SavedByGrace1981

You refer to others treating church as more important than prayer, fellowship, and/or devotions? Yes, i agree - And althought these do not make one a Christian, we must not forget - these are all fruits. And if we see that these fruits are not evident in someone's life, we must pray for that individual, not go around tearing them down. Hmm maybe I am expressing this wrong. I mean that church attendance is not the be all and end all, and I think the concept would have been strange in the early church. I think the essence of being part of His body is 'community', not just attendance. Make sense? I can only speak of my own experience, but when I finally (after many years of being "under conviction) gave my heart to the Lord, I wanted to be around His people. That meant in part attending church services. I've been fortunate in the 30 or so years that I've been a Christian in that I've never looked at attending church services as a "duty". Something to be marked off on a checklist. Rather, I've been blessed in that I look forward to attending church. I draw strength from the music, the message and the fellowship. If the day were ever to come where for some reason I couldn't attend, I know that I would greatly miss it. There would be a void in my life. Most of us are social beings, so it makes sense that if we truly belong to Him then we should enjoy being around His people. But on the flip side, I don't believe we can be legalistic about church attendance, either. Blessings! -Ed

Yet. But in all fairness - he's just carrying on the grand tradition of past Congresses and Presidents. Turning your question around - I can't think of any recent (say in the last 50 years or so) instances where freedom has increased. Which brings me back to the point of this thread - i.e. Obama seemingly increasing freedom abroad while trying to curtail it (once Obamacare is fully implemented) here. Blessings! -Ed Were you so vocal about the loss of freedoms when the patriot act was passed? I see no evidence of Obama trying to curtail freedoms here. I can tell you some freedoms Obamacare will give me. 1. The ability to know that my coverage will not be cancelled because I become seriously ill. 2. The assurance that a cap will no longer be placed on the amount of coverage I can receive. I was really worried for my parents in this regard. 3. Knowing that if we have to change jobs, I can also buy insurance without being turned down for having had pre-exsisting conditions. 4. Knowing that my brother who has low iq can FINALLY get coverage (pre-exsisting condition) and my family will not have to sell their home if he needs to be hospitalized. We are not asking for help from anyone on these things. We are willing to pay for them. We want the freedom to be able to do so. There are more but hubby just got home. The answer to your question - Were you so vocal about the loss of freedoms when the patriot act was passed? - happens to be yes. I was all over other political bulletin boards at the time criticizing it. What have I posted here that would make you think otherwise? The fact that you asked it makes me suspect you are just a partisan democrat - in other words, whatever the eeeeevil Bush did was bad bad bad, but Obama is good good good. With all due respect - you have every right to be a partisan democrat (just as I have a right to be somewhat Libertarian). But if you are a partisan democrat, then there is really not much point in my continuing a discussion with you. The problems we have in this country are so far beyond stupid partisan bickering it's not even funny. All the supposed "benefits" that you claim will come out of Obamacare COULD have been accomplished by other much less freedom-robbing means. An almost 3000 page bill? Nancy Pelosi saying we must pass it to find out what's in it? Are you kidding me? Anyway, if I have mis-characterized you as a partisan democrat, I apologize. But when someone wants to argue what is to me the un-arguable - i.e. that Obama is the anti-thesis to freedom - it's frustrating. Blessings! -Ed

Yet. But in all fairness - he's just carrying on the grand tradition of past Congresses and Presidents. Turning your question around - I can't think of any recent (say in the last 50 years or so) instances where freedom has increased. Which brings me back to the point of this thread - i.e. Obama seemingly increasing freedom abroad while trying to curtail it (once Obamacare is fully implemented) here. Blessings! -Ed

Here's an excerpt from the commentary at the link I posted - the writer states it better than I

Funny you should ask. Obama care - Passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama, over the objections of the majority of American voters and still wildly unpopular - is the biggest assault on freedom since FDR's New Deal. But you may not understand . . . Blessings! -Ed

Isn't it interesting that Obama supposedly wants to encourage freedom in other countries . . . . . . all the while curtailing it in this one? Blessings! -Ed

She graduated from Yale Law School in 1973. She cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977. She became the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978. She was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979. She was twice listed as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. She sat on the board of directors of Wal-Mart and several other corporations. She is a best selling author. She served on the editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action. She was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. She is the first former first lady to run for and win an elected office. She is the first former first lady to serve in a presidential cabinet. She became one of only two female faculty members in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, She was the first director of UA's legal aid clinic. That's a start. There's plenty more to find for those who really want to know. I don't believe anyone has ever questioned her IQ - so #1 (graduating Yale Law School) is a legitimate accomplishment. There, she met Bill Clinton - and the rest as they say is history. No one can deny that they were and are a power couple in politics - given her brains and his charm. The fact that he was a southern Liberal at a time when it was cool to be a southern Liberal (see Jimmy Carter) was icing on the cake. The Clintons are nothing if not lucky and opportunistic. One could make an argument that the rest of the accomplishments you listed resulted from her stints as first lady - first of Arkansas and then the US. But while that argument convinces a right-winger like me, it might not convince one who is more liberal. That's okay. I do admire people who rise from modest means and become successful - and Hillary certainly fits that bill. But I will never admire her politics. Blessings! -ED

Her accomplishment then was saying "I do" to someone who would someday be governor. Her accomplishment then was saying "I do" to someone who would someday be president. I'll give you that one. But as a resident of that fine state, I can tell you that there are only two requirements to successfully run for the office of US Senator from NY: One, be a democrat; and two, be someone famous. Nope. Given enough money, ANYONE can be a candidate for president (look at the current crop of candidates if you don't believe me) I guess I'll give you that one, too. So - her major accomplishment in life is to be enough of a threat to Obama that he needed to put her in a job where she would be out of the country most of the year. Got it! Blessings! -Ed

Thank you for sharing - I too cannot add to others responses. There's a couple in my church who have been raising a Down's child (daughter) since 1976. I'm sure they've had similar issues (though I've never talked to them specifically about it.) I do know it has been very challenging for them. Are you involved in any kind of Christian oriented support group? Do they even have those in the UK? Anyway, may God bless you in your daily challenges and struggles. Blessings! -Ed

Could someone list for me please the accomplishments of one Hillary Rodham Clinton? Thanks - in advance. Blessings! -Ed

Here's why: Blessings! -Ed

He's a good con man - he'll find something. There's never a shortage of people willing to be conned. Blessings! -Ed

Wow . . . now if 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue could be foreclosed on Blessings! -Ed

Okay, that was easy. Now let's do a hard one: When the toast falls on the floor, why is it always butter side down? Blessings! -Ed

I'm not sure why anyone should be surprised by this, but I suppose it's good to see it actually documented. Most people in Hollywood can afford to be liberal, I guess. The rest of us have to live in reality. Blessings! -Ed

I've always been fascinated how - in the Old Testament - Israel went up, then Israel went down. "They did good in the sight of the Lord; they did evil in the sight of the Lord." Reading about the ups and downs - especially in the book of Judges - is almost as good as riding the most intense roller-coaster at the newest theme park. The USA has been certainly blessed by God but, like ancient Israel, we have taken Him for granted and ultimately forgotten Him. It's anyone's guess as to how much longer we'll last as a nation. My opinion? Not much longer. But let's not forget that the USA means much more than its leaders and its government. Praise God for that! We do have a remnant of God fearing and honoring people - witness all the out pourings of assistance to the city of Joplin in its time of need. The government will do what it will - and eventually it will fall of its own weight and corruption. There's not much we as Christians can do about THAT (even voting doesn't seem to work); but we can make sure we're about doing God's work. Blessings! -Ed

Oh I wouldn't be so sure. There's a commandment that deals with lying, another that deals with coveting . . . I'm not whining, but I do have an opinion. And my opinion is that racism is worse - not better - post Obama's election. Racism may not have played a part in his election (though other than being half-black, I'm not sure what other qualifications he had) But I'll say this: If he's re-elected, racism WILL have played a part. Blessings! -Ed

I don't really expect Congress to do much. We had a watershed election last November, and people had some hope. Sadly, since then we've seen even modest proposals shot down and their proponents demonized. In my opinion, we have reached "critical mass" - i.e. more people on some kind of government assistance than there are in the private sector. Since people won't vote to "cut" their own benefits, the only option left is for government spending to continue to increase until it hits a brick wall. That "brick wall" is going to be a hard one, indeed. Blessings! -Ed

"Saved By The Bell" reunion movie? Blessings! -Ed

This is why precise language is so important. The Redefining of Polticial Speak. Control the Language; Control the Argument Blessings! -Ed

Isaiah 5:20 Blessings! -Ed

One would think that the election of Obama would have caused race relations in the US to improve. They haven't. Indeed, I believe a case can be made that they've worsened. Go figure. . . Blessings! -Ed

I can see it now: We'll all be gathered around a big campfire, singing "Kum-Ba-Yah" (or so the new agers will have us believe . . . ) Blessings! -Ed

This is very well put, and very much the way I used to think but I now believe that it begs the question of why is it a legal, secular right. Since marriage is the religious ceremony of union in the eyes of God (or gods, depending on the culture) that was adopted as a civil institution as culture became increasingly secular, we're still left with the question of what good the institution serves as a secular 'right'. If the point is to be joined before God, then why have it a secular ceremony at all? Why should the rest of people in society be responsible for the benefits of two people who choose to get married? Why the special privileges for that choice? The answer is simply because that is what is necessary to propagate a complete, natural family. As per the article already submitted the risks to children are greatly reduced if a family stays together and the biological mother and father raise the children. Handing out the incentives to remain married to common law relationships was a terrible, crippling loss to the health of the nuclear family (again already seen in the article), and widening the definition of marriage to include those who cannot even produce such families is only allowing the momentum to continue in the wrong direction. The real question is why is society responsible for providing privileges for anything other than the first-time married couple that has a good shot a staying together and raising a family. It is the committed, investment in future generations of citizens that

I have somewhat of a different take on this subject: Our definition of marriage here in the US in 2011 encompasses two basic ideas - one is religious and one is secular. Now I'm not enough of a historian or cultural expert to debate the history of marriage, I am only basing my comments on what I observe here and now. So when we say a couple is "married" there is not enough information in the use of that term alone to tell us whether they were married by a clergy or by a secular magistrate. I believe this is where some of the controversy comes from. Let me illustrate in this way: Let's throw out the secular definition of marriage for the moment and focus on the religious. In addition, lets compare it to another religious rite - baptism. Do we have secular officials performing baptisms? Not that I am aware of. While different religious denominations may look upon baptism in slightly different ways, baptism has no SECULAR, LEGAL meaning. Secular officials, since they do not perform baptism nor does the State sanction it, have no say in it. Well, like baptism, marriage is a religious rite. But, unlike baptism, it is a LEGAL right, too. That is where the problem comes in. Personally (and I see no conflict with my Christian beliefs in this) I believe homosexuals should have the right to enter into state-sanctioned, legal "contracts" that give them legal standing that is on par with marriage. I just have a problem with that being called "marriage". (I'd have no problem with it being called a "civil union", but apparently many homosexuals want to use the term "marriage.") Do I have a right to tell homosexuals they cannot use that term? No, I suppose I can't. So - whatever "ownership" we as Christians had over the term marriage was in effect ceded when marriage also became a legal term. That's the way I see it. Blessings! -Ed