Thread Rating:
12-17-2013, 12:09 AM
?
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
12-17-2013, 06:57 AM
Baby, I am right here!!!
nicker:
nicker:
12-17-2013, 08:03 AM
WideMiddle03 Wrote:?
Where'd did?
12-17-2013, 11:06 AM
I believe their conspicuous absence is driven by the fact that main stream media have been forced to cover some of the failures attributable to implementation of the liberal agenda. Don't forget, today most people confuse being liberal with being a Dem. Most Democrats of the Reagan era were merely liberal conservatives, happy to govern from the middle left. After Bill and Hill came to town, it became fashionable for the loons to come out of the closet. But, I digress.
Not that the main stream media are landing on the string of scandals like they should but, at least they are covering some of them. The Washington Post listed their top 10 lies of 2013 a couple of days ago;
Top 10 Lies:
1) “If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it.” Obama
2) Obama’s kids are protected by armed guards at school. Well, the problem is…they are. WaPo says this is a lie, but they have to twist and turn to make it so.3) “Capitol Hill janitors just got a pay cut.” Obama again, demagogue-in-chief.
4) Clinton denied security for Libya personnel with her signature on a cable. This had an auto-signature on it. So either it was signed by her, or she’s putting out cables with her signature that she knows nothing about. Lie, okay fine. Incompetant? You bet.
5) “The day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.” Obama. What a liar.
6) “70 cents of every dollar spent on food stamps goes to bureaucrats.” This is Michelle Bachman. I’m unimpressed by her – this was a stupid mistake.
7) “I opposed the invasion of Iraq.” John Kerry. What a liar. Luuuuuuuurrrrch.
8) “Democrats took $50 billion from overcharging students on college loans and used it to pay for Obamacare” What’s interesting about this lie is that I had not heard it. I guess 4 out of 10 biggest lies from the Obama administration was as much as WaPo could bear.
9) “A state investigation said Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli should have been prosecuted.” Again – has anyone heard this? Does this really rise to one of the top 10 biggest of the year?
10) “Obama is closing the U.S. Embassy in the Vatican” These last three were reaching. I mean, sure – lies. But top 10 biggest? I doubt it.
[ http://www.toberight.com/2013/12/top-10-...bama-told/ ]
When one considers how much political hay the same liberal press made of the mostly invented flaws of Mitt Romney during the last presidential campaign, the immense power media has over the masses becomes self evident. As far as I'm concerned, Romney had only one small piece of baggage (RomneyCare) and one itsy bitsy little off the cuff remark (47 percent will vote for Obama no matter what) for the press to work with. But this, none the less, seemed to be quite enough to do the trick. In my mind, the Benghazi scandal totally eclipsed the trumped up media blitz attributable to Romney's mostly invented shortfalls. The point is, Dems normally get a pass for just about ever thing while, Republicans are scrutinized until every flinch is deemed to be somehow malevolent.
When substance is lacking, as it normally is, the tone and delivery of 'cooked news' substitutes for ethical journalism. Remember the doctored Zimmerman tape released by MSNBC? I get fired up when I hear lies coming at me on the news. Not so with most it seems, they'd rather be lied to. In the end, the truth is still the truth. So, once the hyperbole and propaganda are strained out of current liberal drivel, all the 'message makers' out there from the left are revealed to be nothing more than idealistic zealots willing to put on a con to sell their false religion. (Ironically, most or their base are far from true believers, every last one of them bought and paid for with your tax dollars and mostly concerned with what they get in return for their vote.) In short however, the only reason the Obama approval rating is suffering right now, is because those who are led around by their noses by the 'recently awakened' liberal media, are getting a taste of the truth for the first time. If the media had the integrity to really do their job, Obama and the left would be toast. Fox comes the closest but, be not deceived, there are a number of liberals in the Fox fold, and they aren't taking many prisoners. The world is coming apart at the seams and the US is asleep at the wheel, totally consumed with the liberal redefinition of morality. The courts are literally inundated with issues involving gay rights, global warming propaganda and wide open immigration regulations. At least Fox does provide a forum for conservatives to debate liberals for all to see. Conservatives probably need to be a little less gracious in my view. If they want to get the truth out they need to quit letting liberals define their arguments as if conservatives are too stupid to see the scope of the issues at hand.
Meanwhile, conservatives like guides on a white water rafting trip coming up on a class 5 event are thinking, the liberal party hats are about to come flying off. That might be a comforting thought if they were not unfortunately in the same boat (ship of state) with them. The whole mess could be straightened out immediately if law makers and media were to put country ahead of party and the liberal agenda.
Not that the main stream media are landing on the string of scandals like they should but, at least they are covering some of them. The Washington Post listed their top 10 lies of 2013 a couple of days ago;
Top 10 Lies:
1) “If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it.” Obama
2) Obama’s kids are protected by armed guards at school. Well, the problem is…they are. WaPo says this is a lie, but they have to twist and turn to make it so.3) “Capitol Hill janitors just got a pay cut.” Obama again, demagogue-in-chief.
4) Clinton denied security for Libya personnel with her signature on a cable. This had an auto-signature on it. So either it was signed by her, or she’s putting out cables with her signature that she knows nothing about. Lie, okay fine. Incompetant? You bet.
5) “The day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.” Obama. What a liar.
6) “70 cents of every dollar spent on food stamps goes to bureaucrats.” This is Michelle Bachman. I’m unimpressed by her – this was a stupid mistake.
7) “I opposed the invasion of Iraq.” John Kerry. What a liar. Luuuuuuuurrrrch.
8) “Democrats took $50 billion from overcharging students on college loans and used it to pay for Obamacare” What’s interesting about this lie is that I had not heard it. I guess 4 out of 10 biggest lies from the Obama administration was as much as WaPo could bear.
9) “A state investigation said Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli should have been prosecuted.” Again – has anyone heard this? Does this really rise to one of the top 10 biggest of the year?
10) “Obama is closing the U.S. Embassy in the Vatican” These last three were reaching. I mean, sure – lies. But top 10 biggest? I doubt it.
[ http://www.toberight.com/2013/12/top-10-...bama-told/ ]
When one considers how much political hay the same liberal press made of the mostly invented flaws of Mitt Romney during the last presidential campaign, the immense power media has over the masses becomes self evident. As far as I'm concerned, Romney had only one small piece of baggage (RomneyCare) and one itsy bitsy little off the cuff remark (47 percent will vote for Obama no matter what) for the press to work with. But this, none the less, seemed to be quite enough to do the trick. In my mind, the Benghazi scandal totally eclipsed the trumped up media blitz attributable to Romney's mostly invented shortfalls. The point is, Dems normally get a pass for just about ever thing while, Republicans are scrutinized until every flinch is deemed to be somehow malevolent.
When substance is lacking, as it normally is, the tone and delivery of 'cooked news' substitutes for ethical journalism. Remember the doctored Zimmerman tape released by MSNBC? I get fired up when I hear lies coming at me on the news. Not so with most it seems, they'd rather be lied to. In the end, the truth is still the truth. So, once the hyperbole and propaganda are strained out of current liberal drivel, all the 'message makers' out there from the left are revealed to be nothing more than idealistic zealots willing to put on a con to sell their false religion. (Ironically, most or their base are far from true believers, every last one of them bought and paid for with your tax dollars and mostly concerned with what they get in return for their vote.) In short however, the only reason the Obama approval rating is suffering right now, is because those who are led around by their noses by the 'recently awakened' liberal media, are getting a taste of the truth for the first time. If the media had the integrity to really do their job, Obama and the left would be toast. Fox comes the closest but, be not deceived, there are a number of liberals in the Fox fold, and they aren't taking many prisoners. The world is coming apart at the seams and the US is asleep at the wheel, totally consumed with the liberal redefinition of morality. The courts are literally inundated with issues involving gay rights, global warming propaganda and wide open immigration regulations. At least Fox does provide a forum for conservatives to debate liberals for all to see. Conservatives probably need to be a little less gracious in my view. If they want to get the truth out they need to quit letting liberals define their arguments as if conservatives are too stupid to see the scope of the issues at hand.
Meanwhile, conservatives like guides on a white water rafting trip coming up on a class 5 event are thinking, the liberal party hats are about to come flying off. That might be a comforting thought if they were not unfortunately in the same boat (ship of state) with them. The whole mess could be straightened out immediately if law makers and media were to put country ahead of party and the liberal agenda.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
12-18-2013, 12:38 AM
Obama has even made the most hardened liberals blush over the past 6 months.
12-18-2013, 11:24 AM
I am right here...no point in discussing any thing on this... no one will ever change anyone's mind... no point in going over ideas. It is always some theory or what Fox News Reports or MSNBC or some grand scheme by that Liberal Media. Luckily viewership is down with Fox News and no one ever watched MSNBC... soon enough people will have to think for themselves...just my opinion though!
12-18-2013, 04:47 PM
tvtimeout Wrote:I am right here...no point in discussing any thing on this... no one will ever change anyone's mind... no point in going over ideas. It is always some theory or what Fox News Reports or MSNBC or some grand scheme by that Liberal Media. Luckily viewership is down with Fox News and no one ever watched MSNBC... soon enough people will have to think for themselves...just my opinion though!
Ann Coulter--- "Liberalism is really a mental disorder" LOL, according to Ann you might need a cure, not a discussion.
I know one of the MANY hats you wear is that of Deacon. So allow me to ask, in light of scripture, how will liberals make account before Him with regard to their personal adherence to the tenets of liberalism? You know, things like the war to secure abortion and gay rights? It is their war after all, evidenced by their many attacks on the Christian faith. To stay on topic for just a second, let's take the WW2 Memorial Cross out in San Diego, that a liberal activist judge ordered removed from atop a mountain. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/12/jud...e-removed/ The men who fought and died to defend this land as recently as Afghanistan certainly have no problem whatever with the symbolism of the cross. But, this just goes to show how far we have moved from the truth (and sanity) in this land.
This is the liberal method of advancing their agenda. Enemies of God, soldiers marching under the banner of political correctness, are taking on all comers. Unable to convert most folks, they sue all who would dare to resist the liberal juggernaut into submission. From the school systems being forced remove the ten commandments from common areas, to banning Christmas decorations, (I can still say Christmas), to the willfully premeditated misinterpretation of the concept of the separation of church and state in order to expunge any mention of God from our society. Ironically to rub salt in the wound, they use our own legal system, funded by our own tax dollars, to propagate this state sponsored 'scorched earth policy'. Seriously, did the Lord change His mind on all this stuff and not tell the rest of us?
One thing about liberals has always defied logic. They who bow at the altar of tolerance, are bereft of that quality where it comes to the Christian faith. I mean, did not God order His own to "Go out into the highways and the hedges and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled."? And yet, how many billions of dollars have you guys wasted trying to expunge the idea of God from any vestige of the American culture? Even going to the extent of suggesting that in the record, the words of Jefferson et-al be censured that in any way refer to God.
There is only ONE true faith. ONE true God. and ONE true church, the rest are imitators. We are to get that point across in an as kind a fashion as we can but, why suppress the truth?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
12-18-2013, 10:08 PM
tvtimeout Wrote:I am right here...no point in discussing any thing on this... no one will ever change anyone's mind... no point in going over ideas. It is always some theory or what Fox News Reports or MSNBC or some grand scheme by that Liberal Media. Luckily viewership is down with Fox News and no one ever watched MSNBC... soon enough people will have to think for themselves...just my opinion though!
You so sure about that?
You claim, via your posts, that you teach. That's a scary thought given that people like you are indoctrinating our students. There is the saying that "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Evidently you didn't see this article posted by one of your own sources.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-d...00875.html
Fox declined 18% in day viewers, while CNN and NBC declined 48% and 45%, respectively. Fox lost 21% of viewers in the evening, while CNN and MSNBC lost 54% and 50% of viewers, respectively.
I try to be reserved about judging others in Christianity. However, I find it odd how you get on here and toot your own horn about being a follower of Jesus when you support the people who are bent on supporting abortion, gay marriage, and making sure that Nativity Scenes, The Ten Commandments, and anything relating to the Bible. I would love for you to try to tell me how one can call themselves a Christian and at the same time support liberalism. I am not perfect, I am full of sin, but there is a big difference between struggling with it and supporting it. By voting for people like obama, you are supporting the party of satan.
Wonder if you'll reply or make one of your usual disappearances. :hilarious:
12-19-2013, 12:17 AM
12-19-2013, 04:03 PM
At this point, the liberals that still support the Head Clown and his Insane Clown Posse that we call the current administration, are trying their best to come up with another lie. Problem is, even a lib is struggling to come up with something to make their guy look good.
They're not man enough to fess up and say its pretty much been a fiasco to this point. Instead, as proved in this thread, they will sink to pointing out negatives of Fox News.
I for one, am not a bit surprised at the way Obama's past supporters on this site have chosen the "shut mouth" tactic. Pretty smart on their part...crow ain't good and they have no plans of eating any. A "chicken" platter is better suited.
They're not man enough to fess up and say its pretty much been a fiasco to this point. Instead, as proved in this thread, they will sink to pointing out negatives of Fox News.
I for one, am not a bit surprised at the way Obama's past supporters on this site have chosen the "shut mouth" tactic. Pretty smart on their part...crow ain't good and they have no plans of eating any. A "chicken" platter is better suited.
12-19-2013, 06:46 PM
SKINNYPIG Wrote:At this point, the liberals that still support the Head Clown and his Insane Clown Posse that we call the current administration, are trying their best to come up with another lie. Problem is, even a lib is struggling to come up with something to make their guy look good.
They're not man enough to fess up and say its pretty much been a fiasco to this point. Instead, as proved in this thread, they will sink to pointing out negatives of Fox News.
I for one, am not a bit surprised at the way Obama's past supporters on this site have chosen the "shut mouth" tactic. Pretty smart on their part...crow ain't good and they have no plans of eating any. A "chicken" platter is better suited.
a lot us have jobs:biglmao:
12-19-2013, 07:03 PM
vector Wrote:a lot us have jobs:biglmao:
"after employment topped out in January 2008, non-farm unemployment is still more than 3 million jobs below where it started."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman...n-it-looks
^This article was published in 2013, you should read it. The excerpt I posted from it above states that we still have 3 million jobs fewer than we had when Obama came to office. :dudecomeon:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-13-2014, 03:25 PM
WideRight05 Wrote:You so sure about that?
You claim, via your posts, that you teach. That's a scary thought given that people like you are indoctrinating our students. There is the saying that "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Evidently you didn't see this article posted by one of your own sources.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-d...00875.html
Fox declined 18% in day viewers, while CNN and NBC declined 48% and 45%, respectively. Fox lost 21% of viewers in the evening, while CNN and MSNBC lost 54% and 50% of viewers, respectively.
I try to be reserved about judging others in Christianity. However, I find it odd how you get on here and toot your own horn about being a follower of Jesus when you support the people who are bent on supporting abortion, gay marriage, and making sure that Nativity Scenes, The Ten Commandments, and anything relating to the Bible. I would love for you to try to tell me how one can call themselves a Christian and at the same time support liberalism. I am not perfect, I am full of sin, but there is a big difference between struggling with it and supporting it. By voting for people like obama, you are supporting the party of satan.
Wonder if you'll reply or make one of your usual disappearances. :hilarious:
Ehhhhhhhhhhhmp, time's up. It's been just shy of a month so it is officially a disappearance, LOL.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-14-2014, 07:11 AM
01-14-2014, 11:37 AM
nky Wrote:[Image: http://americanmoxie.us/wp-content/uploa...1/rats.jpg]
Man I hope you're right nky. You're probably talking about the throngs of Dems defecting over ObamaCare but, I hope the supreme court disallows his appointments to replace all those rats jumping ship. I just wish we didn't have to wait until June to hear the verdict. It kills me to watch El Presidente turn the US into an entitlement banana republic. Nobody has successfully stood up to him yet, maybe the SCOTUS will finally put country above platform.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-14-2014, 03:09 PM
Pick6 Wrote:The liberals are busy holding elected offices!
So, you're just cutting to the chase and identifying the root problem for the United States in our time?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-14-2014, 11:07 PM
All joking aside, I would like to see Realville come back.
It was funner then.
It was funner then.
01-15-2014, 03:03 PM
TheRealThing Wrote:Ann Coulter--- "Liberalism is really a mental disorder" LOL, according to Ann you might need a cure, not a discussion.
I know one of the MANY hats you wear is that of Deacon. So allow me to ask, in light of scripture, how will liberals make account before Him with regard to their personal adherence to the tenets of liberalism? You know, things like the war to secure abortion and gay rights? It is their war after all, evidenced by their many attacks on the Christian faith. To stay on topic for just a second, let's take the WW2 Memorial Cross out in San Diego, that a liberal activist judge ordered removed from atop a mountain. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/12/jud...e-removed/ The men who fought and died to defend this land as recently as Afghanistan certainly have no problem whatever with the symbolism of the cross. But, this just goes to show how far we have moved from the truth (and sanity) in this land.
This is the liberal method of advancing their agenda. Enemies of God, soldiers marching under the banner of political correctness, are taking on all comers. Unable to convert most folks, they sue all who would dare to resist the liberal juggernaut into submission. From the school systems being forced remove the ten commandments from common areas, to banning Christmas decorations, (I can still say Christmas), to the willfully premeditated misinterpretation of the concept of the separation of church and state in order to expunge any mention of God from our society. Ironically to rub salt in the wound, they use our own legal system, funded by our own tax dollars, to propagate this state sponsored 'scorched earth policy'. Seriously, did the Lord change His mind on all this stuff and not tell the rest of us?
One thing about liberals has always defied logic. They who bow at the altar of tolerance, are bereft of that quality where it comes to the Christian faith. I mean, did not God order His own to "Go out into the highways and the hedges and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled."? And yet, how many billions of dollars have you guys wasted trying to expunge the idea of God from any vestige of the American culture? Even going to the extent of suggesting that in the record, the words of Jefferson et-al be censured that in any way refer to God.
There is only ONE true faith. ONE true God. and ONE true church, the rest are imitators. We are to get that point across in an as kind a fashion as we can but, why suppress the truth?
2 questions: Who is my neighbor, and how did the first church survive to where all did not have need?
01-15-2014, 05:18 PM
tvtimeout Wrote:2 questions: Who is my neighbor, and how did the first church survive to where all did not have need?
Luke 10:25-29 (NKJV)
25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"
27 So he answered and said, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.' "
28 And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
Obviously everybody we run across throughout our life is our neighbor. But, Christ is not trying to define our responsibilities to our neighbors here. Rather, He is pointing out to the Lawyer in the text, as well as all who were to read the scripture, that nobody can live a life that pleases God well enough to earn eternal life. The only hope for man is accepting the gift of life through His perfect work;
Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
My pastor cited a poll recently which found that 90% of modern evangelicals said the main thrust of the Gospels was to inspire folks to give to the poor. Christ said that He had come to "save that which was lost". The work of Christians therefore is to do the same. We are to be about our Father's business, which is the redemption of man, manning the soup kitchen lines may look saintly to you but, salvation is the number one concern. What used to be the early church, still survives in tact today, and is inhabited by those who have been saved. So, there is no distinctly separate first church as you put it. Although those of the early church did sell all they had, to share among themselves. God established the tithe to fund His church and minister to those who are in need. It's ludacris to take the position that the saved are to sell all that they have and give it away in this society. Federal and State government agencies are busy redistributing the wealth as we speak. Free housing, free food, free clothing, free utilities, free health care, free cell phones and on and on ad nauseum. There is a lot of need out there, and the church stands ready to minister where needed. We however, are to be responsible and provide for out own family first.
At any rate, the scriptures are clear. God expects man to work for his living. Are you familiar with the Jewish custom of gleaning? If so, you realize that welfare of that day still involved the poor going out into the unreaped corners of the fields to harvest (through labor heaven forbid) and to then actually cook the food as necessary. Helping people doesn't mean nurturing them like infants.
BTW, you and I have gone over all this at least once before that I can recall. Have you sold all that you have and given it to the poor?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-16-2014, 10:10 AM
[quote=TheRealThing]Luke 10:25-29 (NKJV)
25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"
27 So he answered and said, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.' "
28 And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
Obviously everybody we run across throughout our life is our neighbor. But, Christ is not trying to define our responsibilities to our neighbors here. Rather, He is pointing out to the Lawyer in the text, as well as all who were to read the scripture, that nobody can live a life that pleases God well enough to earn eternal life. The only hope for man is accepting the gift of life through His perfect work;
Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
My pastor cited a poll recently which found that 90% of modern evangelicals said the main thrust of the Gospels was to inspire folks to give to the poor. Christ said that He had come to "save that which was lost". The work of Christians therefore is to do the same. We are to be about our Father's business, which is the redemption of man, manning the soup kitchen lines may look saintly to you but, salvation is the number one concern. What used to be the early church, still survives in tact today, and is inhabited by those who have been saved. So, there is no distinctly separate first church as you put it. Although those of the early church did sell all they had, to share among themselves. God established the tithe to fund His church and minister to those who are in need. It's ludacris to take the position that the saved are to sell all that they have and give it away in this society. Federal and State government agencies are busy redistributing the wealth as we speak. Free housing, free food, free clothing, free utilities, free health care, free cell phones and on and on ad nauseum. There is a lot of need out there, and the church stands ready to minister where needed. We however, are to be responsible and provide for out own family first.
At any rate, the scriptures are clear. God expects man to work for his living. Are you familiar with the Jewish custom of gleaning? If so, you realize that welfare of that day still involved the poor going out into the unreaped corners of the fields to harvest (through labor heaven forbid) and to then actually cook the food as necessary. Helping people doesn't mean nurturing them like infants.
BTW, you and I have gone over all this at least once before that I can recall. Have you sold all that you have and given it to the poor?[/QUOTE]
Opinion that I disagree with...
I am weak my friend....
Also, if we are going by jewish customs then I want to go by every seven years my debts are totally forgiven... also for the record, the cell phone thing is a Ronald Reagan idea... croney capitalism....
25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"
27 So he answered and said, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.' "
28 And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
Obviously everybody we run across throughout our life is our neighbor. But, Christ is not trying to define our responsibilities to our neighbors here. Rather, He is pointing out to the Lawyer in the text, as well as all who were to read the scripture, that nobody can live a life that pleases God well enough to earn eternal life. The only hope for man is accepting the gift of life through His perfect work;
Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
My pastor cited a poll recently which found that 90% of modern evangelicals said the main thrust of the Gospels was to inspire folks to give to the poor. Christ said that He had come to "save that which was lost". The work of Christians therefore is to do the same. We are to be about our Father's business, which is the redemption of man, manning the soup kitchen lines may look saintly to you but, salvation is the number one concern. What used to be the early church, still survives in tact today, and is inhabited by those who have been saved. So, there is no distinctly separate first church as you put it. Although those of the early church did sell all they had, to share among themselves. God established the tithe to fund His church and minister to those who are in need. It's ludacris to take the position that the saved are to sell all that they have and give it away in this society. Federal and State government agencies are busy redistributing the wealth as we speak. Free housing, free food, free clothing, free utilities, free health care, free cell phones and on and on ad nauseum. There is a lot of need out there, and the church stands ready to minister where needed. We however, are to be responsible and provide for out own family first.
At any rate, the scriptures are clear. God expects man to work for his living. Are you familiar with the Jewish custom of gleaning? If so, you realize that welfare of that day still involved the poor going out into the unreaped corners of the fields to harvest (through labor heaven forbid) and to then actually cook the food as necessary. Helping people doesn't mean nurturing them like infants.
BTW, you and I have gone over all this at least once before that I can recall. Have you sold all that you have and given it to the poor?[/QUOTE]
Opinion that I disagree with...
I am weak my friend....
Also, if we are going by jewish customs then I want to go by every seven years my debts are totally forgiven... also for the record, the cell phone thing is a Ronald Reagan idea... croney capitalism....
01-16-2014, 03:45 PM
"Opinion that I disagree with..."
Fine, you have the right to disagree with anything you want to. I would challenge you to present you're argument to refute that Christ is not by His statements, helping this guy to understand that it is impossible to live a life that will satisfy God's own requirement on sinless perfection. And therefore, impossible for him or any other man, to do anything to inherit eternal life outside of faith in the risen Lord. After all, that was the question the lawyer asked of Him, was it not? I mean, if there was any way to earn, "inherit" or merit, eternal life by one's actions, why did our Lord have to die on the cross? Remember he who breaks the law in one point is guilty of the whole law? BTW, a lawyer of the day would have been very well versed in the law, and Israel being a theocracy, would have been governed by the church. So, this would be like Eric Holder walking up to you and asking if you believe homosexuality is lawful or not.
"I am weak my friend.... "
Yeah, aren't we all. But, what is ^this, in reference to?
"Also, if we are going by jewish customs then I want to go by every seven years my debts are totally forgiven... also for the record, the cell phone thing is a Ronald Reagan idea... croney capitalism...."
Christ called out His Church from among the orthodox church of the day. In fact, and as is made clear in the Gospel of John from chapters 8 thru 14, to attain eternal life at all, it would have been requisite to separate one's self from the erroneous teachings of the church of that era and in their sted, accept the reality of Lordship of Jesus Christ. This fact is demonstrated in that Christ presented Himself as the Way the Truth and the Life, while at the same time telling the leaders of the orthodox church that they were of their father the devil. Therefore, to put man on the right track, He had to force him to choose. It would be either to stay in their comfort zone and continue to trust in the word of man, (the organized church of the day which, did not lead to salvation due to an absence of faith in God's own Son) or, place one's faith in the Son of Man who, would shortly give up His life, voluntarily, prophetically and sacrificially on the cross, in order to reconcile sinful man to God.
So, if you don't want to go by Jewish custom, then don't line up an argument based on the early church, which by in large, was almost entirely comprised of Jews, though every saved person whether Jew or Gentile would have been on fire for our Lord Jesus Christ. You are the one who cited the early Church are you not? You are the one saying that to be a faithful and obedient Christian, one's focus is to be in helping the poor, are you not? Even to the point of selling all one has in order to give it to the poor in some sort of supreme act of selflessness? Which, brings me to the central point here. Is it Christ's act of compassion on the cross that is important over all else or, would it be in selling all that one has to give to the poor, in an act that is at best temporal? I'm merely pointing out that according to the scriptures, the call of the Church is to reach out in an evangelical effort to bring in the harvest of souls. Not to merely bring temporary relief to the lost by just feeding and balming their fleshly ills. I believe the Church is to provide such relief but, I do not believe that is the primary function of the true Church.
And, finally the cell phone thing. When Reagan signed the legislation in 1984 allowing for phones to the poor for the sake of emergencies, such a death in the family, or for the sake of being reached by some perspective employer, the cost of the program was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars nationally. It wasn't his idea but, because he tried to govern from the middle, he cooperated with those who were clamoring for lifeline support, especially to those in the relatively undeveloped urban areas. Free cell phones were added much later to the program by exuberant lefties who's life blood is the ink of welfare legislation. The cost for all the free (cell) phones is very close to 2.5 billion dollars a year right now and escalating. So blaming Reagan who spent far less than one million during his entire administration for a program dreamed up by liberals in the first place, and which will have cost this country at least 20 billion during the present administration, is a bit disingenuous, is it not? Especially when one considers that the now familiar free-for-all, give away cell phone pavilions, dot the landscape like fire hydrants, LOL. The costs of the program on a yearly basis have tripled under the auspices of the present administration, (shocker). Now, if you want a proper perspective on the program, you can read this article from the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1368122888
FTR, as I understand the Levitical reference to the year of Jubilee, those in bondage being released back to their families, prisons being emptied, debt forgiveness, basically a year of feasts and good times, was to occur every 50th year. You had 7 cycles of the Sabbath year consecutively adding up to equal 49 years, and the 50th year was the year of Jubilee. Leviticus 25:8-13 (KJV)
8 And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.
9 Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.
10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
11 A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed.
12 For it is the jubile; it shall be holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field.
13 In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession.
I believe your reference to the singular Sabbath year which occurred every 7th year, is the personal observance of Shmita which, is a challenge individually to forgive or absolve those who owe you a debt. And, the concept of which was to be viewed on an individual level and was to be a voluntary test of faith.
Fine, you have the right to disagree with anything you want to. I would challenge you to present you're argument to refute that Christ is not by His statements, helping this guy to understand that it is impossible to live a life that will satisfy God's own requirement on sinless perfection. And therefore, impossible for him or any other man, to do anything to inherit eternal life outside of faith in the risen Lord. After all, that was the question the lawyer asked of Him, was it not? I mean, if there was any way to earn, "inherit" or merit, eternal life by one's actions, why did our Lord have to die on the cross? Remember he who breaks the law in one point is guilty of the whole law? BTW, a lawyer of the day would have been very well versed in the law, and Israel being a theocracy, would have been governed by the church. So, this would be like Eric Holder walking up to you and asking if you believe homosexuality is lawful or not.
"I am weak my friend.... "
Yeah, aren't we all. But, what is ^this, in reference to?
"Also, if we are going by jewish customs then I want to go by every seven years my debts are totally forgiven... also for the record, the cell phone thing is a Ronald Reagan idea... croney capitalism...."
Christ called out His Church from among the orthodox church of the day. In fact, and as is made clear in the Gospel of John from chapters 8 thru 14, to attain eternal life at all, it would have been requisite to separate one's self from the erroneous teachings of the church of that era and in their sted, accept the reality of Lordship of Jesus Christ. This fact is demonstrated in that Christ presented Himself as the Way the Truth and the Life, while at the same time telling the leaders of the orthodox church that they were of their father the devil. Therefore, to put man on the right track, He had to force him to choose. It would be either to stay in their comfort zone and continue to trust in the word of man, (the organized church of the day which, did not lead to salvation due to an absence of faith in God's own Son) or, place one's faith in the Son of Man who, would shortly give up His life, voluntarily, prophetically and sacrificially on the cross, in order to reconcile sinful man to God.
So, if you don't want to go by Jewish custom, then don't line up an argument based on the early church, which by in large, was almost entirely comprised of Jews, though every saved person whether Jew or Gentile would have been on fire for our Lord Jesus Christ. You are the one who cited the early Church are you not? You are the one saying that to be a faithful and obedient Christian, one's focus is to be in helping the poor, are you not? Even to the point of selling all one has in order to give it to the poor in some sort of supreme act of selflessness? Which, brings me to the central point here. Is it Christ's act of compassion on the cross that is important over all else or, would it be in selling all that one has to give to the poor, in an act that is at best temporal? I'm merely pointing out that according to the scriptures, the call of the Church is to reach out in an evangelical effort to bring in the harvest of souls. Not to merely bring temporary relief to the lost by just feeding and balming their fleshly ills. I believe the Church is to provide such relief but, I do not believe that is the primary function of the true Church.
And, finally the cell phone thing. When Reagan signed the legislation in 1984 allowing for phones to the poor for the sake of emergencies, such a death in the family, or for the sake of being reached by some perspective employer, the cost of the program was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars nationally. It wasn't his idea but, because he tried to govern from the middle, he cooperated with those who were clamoring for lifeline support, especially to those in the relatively undeveloped urban areas. Free cell phones were added much later to the program by exuberant lefties who's life blood is the ink of welfare legislation. The cost for all the free (cell) phones is very close to 2.5 billion dollars a year right now and escalating. So blaming Reagan who spent far less than one million during his entire administration for a program dreamed up by liberals in the first place, and which will have cost this country at least 20 billion during the present administration, is a bit disingenuous, is it not? Especially when one considers that the now familiar free-for-all, give away cell phone pavilions, dot the landscape like fire hydrants, LOL. The costs of the program on a yearly basis have tripled under the auspices of the present administration, (shocker). Now, if you want a proper perspective on the program, you can read this article from the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1368122888
FTR, as I understand the Levitical reference to the year of Jubilee, those in bondage being released back to their families, prisons being emptied, debt forgiveness, basically a year of feasts and good times, was to occur every 50th year. You had 7 cycles of the Sabbath year consecutively adding up to equal 49 years, and the 50th year was the year of Jubilee. Leviticus 25:8-13 (KJV)
8 And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.
9 Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.
10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
11 A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed.
12 For it is the jubile; it shall be holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field.
13 In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession.
I believe your reference to the singular Sabbath year which occurred every 7th year, is the personal observance of Shmita which, is a challenge individually to forgive or absolve those who owe you a debt. And, the concept of which was to be viewed on an individual level and was to be a voluntary test of faith.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-18-2014, 08:42 PM
Pick6 Wrote:The liberals are busy holding elected offices!
You claim to at least hold some Biblical belief like TVTimeout. Posts such as the one below show that...
Pick6 Wrote:The World will always hate the Word of God! Instead of framing social positions as our own and being the subject of attack, we should preface our statements with "According to the The Word of God ........". That way, you force the ungodly to attack scripture itself. They are to cowardly to do so directly, its much easier to blame a person as a proxy.
Now, you do know that the democrats represent everything against what the Bible is about? It's one thing to sin, we all do. I do, often. But it's another thing to support it. By being so strong for Obama and most of the democrats of this time, you are supporting a lot of bad things. On top of that - it has been five years and many would agree that our country is in much worse shape than it was when they took over in 2008.
I would go into greater detail, but until the liberals on here can prove that they can come up with a coherent argument and not duck and dodge then I'm going to save my typing.
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
