This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


obamahhs

Not even Jesus passes Obama religious test

There has been a great deal of attention given to the controversy over the Department of Health and Human Services contraceptive insurance mandate for religious groups. Millions of Americans, including many Democrats and many Protestants and other non-Catholics recognize this as an assault on religious freedom.

But the HHS mandate is only one of a growing number of attacks on America’s First Freedom. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. This was a case in which a dismissed teacher in a Lutheran school sued, claiming discrimination. The parent church body—The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS)—has always commissioned its teachers as ministers.

The courts have for decades recognized a “ministerial exception.” That means if you dismiss your priest, pastor, or rabbi, the government is not going to get involved in the internal matters of a church or synagogue. It’s a vitally important principle to keep the state from becoming “excessively entangled” in church governance.

Continue reading at online.worldmag.com
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • David Etzel

    Jesus has a test waiting for Obama eventually, none of the muslims can pass it.

    • Earl

      So true David. God bless You.

    • Evermyrtle

      I do not believe there is any desire of JESUS to pass Obama's test, but I do know he is in the sight of JESUS CHRIST, and his time is coming, just as sure as there is an Obama and it is not looking good , at all.

      • daves

        Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

        • keyboardshark

          "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."
          Proverbs 14:34

        • Justmyrtle

          Remember that, if you resist any of GOD'S teachings, HE will judge you in the end in howerver you balance out you rule of life, and live them..

        • aceituna

          But when the diciples were preaching Salvation through Jesus (recorded in Acts) and the government authorities ordered them to stop, they said "we must obey God rather than man." We obey the government only in so far as it governs within the boundries of God's law.

        • Bobseeks

          We must obey GOD rather than men.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You do not obey your god. When is the last time you killed a non-virgin on her wedding night or someone working on the Sabbath, (whenever that actually is)? Have you given up everything you own as Jesus asked that you do?

        • Linda F.

          You forgot one very important Scripture, daves. Perhaps it's because you're caught up in your zealousness to defend Obama?

          Then the captain went with the officers and brought them without violence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned. And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!”

          But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.” (Acts 5:26-32)

          If the government commands Christians to sin against God, we must disobey the government's orders in favor of obeying God. If Obama commands us to refrain from sharing the Gospel, we must disobey his order. If he commands us to do *anything* that we know to be sin (commit murder, lie, steal, etc.), we must disobey him. For it is *GOD*, not Obama, who is the ultimate and final authority. At the end of the day, it is *GOD* that we answer to; not Obama.

          • daves

            Why do you think God would appoint someone to teach against his word?

          • msjallen

            God allowed it; we are being disciplined because too many people in this country have turned their backs on God and are not learning His ways or applying them to their lives.
            2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by MY name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
            HOW?
            II Peter 3:8… but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
            Jer 17:5 Thus says the LORD," Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            More Bible Russian Roulette apart of biblical context by a deeply religious and deeply confused msjallen.

    • GuyMacher

      Cogent comment! Summed up Obama and his religion.

    • Evermyrtle

      They can't pass unless they put the false gods aside and accept JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOR AND SON OF GOD before coming face to face with HIM.

      they can't pass it unless thy put th

    • peacefuljihad

      Muslims await the return of Yeshua, and know of his teachings. So how none of the Muslims can pass it if many of them read or know about the Bible and its teachings?

  • Willy

    Looks like there is gonna be hell to pay come judgement day.

    • Evermyrtle

      I think you are telling us that Obama, is going to pay Hell an extended visit and maybe "SOONER THAN HE THINKS", unless he does a complete turn around with everything in his life.

  • jan

    about "O" ……..good is evil and evil is good………he is assessments are back assward and reverses the word of God and for that "O" will find out in the after-life who is always right! GOD ALMIGHTY

    • Evermyrtle

      Jan 100% correct!!

      Isaiah 5:20-21
      20. Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness for light; and put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

      21. Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

      22. Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

      23. Which justify the wicked for a reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him:

  • msjallen

    It is religion that destroys the spread of Christianity. When people put their faith in anything besides Jesus Christ and His gospel they will be led astray. One may call themselves Christian but if they have not believed in Jesus Christ as their savior there is no eternal life.
    2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance. (Change of mind towards Christ).

    • FleshProfitsNothing

      Why the EMPHASIS on "ALL"? If you intend that ALL means every single human being on earth, you should do a bit more study not only in the verse (using some language software), but also in your hermeneutic and exegesis. Hopefully, you already know. Just look at "usward" and see to whom Peter is writing…it will take you not only back in the epistle, but will lead you to his first epistle, then there are words in the verse that need a bit of expansion to get the gist of the meaning of "all".
      Anyway, to the Obama dung…We The People, are the ones letting this stuff happen.

      • msjallen

        Thank you for your response but I am not a Calvinist and I totally believe that Jesus Christ died for the sins of ALL mankind and God has given every human being free will to choose to believe in Jesus Christ or not. I have heard all the arguments and have studied the Bible intensely through my pastor teachers for 40 years using hermeneutics. So I suggest you do more studying from those who know the original languages and perhaps you will learn the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
        BTW, God does not predistinate anyone to hell; unblelievers go to hell when they die only because they did not believe in Jesus Christ as their savior.
        I am not here to argue. I will state my comment and you can state yours but I am not here to try to get you to change your mind because you sure won't change my mind. Don't waste your time. May God lead you in all your ways.
        And yes, We the People are the ones who don't do God's will and get someone like 0 for president.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          "I have heard all the arguments and have studied the Bible intensely through my pastor teachers for 40 years using hermeneutics."

          :) Your one guy must know everything then… How convenient but I think you have checked your brain and perhaps soul at the door.

          'So I suggest you do more studying from those who know the original languages and perhaps you will learn the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. "

          Honestly how much Greek or Hebrew do you know? You keep on asserting that but can you actaully read these languages beyond dictionaries? I do not think so.

          'BTW, God does not predistinate anyone to hell; unblelievers go to hell when they die only because they did not believe in Jesus Christ as their savior.:

          That is your man made myth but the Word of God sates otherwise:

          "19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. "

          ~ Romans 9:19-24

          You can assert whatever you want but you will not change this truth that clearly speaks about: " vessels of wrath prepared for destruction"… Not even your guru can.

          • msjallen

            Des, the "teacher" of false doctrine and lies about other believers that he knows nothing about.
            II Cor 12:10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I know that your statements are reflective of your teacher and that they DOES NOT SQUARE UP and in fact OPPOSE the Word of God as presented and juxtaposed above which is further underscored by your intentional avoidance of it that juxtaposition. Therefore and it does follow that I do know something about your teacher because I do know what his pupil says and and states.

            So one more time you learned from your teacher opposing the Word of God:

            'BTW, God does not predistinate anyone to hell; unblelievers go to hell when they die only because they did not believe in Jesus Christ as their savior."

            "19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. "

            ~ Romans 9:19-24

          • msjallen

            II Cor 12:10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
            II Cor 12:10, Gal 5:25-26, I Tim 6:3-5
            Gal 5:25-26 If we live by the Spirit let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Why don't answer what you avoid to answer preferring to carpet bomb yourself with Scriptures that do not deal with your initial assertion and Romans 9:19-24 pulverizing it to dust? Would Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Truth would have you to do that? To claim. To avoid. To manipulate and to not answer Him for be mindful that Romans 9:19-24 is given through Him and from Him?

          • msjallen

            II Tim 2:23-26 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels (controversy). The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with humility correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them a change of mental attitude leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I really feel really sorry for you and how you have been brainwashed to the point that you can presume that you playing this type of Bible roulette according to your emotions can actually cover up your utter and complete lack of any honest and integrity based answer to the Word of God debunking your bastardized, humanistic, Gnosticism pathogen infused pseudo gospel you proselytize here. Here is what you and your guru will not answer to but will answer for:

            "19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. "

            ~ Romans 9:19-24

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I really feel sorry for you and deception you have to spin for yourself all to cover up your utter inability to honestly treat the Word of God which debunks your religious claims.

          • msjallen

            I Tim 6:3-5 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            You are like a Roman Catholic priest repeating mindlessly Scriptures which you do not properly understand while completely ignoring massive issues in your religion. You make God a hypocrite by your vain assertions for who doctrine is truly "different" if not yours in which you have been caught red handed and of which proof is below to your greater shame:

            'BTW, God does not predistinate anyone to hell; unblelievers go to hell when they die only because they did not believe in Jesus Christ as their savior."
            ~msjallen

            VERSUS:

            "19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. "

            ~ Romans 9:19-24

          • Dionesius3

            Des,
            Deal fairly or we will be forced to bring up the topic you can't possible defend about you beloved Calvinism.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Forget the Calvinism, but do not forget the Word of God. It says what it says to which you and the rest of corrupt sense of justice of men centered pseudo gospel followers HAVE NO REAL ANSWERS because it does not fit in your synergistic system of men.

          • msjallen

            Jude 1:17-25 But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh. Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience VESSELS OF WRATH PREPARED FOR DESTRUCTION? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon VESSELS OF MERCY, which He PREPARED BEFORE HAND FOR GLORY, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. "

            ~ Romans 9:19-24

            VERSUS religiosity of men and false sense of corrupt justice of men:

            'BTW, God does not predistinate anyone to hell; unblelievers go to hell when they die only because they did not believe in Jesus Christ as their savior."
            ~msjallen

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            More biblical collage by Gnostic priestess msjallen who cannot account for and explain the same Scritures in her "decisional theology" made in Rome… Too bad you have to avoid God's truth and carpet bomb with something else:

            "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience VESSELS OF WRATH PREPARED FOR DESTRUCTION? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon VESSELS OF MERCY, which He PREPARED BEFORE HAND FOR GLORY, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. "

            ~ Romans 9:19-24

          • msjallen

            Keep your judging coming, Des, because I will get the blessing and you will get the discipline. Thank you!
            II Tim 2:23-26 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels (controversy). The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with humility correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them a change of mental attitude leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            You will get what you deserve and God is in charge of that and not you Gnostic priestess of confusion who "study in original languages" but not actually able to read any… You are a religious sham and a purveyor of lies and what you will get is described in James 3:1

          • msjallen

            Keep your judging coming; thank you for you are making my life wonderful.
            II Cor 12:10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Your life is not wonderful liar and you know it… You lie about that as you lie about the Gospel.

          • msjallen

            1.Nosey and critical persons are generally miserable through mental attitude sins.
            2.Nosey and critical people have a deep seeded ego or approbation lust. They want to be recognized, but they can’t be recognized in normal life, so they have to be maligners to be recognized.
            3.While ruining their own lives through legalism, they are generally bullies trying to impose their false standards on others.
            4.These believers are never relaxed and are trouble makers.
            5.These believers are always running after some experience by which they either supplement or condemn they are better than others based on an experience.
            6.There must be separation from such believers – Rom 16:17-18

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            All your quotes are demonic use of Scriptures as I am here not a bit angry at you. I feel sorry for you and all these people you deceive. Satan quotes Scriptures just as you are and just as you he mutilates them by ignoring their parts. I feel really sad for your deception. You are deceived and are used to deceive others. I am very sorry that this has been done to you.

          • msjallen

            Romans 14:10
            But you (you there or hey, you), why do you judge your brother (fellow believer)? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

          • msjallen

            Mt 7:1-2 "Do not judge lest you be judged [to not receive judgment]. [Rom 2:1; 14:4]
            The moment you judge someone else you are out of fellowship and will be disciplined immediately. This is double discipline – self induced and divinely induced (disciplined for judging and the sin of who you judged. This is the worst kind of sin you can commit.)
            2 "For in the way you judge [the sin you’re judging], you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
            3 "And why do you look [superficial observation] at the speck [splinter] that is in your brother’s eye [believer], but do not notice [evaluation by the standards of BD] the log that is in your own eye?
            This is an illustration of a hypocritical self-righteous legalistic believer judging someone else.

          • msjallen

            1.Nosey and critical persons are generally miserably through mental attitude sins.
            2.Nosey and critical people have a deep seeded ego or approbation lust. They want to be recognized, but they can’t be recognized in normal life, so they have to be maligners to be recognized.
            3.While ruining their own lives through legalism, they are generally bullies trying to impose their false standards on others.
            4.These believers are never relaxed and are trouble makers.
            5.These believers are always running after some experience by which they either supplement or condemn they are better than others based on an experience.
            6.There must be separation from such believers – Rom 16:17-18

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Clueless is a person who has no clue.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Gnostic priestess it is you who advocate a different doctrine that is why you cannot answer to clear biblical passage destroying your lies and that is why you believe in Gnostic "bloodless cross" of Christ undermining your feeble already potential atonement. You are a worst kind of religious liar and deceiver.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            religion of men versus the Truth of God:

            'BTW, God does not predistinate anyone to hell; unblelievers go to hell when they die only because they did not believe in Jesus Christ as their savior."
            ~msjallen

            VERSUS:

            "19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. "

            ~ Romans 9:19-24

          • myth buster

            How about Genesis 4, then? If God predestined Cain for Hell, why did God say that it was possible for Cain to overcome sin and do well? Or Revelation 3:20, which states that Jesus does not force Himself on anyone, but rather knocks at the door to men's souls, knowing some will answer and some will not.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Yes priestess you can carpet bomb with biblical references but you cannot explain any of this when pressed as you have shown with your evasion of Romans 9.

          • Dionesius3

            Hey, at least she is just quoting Scripture. Be glad for small blessings Des.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Liar, am I not quoting the Scriptures which you rabid synergists cannot possibly address in your men made mythology?

          • Pastor Dwayne

            Everything contrary to Des's thoughts and beliefs is man made mythology! DO we see a problem here ?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Yes, we do your clap-trapping… You really have nothing to say. Nothing of substance. You do need to go to a good seminary or you will end up in the land of Joel Osteen and you are already marching there.

            "Why Seminary? Exhibit A: Joel Osteen" ~ http://bit.ly/KCIGXt

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "Why Seminary? Exhibit B: Charles Haddon Spurgeon" ~ http://bit.ly/KrnaKw

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "Why Seminary? Exhibit C: John MacArthur" ~ http://bit.ly/IwWQZh

            Stop hurting people by your insolent ignorance mixed with sensational superstitions and put yourself to the test in a proper orthodox seminary Dwayne.

          • msjallen

            I am not the least bit offended by your judgmental attitude because I consider the source and know that you must be a very unhappy person to want to attack other believers who don't believe the way you do. How sad for you.
            Proverbs 29:22 An angry man stirs up strife, And a hot-tempered man abounds in transgression.
            Proverbs 15:1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
            Ephesians 4:30-31 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.

      • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

        'So I suggest you do more studying from those who know the original languages and perhaps you will learn the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. "

        AGAIN:

        Honestly how much Greek or Hebrew do you know? You keep on asserting that but can you actaully read these languages beyond dictionaries? I do not think so.

        • Dionesius3

          Des, time to stop.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I will never shut up about the Gospel and the Word. I know you do not like those parts which you cannot account for in your system. I used to be there and that is why I am Reformed and do not have to play evasion games.

          • Dionesius3

            Des,
            This is not a game. Your being an arse. Back off and let it go. She does not want to argue Calvinism.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I am arguing from Scriptures about Scriptures for the Scriptures in case you have your screen turned off so please burn your straw men. Here they are again a big inconvenience really for a "decision theology" proponents of men centered "gospel":

            "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience VESSELS OF WRATH PREPARED FOR DESTRUCTION? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon VESSELS OF MERCY, which He PREPARED BEFORE HAND FOR GLORY, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. "

            ~ Romans 9:19-24

          • Dionesius3

            You are arguing for YOUR interpretation of Scripture.
            We have had this discussion.
            Calvinistic Biblical interpretation is NOT the gospel.
            Give it a rest. She did ask you to stop.
            "I am not here to argue. I will state my comment and you can state yours but I am not here to try to get you to change your mind because you sure won't change my mind. Don't waste your time. May God lead you in all your ways. "-msjallen

            If that is not asking you to stop then what is?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Just do not avoid the Scriptures will you? Those words were written by Apostle Paul and not John Calvin and under direct inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. You may mumble all you want but you just cannot fit these words with your synergistic spin on gospel neither is priestess msjallen "who studied original languages" but actually cannot read any of them outside disctionaries…

            "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience VESSELS OF WRATH PREPARED FOR DESTRUCTION? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon VESSELS OF MERCY, which He PREPARED BEFORE HAND FOR GLORY, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. "

            ~ Romans 9:19-24

          • Dionesius3

            Your like a rabbid bulldog, let her quote Scripture will you. What possible harm can she cause just quoting Scripture?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            More "feather talk" from a rabid Arminian? Hmm and all that as a reaction to the Scriptures. How telling.

          • Dionesius3

            So, I am assuming from that comment that you wish to rejoin our earlier conversation then? Is that correct?

          • Despeville

            No you are simply evading the fact that you are inconsistent liar and boldly and hypocritically going against what you had foolishly asserted for yourself in that thread. Inconstancy is always indicative of falsehood and your rabid Arminnianism is replete with it. This precisely why Arminians will not stay on the topic but resolve to all kinds of evasions either by carpet bombing with other Scriptures or by psychoanalyzing their opponents and their faults but never ever going deep with presented and Scripture substantiated biblical argument to which their synergistic system gas no real answers.

          • Dionesius3

            Again' DES if you wish to continue your silly name calling you are by all means welcome to do so, but don't cry FOUL when I bust you in your chops.

          • Despeville

            What is silly here is your complete and utter inability to deliver biblically on the things you assert that are in the Bible. Your inconsistency about your approach only matches that.

          • Dionesius3

            You are absolutely correct, if those word's are to be applied to yourself. You have a BIG issue with the history of your beloved Doctrine. A history which includes traitor's, slavery defenders, murderers, and religious bigotry. You have shown that you neither wish to deal with nor discuss these and other issues at all. In fact you much prefer to Snark, name call, and make personal attacks. Which you are displaying even now with someone who has asked you to but out of a conversation I am having with Keyboard Shark.
            So for the fourth time I am asked you to but out and go do your Calvinist bullying on someone else. Have a blessed day.

          • Despeville

            i know you love to discuss other people and smear them when you have no answers to what they propose. Let us get back on the topic and a question which you cannot answer even though you have made assertions about…
            Can you suspend the slander and answer the question on and to the topic?

            "The baby who dies in the womb has not reached the "age of accountability" in which they are held to answer for sin. "
            ~ Dionesius3

            Would you please educate us where is this alleged "age of accountability" presented and defined in the Word of God in the context of soteriology? After all you want your faith to be coming from the Word of God right? So please show us how it is in this instant.

          • Dionesius3

            For the fifth time, Shut your stupid mouth and go hunt down somebodywho wants your stupid Snarks, and Personal Atacks, I have nothing to say to you on any subject at this point.
            But I am aware that you can no more shut up than can an imbicile have a cogent thought.

          • myth buster

            You aren't one to talk about biblical soteriology, for Calvanism holds that baptism cannot save because justification predates belief, let alone baptism, but the Scriptures clearly state that baptism does save (1 Peter 3:21).

          • Despeville

            Stay on the topic and your error about 1 Peter 3:21 results from your Roman Catholic teaching of magisterium and you not understanding the difference between DESCRIPTIVE passage versus PRESCRIPTIVE passage. This is also why you do not see that your Roman ritual oriented isogesis of this Scripture is in direct conflict with whole swaths of the Bible.

    • keyboardshark

      Mind if I kick the hornet's nest this once?

      Who is in charge of man's salvation–man, or God? Well, who paid the price for those sins? Yes, God Himself, through the Son, Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is God's sovereign good pleasure to save whomever He will. He makes the choice, not us:

      "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

      4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

      5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

      11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"
      (Ephesians 1)

      "37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

      39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

      44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

      65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."
      (John 6)

      I don't see any free will salvation in those verses. What about John 1? Doesn't the Bible say we can 'receive' Him?

      "2But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

      But wait. What about the next verse?

      "13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

      Also: "John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven." (John 3:27)

      Again, we see it is God's action, not man's, that causes a person to come to faith in Christ. There is NO ACTION WHATSOEVER that a person can take, whether it is praying the 'sinner's prayer', getting baptized, inviting Jesus into their heart, etc. etc. that can initiate salvation. It is 1000% the grace of God, and 0% man's actions or worthiness.

      "13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

      14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

      15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

      16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

      17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

      18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." (Romans 9)

      • Dionesius3

        Good stuff, I agree with every verse you quoted.
        You can't get much clearer than that.
        So what is your point by the way?

        • keyboardshark

          My point is that there is no such thing as free will salvation.

          • Dionesius3

            O.K., and that is your opinion. Hers is different so why bother? Do you honestly think you will change her or anyone else's mind about the issue?

          • keyboardshark

            @Dionesius3

            No, it is not my 'opinion'. I very clearly made my case from the Scriptures. It is not my business to 'change anyone's mind'. Only God can do that. But it is my duty to present the truth from the Scriptures, and what anyone does with that truth is between them and God.

          • Dionesius3

            O.K. Present away, at least you do so without the namecalling and snide remarks of Despeville.
            I don't mind talking about the issue with someone who does not continually make dispersions on someone when they would do much better with a simple laying out of the facts.
            I just spent three days Screaming back and forth with Despeville, which was neither informative nor useful to anyone.

          • Despeville

            What a useless narcissistic troll you are… You were screaming not I and I was insisting on discussing the Scripture while you were and still are insisting on discussing Despeville; a classic evasion of person with no factual arguments.

          • keyboardshark

            @Dionesius3

            I try to comment in a snark-free manner as much as possible, although I am certainly not perfect and may let an unkind remark slip on occasion.

            Not sure if you are asking for additional Scripture references when you say "present away", but I have provided quite a few above which I believe make a good case for limited atonement. Also see my reply to msjallen below (with the opening sentence of "Think about what you are saying.") where I analyze what a free-will position would be logically concluding

          • Despeville

            Shark,

            I can guarantee you that Dinonsense will not stay on the presented and substantiated by you specific Scriptural arguments. He cannot to keep his pretense of the system. He will engage in all kinds of evasions dragging this away to other passages, you and your person or some other socio-political issues.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Not that you could understand it…

          • Dionesius3

            Des was I talking to you?
            No not here in this exchange. If I want mindless name calling and general stupidity I'll call you.

          • Despeville

            You mean your "feather like" rabid Arminian talk?

      • msjallen

        Decrees took place all at one time but we have to sort them out logically as humans.
        God does not select people to be saved. He just knew what they would do; we have the volition.
        No unbeliever is ever said to be elected or predestined. There is no such thing as unbelievers predestined to hell. They go to hell because of unbelief. It is the use of their volition and not the sovereignty of God. God wants ALL to be saved. Jesus Christ died for the entire human race. Every sin imputed by God the Father to Jesus Christ on the Cross. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23, Rom 5:6). Adam’s original sin is imputed at birth just as life is imputed. Sin is not the issue in salvation; Jesus Christ is the issue and He is the One we believe in.
        John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
        John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

        • keyboardshark

          msjallen quotes John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

          Yes, a fantastic verse, but it does not tell us how someone comes to believe in the Son.

          I cannot believe in Jesus with all my heart, because my heart, like all of mankind, is desperately wicked:

          "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
          Jeremiah 17:9

          I need a new heart, but I cannot give myself one. God must do it:

          "26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

          27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."
          Ezekiel 36

          You also say that no one is "ever said to be elected or predestined." I just gave you two verses above that use the word 'predestined', but here are some others that say 'elect':

          "22And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

          24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

          31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
          Matthew 24

          "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)"
          Romans 9:11

          "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."
          Romans 11:5

          Also Mark 13:20,22,27, Luke 18:7, Romans 8:33, and others.

          • Dionesius3

            By the way you are quoting Romans 11 completely out of context. Paul is addressing Jews not Christians in Chapter 11. The "remnant" is a group of Jews who are genuine believers, not the "whole" of Christianity.

          • keyboardshark

            If we use that argument, then we have to throw out John 3:16, because Jesus was speaking directly to an Old Testament Jew, and a Pharisee as well (Nicodemus) .

            We would also have to toss out most of the Pauline epistles, because they were addressed to a specific church. In fact, most Old Testament prophetic books were directed at Old Testament Israel, so they would not be for modern-day Christians either.

            My point is, that virtually the whole Bible was written to a particular audience at the time it was written, humanly speaking, but in writing to those groups, God was transmitting the truth of His Word.

            "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
            2 Timothy 3:16

            "Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."
            1 Corinthians 10:11

          • Dionesius3

            I didn't say it should be thrown out, I just said you need to be honest with the context. You have a valid method and a sound point, but I do wish you would make the legitamate connection to your conclusion. It is a mistake that I have seen often.
            I have no problem applying the O.T. but again make the connection legitamate by stating the the historical setting and moving to the Modern application. There are many here who need to see that first hand in order to know how it's done.

            And you do of course recognize that it is possible to disagree with your interpretation and application and not be "outside" of the bounds of Christianity don't you?

          • keyboardshark

            I was only using the phrase "thrown out" as a somewhat extreme illustration to make a point, not that we would actually do so.

            It is true that many, if not most passages in the Bible were written in a historical setting, and so we do have to be careful when we apply that teaching to New Testament Christianity. We do need to compare scripture with Scripture.

            But in most cases, if we do just that–compare Scripture with Scripture–we will find that we can harmonize a verse written in a historical setting with what the whole Bible teaches elsewhere. In other words, we must look at not only the immediate context, but also the context of the whole Bible.

            For example, the Old Testament Jews were given various dietary laws which they were commanded to follow. So we might wonder, should we be following those laws today? For the answer we must look to the NT which gives us additional insight.

            "9On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

            10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

            11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

            12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

            13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

            14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

            15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

            16This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven."
            Acts 10

            It appears as though God is now saying that the dietary laws have been modified. But we probably need a verse that is a little more clear, which we find in I Timothy 4:4:

            "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:"

            But in other cases, the OT teaching is the same as the NT teaching when we compare the two instances. For example, in Jeremiah 17, while addressing the tribe of Judah (verse 1) we read:

            "9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

            We also read in the NT in Matthew 15:19:

            "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:"

            Therefore, comparing the two verses (and similar ones) we can conclude that the OT and NT teachings on this subject are essentially identical.

          • Dionesius3

            You are absolutely correct, I agree and try to apply exactly that type of comparison so that I don't assume someone knows something that they don't. And I appreciate your ability to discuss without snarky and personal remarks. I would like to have further discussion with you on all these issues if you would agree. And look to my answer on my understanding of the issue below.

          • Despeville

            "I appreciate your ability to discuss without snarky and personal remarks"
            ~ Dionesius3

            VERSUS:

            "If I want mindless name calling and general stupidity I'll call you."
            ~ Dionesius3

            Consistency is a beautiful thing. Sadly, you are in severe need of it just as you are for biblically substantiated answers to questions asked of you.

          • Dionesius3

            What?? did sombody say something??? I thought I heard something but it made no sense. Oh wait it must be Desperateville Snarking AGAIN.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "I appreciate your ability to discuss without snarky and personal remarks"
            ~ Dionesius3

            'Oh wait it must be Desperateville Snarking AGAIN"
            ~ Dionesius3

            Consistency is a beautiful thing. Sadly it is alien to your views as it is alien to your rhetoric.

          • msjallen

            I don’t believe in limited atonement. I do believe that all one needs to do to be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ as Acts 16:31 says. There is no reason for you or anyone else to try to convince me that I am wrong and they are right. I am not on this site to argue the Bible. I will make comments and you make comments and whether you or I agree does not matter; what does matter is that we know Jesus Christ as our savior and I do. I have read your verses but have been taught differently regarding them because we believe in unlimited atonement.
            Creation – To create mankind for the purpose of bringing many sons into glory – Heb 2:10 to resolve the Angelic Conflict
            The Fall – permitted the Fall of mankind as extension of the pre-historic Angelic Conflict (See next comment)

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "I don’t believe in limited atonement."

            Yes you do. You are just too dishonest to own up to it.

          • msjallen

            Too funny!!!!!!!!!!!
            James 1:20 “…for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God”.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Funny it is to ignorant deceiver only. All your quotes are demonic use of Scriptures as I am here not a bit angry at you. I feel sorry for you and all these people you deceive. Satan quotes Scriptures just as you are and just as you he mutilates then by ignoring their parts. I feel really sad for your deception.

          • keyboardshark

            @msjallen It is not my intention to change anyone's mind regarding what they believe about the Scriptures, nor do I have the power to do so. Only God has the power to change a person's mind about a doctrine. If you want to believe in something other than limited atonement, that is your privilege.

            But you made the assertion that "No unbeliever is ever said to be elected or predestined" and I gave you several verses, without editorial comment, that used that very language to describe believers as being the elect, meaning unbelievers would not be elect. All I can do is present the verses that I believe teach a limited atonement, and whatever you or anyone else does with them is between you and the Lord.

          • msjallen

            I agree that we cannot convince each other to change their beliefs and it is between the Lord and I. I have read most of your posts and agree with much that you say but not limited atonement. At least you are mature and thoughtful with your responses. We are His children and the sheep of His pasture.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Priestess does you guru know what you are doing here with the Word of God?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Yes, you have Roman Catholic views mixed with Gnosticism while he has actually Christian views. Hey but it is all the same for the Gnostic priestess of confusion. Nope it is actually vastly different and do not lie to yourself as we are not buying it. Your potential "atonement" activated by supposed "decision" of a deadly incapable sinner is a form of limited atonement. If it would not be then it would not be depended on anything. You are too superficial, too dishonest and too clueless to register this massive difference between your counter reformation fake of a gospel and a real thing.

          • msjallen

            Can't help but lie can you? I am not the least bit offended by your judgmental attitude because I consider the source and know that you must be a very unhappy person to want to attack other believers who don't believe the way you do. How sad for you.
            Proverbs 29:22 An angry man stirs up strife, And a hot-tempered man abounds in transgression.
            Proverbs 15:1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
            Ephesians 4:30-31 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Gnostic priestess where did I lie? Your "decision theology"comes from Romanism regardless how clueless you are. All these quotes are about you priestess because I am not even a bit angry. I feel sorry for you and people you have deceived by your Gnosticism.

          • msjallen

            You are wrong again… I can tell you thrive on trying to hurt others who do not believe the way you do. John Calvin did the same thing; in fact he killed them just like the RCC did and you have the audacity to call be a gnostic and whatever else you judge me for. You are the pathetic one. Get over yourself and let the Lord direct your life instead you trying to tell others what to believe.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            You know nothing of Church history so do not spit in your ignorance on people who gave their lives so you can now abuse the Scripture in your little Gnostic sect. This is not about you Lady or me. It is about the Gospel and what you present here along with your abuse of it is not it not is your "God that tries to save but fails many time" God of the Bible but His bastardized version and idol only.

          • msjallen

            There is no need to respond to your comments any longer since you won't listen to the truth of the Word of God. I suggest you find a good Bible Doctrine church who has a minister who teaches from the original languages and get the truth of the Word of God. Your replies on my email will just be deleted. My Bible teachers are far more educated and trained in the original languages and the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher and they are far superior in their knowledge of scripture and world wide grace minstry so why would I want to believe someone like you? I can only shake my head and pity you.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I do not care a single bit for your prideful suggestions nor your e-mail deletions. You have no worldly idea about the church I attend and quality of the teaching there so here you are caught making up stuff again as you make stuff about the Gospel or about other people who can call you on your lies like Shark just did. You are so incredibly naive and insipid to realizations that there are plenty of pastors who not only know original languages but can preach from them and in doing so be in sync with vast majority of Christian Church through the ages something that cannot be said about your congregation infected with pathogen of Gnosticism so evident in your assertions about the Gospel. You can shake whatever you want but your pity is actually demonic pride and not pity as at just a the rest of your religious falseness.

          • Dionesius3

            Hey, I like your attitude, it is a world of difference from Despeville.
            With that said, I agree with your point that there are verses that use the exact phrases you have stated. I don't agree with msjallen on a good bit of her theology, but I do assert that we, being elect, can and do recognize the difference and see the point of those verses, but to press the assertion that there is any need here on earth for the Gospel to be limited when dealing with the masses is both counterproductive, and damaging to the cause.
            Believe it with all you heart, mind, and strength, teach it carefully to those who are of "the Faith", but let it be not so hard pressed upon those "outside".

          • Despeville

            Your "elect"is an empty phrase because your "elect" according to your synergistic system elect themselves or at best co-elect themselves along with God. Save yourself your put down "feather Arminian rhetoric" and get precise on the issue instead of muddling it to smuggle your lack of biblical answers.

          • Dionesius3

            Again, DESI I am not speaking to you, if I want a conversation with a psychotic name caller and issue avoider I will let you know. But thanks otherwise and have a nice day my friend.

          • Despeville

            A.This is not your private blog.

            B. I spoke on the issue and on the topic and not about any names. Anyone reasonable will notice that.

            C. Stop your evasion and manipulation particularly visible when you are simply with no answers whatsoever and cornered in your synergism as in this thread.

          • Despeville

            "..and issue avoider…"

            :)

            Versus this avoided and unanswered question to you:

            "Would you please educate us where is this alleged "age of accountability" presented and defined in the Word of God in the context of soteriology? After all you want your faith to be coming from the Word of God right? So please show us how it is in this instant."

          • keyboardshark

            Dionesius3 says: "…to press the assertion that there is any need here on earth for the Gospel to be limited when dealing with the masses is both counterproductive, and damaging to the cause."

            I think we have to make a distinction between atonement being limited vs. the proclamation of the Gospel being limited. I agree with your implication fully that we should not limit the presentation of the Gospel. That would be contrary to Mark 16:15.

            While I fully believe that the atonement for sin is limited to only those God chose to save from eternity, we of course are not God, and so we do not know who God plans to save. Therefore, our job is not to figure out who the elect are, but to simply preach the Gospel anywhere and to whomever we have opportunity.

          • Dionesius3

            And I concur completely, atonement is indeed limited in the sense that there will be "only" a certain number of people saved. And that it is God's choice in the sense that he begins the process in man's heart that leads to salvation. The natural man does not "naturally" seek God first, it is always God that plants the "seed" so to speak that ultimately leads to salvation. It reminds me of the passage in John 3:8 where Jesus says;
            "the wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

            We don't know where God has done the planting that will lead to salvation, and we don't really need to concern ourselves with the process whereby it is done either. Because it is a process that is entirely out of our control or influence. Would you not agree?

          • Despeville

            I agree and that makes you really confused and inconsistent Arminian perhaps on a way to understand Reformed faith hic is nothing but the Gospel of Jesus and Paul.

          • Dionesius3

            Was that a noise I heard? sounded like a mumble did it not? Oh wait it is the imminant Biblical Scholar Desperateville who must insert himself into every conversation no matter how many times he is kindly asked to shut up. Oh well let's just endure his namecalling and general stupidity and ignore his posts for now.
            Because there will be NOTHING whatsoever of humility and grace in what he says.

          • Despeville

            Nice to see you in your production of your "snark free" and "feather like" talk. That was just a factual observation. You are inconstant and confused as documented here by your lack of answers. This is what happens when you want to pretend that you can patch and match what you prefer from theology. It is unattainable and you and your inconstancies are a visible proof for that. Your claim to "own" this topic or thread is simply childish and further testimony to unattainability of your claims about Christian Faith.

          • keyboardshark

            Dionesius3 says: "We don't know where God has done the planting that will lead to salvation, and we don't really need to concern ourselves with the process whereby it is done either. Because it is a process that is entirely out of our control or influence. Would you not agree?"

            Yes, I would agree. God is sovereign.

          • msjallen

            Atonement – provide eternal salvation for all mankind – unlimited – through His spiritual death on the cross – all personal sins were imputed to Jesus Christ on the cross – II Cor 5:14-15, 19, Titus 2:11, Heb 2:9, I John 2:2 (Calvinism believes in limited atonement because they were already elected and God works on the will of man to believe – this is wrong)
            Election – of the Church and glorifying God – escrow blessings Eph 1:3-6 God deposited & Jesus Christ gives escrow blessings out to winner believers only.
            Printout of the ROM chips: Eph 1:4-5 Election – God’s expression of His will for you. As believers we have equal privilege and equal opportunity to grow spiritually – we are priest, we have logistical grace support, and we are in union with Christ.
            Salvation – for all who will believe in Jesus Christ. Eph 2:8-9 – Every person who can think can come to God consciousness – the exceptions are automatically saved. It is faith in Jesus Christ at the hearing of salvation.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            'Atonement – provide eternal salvation for all mankind – unlimited "

            Unfortunately this is an empty and misleading statement. Atonement in your "decision theology" is in fact limited because it is only potential in the sense that a person has to "accept it" or "activate it". Therefore by the same token in your system Christ did not die to save anyone. He only died to make men savable. He died for the option and not a real thing. Of course this a false gospel and result of Roman Catholic teaching so perfidiously infused in post Protestant church and completely contradictory to the real Gospel where Christ is a perfect Savior without any conditions attached.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "(Calvinism believes in limited atonement because they were already elected and God works on the will of man to believe – this is wrong)"

            Here above is a statement from a priestess of some small Gnostic sect in hick country.

            And here is a statement from a man who preached Gospel in person to millions:

            ""Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. "

            Charles Haddon Spurgeon

            "In Defense of Calvinism" ~ http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

          • keyboardshark

            @msjallen:

            Think about what you are saying. If you believe that Jesus died to pay for everyone's sins, then that would mean that ALL of the sins of everyone in the entire world would be covered. So then, according to your unlimited atonement theory, everyone should automatically go to heaven once they die.

            But you are saying that no, they must first 'make a decision' for Christ, or whatever free will phrase you use to describe it. So apparently, there IS one sin that Christ did not pay for–the sin of unbelief. I know you don't think of it that way, but that is essentially what you are saying.

            If ALL our sins are paid for, there is nothing that can keep us out of heaven (Romans 8:38-39). If we die and somehow miss out on going to heaven, then that would have to mean that there was at least one sin that Christ did NOT pay for. The free will position, probably without realizing it, is asserting that there is one sin that Christ is unable to pay for–the sin of unbelief.

            Also, think of this: How could a baby who dies in its Mother's womb 'make a decision for Christ'? Or how about someone who has degenerated into a vegetative state and has no mental faculties left? Are both of these persons beyond salvation? The free will theory would seem to say so. I believe that God can sovereignly save anyone, regardless of what they do or do not do.

          • msjallen

            I do not believe the way you twist the scriptures to say what you want them to say. I do not believe the way you do so there is not need to continue our comments to each other. Also, I don't have to prove to you or anyone else what I believe even though I can but will continue to make comments on this site as to the way I believe.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            What a dishonest statement. You are here solely to propagate your Gnosticism and your shame of "bloodless atonement" which is no atonement at all. You did not provide a shred of coherent argument nor proof for what you assert to Shark. Zero. Nor a shred for in the end you cannot do anything else for you believe in altogether different Gospel and different God.

          • keyboardshark

            @msjallen

            As I have said before, I am not trying to 'change' your mind. I am only trying to get you to think Biblically and logically about the ramifications of a free will/unlimited atonement salvation plan if we break it down and examine it in the light of God's Word.

            I have always been interested in discussing the doctrine of salvation, but as you seem to have your mind made up already, I will not badger you to do so. If you change your mind, however, I would be glad to discuss/debate any Scriptures you care to bring to the table. For now, all I ask is that you read the Scriptures I have presented and pray about what God would have you to do.

          • Dionesius3

            While I don't subscribe to the universal atonement theory I do believe there is an answer to your question. I believe it is a matter of distinction and not a matter of salvation. The baby who dies in the womb has not reached the "age of accountability" in which they are held to answer for sin. They are "covered" by the mercy of God. Everyone else who lives to the "age of accountability" has then reached the point where they must answer for their sin.
            And in my understanding there are only two answers which can be made. The first is That they have been redeemed by the blood of Christ or else they are still in rebellion. I don't accept the conditions which you set for framing the issue, I.e. it must be either your way or the way of the Full Arminian. Their is and always will be degrees between the two poles.
            Their has always been and always will be those who prefer one view over the other, and a case can be made for which of the two views is closest to Scripture.
            I believe the "reformed" view has many good things about it and is in my opinion the more consistent of the two views. But there is still issues with either view which cannot be explained or decided while we are on this earth.

          • Despeville

            The baby who dies in the womb has not reached the "age of accountability" in which they are held to answer for sin. "

            Would you please educate us where is this alleged "age of accountability" presented and defined in the Word of God in the context of soteriology? After all you want your faith to be coming from the Word of God right? So please show us how it is in this instant.

          • Dionesius3

            Again, if I wanted to discuss this with you I would have asked you to take part. I did not ask you to take part and I really have no interest in what you have to say. But thanks anyway.

          • Despeville

            Just answer the question please. Why you cannot deliver on that from the Bible? Why if what you believe about it is biblical? You want your faith to be based on the substance of the Bible right? So why you cannot answer and substantiate this question from the Bible?

            PS You are new here and I do not know where you coming from but none here has any right to ticket the threads, especially if one is asking a question and a specific one on the VERY TOPIC discussed.

          • Dionesius3

            You are a SNARK, and I don't owe you anything. And wether I am new or not has nothing whatsoever to do with your general demeanor and attitude, which in my short time here has been consistently boorish and overbearing to put it mildly.
            If you want a serious conversation from me observe two rules;
            1. Do not call names or make snide remarks about someone just because they don't hold your same beliefs on an issue.
            2. don't insist on your voice being heard above all other voices.

          • Despeville

            "1. Do not call names or make snide remarks about someone just because they don't hold your same beliefs on an issue."
            ~ Dionesius3

            "If I want mindless name calling and general stupidity I'll call you."
            ~ Dionesius3

            :) Consistency is a beautiful thing sadly you lack it severely on all fronts and especially in your vain rhetoric as documented above…

          • keyboardshark

            Dionesius3 says: "The baby who dies in the womb has not reached the "age of accountability" in which they are held to answer for sin."

            I realize that a lot of churches teach this idea, but so far I have been unable to find any Biblical support for it. But I think the reason that they teach this is to cover for obvious flaws in the free-will, unlimited atonement scenario.

            In other words, if everyone who becomes saved must make some type of 'free-will decision for Christ', then they have to find exceptions for those who are not of age or of sufficient mental capacity to make such a 'decision'. Otherwise, these classes of people would be beyond the ability of God to save, in their thinking, unless these exceptions were put forth.

            But again, I cannot find Biblical justification for the exceptions. I believe the Bible teaches we are all accountable regardless of age or circumstances, but that God, in His sovereignty, can choose whoever He wishes to save in spite of any circumstances as well. A few verses from Psalms may help:

            "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Psalm 58:3

            "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day."
            Psalm 7:11

            "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."
            Psalm 9:17

          • Despeville

            But again, I cannot find Biblical justification for the exceptions."

            You are not the only one and from complete silence about it and refusal to produce any Biblical proof by Dionesius3 any reasonable person has to dismiss this idea not only as extra biblical but counter biblical because we know that every single human being born into this world is also born into SIN.

            "…None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."
            ~ Romans 3:10-11 ESV

            'Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.'
            ~ Psalm 51:5 ESV

          • Dionesius3

            The Psalms passage is indeed a thorn, but I don't agree that there is no Biblical support for the idea.
            Take for example Jeremiah 31:29-30
            ' 29 “In those days they will not say again,
            ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
            And the children’s teeth are [a]set on edge.’

            30 But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be [b]set on edge.

          • Dionesius3

            and these verses from Ezekiel 18:14-21,
            "14 “Now behold, he [a]has a son who has observed all his father’s sins which he committed, and observing does not do likewise. 15 He does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife, 16 or oppress anyone, or retain a pledge, or commit robbery, but he gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing, 17 he keeps his hand from [b]the poor, does not take interest or increase, but executes My ordinances, and walks in My statutes; he will not die for his father’s iniquity, he will surely live. 18 As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was not good among his people, behold, he will die for his iniquity.
            19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. 20 The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.  21 “But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
             
            These verses seem to me to lend some weight to the doctrine.
            And as you know not all doctrines are clearly defined in Scripture, such as the Doctrine of the Trinity.

          • Dionesius3

            Further support for the concept of an “age of accountability” comes from the fact that nowhere in the New Testament is the baptism of a baby or infant described. In every case, it is adults who come to faith in Christ. Evidently, then, moral accountability and salvation by faith are applicable only for those who are capable of moral discernment.

          • Dionesius3

            The Baptist belief in personal soul competency before God presupposes morally competent believers, not infants. Likewise, the Baptist belief in a gathered church of believers presupposes that each member is a born again Christian who has made their own personal profession of faith in Christ. We believe in congregational governance because we believe the Holy Spirit is within each true believer to prompt and to guide.
            It is believer’s baptism, however, that provides the most significant reason to affirm the “age of accountability.” Believer’s baptism is a core belief of Baptists (there’s a reason that we are called Baptists!). The early Baptists were called “Anabaptists” because they believed that the infant baptism they had received was unscriptural, and they were baptized again upon their profession of faith in Christ. The denial of infant baptism has been a defining issue for Baptists throughout their history.

          • Dionesius3

            Keyboards hark says
            "In other words, if everyone who becomes saved must make some type of 'free-will decision for Christ', then they have to find exceptions for those who are not of age or of sufficient mental capacity to make such a 'decision'. Otherwise, these classes of people would be beyond the ability of God to save, in their thinking, unless these exceptions were put forth. "
            We as Baptist don't stress any free-will, we believe that it is God who moves first in any conversion. And we don't look for exceptions we reason from Scripture that God has a plan in place that takes care of those who are without either moral, physical, or spiritual capacity to become "saved".

          • keyboardshark

            Dionesius3 says: "Further support for the concept of an “age of accountability” comes from the fact that nowhere in the New Testament is the baptism of a baby or infant described. In every case, it is adults who come to faith in Christ."

            Yes, it is true that there is no mention of an infant or baby being baptized, only adults, and I suppose you could say that implies the salvation of children is somehow different from that of adults. But we have to be careful here.

            Baptism itself is only a sign, never a cause for or completion of salvation. We know specifically from the account of the thief on the cross that a person can become saved, die, and go to heaven without ever being baptized. So simply based on the fact that no infant baptism is recorded in the Bible, we would likely be reading too much into that fact if we assumed it means there is an age of accountability. It would take a lot of 'reading between the lines' to come to that conclusion simply because no mention is made of infant baptism. In other words, it is basically an argument from silence.

            And again, there is no mention of any age limit in regard to the few baptisms we do have recorded in the Bible, so even if we assumed that there was some age of accountability no number is ever given, and so we would still be totally in the dark as to what that age is.

          • Dionesius3

            Again keyboard shark says "Baptism itself is only a sign, never a cause for or completion of salvation. We know specifically from the account of the thief on the cross that a person can become saved, die, and go to heaven without ever being baptized. So simply based on the fact that no infant baptism is recorded in the Bible, we would likely be reading too much into that fact if we assumed it means there is an age of accountability"

            Yes is is just a symbolic rite, but I am not saying the case for an age of accountability rest solely on this, but it is offered as a broadening of understanding as to the full belief.
            The real nail is in the Deut. Passage for the main support and the other verses for secondary, and lastly the connection to our historic beliefs about who is a suitable candidate for Baptism.

          • keyboardshark

            Dionesius3 says: "and these verses from Ezekiel 18:14-21".

            True, while it would be difficult to draw a general conclusion about what these verses are teaching, it still indicates that everyone is responsible for their own sins. The son would not bear the punishment for the sins of the father, nor would the father bear the punishment for the sins of the son.

            Maybe I'm missing something, but I still do not see how these verses would teach that a person is not responsible for his or her own sins until a certain age. I do not see any age mentioned, either, so even if we assumed for the sake of argument that it did teach an age of accountability, we would still be in the dark as to what that age is. It would be purely arbitrary.

          • Dionesius3

            O.K. I understand, how about these verses;
            Deuteronomy 1:34-40
            34 “Then the LORD heard the sound of your words, and He was angry and took an oath, saying, 35 ‘Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give your fathers, 36 except Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him and to his sons I will give the land on which he has set foot, because he has followed the LORD fully.’ 37 The LORD was angry with me also on your account, saying, ‘Not even you shall enter there. 38 Joshua the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall enter there; encourage him, for he will cause Israel to inherit it. 39 Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it. 40 But as for you, turn around and set out for the wilderness by the way to the [a]Red Sea.’

          • Dionesius3

            It seems there is a reference to age here don't you think?

          • Dionesius3

            As to what that age is, we as Baptist believe that it can be different for different people. Some have come to a saving knowledge early, as in 5-7 years old, sometimes a little sooner. While others don't reach the age until later perhaps in their teens. We don't stress or worry over setting a definite age. We do stress exposing them to consistent, biblical instruction and teaching until such time as they make a statement of faith or leave the fellowship.

          • keyboardshark

            Dionesius3 says: "As to what that age is, we as Baptist believe that it can be different for different people."

            I understand where you are coming from. I was a member of an Independent Fundamental Baptist church myself for several years, so I am very familiar with all the doctrines. The teachings you mention sound very similar to the ones I was taught there.

            May God richly bless you as well, and please read the verses we have discussed here again and pray God for wisdom. Some verses I can recall reading dozens and dozens of times, and then all of a sudden, the light goes on and I see something entirely new that I hadn't seen before, even though it was right there in plain sight all along.

            Don't be afraid to question your pastor (preacher, we always called him) or any church doctrines you don't believe have Biblical support. It's always difficult to buck the status quo, especially if you have been attending a particular church for long. Let the Bible be your guide, but don't ignore faithful teachers, either, when you find one that will not compromise the clear truth of God's Word.

          • Dionesius3

            Keyboardshark said-" May God richly bless you as well, and please read the verses we have discussed here again and pray God for wisdom. Some verses I can recall reading dozens and dozens of times, and then all of a sudden, the light goes on and I see something entirely new that I hadn't seen before, even though it was right there in plain sight all along.

            Don't be afraid to question your pastor (preacher, we always called him) or any church doctrines you don't believe have Biblical support. It's always difficult to buck the status quo, especially if you have been attending a particular church for long. Let the Bible be your guide, but don't ignore faithful teachers, either, when you find one that will not compromise the clear truth of God's Word."

            Thank you, and I know what you mean about reading verses a hundred times before the light goes on.
            And as for questioning the Pastor, I question him all the time, we went to Divinity School at together so we get into some really intense discussions from time to time. I personally like the teachings of Erwin Lutzer as well. And R.C. Sproul Has always been a favorite. But I mostly read and study very old stuff, from before 1850 or so. Like C.S.Lewis says, we tend to think that only modern books have any relevant truth, when in fact it is better to learn from those who came before who are not subject to your modern bias.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            CS Lewis done much to harm the cause of the Gospel… I hope you will stumble on that fact one day.

          • keyboardshark

            Dionesius3 says: "I personally like the teachings of Erwin Lutzer as well. And R.C. Sproul Has always been a favorite."

            I listened to Erwin Lutzer for years on Christian radio on a program called "Songs in the Night" and I have listened to recorded sermons by R.C. Sproul as well. I am not that familiar with the teachings of C.S.Lewis, but apparently Des believes he has harmed the cause of the Gospel for some reason. I'll let him expound on that one.

            And yes, the old stuff can be excellent, too, although I haven't read a lot of it in much detail. I mainly try to just stick with the Bible and a few study helps like the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and an Interlinear Bible, as well as online sites such as biblegateway.com.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Try BlueLetterBible, you may like it: http://www.blueletterbible.org

            Yes, CS Lewis who is a fad between American Evangelicals and his "Mere Christianity" reductionism of the Gospel and his redefinition of many important truth like atonement and rabid universal ism hurt greatly the cause of Christ and His Gospel.

          • keyboardshark

            I had not heard of BlueLetterBible, but it looks worthy of checking out. Thanks for the scoop. As far as CS Lewis is concerned, I would probably not want to read any of his material based on what you have indicated about his theology. It's as rare as hen's teeth to find anyone nowadays who preaches the unadulterated Gospel of salvation.

          • Despeville

            Stay wil blueletterbible.org and away from liberal Anglicans like CS Lewis no matter how much attention he gets from drifting Evangelicals.

            "It's as rare as hen's teeth to find anyone nowadays who preaches the unadulterated Gospel of salvation."

            Indeed and what good and noteworthy could be written about the Gospel has been written already and hundreds of years ago. Now and at best what you can get is a rehash of those works but more frequently than not a gobbledygook of man's ego placating nonsense utterly alien to the Gospel itself.

          • Dionesius3

            Yes, Des has a long-list of approved and non-approved books and litrature. He almost always has something to say on an issue whether he knows something or not. And I am not sure how he is not aware of the damage he does on a daily basis with his wonderful attitude.

          • Despeville

            :) I actually read CS Lewis and I do know what I am talking about. Here is a standard liberal Anglican at best just as NT Wright is. They both had some gold nuggets to offer but what they give with one hand they take with the other. You will find this out one blessed day.

          • Dionesius3

            Keyboard shark says "I mainly try to just stick with the Bible and a few study helps like the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and an Interlinear Bible, as well as online sites such as biblegateway.com."

            Good choices, I too use these same tools, but knowing both Greek and Hebrew, I don't have to use the Interlinear very much. One tool you did not mention which I often use is a Good Bible encyclopedia to remind you of the background, policital situation, and historical debate surrounding a Book, passage, or verse. While not necessary it does often give additional insight.
            And you really ought to look to some of the older writers, they have a level of wisdom and clarity that is found in no modern writer.
            God bless.

          • keyboardshark

            No, I haven't used a Bible encyclopedia, but I suppose it could be helpful with some passages.

            How did you learn Greek and Hebrew? You must be more ambitious than I. I know some Spanish but that's about it.

            Which old-time writers do you read or would recommend? Sadly, many modern-day expositors have been influenced by unbiblical ideas like evolution and millions of years, so it's hard to find any who even believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

          • Dionesius3

            I spent three years studying both Hebrew and Greek in Divinity school. As to good early writers, well C.H. Spurgeon of course, and this website has some others of interest; http://www.founders.org/library/founders.html
            And of course Google books has some really good stuff, you just have to search for it. Then I also use the library at a nearby University which has a lot of old religious books. Then if there is one I really like I have a friend who is a rare book dealer and he can usually come up with a copy at a reasonable price.
            It takes a bit of work to find some stuff but there is a whole lot of it out there on the Internet if your patient and know how to do advanced searches.

          • Dionesius3

            Then there is MasterBooks.net, they have been doing some reprints of really good books. Then Tolle loge Press which I am sure you are aware of since they sponser this site.

          • keyboardshark

            Thanks for the resource info, "D". Only thing I'm short on these days is time to really sit down and read stuff. I have more than the usual amount of work to do during the growing season (mid-April – Oct) as we raise most of our own fruits and vegetables, not to mention 2 acres of grass mowing/yard work to keep up with as well.

            But as the old saying goes, you make time for those things you consider important, and there is nothing more important than God's Word. I'll definitely look into those resources as time allows, and what I don't manage to get to now I will in the winter. God bless, and hope to see you on some other threads on this site.

          • keyboardshark

            Dionesius3 quotes: "39 Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it."

            The phrase "your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil" might lead us to believe that there is an age of accountability, but the Bible also gives us an example of someone who is old and yet asks the rhetorical question of whether he can discern between good and evil:

            "I am this day fourscore years old: and can I discern between good and evil? can thy servant taste what I eat or what I drink? can I hear any more the voice of singing men and singing women? wherefore then should thy servant be yet a burden unto my lord the king?" 2 Samuel 19:35

            To further complicate matters, God also uses similar wording when talking about election in Romans 9:

            "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)" (verse 11)

            Notice that the Romans 9 passage indicates election even before birth. But going back to the Deuteronomy 1 passage, the context does not indicate that it is discussing salvation when it uses that phrase. It was actually in the context of God's judgement against the generation of disobedient Jews who wandered 40 years in the wilderness.

            Part of their judgement would be that their children, whom they had complained would become a prey, are now to be permitted to enter the promised land, while the disobedient generation of their parents would perish. I believe the phrase "no knowledge of good or evil" in this context indicates that they did not participate in the evil decisions and complaining of their parents, the disobedient generation.

            My conclusion then would be that these verses do not teach an age of accountability either. We would still be left with the fact that no age is mentioned, once again leaving us in the dark as to what it would be if such an 'age of accountability' did indeed exist.

          • Dionesius3

            O.K. Then we will simply have to disagree on this point. I have no other issue to discuss at this point. Thank you for your time and you gentlemanly attitude. I will gladly discuss any belief with you at any time in the future should you wish to do so.
            May God richly bless you in all that you do.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Of course you have to disagree and assume that even though both views are vastly different and contradictory somehow they are both right too. As I said consistency is a beautiful thing and the Gospel is consistent. What you present is not.

          • Dionesius3

            Again your attitude betrays the true desire of your heart DES, and it's a really sad picture.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            The only consistency you have is to discuss tour opponents while beating around the bush when it comes to topic. That is really sad and not your fake sad.

          • Dionesius3

            I never said both were right, You did. I simply said he and I will just have to disagree on this point. I did not demand that my view be declared the right one nor did he do the same for his view. You see Des he and and treated each other with mutual respect. It amazes me that I am having this discussion with someone who is supposed to be an adult. It is possible for two christians to totally disagree on some points of the faith and yet remain both civil and gentlemanly. And it is possible to disagree and not act like a 10 year old child and scream and kick and call the other person names and say all kinds of nasty things about their education, intelligence, and salvation. But you protest loudest so you are hereby pronounced the WINNER!!!

          • Despeville

            "some weight"

            :) There is no weight there apart that you have found some verses through your bible search program or concordance…

          • Despeville

            Huh And this is your support for "age of accountability"??? This is about progression of sin and Lord holding everyone accountable for it on personal level. This is by no means any "excuse" for certain age. Wow, I have seen a lot but this is something…

          • keyboardshark

            Dionesius3 quotes: "30 But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be [b]set on edge."

            That verse would seem to be an argument against an age of accountability, since it indicates that 'everyone dies for their own iniquity' rather than being exempt by reason of age.

          • Dionesius3

            O.K. Perhaps, but how about these verses;
            Deuteronomy 1:34-40
            34 “Then the LORD heard the sound of your words, and He was angry and took an oath, saying, 35 ‘Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give your fathers, 36 except Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him and to his sons I will give the land on which he has set foot, because he has followed the LORD fully.’ 37 The LORD was angry with me also on your account, saying, ‘Not even you shall enter there. 38 Joshua the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall enter there; encourage him, for he will cause Israel to inherit it. 39 Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it. 40 But as for you, turn around and set out for the wilderness by the way to the [a]Red Sea.’

          • Dionesius3

            Moses has assembled the people of Israel and is reminding them of the judgment upon them due to their lack of faith when they refused to enter the promised land. None of those who were present at that time would be allowed to enter the promised land. None, that is, except the children, those little ones “who today have no knowledge of good or evil.” They are not held accountable for the guilt of the people (note: “not held accountable” is not the same as “do not share”). It is at least implied that the children were allowed to enter the promised land because of their lack of knowledge of good or evil. They were not able to understand sin, so they were not held accountable for sin. They may have been guilty of sin, just as children are guilty of their sins, but the little ones of Israel were not held accountable for that guilt incurred while they had no knowledge of good or evil. In the same way, I believe children who die are not held accountable for sin – theirs, or that sin inherited from Adam.

          • Despeville

            O.K. Perhaps, but how about these verses; "

            Perhaps this perhaps that… This is shot gun approach. You are shooting with verses that contain any mention of children and you hope to shot something… Nothing but your own foot you will. Wouldn't it be easier and honest to say that you have nothing biblical to support this Roman Catholic teaching?

          • Dionesius3

            BRAVO, Des your are such a master of Biblical Exposition.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Mockery will get you nowhere and it has not so far…

          • Dionesius3

            You seem to have made a career out of it. Des, why bother me?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Parrot.

          • Dionesius3

            Parrot? How adult you are Des.

          • Despeville

            @Shark,

            "If ALL our sins are paid for, there is nothing that can keep us out of heaven (Romans 8:38-39). If we die and somehow miss out on going to heaven, then that would have to mean that there was at least one sin that Christ did NOT pay for. The free will position, probably without realizing it, is asserting that there is one sin that Christ is unable to pay for–the sin of unbelief. "

            Indeed, sadly synergists do not bother to see the Gospel on this level. They rather surf the surface covered with men placating veneer for that feels better and is less offensive to the world. Also have you thought about this in this way that Arminianism makes God a gruesome unfair monster? Why do I say this? Because Arminian "God" punishes sin twice and spills the blood of Hos Son in null. He punishes twice for according to Arminianism Jesus died on the Cross of John Smith including his unbelief and not "accepting Jesus into John's heart" yet then John dies goes to hell and pays forever for all his sins including the sin of: "accepting Jesus into John's heart"… Double penalty and double punishment. This is a caricature of God and bastardized version of His justice because even falen sinners can be more just in light of this system.

            Furthermore, God the Father agreeing with God the Son so he can incarnate as a man and then go to the cross to spill his blood in perfect unity of persons in hypostatic union for John Smith about which God the Holy Spirit had to "knock" on John's heart was a complete waste of His precious blood and a total failure on the part of Trinity where God tried, did his best but ended up a loosing in frustration because all powerful "free will" of John won…

            Is this the Gospel? Is thus God of the Bible? Of course not. That is His bastardized version conjured up by men, for men to placate their innate fall originated need of control but this is what proponents of synergistic, pelagian Arminianism subscribe to…

          • keyboardshark

            Des says: "Indeed, sadly synergists do not bother to see the Gospel on this level."

            Yes, that is true, and the reason probably is that the majority of modern churches teach 'easy believeism' or in other words, free-will salvation, so most church members do not think it through to its logical conclusion. It does require some analysis, but that is why God calls us to graduate from the mere milk of the Word to the meat of the Word. (Hebrews 5:12)

          • Despeville

            Indeed and that is why we contend for the faith once delivered to the saints:

            "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints."
            ~ Jude 1:3

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          "No unbeliever is ever said to be elected or predestined."

          GNOSTIC LIAR.

          "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience VESSELS OF WRATH PREPARED FOR DESTRUCTION? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon VESSELS OF MERCY, which He PREPARED BEFORE HAND FOR GLORY, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. "

          ~ Romans 9:19-24

          • msjallen

            James 3:14&16 -But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Priestess does your guru know what you are doing here with the Word of God? Does he condone your serial butchery of it? Did he teach you this type of personal abuse of the truth?

          • msjallen

            I am not the least bit offended by your judgmental attitude because I consider the source and know that you must be a very unhappy person to want to attack other believers who don't believe the way you do. How sad for you.
            Proverbs 29:22 An angry man stirs up strife, And a hot-tempered man abounds in transgression.
            Proverbs 15:1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
            Ephesians 4:30-31 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          "God wants ALL to be saved. Jesus Christ died for the entire human race."

          That must be a Gnostic God that wants, tries and tries His best and fails so miserably and on such a massive sacale too. That is not God of the Bible that is for sure.

          • myth buster

            No, that's the God of the Bible, according to 1 Timothy 4:10. You are an unstable person who distorts the Scriptures.

      • myth buster

        Really? What then do you say of 1 Peter 3:21, which clearly states that baptism saves us? What do you make of Genesis 4, which clearly states that Cain could have chosen to reject evil and do what was right? What of the Bread of Life discourse, wherein Jesus said, "Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood remains in Me and I in him?"

        • keyboardshark

          If we isolate I Peter 3:21 from the rest of the Bible, it might appear that they do teach that man's action, namely, baptism, saves us. But that flatly contradicts the account of the thief on the cross, who becomes saved right before our very eyes on the pages of the Bible (Luke 23:39-43) and joins Christ in paradise that very day without being baptized.

          I'm not sure which verse in Genesis 4 you are referring to, but we all have the free will to choose to do evil or good, and we know that we will choose evil at least part of the time since the heart of man is desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). But this is not talking about salvation, only a choice of what we choose to do in our life on a day-to-day basis.

          If you are going to take the verse "Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood remains in Me and I in him?" literally, then we would have to conclude that no one would be able to be saved unless they engaged in cannibalism while Jesus was on earth. Clearly, this must be a parabolic or spiritual statement that would require further analysis.

          • Dionesius3

            Exactly Right, Keyboardshark. When baptism is made to be anything other than symbolic one runs into severe Biblical interpretation issues. And when one does not differentiate between the different types of Baptisim in Scripture one has issues as well. For example, if one tries to make the argument, "Well you should be Baptised because even Jesus was Baptised", one is missing the whole point of the discourse between Jesus and John the Baptist about the issue. John rightfully says that he will not Baptise Jesus because Jesus had no need of Baptism. But Jesus responds that John should do so because it was necessary for the symbolic reason of fulfilling all the requirements of the Law.
            John's Baptisim was a Baptism for the remission of sin. Christian Baptism is not John's Baptism. They are two different types of Baptism.

          • keyboardshark

            Thanks for that additional insight Dionesius3.

  • Kalev

    The silence coming from the GOP, and American's in general, concerning Obama's ignoring our Constitution is deafening.

    • msjallen

      You are right, it is amazing that 0 can do not wrong and he gets by with everything he does. The demorats jumped on Nixon in a flash and brought him down but no one is willing to even challenge the dictator in the WH.
      Jeremiah 17:5 -Thus says the LORD, “Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
      The prophets of old cried out to the people to turn back to God but they didn't listen and America is not listening and our country will receive God's discipline if we don't turn back to Him, learn His ways from His Word and apply them daily.
      Luke 18:27 But He said, "The things that are impossible with people are possible with God."

      • Kalev

        God's judgment is already upon our nation, that's why we got Obama, he is going to destroy every freedom we have remaining and this will lead us to follow the anti-christ very shortly. America IS rebellious Israel.

    • Linda F.

      There are many of us who refuse to be silent, Kalev. Remember that.

      • Kalev

        "many of us" is not a majority of us, however. I do admire your courage and faith in God and His Son.

        • evermyrtle

          I do not believe anyone believes that he majority will stand with HIM

          Matt. 22:14 Many are called but few are chosen.

      • Kalev

        You might like and learn something from this site, http://www.wildbranch.org/teachings/lessons/

      • Evermyrtle

        And refuse to bow to false gods. True people of GOD will not bow!

    • SHIRLEY MOORE

      That is the most terrifying that why is it allowed to happen. Where is the outcry against Obamas mishandling of the constitution, or rather totally ignoring it. This great document is the foundation of our government. Its time to stand up and say "no more". STAND UP AMERICA AND SPEAK TRUTH BEFORE TRUTH IS SILENCED BY THIS ADMINISTRATION

  • Buck

    My wildest dream is for JESUS to return TOMORROW !

    • Bill F.

      Reply to Buck: The way things are shaping up in the Middle East Jesus may be coming soon.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        There will be no return of Jesus today, tomorrow or anytime before you die. Myths do not return from anywhere.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Why do you then bother to try convince others that it is a myth? Are you not in fact really trying to convince yourself?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, for if that was the case, I would be doing the research on the issue. I have already done that.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Whatever you have done it was a joke.

        • keyboardshark

          Jeff says: "Myths do not return from anywhere."

          That is true, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who is not a myth, will indeed return, and the earth will indeed be destroyed:

          "15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

          16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

          17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
          I Thessalonians 4

          "10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
          II Peter 3

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You have to realize that verses from a book that Atheists consider to be fables will never be convincing on their own? Especially when these same verses have been shown to be incorrect.

          • keyboardshark

            I'm not sure I know what you mean when you say that "these same verses have been shown to be incorrect', but I do know that there is far more evidence for the historicity of Jesus than any ancient historical figure you care to name. Of course I understand why you don't want to believe the verses, but there would be no way I know of to either prove or disprove by ordinary means whether Jesus is returning or not and whether the universe and earth will be destroyed or not, since it is a prediction of a future event.

            We do know that all of the useful energy in the universe would would become uselessly scattered about in space, given enough time, because of the Laws of Energy, so we could at least say with certainty that there will come a time when the universe as we know it will cease to function. But I happen to believe, from what the Bible says, that the Lord will indeed return and the universe will be destroyed long before that would occur.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            We have to look no further then Genesis 30:37-39 to see a bible story that is absurd.

            37 Then (A)Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the (B)watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

          • keyboardshark

            That is a strange account, I'll admit. What would the placing of peeled sticks in a water trough that cattle drank from have to do with what color of hair their offspring had? The KJV says "rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree". Could there be something contained in those particular types of wood that would have an effect on the offspring of female cattle that drank from water soaked in them?

            It turns out that they do have medicinal properties. Poplar, for example, has been used since the time of the Greek physician and botanist Dioscorides as a treatment for gout. It also contains tannins and other substances, which could possibly affect the color of an animals coat, but I could not find any specific statement to that effect. http://www.botanical-online.com/english/poplar.ht…

            Witch hazel also has medicinal properties as well, and also contains tannin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hazel_(astrin…

            Chestnut trees? Yes, they too have medicinal properties and also contain tannin. In fact, they are well known to produce a hydrolysable tannin used in the leather industry.
            http://www.botanical-online.com/english/chestnutt… http://www.botanical-online.com/english/tannins.h…

            Could the sticks in the water have produced a color change in the offspring? Well, it seems to at least be possible, but I can not find a definite statement that it would. Guess I would have to say a definite maybe, but I don't see how this passage hurts the credibility of the Bible.

    • msjallen

      And in the meantime…
      II Peter 3:8… but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity.

  • Esteban Cafe

    As if Jesus is beholden to man's tests. The idea is and remains ludicrous.

    • myth buster

      No, the idea is a reductio ad absurdum. If Jesus couldn't pass the test, it means something is wrong with the test, because it's either opposed to righteousness or reality. If the test rejects Jesus, we ought to reject the test as being useful in identifying anything we want to associate with.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        A test cannot test Jesus since tests cannot test myths.

  • iris eddy

    Obama and his gang need to go before our country goes up in flames. Annie

  • Old School Patriot

    The kings of Judah and Israel walked away from God and exalted themselves. Judgment came to them. The nation of Judah and the northern kingdom Israel walked away from God and exalted themselves, and fell down before idols, as the U.S. is doing this very day, and judgment came to them. What makes us think that we are any different? God will not be mocked! Because He is patient and long suffering does not mean He hasn't noticed, or has gone on vacation. Divine patience is not equal to Divine permission. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and yes, indeed forever!"

    • Anne Gelinase

      So true and you are a master of what makes us all walk and talk with God. Anyone who underestimates God is a fool. He is patient and a loving God. When He sees that He must intervene, He will. He sees our government making itself intoczrs idols. The president wants to control everybody and everyone. His czars are his slaves following orders. Many Americans don't know any better, and just follow. But God knows the true human beings on earth, and God will dole out his punishment when He is ready. Gosh, I wish God would act now, don't you? Things are awful. It is time.

    • Daniel

      One thing is clear, people have less patience than God, HOw has the US fallen down before Idols? Now exalting itself yes I can see that.

  • Dora

    You have not been listening. The GOP is alive, awake and ready to rumble !

    • Bobseeks

      I guess I missed the rumble because so far all I see is the GOP throwing the election.

      • Kalev

        And with a Globalist very similar to Obama I might add.

        • Bobseeks

          Two peas in a pod.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            That you cannot see a difference between Romney and Obama says so much about how you view the world. Luckily, the majority of the voters are not as delusional as you.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        If Nobody Likes Mitt Romney, Why is He Leading Obama by Five in the Gallup Poll?
        http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/04/17/if_n…

        • Despeville

          Married folks like him while singles prefer Obonzo…

  • Walt Wawra

    Brothers and sisters,

    Every human has one test to face and no man can pass it. It is by the grace of God, the gift of God given to man. He gives us the Rightousness of Himself Jesus Christ. So rather than bemoaning who will pass or not how about getting to work preaching the Gospel. For it is the power of God nto salvation for the Jew first and also the Greek. Then we will hear the blessed words of Jesus Christ Himself, well done good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of the Lord.

    • Evermyrtle

      Amen!!

    • http://youtu.be/NRJHKzU_t1M Despeville

      Thanks. Good reminder and I wonder if you yourself actually listen to it. As to this:

      "..well done good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of the Lord."

      The word there in Matthew 25:21 is SLAVE – δουλε and not "servant"… One word innumerable in repercussion difference.

      • myth buster

        But that same Lord also said, "I no longer call you slaves, but friends, for a slave does not know what his Master is doing."

  • Pastor Dwayne

    The Laodicea churches of today are most if not all Reformed churches and many Pentecostal churches that have turned into Country Club churches!

    • Kalev

      Why was the comment deleted? Bubba is on to something, there was nothing offensive in his post.

      • Admin

        Bubba needs to learn to type without the CapsLock on. Our short list of rules specifically states that ALL CAPS comments will be deleted. What Bubba said wasn't the issue, it was his shouting that got him deleted.

        • Kalev

          Well finally enforcing that rule equally.

          • Admin

            We are happy to enforce it equally, however, sometimes an all caps comment avoids our notice. If our readers report them when they find them though, we will gladly remove them.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          What if he had a piece of chewing gum stuck in his keyboard? :)

          • littledove517

            Some people like my sister cannot see to well and she always has to use the CapsLock, and I never see hers or anyone's post as shouting. It could be some people uses them with small letters, and when something is wanted to be brought out they will caplock it. Never intending for it to be shouting, just noticed. I have never understood it, or looked at it as shouting. Even I can see the big letters more clearing.

  • skipfoss

    There is no test that Obama and Islamic brothers could possibly come up with that Christ could not pass , he has and is the answer to all things. Obama and his comrades only have just a short time to do the damnedest to Christians and Christians will stand up against this half breed deamon and I can just about guarentee it will a bloody uprising . As for Obama those who stand with him their blood will be on his hands when he stands before GOD and JESUS!!!!!!!!

    • Evermyrtle

      Only a filthy liberal mind could ever come up with any idea of giving JESUS a test. HE along with HIS FATHER made all things, and no test could ever, with any possibility test be imagined. HE could, faster than I can bat my eye, make it all disappear. TEST JESUS? WHERE DID THIS EMERGE FROM? Oh, the article. I would have never dared print such a thing.!!!

  • proudprimate

    The GOP would never pass Jesus's test stated in the last half of Matthew 25

    • bighoss

      Right–and their destiny would be as set forth in the last verse of that chapter.

    • keyboardshark

      Matthew 25 is not talking about government confiscating money from the populace to redistribute as a phony show of charity. It is talking about individuals generously sharing their OWN wealth and possessions with those who are genuinely in need.

      • proudprimate

        Phony is it?

        Tell that to the generations of Social Security recipients that can spend their golden years in relative comfort. Tell that to workers who enjoy overtime pay, safer working conditions, weekends, profit sharing. Thank the New Deal and Unions for all these things, whether or not you ever paid a cent in dues.

        The fat cats never give an inch unless forced. The great freed slave orator Frederick Douglass said it clearly:
        “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

        I'm talking about a society that chooses, by consensus of the majority over many decades, to take care of its people rather than let them fall by the wayside, and you're just making excuses.

        You'd be happy to see Tiny Tim's chair empty at Christmas.

        • Dionesius3

          Yeah buddy, just keep on selling the farm and giving away other people's money and pretty soon there won't be anything to worry about because we will all be slaves of the government.

          • proudprimate

            If you would look at the historical facts rather than the RW talking points you'd see that the prosperity we grew up in (I'm 65) flourished with a top tax rate of 91% under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, (it dropped to 70% in those days, but major loopholes were plugged), Nixon, Ford and Carter. Carter suffered the backwash of the outrageous cost of the utterly unnecessary Vietnam War, which Kennedy had promised Mike Mansfield he would pull out of after his reelection, which was — "averted"), but our national debt was at a 50-year low (not as a nominal figure, due to inflation but as a fraction of GDP — some 30% whereas it had been 127% the year I was born, the cost of WWII but more the cost of digging us out of the other Republican Great Depression). So with debt at a 50 year low, here comes Reagan and TRIPLED THE DEBT, raising it from nearly $1T to nearly $3T, cutting the top tax rate for his fat cat buddies, but raising taxes on you and me (or, me anyway — payroll taxes. With his "hot checks" he created the illusion of prosperity.).

            The people you act as guard dog for are the ones that are giving away other people's (MY) money.

            All the civilized nations of the world, from Taiwan to Denmark to Switzerland pay about HALF what we pay per capita for health care and get much better results as measured in terms like longevity and infant mortality. The difference is YOU SUPPORT WELFARE FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES WHICH PROVIDE NO ADDED VALUE. They only take money from the payer, hand it to the provider, MINUS THEIR SUBSTANTIAL CUT, and spend their time finding ways to get out of paying for your cancer.

            In all civilized countries (I exclude the US obviously, thanks to the stranglehold your FIRE sector — Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, the group that classical economists call the Rentier class) it is illegal to make a profit on primary health care.

            All the 50 million people with no health insurance go to the emergency ward (Reagan signed the law that says they have to be given care, and I don't disagree, but the catch is how WE pay for it, not the fact that we pay for it — he made sure Big Insurance got their cut) — only after they have waited too long, and the cost of their care is ten times what it would have been if they had had free care. WE STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. All this just to feed his pet insurance fatcats.

        • keyboardshark

          @proudprimate: The difference is, you believe in the power of government to force people, whether they agree to it or not, to redistribute their money in a wasteful fashion to other people who may or may not be in actual need.

          But I believe in the individual's right to decide for themselves what to do with THEIR money. I cannot speak for you, but I do know that most Christians are far more generous with what God has given them than the average person, and if they were aware of someone who was genuinely in need and they had the means to provide, most would be glad to do so.

          The proper term for your philosophy is statism, which is the theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statism

          I believe this is a very dangerous idea because true freedom is only found when people are free to control what they do with their own resources and lives, not what Big Brother thinks is best. Already, our rights to private property are in jeopardy because of tax and wrong-headed environmental laws which deprive people of their rights to own and maintain their houses and land in the manner they best see fit.

          Think you are the free owner of your house and land? See what happens if you don't pay your taxes. You do not own your property free and clear because the government has you over a barrel with the tax laws. But I digress.

          If you wish to believe in the coercive power of the state to extort money from the citizenry, over the free choice of the individual to do what they wish with their own property, then I have to believe that you do not understand the founding principles of our Constitutional Republic.

          • proudprimate

            See my reply above to Dionesius3 (sic — s/b "Dionysus"— Διόνυσος) — you guys are forcing the people to spend money they can't afford and don't get anything for. The difference goes into the pockets of the Rentier class, who are using you guys as sock puppets and you don't even realize it, because they defend your myths and tickle your vanities, which costs them nothing.

          • keyboardshark

            Who is "forcing the people to spend money they can't afford"? I certainly have no power to force anyone to spend their money a certain way. Unfortunately, with your statist philosophy, it is the government that has usurped that authority, to the detriment of the freedom of the people to choose how they run their own life.

            Actually, it is the policies of the government, i.e. the Federal Reserve, a quasi-governmental agency that is 'supposed' to be non political, that has been stealing the wealth of its citizens since its creation in 1913. The dollar has lost 95% of its value since that time, while it had remained relatively stable for the previous years of the republic.. So if you want to talk about thievery from the masses, look no further than the Federal government itself, whom you would place above the free-market choices of individual citizens.

          • proudprimate

            >>Who is "forcing the people to spend money they can't afford"?

            I thank thee for this excellent question. The answer is, those who refuse a better solution.

            When people with no health insurance, who have done their best for months or years to avoid this eventual end, show up at the emergency ward, the cost of their care is maybe ten times what it should have been, would have been if they had had free care, and caught their disease at its earliest symptoms.

            That famous commie, Ronald Reagan, signed the law that requires emergency rooms to take indigent patients (which of course I agree with). What I do not agree with is the cost of care for these 50 MILLION Americans. Every CIVILIZED COUNTRY in the industrialized world (obviously that does not include the USA) has reduced its per capita health care costs to a near minimum. We pay roughly twice what they pay, and get half the quality.

            Let me repeat that more clearly: WE, you and I, and everyone that has health insurance, PAY MUCH MORE THAN WE SHOULD, because the hospitals have to spread those expenses somewhere, don't they —

            Is that understandable? Do you see how those who, in Congress, vote against Medicare Part E (ie., for Everybody) raise the cost of care per capita, merely to boost the profits of their OWNERS in Connecticut, ie., Hartford, Prudential, Blue Alliance, CIGNA, and the rest of the criminals.

          • keyboardshark

            Any way you slice it, proudprimate, someone has to pay the cost. There is no free lunch. Problem is, with your solution of government confiscation and coercion, much of the money that should be going to cover health care is actually wasted or misappropriated (a polite word for 'stealing'). So I fail to see how your solution is more cost-effective.

            You can dance around it any way you like, or try to put lipstick on a pig by calling government confiscation/control 'benevolent', but with the exception of national defense, and even that is questionable, there is nothing that the government does more efficiently or more cost-effectively than private citizens participating in the free market, and private businesses operating with a capitalist profit motive in the free market.

          • proudprimate

            So I fail to see how your solution is more cost-effective.

            The US spends the most per capita, because the Insurance companies are sucking vast amounts of money out of the system.

            Look at this graph: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECD…

            In all these other countries, it is prohibited by law to MAKE A PROFIT on primary health care. Could that be the reason they pay so much less than we do? DUH!

            Secondly, these other countries get better results than we do.

            The following text is from CBS News.

            The United States ranks near the bottom in life expectancy among wealthy nations despite spending more than double per person on health care than the industrialized world's average, an economic group said Tuesday.

            Life expectancy at birth in the U.S. was 78.1 years in 2007, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

            That's a year less than the OECD average of 79.1, and puts the U.S. just ahead of the Czech Republic, Poland and Mexico, where spending on health care is many times less per person, the Paris-based organization said in its latest survey of health trends among its 30 rich member countries.

            Total U.S. spending on health care was $7,290 a person in 2007, nearly two-and-a-half times the OECD average of $2,984. The figures include spending by both individuals and governments.

            "It suggests that the U.S. is not getting great value for its health spending, in terms of life expectancy," Gaetan Lafortune, one of the report's co-authors said.

            . . .
            The U.S. also underperforms other rich countries in the health of its youngest.

            U.S. infant mortality, at 6.7 deaths per 1,000 live births, was well above the OECD average of 3.9 in 2007. Only Mexico and Turkey had worse rates of infant mortality. In Luxembourg, the top performer, the infant mortality rate was only 1.8.

            The report noted that research suggests many factors beyond the quality of a country's health system, such as income inequality and individual lifestyles and attitudes, influence infant mortality rates.

            Per capita spending on pharmaceuticals rose by almost 50 percent over the last 10 years in OECD countries, reaching a total of $650 billion in 2007. The U.S. was the world's biggest spender on pharmaceuticals, spending $878 per person, with Canada next at $691 per person and the OECD average at $461.

            The report was released as the U.S. Senate is considering a health care overhaul promised by President Barack Obama during his presidential campaign.
            AP

            FACE IT! YOU'RE BEING LIED TO BY FOX, RUSH, AND THE RIGHT WING. THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT THOSE POSITIONS.

          • keyboardshark

            Your graph shows the cost of health care, not health insurance.

            "The US spends the most per capita, because the Insurance companies are sucking vast amounts of money out of the system. " The US does spend the most per capita, as your graph indicates, but your assertion that it is because of insurance company thievery is pure speculation on your part. There are many other reasons for the high cost of health care, such as the overpriced drug-based methods rather than preventative or natural methods, expensive equipment, high salary costs of doctors and medical personnel, etc etc.

            I don't argue that the US spends the most per capita, but your assertion that it is because of insurance companies is unsubstantiated, and your implication that government could do it cheaper is laughable.

            All it boils down to is this: Control. You believe Big Government should control people's lives, and I believe that the people themselves should be free to make their own choices. Your way leads to tyranny. My way leads to freedom.

          • proudprimate

            I have to be up at 4AM to work at 5.

            I will answer this tomorrow afternoon.

          • keyboardshark

            You have my sympathies. I have always hated early shift.

          • proudprimate

            As promised, my reply.

            Sorry I telescoped too many thoughts into a brief screed. Let me unpack it for you, in a sort of Flow Chart.

            If I start with Step 0 that is only because it represents what all the civilized nations have, i.e., Single Payer, except two: Britain has Socialized Medicine, where the government hires the doctors and runs the hospitals, and Switzerland, which lets insurance companies act as Payer, with this caveat, that it is prohibited that they should make a profit on primary health care. Unessential treatments, like face lifts, can be delivered at a profit, but not primary health care. So in all these countries. With that preface, then:

            1.Because 50 million — FIFTY MILLION — Americans have no health insurance, they defer treatment until their illnesses are far advanced.

            2.Then they go to the emergency ward. The hospital is required by law to treat them, even though they cannot pay, by the terms of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1986.

            3.Because they were not treated in a timely fashion, their treatment costs are many times what they would be in a Single Payer system, where every citizen, and even visitors, are treated for next to nothing, and if urgent, in a timely manner and with dispatch, notwithstanding the propaganda that comes from the Right Wing. Non-urgent treatment may be delayed, I admit.

            4.Even those who have health insurance in the US, and have paid faithfully for years, can be suddenly cancelled if they develop a costly disease, usually on the basis of some dredged up, unreported event long past, as for example, treated for acne with tetracycline in teen years, but failed to list it on their medical history. They develop cancer, totally unrelated, and suddenly find themselves cancelled on that excuse.

            So you see, if it were not for the power of the insurance lobby, we could cut out their huge profit, which does nothing to benefit the country at large but only the top level managers and a few crumbs for the agents below. Then the greater benefit would be that we would pay less for better care, as the civilized countries do, because no one would defer treatment for lack of insurance.

            I could add that our drug costs are sky high because when the Bush/Frist/DeLay team rammed through Medicare Part D, they made it the law that Medicare, the biggest risk pool in the nation, is prohibited from BARGAINING FOR BETTER PRICES, like the VA is able to do, or the active military. That's ridiculous, unless you are a Big Pharma executive, then it's awesome, because they are PARASITES on the system. Most great pharmaceutical breakthroughs come from government funded university-based research teams, and when the development is complete, the patents are handed over to the drug companies for production. Not because it makes sense, but because the corporate world is utterly corrupt, and unlike past generations, there is now no restraint of their feeding frenzy.

            Insurance companies are not interested in health. They only want money. They strategize to rid themselves of the high risk customers and maximize the low risk. Just like private schools and charter schools, they suck all the top students out of the public school and leave them with all the more difficult, needy students. Then the Right Wing comes along and reviles the quality of the public schools.

            The Pharisees were covetous — Luke 16:14 — having a form of godliness, but inwardly they were ravening wolves. So the Right Wing.

          • keyboardshark

            1. "50 million Americans have no health insurance". This may or may not be a problem. The number does not tell us anything about why they do not have it. Couldn't afford it? Maybe. Or maybe they just chose to not purchase it, a choice that would be taken away under Obamacare.

            "…they defer treatment until their illnesses are far advanced. " Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe they deferred treatment, and the condition cleared up on its own. Cha-ching! Money saved.

            2. "Then they go to the emergency ward." That's a pretty broad conjecture. I would have to see some statistics on how often a person without insurance, who defers treatment of some condition, winds up in the emergency room. My spidey sense tells me the numbers are low.

            3. "Because they were not treated in a timely fashion, their treatment costs are many times what they would be in a Single Payer system, where every citizen, and even visitors, are treated for next to nothing, and if urgent, in a timely manner and with dispatch, notwithstanding the propaganda that comes from the Right Wing."

            Wow, you even managed to squeeze in a political jab on that one. Granted, I'm no expert on Single Payer system, but how could everyone be "treated for next to nothing"? The money has to be coming from somewhere. I think you're going to have to expound on that a little more for me. Sounds too much like smoke and mirrors.

            4."Even those who have health insurance in the US, and have paid faithfully for years, can be suddenly cancelled if they develop a costly disease…" Yes, I admit, this is a problem. But government is not the solution.

            " I could add that our drug costs are sky high because when the Bush/Frist/DeLay team rammed through Medicare Part D, they made it the law that Medicare, the biggest risk pool in the nation, is prohibited from BARGAINING FOR BETTER PRICES"
            That could be a problem, but the real issue, in my mind, is the whole idea of a drug-based medical system. Most drugs are outrageously expensive, have debilitating side effects, including death, and there are often natural treatments that work just as well, if not better, than drugs, and without the side effects.

            I'm no fan of big pharma either. They have deliberately placed drugs on the market that they already knew were harmful or fatal, and the toothless FDA, comprised mainly of ex-drug company execs, usually rubber stamps most drugs that big pharma sends their way. Profit margins are obscene because the free market checks and balances have been weakened so severely.

            "Insurance companies are not interested in health. They only want money." Of course they are. They are a business, not a charity. Micky D's isn't interested in your health either, only profits for shareholders.

            "Just like private schools and charter schools, they suck all the top students out of the public school and leave them with all the more difficult, needy students. Then the Right Wing comes along and reviles the quality of the public schools. "

            No, the whole problem is the idea of having government controlled schools at all. ALL schools should be privately run, and every parent should be given vouchers to send their child to a school of their choice, or use the proceeds to offset expenses for homeschooling. Problem solved.

  • bighoss

    The abysmal level of literacy of your all-caps screaming post equals your level of understanding of the Sabbath and its status in God's word as it affects Christian worship and observances. I can easily believe you to be a "BUBBA" in the generally-accepted perception of that term.

    • Steve03

      Real Christians are so afraid of the occult that they never use spell check.

    • Pastor Dwayne

      Hey bubba, Since the Price of Peace is the Lord of Sabbath I worship Sabbath 7 days a week , 24 hours a day. what day do you worship………….as far as the all-caps as you call it , when I type a word such as pentecostal it says I miss spelled unless I cap the P, so don't blame me , blame the computor.

      • http://youtu.be/NRJHKzU_t1M Despeville

        Right about Sabbath Dwayne not like the vast majority of mosaic customs followers here.
        As to this " the computor" wonder if your computer does not like being called that name too.
        Sorry, it was just too funny.

        • Pastor Dwayne

          hehe

          • http://youtu.be/NRJHKzU_t1M Despeville

            :) hahaha

  • Steve03

    This is not the first test Jesus has failed. In an 1811 letter to Benjamin Rush, Thomas Jefferson wrote this about a meeting in his home at Monticello with Alexander Hamilton: "The room being hung around with a collection of the portraits of remarkable men, among them were those of Bacon [Francis, 1561-1626], Newton [Isaac, 1643-1727] and Locke [John, 1632-1704]. Hamilton asked me who they were. I told him they were my trinity of the three greatest men the world had ever produced, naming them. He paused for some time: 'The greatest man,' said he, 'that ever lived, was Julius Caesar.'"

    • Evermyrtle

      The one giving the test, Satan's disciple, failed, miserably!!!

      • http://youtu.be/NRJHKzU_t1M Despeville

        Why don't quote to yourself your fib about "not judging".

        • Evermyrtle

          Read Matthew 7:1-5 where it describe how you can judge. It tells us to judge fairly, to critize someone who demeans JESUS is fair judging!! If you don't judge things according to GOD'S rules you are in big trouble. I try to do my judging fairly. I do not judge people, just because they disagree with me. That would make me a fool unless I can back it up according GOD'S WORD.

          What fib are you talking about? What is my lie? I do judge but not often!! How do you feel about judging? How often do you judge?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Your fib is that you easily allow yourself to do what you so frequently deny to others… Do not forget about verse 6.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No one is denying you the option of lying, Humpty. You engage in that activity all the time.

      • Steve03

        Which is Satan's Disciple? Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, or Hamilton? If either or both of them are Satan's Disciple, then this is a nation founded not on Christian principles but on Satan's. And if so, why are you here?

        • Dionesius3

          steve,
          You are obviously a liberal OBUMMER hack. Why not go pester the Ron Paul supporters and leave the men to discuss real issues?

          • Steve03

            Since you claim to be a man, what outfit were you in?

          • proudprimate

            The smell of fresh air make you sneeze?

    • proudprimate

      Awesome quote, Steve — says a lot about Hamilton too, eh? I'm researching that letter tonight.

  • David in MA

    Of course not, whether or not many want to admit it,
    obama,
    as a muslim,
    is the Anti-Christ we have been warned about.

    AND, he thinks he will be the 12th imam, the madhi,
    the muslim/islamis saviour!

    • skipfoss

      No he is not the anti Christ he is just a precursor to him as was Bush ,they have all set up the US for a down fall , but we as Christains can stop their plans with the help of Christ . Bush sr, Clinton and even Carter were set up to help in the taking down of America. Also as Christains are not expected to just set back and not defend our selves and or family ,even if it comes to killing those that come to harm us and I will do just that to as many as come. I have had to kill before to defend my country and I will kill now to protect it and my family

    • http://7thdaysabbath.com salim

      Read the "Great Controversy", written by the most translated women author in the history of the world, Ellen Gould White.
      For more info, I invite you to go at: http://whitehorsemedia.com/

      • Evermyrtle

        I have attended the Seventh Day Adventest Church. I believe they are a good Christian church, However, they are not perfect as they seem to think they are. They do one thing that I hate, they put down, "the church down the street!" They put almost as much faith in Ellen White as I do in JESUS CHRIST. Ellen was a good good Christian woman but she does not surpass such Christians such as Martin Luther,John Wyecliffe, William Tyndale and many others who were beheaded or burnt at the stake for HIM. I do believe that if she had been called to die for HIM she would have done it. Would you have died for HIM? Would I die for HIM. I won't know that unless I am called on to do so. I hope I will and I think I will. I will not tell a lie and say, I will, because I do not know!!

      • Kalev

        E.G. White was a heretic and an apostate.

      • Dionesius3

        The most self-published woman in history you mean.

    • Steve03

      He can't be the Antichrist, as too many people think he's of the Devil.
      Besides, the Bible talks only of antichrists (plural, not singular, 1 John 2:18). By the Bible's own definition, an antichrist is anyone who denies that Jesus is the Messiah (1 John 2:22), or that Jesus is of God (1 John 4:3), or that denies that Jesus came "in the flesh" (2 John 1:7). As Obama has done none of those things, he"s neither the nor an antichrist.
      And unless you have personal knowledge of facts that prove Obama is a "muslim" or that he thinks he will be the 12th imam, you're bearing false witness. And God takes a very dim view of that, indeed.

      • Dionesius3

        From a real OBUMMER cheer leader no less!

        • Steve03

          So only a Democrat would stand up for truth? "Thou sayest."

          • Dionesius3

            No only a demoscratch would come in here with the junk you are trying to sell.

  • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

    Proverbs 16:7__When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.__

  • edcrandall

    We Christians need to be consistant in our daily living as was Daniel. When the king made up new laws, Daniel was not rebelious in what he did, he just continued in his normal habbit of praying and worshipping God. He did not wait until the law was made against praying to start praying as many of us are doing. This makes us rebelious and rebelion is as the sin of witchcraft.

  • http://yahoo.com guest

    What happened to division of church and state? Wasn't that the whole idea? To keep the government out of church affairs.

    • Dionesius3

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are really funny. Show me in the constitution where there is ANY separation of church and state.
      You had to have been educated in public Skooll to really think there is a separation of church and state in a Representative Republic which is what our nation is supposed to be.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        The First Amendment to the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" This gets broken down into two areas. The first is the Establishment Clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.". Thomas Jefferson made sure the intent of this clause was well understood with his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In this letter he stated very clearly that there was a "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the expression "Separation of church and state." Thomas Jefferson didn't see himself as writing a minor, unimportant letter because he had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general, before he sent it. Jefferson even told Lincoln that he considered this letter to be a means of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

        The second part of the amendment, the Free Exercise Clause", is what the Christians try to hang their hat on in regards to be allowed to do anything in regards to their religion. However, the courts have generally ruled that while most individual religious exercise is allowed, this does not prohibit the government from passing laws that impact certain religious practices. The first case to examine this clause was Reynolds v. United States. This was a case dealing with the prosecution of a polygamist. He tried to argue protection under the Free Exercise Clause, but the court ruled against him.

        Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."

        Jefferson believed in the principle of church/state separation so much that he created political problems for himself. Unlike Presidents Washington, Adams, and all following presidents, Jefferson refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and thanksgiving. It is not, as some charged, because he was an atheist or because he wanted others to abandon religion. Instead, it was because he recognized that he was only president of the American people, not their pastor, priest or minister. He realized that he had absolutely no authority to lead other citizens in religious services or expressions of religious faith and worship.

        While it is true the exact words separation of church and state do not appear in the Constitution, the concept is certainly there. It is similar to the idea of the Trinity being a concept in the bible, even though the word Trinity does not appear anywhere in the bible. And even more important than it just a concept, we have the founders who discussed this issue when the country was initially formed.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          James Madison
          (1751-1836; principal author, U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights; 4th U.S. President, 1809-1817

          Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? (James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: The Citadel Press, pp. 459-460. According to Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 39 ff., Madison's "Remonstrance" was instrumental in blocking the multiple establishment of all denominations of Christianity in Virginia.)

          The only ultimate protection for religious liberty in a country like ours, Madison pointed out–echoing Jefferson;–is public opinion: a firm and pervading opinion that the First Amendment works. "Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance." (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 56. Madison's words, according to Gaustad, are from his letter of 10 July 1822 to Edward Livingston.)

          At age eighty-one [therefore, in 1832?], both looking back at the American experience and looking forward with vision sharpened by practical experience, Madison summed up his views of church and state relations in a letter to a "Reverend Adams": "I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others." (Robert L. Maddox, Separation of Church and State: Guarantor of Religious Freedom, New York: Crossroad, 1987, p. 39.)

          John Adams
          (1735-1826; major leader at Constitutional Convention in 1787; 2nd U.S. President , 1797-1801)
          We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu. (John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825. Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. From Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 234.)

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Thomas Paine
            (1737-1809; author of Common Sense; key American patriotic writer)

            As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith. (Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776. As quoted by Leo Pfeffer, "The Establishment Clause: The Never-Ending Conflict," in Ronald C. White and Albright G. Zimmerman, An Unsettled Arena: Religion and the Bill of Rights, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990, p. 72.)

            A few of the Other Leaders and Thinkers of the Revolutionary Era

            "Does not the core of all this difficulty lie in this," Isaac Backus–a Separatist minister turned Baptist–asked rhetorically in replying to a detractor in 1768, "that the common people [justly] claim as good a right to judge and act for themselves in matters of religion as civil rulers or the learned clergy?" (James A. Henretta, The Evolution of American Society, 1700-1815: An Interdisciplinary Analysis, Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company, 1973, p. 136.)

            Religious matters are to be separated from the jurisdiction of the state not because they are beneath the interests of the state, but, quite to the contrary, because they are too high and holy and thus are beyond the competence of the state. (Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 1773, as quoted by Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, compilers, The Great Quotations on Religious Liberty, Long Beach, CA: Centerline Press, 1991, p. 7.)

            That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience. (Patrick Henry, 1736-1799, American patriot and statesman, Virginia Bill of Rights, June 12, 1776. From Daniel B. Baker, ed., Political Quotations, Detroit: Gale Research, Inc., 1990, p. 189.)

            For the civil authority to pretend to establish particular modes of faith and forms of worship, and to punish all that deviate from the standards which our superiors have set up, is attended with the most pernicious consequences to society. It cramps all free and rational inquiry, fills the world with hypocrites and superstitious bigots–nay, with infidels and skeptics; it exposes men of religion and conscience to the rage and malice of fiery, blind zealots, and dissolves every tender tie of human nature. And I cannot but look upon it as a peculiar blessing of Heaven that we live in a land where everyone can freely deliver his sentiments upon religious subjects, and have the privilege of worshipping God according to the dictates of his own conscience, without any molestation or disturbance–a privilege which I hope we shall ever keep up and strenuously maintain. (Samuel West, Dartmouth, MA, Election Sermon, 1776, as quoted by Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, compilers, The Great Quotations on Religious Liberty, Long Beach, CA: Centerline Press, 1991, p. 103.)

          • Dionesius3

            And by they way, all you quoted only proves that the Federal Government has no right to establish any one religion. It says nothing whatsoever about what is commonly blathered about by liberals today.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I made no reference to liberals of today. I quoted the Founding Fathers.

            And it is because the government cannot establish a religion that it is necessary to keep religion and the government separate.

        • Dionesius3

          Yeah buddy,
          Write a whole book of your silly blather, I am sure it will be a best seller.
          You have got to be about the dumbest PUBIC SKOOLL product in the world today.
          Keep swallowing your GOVERNMENT Kool-Aid. It always turns out well when you do. Just look up Jonestown on google if you don't get the Kool-aid reference.
          But I doubt you have the time since your so busy defending an Idiotic idea like the separation of church and state.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I was aware of the Jonestown reference. Just another example of what happens when religious people have too much control over people.

        • Dionesius3

          And lastly, as I said you can't show any separation in the Constitution because it is not there, never was, and never will be.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Since I just did that very thing, your comment is meaningless.

      • Dionesius3

        And, by the way the same folks you are quoting had NO problem with state governments setting up state religions. In fact state. Religions did not end until well into the twentieth century.
        Mental moron, who can't answer the question you were asked.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          State governments can set up a state religion. However, they are not stupid enough to do so. If you want to see rioting in the streets, tell the citizens of any state that they must follow the rules of a certain religion.

        • bighoss

          But when the 14th Amendment was adopted, that removed the prerogative of states to establish state religions. The Supreme Court has so ruled and, like it or not, that is the way it is.

          Your level of understanding of the First Amendment is shamefully simplistic and disordered. Your attitude in this matter is one of inane overconfidence. My experience has been that persons so afflicted simply can not be rehabilitated, regardless of how much truth is heaped on the platter before them. Thus I find no reason to provide you with any more advice in the matter. Teaching pigs to fly would be easier.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            That is true. However, I think a case could be made for a state adopting a state religion. However, I stand by my comment that the people in charge are not wanting to do something that would be so upsetting to so many different people.

          • Dionesius3

            Again, you show your state, and government sponsored educational bias. Our nation was not and is not a Democracy where all the individuals get to decide on how things are run. Our nation was established as a Representative Republic wherein the people elect representatives to govern. This congress is divided into two bodies, the house of representatives who shall have the shortest terms and the closest connection to the masses, and the other is the Senate which shall have been appointed by the Govenors of the various states and be the most insulated from the whims of the masses (but our stupid people and leaders decided not to follow the founders wishes and turned the Senate into a long-term elected position much to the detriment of the stability of our government), and then our nation had two other branches of governance established, the executive branch consisting of the President and the vice-president, and lastly the judicial branch consisting of the Supreme Court. Each branch is to have EQUAL power, but different roles.
            What you have been describing is not what I just laid out. What you have spoken of is a government that has sold it's self into slavery to the lowest form of government and that is Democracy. And has elevated the executive branch to become the Supreme dictator over the other branches. The problem we are having in our nation today has to do with the Legislative branch abusing their "power of the purse" by voting to spend money in their own pet projects to benefit their own constituents, and the executive branch overstepping it's enumerated power by illegal Executive Orders to circumvent the legislative and judicial branches of government.
            And finally, we have an enfeebled Judicial branch who is afraid of both the other branches and decides cases based more often than not on political whim rather than the body of the Law.
            So your above comment is a reflection of your misunderstanding of the nature of our present political problems.
            Please study a bit and learn how far we have strayed from the Founding Father's ideals. 99% of them if they were alive today would be leading a second Revolution against this hybrid monster leviathan government we call the United States.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            "Our nation was not and is not a Democracy"

            I have not stated it is a democracy, so that comment is meaningless.

            "What you have been describing is not what I just laid out."

            That is true. I have not been discussing the three branches of government. I have been discussing how the Founders viewed the concept of separation of church and state and were it is found in the Constitution. So, once again, you have made a meaningless comment.

            Let us revisit your original statement. "Show me in the constitution where there is ANY separation of church and state." You were not talking about the three branches of government then or at any other time until you suddenly threw it in as a red herring. I not only answered your question, I provided you with substantive support from the Founders on how there is a separation of church and state in the Constitution.

          • Dionesius3

            No what you laid out was a fools guide to Modern interpretation of the constitution.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Since the Founders and the Supreme Court are on my side and you have only your unsupported opinion on yours, you are the one looking foolish on the topic.

          • Dionesius3

            There is no founder on the side of removing religion from government. The founder's were dead set against having a national religion. Not against expressing one's religious beliefs. Have you never read the speeches and addresses of All the presidents, congress members, supreme court justices, etc. In EVERY one of the you find copious use of religion, religious thought, and the name of God. Most up until fairly recently, openly prayed and encouraged church attendance. In fact Franklin Roosevelt called for five National Days of Prayer and Repentance during WW2.
            So you don,t have the founder's on YOUR side unless you are simply advocating that separation means only the government can not establish a religion.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You are setting new records for changing the terms of the argument in the middle of the debate. We are discussing the concept of separation of church and state. Not the three branches of government and not whether the Founders were pro or con on the idea of expressing religious views in public. Is it asking too much of you that you actually respond to what I have posted instead of branching off on superfluous ideas?

            I have already shown you quotes from the Founders where they state very clearly that religion and government are best when not joined together. That does not mean a politician cannot be religious, however, it does mean that the policies they promote cannot favor one religion over another.

  • ElViejo

    I wonder if Muhammad would pass Obama's test…..

  • guest

    This is all about bringing in some new ideology, like they have finally figured things out after all these centuries of humanity. Sin is still sin, folks. You don't force people to give others the tools they need for "safe" fornication.

    • myth buster

      It's worse than that- the bishops of the early Church didn't mince words when condemning contraceptives: they said that a marriage where contraceptives were used was a sham, and that while nominally husband and wife, they were in fact whoremonger and harlot. Worse still, "You do not even allow a harlot to remain only a harlot; you make her a murderess as well!" They understood that the only people who were permitted to refuse parenthood were those who forsook sex for the sake of the Kingdom, either by remaining celibate or by living as brother and sister (that is, though nominally married, agreeing not to have sex- an arrangement a validly married couple could enter or exit at any time, but must do so together).

      Now this is no condemnation to the infertile, for it is God who opens and closes the womb. If you are remaining faithful to your spouse and not actively subverting the marital act by deliberately obstructing its fruitfulness, you can hold your head up, or like Hannah cry out to God begging to be healed of the disease of infertility. However, if you are subverting your own fertility with sodomy, with preventing semen from entering the vagina, or with poison, see as a warning what happened to Onan when he subverted the fruitfulness of his sexuality and denied his wife offspring.

  • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

    You are like a Roman Catholic priest repeating mindlessly Scriptures which you do not properly understand while completely ignoring massive issues and errors in your religion. You make God a hypocrite by your vain assertions for whose doctrine is truly "different" if not yours in which you have been caught red handed and contradicting the very Scriptures which you mindlessly an religiously repeat?

    • Dionesius3

      Des, Des, Des,
      I see your up to your old tricks again. Bullying people who have no desire to argue Calvinism with you.
      Do I need to step in again and shut you up.
      Or do you want to play nice?

      • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

        Forget the Calvinism, but do not forget the Word of God. It says what it says to which you and rest or corrupt sense of justice men centered pseudo gospel followers HAVE NO REAL ANSWERS because it does not fit in your synergistic system of men. Look at total evasion by msjallen. She will carpet bomb with here biblical collage but never, ever answer to the biblical point she is pressed on to which she does not have any real answer. This is precisely why just as you she is more interested and in discussing and smearing me that honestly answer to the Word of God. How can you people sleep at night with this kind of inconsistency in most important matters?

        • Dionesius3

          Des,
          Let us worry about us, she asked you to stop. So stop already, who is she hurting? If you don' t like her beliefs tell her once and leave it at that. Don't berate and name call for the sake of having your way.
          Your smarter than that, I believe.
          You and I disagree on some issues, but we have a lot more in common than 90% of the people who post here.
          Let's try a little positive persuasion for a change, what do you say?
          Might just take them by suprize.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "Let us worry about us, she asked you to stop."

            A. She did not, she carpet bombs with her bible collage.

            B.Stop whining about me quoting God's truth

            C. If it is hurting then only in the place of lie and that need to hurt.

            D. I am not that "smart" I am a fool for God and I take that any time over the wisdom of men.

            E. I have not seen that commonality with you yet but perhaps I am too careless.

          • Dionesius3

            Des,
            This is really getting old.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Indeed. Whole Scripture is really from about 2000 to 3600 years old. Thanks for pointing that out.

            Tell you what. Instead of reading me. I think you will do better by reading here: http://www.reformation21.org

          • Dionesius3

            You are arguing for YOUR interpretation of Scripture.
            And if you want carpet bombing, baby I can carpet bomb with the best of them, as you know.
            So now the choice is yours.
            Keep it up and we will go nuclear on you again.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            There is nothing of "MY interpretation" here. It says PREPARED for DESTRUCTION of PREPARED for GLORY. I know you synergists do not like to acknowledge that but for unbiased people this is clear and evident.

          • Dionesius3

            For unbiased Calvinist it is. But for most it's not.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Empty ad hominem. Zero on the text. Your whole system is a balloon of assertions and nothing else.

          • Pastor Dwayne

            Dez. Rom. 9: 15 I will have mercy…..This verse emphasizes the freedom of God's mercy. His overflowing active compassion cannot be earned or controlled by us humans. He has willed to have mercy on all Read Rom. 11:32 " For God has included all men in disobedience , that He might have mercy on EVERY man".
            Rom. 9:18 " Thus He has mercy on whom he pleases , and he hardens whom he pleases "…… God intends to show mercy upon those who repent and believe on Jesus as Lord and Savior, while He hardens all those who refuse to repent and choose to continue in their sins , thereby rejecting God's salvation in Christ .

          • Pastor Dwayne

            Ex. 7:3 The more Pharaoh resisted God's will the more God Hardened Pharaoh's heart. So, resisting God's will and his truth, in God's plan of salvation God will Harden hearts to not believe , becoming vessels of anger fitted for destruction
            2 Thes. 2:10-12 " And with all deceitfulness of unrighteousness in those who perish, because they recieved not the love of the truth, that they might be saved thereby. 11. For this reason God shall send them strong delusion (Hardness of heart) that they should believe a lie . 12. That all who did not believe in the truth but preferred unrighteousness might be damned" ( might become vessels of God's anger)

          • Pastor Dwayne

            Rom. 9: 22-23 Now then, if God wanted to show His anger and make His power known , would he not then, after the abundance of His patience, ( in other words given time for repentance ) then, bring wrath upon the vessels of wrath which were ready for destruction ? 23. But He poured His mercy upon the favored vessels, ( those who received God's salvation into their life) which were prepared for the glory of God( past tense)

          • Despeville

            None here denies God's mercy so all your comments and quotes are really besides the point. It is mercy COMBINED with God's ABSOLUTE FREEDOM which you limit and deny by asserting man's absolute freedom.
            These two verses from Romans 9:15-16 beautifully present BOTH at the SAME TIME

            "For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.
            So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

            You want to believe that it does depend on man and his "running" rather than solely and exclusively on God who DOES show mercy to whom He WILLS.

          • Dionesius3

            Good comment Des, I am impressed. No bad attitude this time.

          • Pastor Dwayne

            Dionesius3,,, The only trouble with des's finishing sentence above was God shows mercy on whom he WILLS . read Rom. 11:32 His will is on everybody, ""For God has included all men in disobedience , that he might have mercy on EVERY man"" So the doctrine of God predestinating certain people to heaven and certain men to hell just went out the window. I have said over and over, if you are going to have a doctrine on any subject there cannot be contridictary scriptue as Rom 11:32

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Your trouble is with GOD and His word for that is what it says. I also responded to your abuse of Romans 11:32 and your mutilating it out of the context. Whole chapter speaks about BRANCHES yet you want to assume that EVERYBODY is included even the weeds… You embraced a false pseudo gospel preferred by men and hated by God.

          • Despeville

            He has willed to have mercy on all Read Rom. 11:32 " For God has included all men in disobedience , that He might have mercy on EVERY man". "

            There is no "every" in Romans 11:32 but "all" – πᾶς pas… And that "all" as most if not every single one of them in NT is QUALIFIED by the CONTEXT and this is no different here. Not only the whole chapter talks about "branches" where you would also like to see weeds but in a very preceding verse Roman 11:32 there is a distinct qualification as to that "all" in the next verse and that is "these also now not believed"… Please stop treating the Bible like a phone book and your assertion of "absolute free will of men" has been shown again as extra and counter biblical.

          • Dionesius3

            Des, that would have been a great response if you had left off "Please stp treating the bible like…" That is snarky. And unnecessary unless it is done in a funny manner and not in a demeaning fashion as it appears to be here.
            Yes, you disagree with Dewayne, and yes, you believe you are more consistent Biblically than him, but again you are not the final Authoritative word in the discussion. So you don't have a right to say those types of things and expect him to respond to you in a gentlemanly manner.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Listen, if you want to be a unreasonable hypocrite then go ahead and lecture me about being "snarky"… Read yourself you are doing exactly what you deny others. I know you are more intelligent than that yet your emotions get in the way. That's OK we work through that. With all due respect I do not care a single bit about your opinion about any of it.

          • Pastor Dwayne

            Des is not more consistent Biblically , he is more consistent in calvinism however

          • Pastor Dwayne

            Just by God having mercy doesn't save anyone . Salvation is a gift , one must perform his free will to RECEIVE the gift of Salvation, Jn 1 :12.
            The Calvinsts thought they had C Spurgeon under their wings , then when he preached on, "whomsoever will" it blew the Calvinists minds , and really torked off the ULTRA calvinists

    • msjallen

      II Cor 12:20 For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances;

  • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

    "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience VESSELS OF WRATH PREPARED FOR DESTRUCTION? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon VESSELS OF MERCY, which He PREPARED BEFORE HAND FOR GLORY, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. "

    ~ Romans 9:19-24

    VERSUS religiosity of men and false sense of corrupt justice of men:

    'BTW, God does not predistinate anyone to hell; unblelievers go to hell when they die only because they did not believe in Jesus Christ as their savior."
    ~msjallen

    • msjallen

      2 John 1:7-11 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

      • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

        More biblical collage by Gnostic priestess msjallen who cannot account for and explain the same Scritures in her "decisional theology" made in Rome… Too bad you have to avoid God's truth and carpet bomb with something else:

        "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience VESSELS OF WRATH PREPARED FOR DESTRUCTION? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon VESSELS OF MERCY, which He PREPARED BEFORE HAND FOR GLORY, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. "

        ~ Romans 9:19-24

  • Madeline

    Muhammad is dead, he and B.O. should have worried about the test they will have to pass when they are brought back to life to stand at the "Great White Throne of God", to be tested by the ' King of kings, and Lord of lords", Jesus Christ the ONLY Son of God!

  • Steve03

    Speaking of tests, has anyone here noticed that Romney's newly appointed foreign policy advisor is a "sodomite" and proud of it? What does that say about Romney's commitment to Biblical values?

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      That appointment is a smart move on behalf of Romney and has gotten him the attention of many in the national security community. It is also amusing that the Islamic world is so upset by this and the attacks have started. The orders to attack Phares came directly from Tehran's regime via Hezbollah and Hamas propagandists in the US. As'ad Abukhalil, a Hezbollah senior propagandist based in California has been attacking Phares for the last few years. He led the campaign in an article in Salon.com. Nihad Awad, the head of lobby group CAIR led the main campaign by issuing the original letter of defamation. CAIR is a known front to Hamas. And CAIR works also with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Iranians and the Muslim Brotherhood consider Phares as one of the most strategic thinkers who has been advising members of Congress and the European Parliament on the Jihadi strategies and ideologies. Becoming an adviser to a Presidential candidate was considered as a problem to Iran's regime and the Muslim Brotherhood. Hence the stunning attacks against the scholar. One interesting and revealing part of these attacks was unfolded by CAIR ally who writes for the Mother Jones, Adam Serwer. He actually wrote that Phares was a board member of the movie Iranium, uncovering indirectly who is behind the campaign and why. Serwer, who wages attacks against US national security experts and scholars on Islamism, is in fact an operative for CAIR/Iran. To attack Phares he cited a woman who operates with a Hezbollah ally, General Michel Aoun.
      Interestingly Phares and a number of experts and analysts who assist the US Government in education of counter terrorism circles were attacked by a cohort of Muslim Brotherhood entities who pause as Research Centers including the so-called "Fear Inc" report. A quick research shows John Esposito, who teaches at a Saudi Wahabi funded program at Georgetown University as the main reviewer of the report.
      But the concerted efforts by the Iran/Muslim Brotherhood strike force against Phares had a counter effect as it has been convincing even more people that candidates should hire top experts in the field to counter the Jihadi propaganda. Romney did very well and other candidates are now rushing to do the same. According to analysts in US politics, the mistake of the propagandists was attacking Phares during a primaries season. Instead of weakening the resolve of candidates and intimidating them, not only Phares now has even more influence, but more of the Phares caliber experts are being asked to serve the various campaigns. The last Foreign Policy debate in South Caroline showed that -other than Ron Paul, almost all candidates have sought advise similar to Phares' research in countering Iran and the Jihadi threat.

  • Richard Colonel

    Why read the about the actions of others and then place the blame of President Barack Obama? Every thing that happened during the years from 2001 to 2009 Was all George W. Bush's doing. Don't forget the comment he made in September of 2008: "If Barack wins, he's going to have a mess to clean up." And it was G.W. Bush who inherited $400 billion from the Clinton administration and then squandered it away within two years.

    • Daniel

      True, but no comment from the right, how funny.

  • Daniel

    Muslims are NOT for gay marraige, so clearly not a Muslim, but whatever.