Why do people hate ICE...
- By jonojim1337
- American Politics
- 497 Replies
No true Christian can worship Allah
That’s a very vague term. We worship Christ as our ’Allah’. Of course this brings us into conflict with the Muslims.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No true Christian can worship Allah
It was always a sin to take God's name in vain, worship idols, murder etc.
Rom 4 "where there is no law there is no sin"
Gal 3 is not talking about the Law not existing, it is talking about the Law in written form at Sinai.
1 John 3:4 "sin is transgression of the Law"
Gen 3 God says to Cain "sin is at your door, you must overcome it"
No explicit command said "do not murder" but from the text it is clear that that was already known.
In Gen 7 the clean animals are taken into the ark by pairs of 7, the unclean by two's. But we don't find the definition of clean vs unclean until Lev 11.
The book of Genesis does not record every word ever spoken for the first 2000 years
Makes sense to me! As they say “when in Rome…”If others were veiling at the Latin Mass then I probably would too.
I think the expression "heaven on earth" is pretty straight forward. It is about feeling like you're in a paradise or utopia in your everyday life. There is also the expression "hell on earth".No person knows what heaven is like, so how do they know that they are experiencing heaven on earth.
When the words are thrown around so readily its more than just stopping something.Being against/opposing white supremacy is not the same as being against/opposing white people. Many white people have and continue to fight against white supremacy and racism.
Hello Dale. I wouldn't say what you presented was 'everything we know'. Seems like vague and unverified dates given arbitrarily to fragmentary evidence. A better question could be how far do Historical Writings go back in time? God Bless YouEverything we know about the history of humans on earth contradicts the claim that the earth could be only 6,000 years old. The Bible is a source of moral and spiritual truth, but it is not a history text.
The Somalian fraud and tribalism was going on long before Trump. That is what happens when you import the third world into your country in mass, give them welfare to make them comfortable, and have zero expectation for them to assimilate. They bring they bring the third world with them and replicate it where they are.Votes for Trump, complains about fraud and tribalism.
classic.
Where I find lack of clarity is when phrases like "the grammar itself provides the reason" or "so there's the reason" are used, since that language sounds like a claim of textual necessity rather than interpretation.What other interpretations are plausible? What is the syntactic argument for their plausibility?
Where have I been unclear? Can you specifically quote what portion of my argument breaks down and fails to produce the conclusion I offered?
No verse before EX 20 says "do not take God's name in vain"Again, no verse that states that anyone before Moses kept the sabbath
Turns out God existed before Moses and God said Abraham "kept my commandments".. And as I stated in my previous post and you avoided like the plague is the FACT that no one read Genesis or Exodus until Moses wrote them
The problem here is your use of the word "sin."
I don't think Paul had any intention of implying that Emperor Nero respected the concept of "sin" as Paul himself did.
And not "sins" that the Body of Christ should expect worldly governments to punish.
Can you cite a verse?well, jesus stated that Genesis was a literal historical account
Serendipity.(Referring to him playing Buck Williams in the Left Behind movies, right?)
So your saying that ASL is not a useful language for the deaf because of a few bad interpreters and the inability to explain why Killary is either funny or astute.
We obviously need to start drafting pirates now.After they get through with studying vaccines and autism, they'll get on this hypothesis.
Me too. You used to whine about it too? I never would’ve guessed. I am trying not to anymore tho I want to
God says the Earth brought forth living things. But it was no accident. He created it with the ability to produce life. And after life started? Darwin's great discovery was that it was no accident. Natural selection is the antithesis of chance.That molecules ended up hitting each other forming amino acids and biological matter and that by chance Earth just had just the right properties to help harbor life, and that these molecules turned into living things, and eventually just knew how to evolve into more complex sentient beings, like all this happened by mere accident.
In Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles, fulfillment of the Law was not prioritized or emphasized at all, as we know. Paul only quotes Yeshua once in all of his epistles. (See 1 Cor 11:24-25). Agreeably, Paul mentions that love is the fulfillment of the law in Galatians 5:14 and Romans 13:8-10. These statements are absolutely correct, and they coincide with Yeshua’s words even if Paul never quoted Yeshua as the source. To caution, however, Paul’s contempt and disregard for God’s moral law is well documented in his writings. For example, in Romans 7:3-4, he uses a figurative example of the Law of Adultery, equating Christ to “the deceased husband”, to conclude that: “…ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ.” This directly conflicts with the words of Yeshua in Matthew 5:27-28 where in no case does he indicate that the Law of Adultery or any of God’s moral law will ever become null and void.
Easy to understand so far I think. If you marry, you're with that person till they die. Then you are free to marry another. But I'm going to skip to the parallel in verse 4.For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him.
Meaning, when you die to your flesh, you are no longer bound by the law as we are now bound to another.So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
Literally why Israel is called an adulteress several times because of her spiritual adultery.So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress.
Isn't saying that the moral law is done away with, he states "in the new way of the Spirit". Which he argues the rest of the chapter is being a slave to God's law which he does in his mind which he mentions multiple times. Which is a different way of doing things than before which was through their actions. Which is backed up by when Jesus says,But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (v6)
So the new standard isn't just physically following the moral law, but mentally too. So Paul is backing that up which isn't arguing against the abolishment of the law, but explaining a different perspective/standard to the Romans.But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. - Matthew 5:28
There is also the issue that they botched this one so badly they now have to throw out a lot of the evidence. I don't think they were planning on using the six month extension, I think they lucked into that.There actually was some strategy to this. If they didn't indict in time, then that was it; it was over due to the statute of limitations. By indicting in time, even if it was rushed and sloppy (hence the dismissal), they'd have an extra 6 months to bring a new indictment (probably--there is an argument that the initial indictment might have been botched so badly it doesn't actually count as an indictment, and that it therefore wouldn't fall under the statute that grants the 6-month extension for re-indictment after a dismissal if it's now past the statute of limitations).
Granted, the case against Comey is by all appearances so weak I have doubts they can even bring it to trial, and I'd be absolutely amazed if they could actually convict; it would've made more sense to just not bring it at all, hence why they notoriously had to fire the prosecutor who didn't want to bring it in and bring in someone who had no experience prosecuting to do it instead. Still, if your goal is to convict, however slim your odds are, and your choices are "do a rushed and sloppy indictment and keep the case alive or don't indict at all and you lose it forever" the former is obviously the better one.
Nah, My point is we might vote for someone with reluctance and even regret. A vote does not mean we support and endorse everything they stand for.No
Nordic think everything he does has an ulterior or evil motive.
Open thread on the subject and I’ll jump in.