righteous unto men, hypocrites, whited sepulchres, full of dead men's bones, full of all uncleanness, full of hypocrisy and iniquity" (Matt. 23:28). "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Matt. 23:33). Seeing He thought that of so called believers, what do you think He thinks of those who left Him but hang around anyway? Not completely in context, but I certainly think it has merit in a situation such as this: Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I think this is a fundamental stumbling block between believers and non-believers understanding each other on this issue; each have their own definition of homosexual. The biblical concept of homosexuality as I understand it relies heavily upon the behavior of the individual and not on their actual sexual orientation. However the modern concept of homosexuality relies heavily upon sexual orientation. So a guy who is sexually attracted to other guys but married to a women in a monogamous relationship to please God is not gay by biblical standards (as far as I'm aware), but he is still gay to the rest of society because he is sexually attracted to other guys. My point is that we need to make sure we are on the same page with our definitions. You even see this contrast of definitions in the scientific literature. Often a Christian group writing a paper or doing a study of changing homosexuals to heterosexuals will use the biblical definition of homosexual in their study and hail it as proof that you can be 'cured' of homosexuality. And in how they define their terms they are correct, but when using the modern definition of homosexuality the claim of the change becomes nonsense as no significant change in sexual orientation was observed. Just something to keep in mind about the gay debate. Oh well, that explains a lot. For a moment I thought that people could choose their sexual orientation, which seems absurd. I could not suddenly decide to be attracted by members of my sex if this inclination would not be already present, somehow. It would be like me having the choice to start liking hip hop...never! Lol Thanks for the clarification. Ciao - viole It would be rejecting those base sinful lusts and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you in the proper direction if you were gay.

I think this is a fundamental stumbling block between believers and non-believers understanding each other on this issue; each have their own definition of homosexual. The biblical concept of homosexuality as I understand it relies heavily upon the behavior of the individual and not on their actual sexual orientation. However the modern concept of homosexuality relies heavily upon sexual orientation. So a guy who is sexually attracted to other guys but married to a women in a monogamous relationship to please God is not gay by biblical standards (as far as I'm aware), but he is still gay to the rest of society because he is sexually attracted to other guys. My point is that we need to make sure we are on the same page with our definitions. You even see this contrast of definitions in the scientific literature. Often a Christian group writing a paper or doing a study of changing homosexuals to heterosexuals will use the biblical definition of homosexual in their study and hail it as proof that you can be 'cured' of homosexuality. And in how they define their terms they are correct, but when using the modern definition of homosexuality the claim of the change becomes nonsense as no significant change in sexual orientation was observed. Just something to keep in mind about the gay debate. This really wasn't about the gay debate, honestly, and I believe viole frequents these boards enough so as to understand the Christian conception (accurate conception) of homosexuality. But, having said that, I do understand your point.

Bluster. Russia wishes it still had the stick it used to carry, but it doesn't, that simple.

I'm a little..... something, about this. Maybe skeptical is the word? I definitely think Israel has the ability and determination to remove a threat such as a nuclear Iran and I think they will do it at some point. But it's really not like them to telegraph their moves such as this. The Osirik attack in Iraq came out of pretty much nowhere.

This is bold statement and contains a logical absurdity. Who would be so silly to decide to stop believing God because it interferes with her lifestyle? Suppose I believe in God, but I am gay. I have two options: 1) i join a gay friendly church 2) I stop believing God so that I can be gay Option 2) is irrational. If I believe in God, I would never stop believing so that I can enjoy some freedom for a few decades and geopardize the rest of eternity. It would be like stopping believing in law enforcement because it interferes with what I want to do. No, I stopped believing in God not because I wanted to be free to do what I want (my life did not change a bit, actually), but because of other reasons. I noticed some similarities between what you wrote and what is written in my profile, except stirring the pot, I hope. Then I saw you actually visited my profile before posting this. Sorry, if that disturbed you But I think faith is strong enough to sustain some discussions coming from a little harmless girl like me....is it? Ciao - viole Option 3 would be to repent of that lifestyle and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you into a proper heterosexual relationship (this would be the correct answer). You started with a false predication that homosexuality is different from any other type of lustful sin by indicating that it's something that you "am" and not something that you do, thereby not allowing yourself to draw the proper conclusion. Yes, of course, but that is not the point. Choice 3 is not relevant to the post who addresses atheists and the main reason why they left faith. If they followed option 3, we would have nothing to discuss, would we? Ciao - viole I was just correcting your supposition. Had option two been the only option then your statement here about irrelevancy would be incorrect. You give option one and then decline to address it, but it's there nonetheless. Ok. For sake of precision, I just mentioned the options that would allow me to stay gay, as if that was a choice Ciao - viole Understandable. My main concern would be someone struggling with that particular issue stumbling by here and getting it in their mind that those are their only two realistic options, though I think it's unlikely.

Nothing we can do about that though, guess that means more fruit and pastries for us!

This is bold statement and contains a logical absurdity. Who would be so silly to decide to stop believing God because it interferes with her lifestyle? Suppose I believe in God, but I am gay. I have two options: 1) i join a gay friendly church 2) I stop believing God so that I can be gay Option 2) is irrational. If I believe in God, I would never stop believing so that I can enjoy some freedom for a few decades and geopardize the rest of eternity. It would be like stopping believing in law enforcement because it interferes with what I want to do. No, I stopped believing in God not because I wanted to be free to do what I want (my life did not change a bit, actually), but because of other reasons. I noticed some similarities between what you wrote and what is written in my profile, except stirring the pot, I hope. Then I saw you actually visited my profile before posting this. Sorry, if that disturbed you But I think faith is strong enough to sustain some discussions coming from a little harmless girl like me....is it? Ciao - viole Option 3 would be to repent of that lifestyle and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you into a proper heterosexual relationship (this would be the correct answer). You started with a false predication that homosexuality is different from any other type of lustful sin by indicating that it's something that you "am" and not something that you do, thereby not allowing yourself to draw the proper conclusion. Yes, of course, but that is not the point. Choice 3 is not relevant to the post who addresses atheists and the main reason why they left faith. If they followed option 3, we would have nothing to discuss, would we? Ciao - viole I was just correcting your supposition. Had option two been the only option then your statement here about irrelevancy would be incorrect. You give option one and then decline to address it, but it's there nonetheless.

This is bold statement and contains a logical absurdity. Who would be so silly to decide to stop believing God because it interferes with her lifestyle? Suppose I believe in God, but I am gay. I have two options: 1) i join a gay friendly church 2) I stop believing God so that I can be gay Option 2) is irrational. If I believe in God, I would never stop believing so that I can enjoy some freedom for a few decades and geopardize the rest of eternity. It would be like stopping believing in law enforcement because it interferes with what I want to do. No, I stopped believing in God not because I wanted to be free to do what I want (my life did not change a bit, actually), but because of other reasons. I noticed some similarities between what you wrote and what is written in my profile, except stirring the pot, I hope. Then I saw you actually visited my profile before posting this. Sorry, if that disturbed you But I think faith is strong enough to sustain some discussions coming from a little harmless girl like me....is it? Ciao - viole Option 3 would be to repent of that lifestyle and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you into a proper heterosexual relationship (this would be the correct answer). You started with a false predication that homosexuality is different from any other type of lustful sin by indicating that it's something that you "am" and not something that you do, thereby not allowing yourself to draw the proper conclusion.