Jump to content
IGNORED

the Church of the Left


Guest shiloh357

Recommended Posts

  • Steward

  • Group:  Steward
  • Followers:  110
  • Topic Count:  10,460
  • Topics Per Day:  1.26
  • Content Count:  27,739
  • Content Per Day:  3.34
  • Reputation:   15,386
  • Days Won:  126
  • Joined:  06/30/2001
  • Status:  Online
  • Birthday:  09/21/1971

4 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

On a more serious note, will God need to rule with a Rod of Iron?   This is wayyyyy off topic but it has always been my understanding that after the 2nd coming and we are with God in paradise the possibility of sin will not exist for us.

Am I off base on that? 

Well, first you have a Kingdom established on earth for 1000 years.  6000 (6 days of creation) - 1000 (Sabbath) rest.  It's not until AFTER the 1000 year reign do we have a NEW HEAVEN and a NEW EARTH.

So we'll be ruling and reigning on a "re-newed" earth for 1000 years, before you enter into "paradise" of the New Jerusalem.  If you want, start a topic somewhere and send me a PM and I'll be happy to share strictly what the Bible discusses is before us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
6 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

On a more serious note, will God need to rule with a Rod of Iron?   This is wayyyyy off topic but it has always been my understanding that after the 2nd coming and we are with God in paradise the possibility of sin will not exist for us.

Am I off base on that? 

Yes.  The millennial reign of Christ on earth is what follows and it will be an intolerant reign, hence the rod of iron and sin will not yet be eradicated from the earth, as the survivors from the Tribulation will continue to have children, during the millennium. Those children, many of whom will remain unregenerate,  will comprise the army that assaults the kingdom one last time in Revelation 20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, George said:

Well, first you have a Kingdom established on earth for 1000 years.  6000 (6 days of creation) - 1000 (Sabbath) rest.  It's not until AFTER the 1000 year reign do we have a NEW HEAVEN and a NEW EARTH.

So we'll be ruling and reigning on a "re-newed" earth for 1000 years, before you enter into "paradise" of the New Jerusalem.  If you want, start a topic somewhere and send me a PM and I'll be happy to share strictly what the Bible discusses is before us.

Thank you for your reply.  I will indeed work up a thread on the topic soon in a different section of the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

39 minutes ago, Cobalt1959 said:

And what I find amazing is that in every single thread where abortion is brought up, you massively downplay it's affects when it comes to America's accelerated moral decay.  As a Christian, you should continually be speaking out against it, in very clear terms along with the rest of The Body instead of acting like it is something not-that-bad and completely unimportant. 

Since 1973 America has murdered almost 60 million unborn children.  That is more than the Holocaust and Stalin's purges combined.  You should be morally outraged about that.  But you don't seem to be.  You wave your hand at murdered children and say it makes no difference because we don't murder any more of them today annually than we did in '73.   I'm sure all those aborted children find that comforting.

My comments have nothing to do with the affects of abortion but with the lack of effects from 30 plus years of single issue voting.  What has that gotten us?  It has gotten us a larger government and less personal freedoms while not having any effect on the rate of abortions in the country. 

Do you think it is just coincidence that we have not had a true fiscal conservative voted into office since the ruling of RvW?   12 presidential election cycles of one issue voting and not a single fiscal conservative ever voted into office.   Why do you think our current president became suddenly pro-life, he knew it would get him elected.  

All that and zero change to abortion.  

There is an old saying that doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.  When will it be time to try something different?  How many more years of voting the same way till people realize it is not working?  Will it take another 30?  Will they ever see the light?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,923
  • Content Per Day:  0.62
  • Reputation:   462
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  04/02/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/22/1953

4 hours ago, Running Gator said:

Do you think it is just coincidence that we have not had a true fiscal conservative voted into office since the ruling of RvW?

Your timeline is out of sequence.

One - we haven't had a fiscal conservative elected to the presidency since the 1920's.  So called social conservatism has had nothing to do with it since it didn't even exist.

You continually deride 'social conservatives' - but what about the 'social liberals' that created them?  Countless social issues (like abortion) were at one time the purview of the states.  A few liberal states allowed abortions - most did not.

But the constant push - push - push of the social liberals achieved for them just what they wanted - culminating in 1973 with Roe V. Wade.  And with one fell swoop, the laws of the 50 states were overturned and a national hot button issue was created.  And the Constitution was torn to shreds.

Of course the social liberals weren't satisfied, they never are. They have, to this day, sought new hurdles to conquer.  Definition of marriage.  Transgender 'rights'.  One by one - the dominoes fall. 

And you expect that there shouldn't have been - and won't continue to be - push back?

No, the lack of fiscal conservatism has little to nothing to do with 'social conservatism.'  Don't you see?

Once it was established (back in the 1930's, way before 'social conservatism) that politicians could use our own money to buy votes and perpetuate themselves in office, it was inevitable that government would continue to grow bigger and more intrusive.

It is not in the interest of politicians of either political party - or more accurately the people who buy them - to have it any other way.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

7 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Your timeline is out of sequence.

One - we haven't had a fiscal conservative elected to the presidency since the 1920's.  So called social conservatism has had nothing to do with it since it didn't even exist.

I think one could make a good argument that Nixon was fiscally conservative.

Quote

You continually deride 'social conservatives' - but what about the 'social liberals' that created them?  Countless social issues (like abortion) were at one time the purview of the states.  A few liberal states allowed abortions - most did not.

I do not deride social conservatives, i deride the fact that social issues win the day in the voting booth.   There was a candidate for POTUS this time around that feels that abortion should again be a state issue.

Quote

 

But the constant push - push - push of the social liberals achieved for them just what they wanted - culminating in 1973 with Roe V. Wade.  And with one fell swoop, the laws of the 50 states were overturned and a national hot button issue was created.  And the Constitution was torn to shreds.

Of course the social liberals weren't satisfied, they never are. They have, to this day, sought new hurdles to conquer.  Definition of marriage.  Transgender 'rights'.  One by one - the dominoes fall. 

And you expect that there shouldn't have been - and won't continue to be - push back?

 

Then it seems that people have fallen for a ploy and we have lost the nation over it.  In the fight for social issues we have also handed over the fiscal keyes to the kingdom. 

And ironically enough it seems that every one of these "fights" have been lost.  Abortion has not changed, gay people have more rights and can get married and more.  So, for 30 plus wars the "social issue" battle has been fought in the voting booth and every battle has been lost.  Perhaps rules and laws are not the way to change people's hearts after all. 

Quote

 

No, the lack of fiscal conservatism has little to nothing to do with 'social conservatism.'  Don't you see?

Once it was established (back in the 1930's, way before 'social conservatism) that politicians could use our own money to buy votes and perpetuate themselves in office, it was inevitable that government would continue to grow bigger and more intrusive.

It is not in the interest of politicians of either political party - or more accurately the people who buy them - to have it any other way.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

Somewhere along the way the people still had power and elections mattered.  I saw we can only blame ourselves for the fact they no longer do

Edited by Running Gator
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  385
  • Topics Per Day:  0.10
  • Content Count:  7,692
  • Content Per Day:  1.94
  • Reputation:   4,809
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  05/28/2013
  • Status:  Offline

22 hours ago, Blueyedjewel said:

Absolutely amazing..................................smh:th_frusty:

Careful there. Every time I post something you bash your head against the wall. Your going to hurt yourself. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

Careful there. Every time I post something you bash your head against the wall. Your going to hurt yourself. :blink:

Every time? Thats certainly a gross exaggeration now isnt it? Careful about bearing false witness!

Naw. I Rarely respond to your opinions these days. God is the only one who can enlighten you.  ^_^

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,923
  • Content Per Day:  0.62
  • Reputation:   462
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  04/02/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/22/1953

7 hours ago, Running Gator said:

I think one could make a good argument that Nixon was fiscally conservative.

Hardly.  His administration gave us wage and price controls and the EPA.

He may have been in his heart a fiscal conservative, but he certainly didn't govern that way.

I still contend we haven't had a fiscal conservative since Coolidge (and it takes more than a POTUS, anyway).  The republican party back then was also probably fiscally conservative.

It's easy to become a spend thrift in government (whether one considers themselves liberal or conservative).  It's almost like it's the default position.  By contrast, it takes work PLUS an educated voting populace to advance fiscal conservatism.

Both of which are in very short supply.

7 hours ago, Running Gator said:

Somewhere along the way the people still had power and elections mattered.  I saw we can only blame ourselves for the fact they no longer do

Amen!

Blessings,

-Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,028
  • Content Per Day:  0.23
  • Reputation:   451
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/24/2012
  • Status:  Offline

59 minutes ago, Cobalt1959 said:

All I really got out of that was "Well, we can't change it, so let's just give up."  Who cares about abortion, because you cannot fix it.

I care.  I care about unborn children who are being murdered, right now, as I write this.  Being a fiscal conservative is more important than wishing our country would stop murdering children daily?  You keep talking about one issue voting.  If you were going to vote one issue, wouldn't it make more sense to at least attempt to cast your vote in hopes of saving lives instead of that vote being based on the control of cash flow?  That's a no-brainer to me.  It does not matter that that vote has not changed anything.  At least I attempted to do something about the problem instead of adopting the attitude of "resistance is futile."  That is the actual reason nothing has changed in regards to abortion in this country.  Apathetic voters who now dismiss the issue because it's been around so long they just don't think about it anymore.  And they don't care.

What I get from this is "Our way or the highway cause we are the people doing it right and all else is nothing but excuses."

Gator is making a point and you are dismissing it while trying to pin something on him that isn't his to wear. Something was wrong spiritually when R v W came about and the church fought in the flesh and still does. With all the mega churches and influential people like Rick Warren one would think our country would be influenced by Judeo Cristian values but the opposite has happened ever since. The stew was a mess before R v W and has become toxic over time.

This kind of argumentation is why boards like this become meaningless. A point is never really made clearly because someone needs to simply win win win. It's actually repugnant.

I hate the enemy that traps people in the ways of this world. We could rid the place of infidels and leftists and stone thous found aborting but then we would be doing the devils work and not Gods. People do not see the love of God when we fight the way the world does, they're always going to be better at it than the church, kind of like rock and roll. I saw a sign about ten years ago in Washington that read "Jesus, save us from your followers." I don't expect you would come to understand that may have some meaning for us to consider.

Every Christian that I have heard trying to make a point like Gator has always been drowned out by the cries you have cried and people move on, but he is right. Something must change. And that change must be spiritual.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...