unworthyservant

18 hours ago, createdequal said:

so a Christian promoting the R party is "damaging their Christian testimony with those on the other side"??

The other side?

Do you realize the other side is Satan himself?

How can you be any more Satan-promoting than wanting to keep baby-killing legal, even up until the daybefore birth, and some are now saying after birth as well?

Is that not Satanic to you?

(and there other ways in which the left's policies are destructive to society---) 

"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)

17 hours ago, createdequal said:

umm.. Caligula came before Christ

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

19 hours ago, createdequal said:

the Rs know how ruthless and lacking in absolute morals the Ds are..

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?

4 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, unworthyservant.

That's true enough, but ABSOLUTELY NOT in the "court of public opinion!" And, the democratic party leftists should QUIT HIRING PAID ACTORS to voice their opinions "publicly!"

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

14 hours ago, createdequal said:

LOL re what Rogers said

I don't think Trump is a true politician, although he does have to think about being re-elected and how to do that and etc... But I think he is in it for the good of the country.. I mean, he was making more money outside the WH

he gives (I think he still gives) his pres. pay check to charity

I am the biggest charity case you could find, so maybe I should write and ask him to give it to me ?

 

 

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.

14 hours ago, createdequal said:

I think God is big enough to handle it

don't you?

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

14 hours ago, createdequal said:

so? he is the chosen one. We the People CHOSE him over 17 others (16 Rs and 1 from the Party of Baby-Killing)

 

so yeh, he IS the chosen one.

I do feel that God himself raised him to be where he is. I know that many Christians worked on getting him elected, yours truly included..

that is the same as God because Christians do His work... or are supposed 2 anyway

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.

14 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, unworthyservant.

Relax. Even Koresh ("Cyrus the Great") knew that he was God's anointed = selected = chosen for a purpose.

What we REALLY need is a way to hold the House responsible for all the time and money they have wasted since Trump got in office!

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.

On 9/14/2019 at 6:31 PM, createdequal said:

But in any case, it seems I was sp eaking of someone else when I mentioned or accused someone of watching catty not-news network, though I could be wrong

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.

2 hours ago, other one said:

he was in a jovial mood and was just playing around.

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

15 hours ago, maryjayne said:

So many, at least in the UK, don't believe. It's a socioeconomic habit to attend church.

Same here in the good old USofA.

30 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, unworthyservant.

Ever hear of "rolling your eyes?"

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

2 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

I have bolded a sentence of your quoted post. Your judgmental comments about how people choose to spend their time and money are derogatory attacks, as several on here have already told you.

Your foul insinuation that I am making jokes about homosexuals is also a derogatory attack. Think about it.

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

Just now, maryjayne said:

I disagree.

I get tired of you picking on posts, not just mine, and sucking any negative connotation you can possibly get from them, while also seizing every opportunity to lecture on how people choose to live and post and spend their money. I suggest you take a look at yourself and ask yourself why you feel compelled to do this? 

Terms I use are well known in my culture, as i said. I even gave you a link to the common usages of the term here. You are on an international site, deal with it and stop trying to impose your culture on mine. I have to look up US terms all the time. 

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

43 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

And none of this pagan breathing or looking at evergreen trees either!

Did you know we burn a faggot at Christmas? 

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. 

27 minutes ago, Godismyloveforever said:

??????????

 

Well crying isn't going to change anything (it never does do any good) so why not try something more productive?

5 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

Look up the British meaning and stop being so US-centric. This is an international site, and we are discussing international pagan ritual ongoing today.

Because it had a meaning per the OED in the 18th century as a bundle of twigs doesn't make it any less insensitive given it's modern adaptation and I still maintain that homosexuals everywhere would see at as a derogatory name for them so i stand by my original premise that they might leave after seeing it. It's not about an obscure meaning (if I didn't know it I'm betting I'm not alone) as much as it is about sensitivity towards those who might be offended. FYI, I checked and there are numerous instances where British folks have used it as a synonym for homosexuals and the dictionary also has it as slang. Actually a couple only have the slang. I just wish we could discuss pagan rituals without divisive insinuation if not outright ridicule of folks who have nothing to do with them.

2 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

Did you know we burn a faggot at Christmas? 

I fear that it's unnecessary rhetoric like this that makes it hard to witness to a homosexual. You know it's hard to witness to someone after you have called them derogatory names? What if a homosexual person had come here today to seek spiritual guidance, would they have confidence that they would find much compassion here if they read this? 

1 minute ago, Godismyloveforever said:

Because pagans drank water, maybe we should not.

What does drinking water have to do with the price of eggs in China much less the adoption of pagan ghost repelling rituals and turning them into a retail bonanza while children are starving all over the world including right in our own backyard?

I know how sensitive and contentious that politics in the US are these days and I don't usually comment unless I see something so outrageous that I feel I must point it out regardless of the political party of the culprit. Otherwise I only involve myself in trying to convince people that taking public hard line partisan political stands in the current divisive environment can hurt your ability to witness to those of opposite beliefs. That said, all I wanted to say is that what US politics needs is less politicians and more statesmen. James Freeman Clark said the difference is "A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation." That said I'll take statesmen every time but I sure don't see many these days. Will Rogers once said "I always want to vote for the best person for the job, unfortunately they never run" so I'll just keep looking in the hopes that someday they will.

On 8/22/2019 at 1:48 PM, other one said:

He was not calling himself The Chosen one as to any religious or spiritual way....

Why then did he turn his eyes to the heavens as he said it?

On 9/3/2019 at 5:51 PM, Retrobyter said:

Trump often makes bold comments based on movie quotes, and I imagine this was like an imitation of Harry Potter saying this to Hermione and getting SLAPPED for it!

I don't think he should use Harry Potter imitations in context with "the chosen one" much less lift his eyes to the Heavens while doing so, either!

On 9/14/2019 at 7:16 PM, createdequal said:

The R party is the only party for intelligent people and people with morals.

And you've just seriously hampered your ability to witness to an unintelligent Democrat with no morals!

7 minutes ago, douge said:

John 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

These verses disprove the notion that the shroud of Turin is authentic.

The shroud is one piece of cloth depicting the body of Jesus from the head down. Verse 7 states the cloth napkin about his head was wrapped together separately so making it impossible for the face of Jesus to have been imprinted on the same piece of cloth as his body.

Interesting. I hadn't heard that before.

13 hours ago, Yeshua153 said:

As we are fast approaching the end of  7 months of light, (March-Sept) the pagans can revel in their festivals of halloween, xmass, new year, valentines day, mardi gras, 40 day mourning for tammuz (lent), & easter, in their 5 months of darkness, along with their so called christian friends

Wow, why don't you just tell how you really feel?    I thought I was hard core about the way we celebrate holidays and the things we choose to celebrate and while I don't know your reasoning it seems you have taken it to a whole new level. Partly because you've just lumped them all into one. I have differing reasons for my feelings on each one and usually take them on one by one (was already planning Halloween post). I think Halloween is one of the most baffling as to why Christians would participate in such a holiday much less spend money to celebrate it. Now, since I'll have no new material for a new topic on it that could top this, I'll just put in my 2 cents worth here. Or should I say my $6B worth since that's what Christians spent last year celebrating Halloween. (Total retail was $9B and I'm being kind only assigning $6B to Christians). How can we justify such a expenditure celebrating Halloween or Samhain which is the pagan holiday of the ancient Celts upon which it is based? The Celts lighted bonfires and wore costumes to ward off ghosts. In the 8th century Pope Gregory III deecided that we needed a holiday to honor all saints so all saints day was born. Soon (and there's no sensible reason that I can find) the celebration of All Saints day began to mirror Samhain and became All Hallows Eve. Then over time it became even more pagan in it's celebration and became Halloween, the retail corporate bonanza that we celebrate today. I know that's a Readers Digest version but this isn't my topic so I'm hitting the highlights. So, I'll only say that I believe that $6B would be better spent doing God's work and could do a lot of good for a lot of people and Trick or Treat time would be way better spent in a Church service teaching the young folks the teachings of Christ and why they don't include Halloween.

13 hours ago, Yeshua153 said:

will try to ignore the tackiness of all the ghastly decorations, that, of course, has already started 3 months before

Good luck with that one!