unworthyservant

"There is none so blind as he who will not see! The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know." (John Heywood)

What does the chronological order of Roman Emperors and Christ have to do with the price of eggs in China or for that matter, anything that I said? I didn't mention any chronological order as it's totally irrelevant to the point (or any point I have made). If all you're saying is that you're knowledgeable on the chronology of Christ and the Roman Emperors, then congratulations. I'm somewhat impressed. If somehow you find that knowledge relevant to the issue at hand please advise as to it's significance. umm...God bless

And the Ds know how ruthless and lacking in absolute morals the Rs are, so what's your point? Neither party has a monopoly on ruthlessness or moral bankruptcy. My point is simple. Are you willing to cripple your Christian testimony to Dems everywhere over mean spirited partisan political rhetoric?

There's lots of things that both sides should quit doing for moral reasons that are a little more relevant to me than who actually repeats their talking points. All I'm saying is when Christians engage in public hyper-partisan rhetoric they are running the risk of damaging their Christian testimony with those on the other side. I don't begrudge anyone their right to believe about politics as they wish and vote their conscience, but as Christians we should think about our testimony before engaging in hyper partisan public discourse. I will comment on actions that I find morally reprehensible regardless of the party affiliation but try and make sure to not cross that line of attacking someone just because of their political beliefs. And BTW I vetted your claim that the Dems are hiring paid actors to voice their opinions (or talking points) publicly. My research found a fairly equal number of accusations of that very thing on both sides for years. I couldn't find any hard numbers that were verifiable but while some differed over who spent the most it looked like a close race to me, so when you fail to mention that the Republicans do it too that makes it a partisan statement when in reality it seems that it's a problem on both sides. I'm just saying...God Bless

Actually if you'll check, he doesn't give it to charities but rather to Government agencies such as the SBA, etc. And if you're suggesting that I should praise him for giving his paycheck (which is a pittance compared to his wealth) to Government agencies only after he has a reelection campaign to think about after a lifetime of well documented notoriously miserly giving you're living in a "fool's paradise". I'd be so much more impressed if he would, as Zacchaeus did, say “Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.” and then do it. That might actually help in a meaningful way.

I'm sure God can and will handle it! I just don't think Christians should defend it. Let God handle it!

God does put our leaders in power according to His will. He put Nero and Caligula in power but I'd never defend their actions either. He put George Washington and Barack Obama in power as well and I would call out any of them if they acted in this manner. God put Caligula in power but he abused it. Then you say "that is the same as God because Christians do His work..or are supposed 2 anyway" so now you're seeming to compare Trump to God and if that's the case then I rest my case that hyper-partisan rhetoric isn't in any way productive to a Christian witness. And if you're suggesting that Christians supposed to do Trump's work just as they are supposed to do God's then that's another issue all together.

I feel what we really need is a way to hold all politicians and elected officials regardless of party affiliation accountable for everything they do and quit the hyper-partisan rhetoric that will serve only to alienate those who have opposing party opinions.

You were probably referring to that guy behind that tree. If it's surely not you and certainly not me it must be that guy behind that tree.

I just don't think it's something to play around with.

Same here in the good old USofA.

I watched again and he didn't roll them, he turned them to the heavens head and all.

First I don't know of an instance where I made judgemental comments about any person about money. I call out the actions but not a person. I knew that wasn't popular long ago but when I talk about actions such as the use of wealth it's not any personal attack on anyone but a hope that someone somewhere might see that they have fallen into the money trap and have a change of heart. And sometimes it's when people see that the actions that I describe are those in which they participate that they think it's personal but that's only because the actions are personal not because I said anything personal about the person. I wasn't insinuating that it was a joke as I rook it quite serious. I was simply pointing out the fact that it was insensitive given the modern usage and could be taken as offensive by someone else who was unfamiliar with your definition as I was and while it's going to be like water off a ducks back for me it might not be so for the homosexual who had the same reaction. So, I'm always on the side of caution when it comes to such things and still think it was insensitive even if no double entendre was intended. BTW, only God knows your intentions, I can only speak to my interpretation of the words and my concerns that someone more sensitive than myself (someone who might see it as personal) might see it and become disillusioned about the sensitivity or compassion of us as Christians. That's all God bless

All I'll say is that I'm compelled to call out what I believe to be problematic behavior or rhetoric every time I see where it could even possibly unnecessarily have any detriment to anyone's ability to witness to anyone, and in this case it's obvious that regardless of your intention of definition your statement has the possibility of being interpreted as a derogatory term for homosexuals and thus undermine any efforts to witness to any homosexual who might take it as such. So I'm calling it as I see it. The only culture I wish to cultivate is one of God's love and it can't be imposed on anyone. I just wish everyone could be more sensitive about words that could be seen as derogatory attacks on persons. While I believe in calling out actions and words I try my best to avoid language that could possibly be seen as personal attacks on anyone. That's all God bless

There's your entire quote and the only mention of evergreens is looking at them (which is in no way offensive) and the your statement about burning faggots with no cross reference. So, again, it's not about what you (or I) might think it means but what someone who is familiar with the modern derogatory term and not the antiquated term might think, specially if that person were a homosexual seeking spiritual guidance I can't believe that you aren't familiar with the modern usage so are you suggesting that the aforementioned person should go look up an old or unknown to them definition before deciding that there is no compassion here? If you're suggesting that it should be their responsibility to check if there's another meaning I'd suggest maybe you should think about the fact that it's probably not going to happen before posting something which is at best a double entendre.