BCP1928 said:

It was a plank in Pat Robertson's platform when he ran for President in 1988. During the Civil War Christians were putting heavy pressure on to change "We the People" in the Constitution to "Jesus Christ." Lincoln fobbed them off by agreeing to put "In God we trust" on the coinage. The point is, Christians have been trying for official religious preference for decades and have largely failed. It's too soon to worry about Muslim immigrants.

Click to expand...

And Robertson wasn't voted in. Christians have been a majority of this country for a very long time. We had the opportunities to do something and never have. In fact as Rob pointed out polling is clear that we are not in favor of it.

However a core tenet of Islam is religious/government control. There is no separation of church and state. And polls indicate what they want even in the West. Especially those who come from those countries. And we have seen what they have done in other places and in America. We have clear evidence of it actually occurring.

So to continue to ignore and deny is foolish.

fhansen said:

Yes, and I think we might be over-complicating things a bit. Should we prefer to be socially unjust? And yet we necessarily live in societies, societies where injustices often occur due to the avarice and general selfishness of man. Social justice concepts at their best strive to identify and rectify those actions and systems that foster inequalities between our fellow man. With the onset of the industrial revolution, for example, labor was often woefully exploited, with low pay, poor and unsafe working conditions, sweatshops, etc. Some churches spoke out in support of unions and the right to strike. Were they being hypocritically judgmental against the poor industrialists? Similiarly the Geneva convention was a matter of setting forth social justice policies as they can be applied to the tragedy of war. Political involvement is sometimes morally demanded.

Click to expand...

You make an important observation about the real injustices that occur in human societies. Scripture is not blind to oppression—God hears the cry of the afflicted (Exod. 22:23), condemns exploitation (Isa. 10:1–2), and calls His people to acts of mercy (Mic. 6:8). Whenever it is in our power to relieve suffering, the love of Christ compels us to do so (1 John 3:17–18). Compassion is not optional for the Christian.

But at the same time, we must remember what Christ actually commissioned His Church to do. Jesus did not send His disciples into the world to proclaim a program of social reform. He sent them to proclaim the gospel—the good news of repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name (Luke 24:47), and to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18–20). Social justice—however noble—is temporal. It may ease suffering for a season, but it cannot save a soul. Only the gospel “is the power of God for salvation” (Rom. 1:16).

There is also a spiritual danger in making social justice our primary mission. When we begin to define and enforce what we believe is “just,” we risk stepping into the very role Scripture warns us against. Jesus cautions us not to judge by our own standards (Matt. 7:1–5), and Paul reminds us that human wisdom is always limited (1 Cor. 1:20–25). Political activism can subtly shift our trust from Christ to our own sense of moral correctness. In trying to fix society, we may lose sight of the only One who can truly transform hearts.

Jesus Himself asked, “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?” (Mark 8:36). Even if we managed to create a perfectly just society—a world free of exploitation, inequality, and suffering—without the gospel, people would still die in their sins. Christ’s mission is eternal; earthly justice, at its very best, is temporary.

So yes, we should relieve suffering when we can. The Good Samaritan is our model for personal compassion (Luke 10:33–37). But we must not confuse compassion with commission. The Church’s calling is to lift up Christ, not to become the world’s political judge. If we lose our grip on the gospel in the name of justice, we risk giving people a better world—while they lose their souls.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro faces subpoena over private home security upgrades after firebombing​

A GOP-led committee in the state legislature voted Tuesday to issue three subpoenas seeking records related to, among other things, roughly $1 million in security upgrades to his personal home in the suburbs of Philadelphia. The Intergovernmental Operations Committee is also seeking documents concerning "several charter flights arranged for the Governor's Office" in mid-January.

"The Pennsylvania State Police and independent security experts conducted thorough reviews to pinpoint security failures, review protocols, identify gaps, and make concrete recommendations for improvements to the Governor’s security. As a direct result of those recommendations, security improvements have been put in place to keep the Governor and his family safe," the spokesperson said. "The Shapiro Administration has repeatedly responded to lawmakers' inquiries on this matter and publicly released a substantial amount of information about the security improvements put in place by PSP without compromising those security protocols."

sjastro said:

For the millionth time you half wit

Click to expand...

Sorry no. You disqualify yourself with this sort of stuff.

iluvatar5150 said:

Guess we'd better build them some schools, then, eh? Hey look, there's jobs in that, too - construction, teaching, etc.

Click to expand...

Paid for by the government with the endless supply of money, even though there are more people dependent on government assistance. But I guess that’s the goal, create more people that are dependent on the government who will vote for the party that gives them the handouts.
My wife is a 4th grade teacher and her students tell her that they will not have to work because they can get a check

BPPLEE said:

More babies who will grow up to be dependent on welfare themselves

Click to expand...

Guess we'd better build them some schools, then, eh? Hey look, there's jobs in that, too - construction, teaching, etc.

For the solidarity of their faith, let them see that their status as a believer is maintained by the faithfulness of God. Establish the simplicity of the Gospel in their hearts and minds.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Establish that the Father and Jesus is on their side. Jesus and the Father want them to succeed.


Hebrews 13:5 KJV
5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Romans 8:35-39 KJV
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Of course, there are many others. But at the beginning, I think, it is essential to reinforce these sorts of facts in the new believer.

rjs330 said:

And this is Sharia law.

Click to expand...

Which is a religious law that, contrary to your earlier claims, does not supercede civil law anywhere in the US. Again, the woman has every legal right to pursue a divorce in this country than any other woman would.

Belk said:

A much as all the other refugees you are claiming without evidence.

Click to expand...

I guess you didn’t follow the conversation

BCP1928 said:

A person who tries to "beat down God with science" can easily be shown to be wrong. Even atheist scientists like Hans have tried to show you that it can't be done.

Click to expand...

If this is the case that atheist scientists or anyone using science to beat down the beliefs of Christians know that its impossible. Then every time they do ( and plenty of examples can be shown).

Then they are purposely attacking Christians knowing its impossible and this is blantant cruelty and bias against them. Its also a complete contradic tion to the sientific thinking they are using by insisting that it can. Making them hypocrites.

BCP1928 said:

As for Christian beliefs you rarely, if ever, present any, so I don't see what you are complaining about.

Click to expand...

Lol and what has that got to do with anything. Are you saying I have none and therefore its ok to attack me on Christian beliefs. The very fact I am arguing for Christian belief is supporting Christian belief.

The problem is you want specific words. Everything is measured by the words. You miss all the language that may not specifically mention Christian belief but is supporting Christian belief.

BCP1928 said:

It's not our fault that you know so little of Christian theology that you think such a thing is even possible.

Click to expand...

What that people are demanding Christians show evidence of God or otherwise they are fools and deluded. Do you want me to show you the evidence lol. Its in the language used.

BCP1928 said:

On the contrary, we're 1500 posts into a thread in which you are promoting pagan ideas about "transcendent knowlege" and "mind out of body" that we are trying to talk you out of. You should thank us.

Click to expand...

Once again you make a false claim. Show me where I am promoting pagan beliefs or mind and body. Let alone trying to talk me out of it.

Don't mistake mentioning the fact that there are pagan beliefs and others (even science) who themselves work on the mind and body issue and have done for centuries. Don't mistake mentioning them as some sort of endorsement or belief that they are true in themselves.

I have mentioned these only to point out that it is quite natural for humans to be inclined to believe in such transcedent ideas. Not that they are all true in any particular belief. Only that there is such a transcedent realm and that all the different beliefs are attempts to express this.

If there is a God and belief and spirituality as Paul mentions and we all know God. Then it makes sense that this knowledge is expressed in all sorts of different ways when people replace God with their own versions. Its actually support for a God.

Michie said:

A growing number of Britons who leave Christianity are turning to paganism or other forms of spiritualism instead of converting to other major religions, a new study has found.

The survey, released by the Institute for the Impact of Faith in Life, questioned 2,774 adults who self-identified as having "experienced a change in their religious belief," seeking to provide insight into "how, why, and in what direction Britons are moving between faiths, spiritualities, and non-belief."

The researchers conclude that "Britain is not secularising in a straightforward way" but rather "undergoing a re-composition of belief, a shift away from inherited institutional structures towards personalised, practice-based, and wellbeing-oriented forms of faith."

Forty-four percent of respondents said they left Christianity, while only 17% said they had newly become Christians. Meanwhile, 39% of respondents said they had become an atheist or agnostic.

Continued below.

Rising number of Brits leaving Christianity turning to paganism

A growing number of Britons who leave Christianity are turning to paganism or other forms of spiritualism instead of converting to other major religions, a new study has found

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

This often happens when the church waters down it's postion on current cultural and church issues.
When people see there is no difference between their watered down religion and the world, they figure, why bother?

Ivan Hlavanda said:

I know there are Christians out there that do not hold the view the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal history, Adam was not literal, God did not create everything in 6 days ets...because the science disproves this.

If you do not believe in literal Adam, you then cannot believe in literal 2nd Adam, Jesus Christ the Saviour. Because if Adam did not exist, then the fall did not happen and there is no need for a Saviour.

You cannot believe in a metaphorical Adam and then believe in literal resurrection of Christ, the second Adam who came to fix what the first Adam broke. You also have problem explaining Romans 5:12-21

P.S. I know the view of metaphorical Adam is held by very few, but it has been bothering me deeply that people believe this, and I am studying Romans 5 and this is on my heart.

Click to expand...

I haven't heard of a metaphorical Adam but there is a deeper meaning of Adam than the literal. It's allegorical.

We did have 3 Aussies and 5 Canucks and a couple from South Africa on the tour. The other 32 folks were American.

BPPLEE said:

Are they on government assistance?

Click to expand...

A much as all the other refugees you are claiming without evidence.

ThatRobGuy said:

That's what he claims...he also claims that he was approaching in (what appears to be an aggressive attack stance) to attempt to trade the knife for cigarettes.

View attachment 374221


If we're being honest, given the guy's previous criminal record of stabbing, and roughing up store clerks. In all likelihood, it was probably more of a "give me those smokes!" (holding the knife to imply "or else")


...but even if we operate on the assumption that the defendant's statements on that were 100% accurate, I would hope you're being facetious here. Someone yelling a slur from 20 feet away as a person is moving towards them with a brandished weapon wouldn't be justification for assaulting them with said weapon. (especially in an open-air environment in a state that establishes a duty to retreat)

Click to expand...

I bet there's an uber-radical leftist somewhere saying, man, I'm glad he got that pack of smokes, and knifed that fascist nazi.

iluvatar5150 said:

I didn't say I expected them to have that exact quote. I said I expected them to support your claim. They don't. They support a claim along the lines of "Islamism is dangerous and concerning." They don't support the claim you made, "Islamism is the biggest and most deadly threat in the world today."

Do you see the difference?



"They are dangerous" is not equivalent to "the biggest and most deadly threat in the world today."

Do you understand the difference?




I'm not ignoring anything. One of the problems here is that you're not being very precise with your words and you're not being very precise when reading mine. Maybe you don't intend to keep moving the goalposts and conflating different things, but that's effectively what you're doing every time you come back like this.

Did I say that Islamic communities don't harbor abuse? No, I didn't.

The comment of yours to which I was responding was this: "A man may get a divorce in a Sharia court and a woman has no legal option to representation and US courts will not intervene."

That's a comment about a woman's legal rights regarding a civil marriage. It's also incorrect. In my response, I made a distinction between her rights regarding the civil union (i.e. the one for which you have to get a marriage license) and her rights regarding the religious union (i.e. the one signed off on by the priest/rabbi/imam). Many religions have extra rules for marriages conducted within their purview; but at least in the US those rules are independent of any imposed by the state. A Muslim woman has the same rights as any other woman to pursue a civil divorce from her husband, which will then permit her to get married in a civil ceremony to whomever she wishes. It's only the religious side that the government stays out of - just like how the government won't force a Catholic annulment or a Baptist gay wedding, they also likely won't force a Muslim divorce, unless both parties have already agreed to that sort of arbitration.



I figured if you were going to level an accusation like that, you would've had at least one in the chamber, ready to go.

But if you don't, maybe you should stop making claims like that.

Click to expand...

Not going to. Next time I do it I'll try to point it out as an example.

iluvatar5150 said:

That's a comment about a woman's legal rights regarding a civil marriage.

Click to expand...

And this is Sharia law. A law that the men in Islam use in order to control women. Because women don't have the same rights. Women in these places can't just say no. They are pressured into it and then suffer under it. When you fail to see the control kn that then you fail to see the dangers of it. Genital mutilation is occuring in the West as has been proven by another poster.

And this isnt about every Muslim. This is about certain Muslims who are coming from these places. And Muslims who do not want to assimilate and want to create separate communities, separate courts, separate education separate everything. And its not about just buying some land and building their own Muslim community. Its about taking over EXISTING communities. Its happening in the US. Remember all the brew ha ha over the group who wanted to build their own community with white people. And everyone went nuts? They wanted their own space, they were not moving enmass into other communities and taking over.

jonojim1337 said:

Imagine complaining about a continent not being visible when all of ancient history tells us we have a submerged continent.

Click to expand...

You appear to be confusing history with mythology. Please present any ancient historical reference to a submerged continent.

Be on his side. That the problem the Catholic Church is having with replacement theology. They don’t think much of the Jews. They are where the term Christ killer came from.

Landon Caeli said:

That is disgusting in so many ways.

Click to expand...

Welcome to Haiti

essentialsaltes said:

“I saw a white male shooting at another person, a Black male,” said Michael Starks, who was in the parking lot when the shooting happened. “He could have hit him in the back, could have killed him, could have had a stray bullet that struck someone else.”

Police say 64-year-old Steven Douglas Wagner pulled a pistol and fired near the garden center around 3 p.m. at the store on Atlanta Highway.

A Lowe’s employee told police the young man had not stolen anything, according to Starks.

Starks called 911 and followed Wagner back into the store and snapped a photo that helped police make an arrest within minutes.

He said Wagner’s demeanor was concerning.

“He honestly thought he did nothing wrong and should have been rewarded for his actions,” Starks said.

Click to expand...

Let me check on what gun owners think about this.

The usual attitude is that you don't shoot at people running away from shoplifting.

The store has insurance for merchandise. You might hit someone else. You won't get a medal for heroism.

You're going to pay tens of thousands for a lawyer even if you get off.

And you're probably not going to get off.