2 Humped Camel

Again,

 

Matthew 10:33

 

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."

 

We may have different Interpretations of this verse, but here is my view.

 

Obama and the White House had Jesus's name covered up. Denying his name to the media, cameras, and other spectators to the crowd. WHY??? Why do this? Why take the extra effort to cover up our Savior's name? Why not just move the event outside? I just don't understand the purpose here.

 

If you don't believe in God, Jesus, or the Bible then obviously it's not a big deal to you... But I don't see how a person of God can just shrug this off their shoulders? Seems to me that religous views are being put behind political views which is disturbing. And to be fair, if this was George W. I would be jumping down his throat as well.

So you're saying that anyone who has ever denied being a follower of Christ under any circumstances will be denied entry into Heaven?:confused:

Its a good thing for my sake and many others I suspect that our saviour is much more forgiving than a lot of his followers.

Seriously though? I mean really... Is that all you've got?

 

I've got a very good memory, thank you.

 

Are you a christian? Do you believe in what the Bible says and truly believe it's true? If so, then you know it says if you deny Christ he'll deny you. I don't get how it's that hard to understand?

You are grossly skewing what "deny Christ" means. It is rejecting salvation and failing to repent and ask for forgiveness, not covering up engraved words on a wall, but then again I suspect you know that already.

Coke Zero

Okay folks, those of you that have a problem with my idea. Why do you have a problem with it?

 

What is wrong with threating violence to people who are illegally trying to violate our national borders?

Because for the most part the people trying to cross the border are good hard working people trying to make a better life for their families; forgive me if I think killing them for that is more than a harsh suggestion. I am also guessing that you are not of Native American decent; so if this is true someone in your family tree was most likely an immigrant and came here because our freedoms offered a better life. You are going to probably say that they did it legal which would probably be accurate, however I think we can both agree the path to citizenship was much faster and easier for them.

You are right that Peter rejected Christ, not only once, but three times. One of the most humiliating things for me to admit is that I too have denied Christ. When the opportunity arose, I did not share my faith. I was afraid that people would see me as a zellot or a freak.

I have vowed now to share my faith with everyone.

Matthew 5:5

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

 

As for your assumption that I supported McCain. I was actually a supporter of Mike Huckabee. I'm pretty sure he is a "Born again Christian".

 

You probably need to get your facts strait before you question someone's faith. From the Saddleback forum:

Rick Warren: First, you've made no doubt about the fact that you are a Christian. You publicly say you're a follower of Christ. What does that mean to you?

John McCain: It means I'm saved and forgiven.

First in the post I didn't suggest that you personally supported McCain, but given that Huckabee wasn't an option for the presidential election that point is rather unimportant.

Second, obviously I was incorrect with what I wrote but I wouldn't call that questioning his faith, at least not the exent that many on this forum preach Obama straight to the lake of fire.

Third, and by your own admission you haven't always been the most willing to share your faith with others; there are many people in the Bible that had moments of weakness or doubts in their faith so why be so harsh on those who may or may not be at the same point on thier spiritual journey as you?

So you want to reward them for breaking the law?

:thumb:

 

I've been saying we need to put mines on the boarder for the past 5 years.

 

I'll go a step further though. Those illegals that make it through the mines and into the country, are granted automatic citizenship.

That's not it at all. You kill the ones that don't want to do it legally.

I was going to answer your question to me but then you went from the sublime to the ridiculous.:isurrender:

Well it could include Code Pink people.

It could include people who are pro-choice.

It could include people who work at Walt Disney World.

It could include blue-eyed people.

It could include people who said darnation to the USA in a sermon.

It could include college professors who have bombed and killed people in terrorists attacks in the past.

It could include brown-eyed people.

But she didn't include any of those.

I'd agree but did you miss the 2 other reports released in the last year on left wing extremist?

No, but if you have a shirt that says “I love Jesus”, and you refuse to wear it because of what someone else may say or think you have in fact rejected him.

I'm not Bible scholar but I was taught that rejecting Christ was not accepting him as your Lord and Saviour, not repenting of your sins and asking for forgiveness. Rejecting Christ has nothing to do with wearing a T-shirt. Do you think Peter is in heaven? He did deny Christ 3 times. People are imperfect and politics even more so. It is obvious that Obama is trying to balance his faith with his staunch belief in the seperation of church and state. The ironic thing to me in all of this is that most of the people up in arms over this supported McCain, who is more than hesitant to discuss his faith and to my knowledge as never claimed to be a born again Christian, unlike Obama who openly acknowledges being a born again Christian. Support one who doesn't acknowledge but pass horrible judgement on the one who acknowledges.....I don't understand.:confused:

Best Hogie in the world!

The Paranoia on some of these threads is sufficating

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

 

I guess that makes me a rightwing extremist.

Well you guys could be the first witnesses that I must be a rightwing extremist, too.

I think you guys are being overly dramatic. The report said it MAY include groups and individuals......

Which is acurate IMO or was the guy who killed the police officers in Pittsburg an extremist, or people who shoot Dr's at abortion clinics, or people who burn down housing developments and destroy logging equipment?

Paranoid extremist

Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon," said Edward Perkovic, his best friend.

I won't pretend to be familiar with the specifics of President Obama's plan, but assuming it is more than simply saying that anyone here is legal, wouldn't it be equally as difficult to round up those 12 million people to start the process of legalization?

While I don't know all of the specifics either, and tend to agree that it will still be difficult to implement; I think the attraction of citizenship and not having the threat of being deported and seperated from your family would be very attractive to most in question.

Read the Constitution and you will not find anything about seperation of church and state. I know some liberal teachers teach made-up stuff like this, but it is not in the Constitution.

 

I believe 99% who use this line are liberals. The followers of Marx and Lenin do want the people to believe in a god. This is used to move Americans away from God and into totalitarian state.

Either all of your beliefs/definitions of liberals are wrong or all the liberal leaning people I know fall in the 1%. I'll go with the former.:ohbrother:

Kinda hard to get people to worship at the altar of government, the power of the state and the authority of the esteemed leader if they're already committed to a Divine Being.

 

Faith in God and belief in the truth of, and application of the virtues and morals of the Bible have done more to make America great than any other influence in our history. Removing ourselves from this foundation is a recipe for disaster.

 

Idiots who insist upon covering up emblems representing the things that undergird our independence and success as a nation do not deserve to be in any kind of leadership position... at all.

You should state that as your opinion and not a fact, because just maybe it is the freedom that makes America great, including the freedom to not have faith in God and applying the virtues of the bible. Just saying, hows "insert therocracy here" doing on the great nation scale?

I never listen to NPR. Because of your 1st statement is incorrect, I am not sure what to make of the rest of your comment.

I know you only listen to Fox news and "the talk shows", so I'm not sure what to make out of your comments.

As pointed out on talk shows yesterday the liberals will call their own people terrorists, but not the Islamic-fascists who want or have actually attacked us terrorists.

 

We do have home grown wackos on both sides of the political spectrum.

On the right we have McVeigh and the guy who targeted the abortions doctors.And lets not forget the KKK.

On the left we have the Weatherman, SLA, Bill Ayers and his wife, the female killer released from a CA. jail and allowed to go back to MN, plus ELF, the eniviro-wack jobs that have burned up millions of dollars of property. I'm quite sure there are others to be added to the list.

I bet you heard that on NPR....I consider myself liberal I classify people as terrorist who use violence against innocent people as a means to and end. That doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, nationality, religion, geographic location or even the nobility of the cause. So at least in my case your talk shows are wrong.

Texas governor threatens to secede......The more and more I read things like this the more I think the GOP still hasn't figured it out and is hastening the process of them becoming a regional party(southern and some rural western states). Anyone care to share feelings http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1319632.html

We are not a Christian nation, we are a secular nation for good reason. Couldn't you imagine all the fighting if Christianity was declared our national religion? Baptist, Catholics, Methodist, etc all trying to get their denomination to be the "offiical" religion. I fail to understand the uproar over our President making a factual statement that is in the Constitution. We are not a Christian nation we are a secular nation that happens to have many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans,etc, etc, etc.

I think you are confusing this "stuff" with all of those brainless demonstrations from the left usually attended by those with no means of self support. Still, it is unlikely that the tea parties will have a large participation. Unlike those who normally demonstrate, most all of those who would attend this protest are employed (ie: taxpayers) and will not be able to miss work.

Kind of like a whole bunch of Obama voters. They had no clue about issues or where Obama stood but they voted for him because it was cool.

:puke: Seriously, liberal leaning people don't work and are clueless about issues. Is this the third grade?:ohbrother:

They have the right to protest whatever they want. I don't agree with them and I don't think they will be successful because if you read some of the signs some talk about socialism some talk about taxation without representation, etc. What are they protesting exactly other than the party they don't support being in control?

No, can't tear myself away from Rockband when I get time to play.

Isn't this a classic example of the pot and the kettle?

This is rewarding someone for breaking our laws. This is as black and white as any situation could ever be. It is wrong! It is a slap in the face of every immigrant that has ever bided their time and come here the legal way. Saying there are so many illegals here, you could never deport them all is like saying there are so many felons that own guns, we should just let them all own guns. This is just another way of buying votes. The latino community will applaud this and it will motivate them even more to support the liberal agenda of Obama and the democrats. You can't change the laws to benefit you, but this is exactly what they are doing.

What is your proposal to round up and deport 12 million people?

By teaching him or her the potential consequences of acting on those urges rather then providing them with tacit approval for their actions by saying it's human nature. I believe that programs that provide birth control to teens do give tacit approval to the behavior.

 

If teenage sex is "human nature" then why don't all teens have sex?

Maybe some aren't interested yet, maybe lack of opportunity, a conscious decision to ignore/turn away from those urges....I could be many things. Going back to your earlier post about teenage sex being more prevelant now. I think it was just hidden more in previous generations. I am quite certain though that there were a lot of fogged up windows at the drive-ins and a a lot of rabbits died for some reason. Society is much more open with it and flaunting it is almost common place, while I agree that a greater percentage is probably sexually active than say in the 50's, but not that much greater IMO. Of course I wasn't alive so it is purely speculation.

Abstinence definitely works. You can't get an STD or pregnant if you abstain.

 

Teaching abstinence isn't perfect, but it may save a few kids from hard times. Sex has become a recreational activity for our adolescents. Something needs to be done and teaching them only about birth control sends the wrong message and expectations.

While I agree that abstinence definitely works in preventing std's and pregnancies. I disagree that sex has become a recreational activity for adolescents, I think it always has been and always will be which IMO makes abstinence ineffective. It's human nature and we are talking about a time in a person's life when those urges are running wild.