Hi Shopp: I would like to put forward a perspective on what "SAVED" means scripturally. Around the turn of the 20th century the terms:

1)  Saved

2) Born Again

3) Baptised in the Holy Ghost

4) Salvation

All had somewhat of a facelift. What I mean by that is that churches globally applied these terms in a variety of ways to their members.

e.g. Some would say that salvation was a result of adherance to church dogma, others would say that salvation was a result of the new convert saying the "Sinners Prayer" etc etc.

I would like to draw your attention to the Bible definition of these terms and demonstrate that they all (1-4) speak of the same experience. The story that helps us (God placed in the Bible for us to understand the points of reference) is the story of Cornelius and the Conversion of the Gentiles.

Please read carefully and understand the words for they are very important and in conflict with teaching today that salvation is at some stage prior to the receiving of the Holy Ghost.

What seperates us from other countries is our reverance for the constitution.

You are right, no other country in the world has our constitution.

But, without virtue or morals, our Constitution is meaningless,

So what about the congregations that are turning people over? You lost me , please explain.

 don't know how it doesn't make sense to you. Think of it as the dogma or history of the religion? Make sense? Kinda like the old testament.I must be reading something completely different from what you are saying, because it does not make sense. 

I will support ,for example, a person's right to smoke, even tho I personally hate the smell, the yellow stains, the dirty ashtrays, and everything that goes with it.   It is legal.  Why would anyone preach or believe in virgin sacrifies if they did not believe in performing them.  Now, from a historical perspective one could teach of their existence, but not support it.  Maybe, I just can't get beyond the sanctity of life and the dignity with which one should treat another human being.  Or I am way off the mark, and you will have to try another approach

I don't know how it doesn't make sense to you. Think of it as the dogma or history of the religion? Make sense? Kinda like the old testament.

If we don't preserve this country, all bets are off. I am pretty sure even then (except in maybe in small areas of the country) you won't have sharia. I would be more willing to be that we would have some sort of christian facist dictator, or chrisitan theocracy over most of the country. Now that isn't and indictment on Christanity, but it is indictment of people who will use religion and prevert to gain power.

If we treat the constitution as we should, and follow it, we won't have a problem. With islmofacism, debt, and other problems that will arise. What seperates us from other countries is our reverance for the constitution.

Like I used before as an example. You can believe in virgin volcano sacrifices, you can even preach, if you want. You may not tho actually perform a virgin sacrifice, as that would be murder

Sick~O, why would anyone preach that if they didn't believe in the actual practice?  That statement makes no sense.

That is a unnerving and terrifying- as long as we are intact.  And if we are no longer intact?  Then what? 

When I see the moderate muslims actually physically arrest, remove, denounce, and boycott anyone who actively preaches and practices sharia, and other violent terroist beliefs, I find them guilty by association just as the driver of the get away car is as quilty as the bank robber.

But, Sick~O, you are right, our priority is to save this country on all levels for the all generations living now and in the future.

Shoppe, you are outta line there. Who had control of the Afghanistan for an overwhelming majority of the war?!?! I also clearly indicated that Obama's admin is just as much at fault, especially since a lot of the people worked in the same positions for both admin's.

Ps.. forgot to say.... Saturday night, we are all in the tent getting ready to sleep..  we get a phone call.   My son Mike, 25, was rushed to hospital in wilmington nc... he had had a back ache 2 days before and left work early... then all the next day  it kept getting worse, no relief.... So he called my other son in wilmington (the one married last oct)  and talked to him about it,  Jason insisted he let him take him to emergency room.... After many tests including a cat scan, the dr. deteremined it was appendix, and said it will only get worse, so they did immediate surgury.   He came thru great.

But as a parent, it was difficult being  8 hrs away and not being there... so all we could do was pray for 2 hrs and wait for a phone call.....

He is now back home, well, and on heavy meds.  So heavy they won't let him work till Sept 2.....

Fair enough criticism, Shoppe.  I misunderstood your initial response.

Right in that we aren't doing all we can to win.

Wrong in that it was all Bushs fault,  you sound like Obama.

If our only concern is the civilian population, then bring them home. 

Protect our borders I guess.  Spend the money on that instead.    Downsize our Military, who needs it anyway.  

Ok... I should not have said it in that way, but you know you were coming at me pretty harsh too, to say my idea was like anything goes.. kill civilians!

So.. I will try again...

We are not out to kill civilians.... We are out to kill terrorists.... if terrorists don't wear uniforms (they don't) and  cowardly hide behind women and children (they do)  then what do you want us to do  WW, sicko?   Come home?   I think thats what we have to do if we cannot do our job.

I am serious.   If we cannot kill terrorists  with  very little civilian casualties,  THEN COME HOME...

I am not for us dropping a bomb.   We did that before when we needed too, and I am not for that now..  

I care about the innocent, but if they are being used as pawns, what are we to do?

SOMETIMES  we just have to let a country go to take care of itself... maybe now is that time............................................................................

Where is Theresa lately?

Anyway.. glad to be back and read  Care II.

Shoppes camping trip:

New tent, not as nice as it claims   It slept us 5 ok, but I cannot see it sleeping 8 unless some people sleep on top of others...hummmmmm .. ok, back to camping.

nice site to pitch a tent.   obviously too close to neighbors.   They kept us me awake till 1 a.m  Saturday night.  I coulda punched their lights out!   I enjoy my sleep... I gave them the ole evil eye next morning,  if looks could kill, they would be dead!  

Had a great reunion, weather was terrific (thank sicko)...

Small turnout at the reunion because the Matriarch of the family, my aunt mary 93, was in the hospital.   We all gave her a short visit since there were so many of us... She looked well, but today had some problems.... then I find out my dearest friend has been going thru chemo with breast cancer... pray for Debbie B. please...    Then one of my first cousins just had her foot removed, she is a beautiful youngish lady.... Diabetes.   I didn't know it ran in the family, so I best watch it now. 

So I should be glad to be alive and whole, but I am still somewhat depressed and not sure why....

Anyway,   so glad to be back chatting with all of you.  

Have we lost? In Iraq?  In Afghanistan?

.....please don't say that to me again, Shoppe.  It is pretty mean. I have nothing but admiration for anyone who is being asked to do the next-to-impossible given the realm of what constitutes being human.

Our troops (and what they are currently doing) had little to do with this conversation.  How you would employ them did.

And anything less than complete regard for the population there is seemingly a huge mistake.  As Sick~o has just now typed.

I'm asking that is neutrally as is possible.  These words obviously have taken on negative connotations. But I'm asking in a very straightforward way?

If killing civilians in an effort to win a war really isn't such a big deal, then why are we making it such a big deal with regards to our enemy doing it?

There is a huge difference Ww, and I am sorry if you do not see it.

I am saying if we worry too much about civilian casualties.. WE HAVE LOST ALREADY SO GET THE HELL BACK HOME..... Thats all I am saying.

You may think our troops are "terrorists", I don't.. :)

Well.....then, what really separates you from a "terrorist".....?

And as long as the United States of America is still intact we will never have an islamic caliphate inside our boarders.

Then we cannot be PC.    I am ok with that.   I think most are.

War is hell, yes,  invented by the devil , probably.

We will lose less of our guys/ gals if we go in with the approach to JUST GET IT DONE,  We cannot worry more about civilians than we do our own troops.  If we do that  WW,  we have indeed lost.

What do you think about that?  :)

Not quite, Shoppe.

What I'm saying is that the concept of "ethical warfare" is a failry recent one.  [From numerous posts, you should know that I fully subscribe to this approach]. 

I'm not sure it is even held by the majority in this country. But assuming it is, it certainly isn't universally embraced.   As a few of my friends would argue against me: War is Hell.....the only rules are established by the Devil.

But supposing I am correct, it just means that, as of only recent times, we have developed this concept AND necessarily need to invent dimension to explain it.  An idea of "terrorism" is then necessarily mentally-manufactured.

Let me expand by giving the example of the Garden of Eden.  Before Eve and Adam eat the apple, their nakedness (as well as a myriad of other things) is not a sin.  In a state of nature, their actions are not "right or wrong".....they just are.  Cats and dogs don't commit sin.

However, once the apple from the Tree of Knowledge is bitten into, the concept of sin is upon us.  And with it the duplicity of trying to explain it.  We have invented rule-upon-rule (written and unwritten) for what constitutes "right" behavior. 

Similarly, we are trying to impose ethics on what is the right way to kill and maim.

And Sharia law is into murder.  also cutting off arms, hands... etc....

Torture , no jury of your peers , false confessions.....

None of this needs to be allowed in AMERICA, not even in those churches.

I am not for snake handling either... but many of you think it should be cut out of those churches....I agree.  

too many die from those snakes, its a hazard, deadly for many... so I say no to Snake  handlers in churches...

I am on the losing side of this one I know.

Just because I support a persons right to religion does not mean I support all or any of it's aspects. I also flatley stated that they have no right to impose their religion on you.

So let me clear this up one last time....You have a right to believe and practice whatever religion you want. As long as while you are practicing you do not infringe on anyone else's rights.

Like I used before as an example. You can believe in virgin volcano sacrifices, you can even preach, if you want. You may not tho actually perform a virgin sacrifice, as that would be murder.

Below is a copy of a text from Sick~O's post.  I take that as supporting sharia. 

If a business decides to be pro-sharia good for them, if a person decides to live their lives in accordance with sharia good for them. It is their choice to do that, and they have that freedom afforded to them by the constitution. 

When the full report is released, if I am wrong, I will state such. 

Oh, now Tax, has resorted to lying. I have never supported sharia.

Secondly show me the study, if it is the one with a little more than 100 Mosques, then it is bunk study. The fact is the FBI used 2000 mosques as sample size 20 times that of the other study.

Lets have some facts and not fear mongering.

I think you are saying that America in all her goodness tries not to  kill the innocents,  but our enemy hides cowardly behind the civilians..

Are you saying that?  If so,  we have to bomb their hidouts anyway, even if they are hiding behind skirt tails.  

Shoppe, re-read this...

Now on to Fox Radio News, why would they portay the message of the protest of the Mosques as "Not All Muslims Are Terrorists, But All Terrorists Are Muslims". It either is Fox trying to discredit these groups, of Fox believes it, which I don't believe. Because they have people like Beck, consitantly talk about terrorists such as the Weather Underground.

Then you will understand why I asked the question.

In the past 20 years 80-100 thousand people have died because of the Tamil Tigers.

That is just an example of what you don't know. Why because the media doesn't report it. Did you know that Russian Orthodox Christian terrorist bombed a US Consulate in Russia? How bout the anarchists bombings and attacks in all over the world? Just because you don't hear of them don't mean they aren't active.

Now that, that is cleared up, lets talk motivation for Fox to report the protests that way.

Though unconventional, at some point, war was declared by both parties. One of those combatants has (openly) decided to target civilians.  Something that was very much acceptable for 99.999% of human history.   Only since about WWII (Dresden, A-bombs, etc.) has this decision to not target civilians come into popular ethic.

Not surprisingly the country with the largest conventional aresenal in the world prefers....nay.... demands that all fighting should be done..... conventionally.  Also not surprising is the non-compliance of this wish by the second party.

Sicko,  I feel you are making a joke out of the question are all terrorists muslims.

I will say one thing before I go cook a nice spaghetti meal..

I think if you check MOST , not all of course, not Ireland (?), but most people out there terrorizing others innocent peoples are indeed MUSLIM...

Lets see if we can find out,  I have to run, maybe later....

vivian

I believe we know very little about what goes on in these Ha-mosques.   Really, we are clueless.

The one documentary I saw that was taken undercover with a cell phone was what I believe all mosques are.       Teaching Radical Islam.  period.

The FBI article was from nearly a year ago so their study is older than that.  10% of those Mosques represent what percent of the Muslim population?  Why are you supporting sharia? If muslims want to live here, they need to live under our laws, not change them.  If they want to live under their laws they have those laws in their own countries.

The FBI, says that about 1 in 10 (10%) teach extremism... So what is it 80% or 10%, frankly I am going to believe the FBI, they had a larger sample and a clear definition.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16756

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=57141

Is this the one?

Tax, you are wrong, the orginal intent was to discuss Fox and whether or not all terrorists are muslims.

However to indulge you, even if 80% of muslims are radicals and terrorists, that still leaves 20% percent out, which are not. Therefore not all muslims are terrorists.

Secondly, I am well aware of the narcoislamofacist terrorist, and have on several occassion talked about getting them on this very site. They are a threat to our economy and well being. However they are not a threat to take us over.

Now on to Fox Radio News, why would they portay the message of the protest of the Mosques as "Not All Muslims Are Terrorists, But All Terrorists Are Muslims". It either is Fox trying to discredit these groups, of Fox believes it, which I don't believe. Because they have people like Beck, consitantly talk about terrorists such as the Weather Underground.

Sicko,

No all Muslims are not terrorists.  However, they are the ones that attacked us on 9-11 and that is still a pretty fresh memory.  There are many terrorists and some I spose would classify some in the US as terrorists.  Like the militia over in Montana that practice war in the woods and feilds of Montana.  I know some even classify the tea party as terrorists.  I just know that Sheria law of the Muslim faith is a horrible (especially to women) way of life and I do not want it practiced in our country.  It is against our laws and making excuses for it is just plain wrong.

Building that mosque close to ground zero is legal but still wrong if the Muslim leaders are truley trying to ingratiate them selves to Americans.  It would be insensitive and not productive for anyone unless they have an agenda.

Because it is so important to those on this post, lets get back to the original topic.   The subject was not about all terrorists, it was about whether ALL muslims are terrorists. 

from my previous post: 

Sick~O,  it is this population of which I speak:

The answer is flately, NO.

Recently all terrorists seem to be muslim?

So Ecoterrorists, like ALF and ELF are muslims? 

How bout the Communists of India, are they muslims?

The Communists of the Phillipines, are they muslims?

The National Democratic Front of Bodoland, are they muslims?

What about the Tamil Tigers?

Or the narco-insurgents in Mexico who behead, car bomb, shoot up clubs, shouldn't they be considered terrorists?

So as we can see, not all terrorists are muslims.

Sick~O,  it is this population of which I speak:

A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, found that 20% of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80% are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings,

There is more discussion about muslims comparing Sharia with Christian beliefs.  Till they come out and deny that,  I have no time for them. 

Freedom of religion has to go both ways.  America has that in their  Constitution.  Those who come to live here must also subscribe to that belief. 

Shoppe that would kindof defeat the purpose of their bias nature.  They know that if they expose it, they won't be able to persuade anyone.

ps.   I have to say on thing......

I was saved 20 yrs before I spoke in tongues (which I do only rarely in private)... I feel If I had died before I did speak in tongues , I would have went to heaven.  I just feel the same Spirit that helps a person speak in tongues was already in my the moment I got saved.

v

Luke,  hey you have returned.  :)   Great reading your stuff.

vivian

WW is right to an extent.     We have lots of terrorists.  I remember growing up when the   Catholics and Protestants in Ireland were killing each other off.    And other countries have their "ethic cleansing" type of terror.

But today 2010, when we say terrorists... yep, we know its all Muslim, all the time.   They brought it on themselves.

Sept 11 is close,  WE WILL NOT FORGET.

Terrorist means one thing to me, and thats exactly how WW described it in his last post.....word for word.

Morning

Its up the the "nice" muslims to change my mind. 

Interesting way in which language works.  And something that points to the way in which communication occasionally falters because words fail to capture what is swimming in our brains. 

We could talk about the KKK or the Hutaree as "terrorist". We could talk about abortion clinic bombings (please let us not) and claim it as terrorist.  We could bring up Oklahoma City [I can feel eyes roll......."the exception that proves the rule", right?]

We could expand this beyond our shores and bring in the Irish and Catalonians and others.....

But in a sense, all of that doesn't matter.  Because when "terrorism" is mentioned, a mental picture of a wooly bearded, turban wearing, Kalashnikov firing, Mecca-praying, cave dweller comes to mind.

And, the fact is.....is that we aren't at war with terrorists of very nationality and religion. We are concentrating our efforts against a specific type of terrorist: Islamo-fascists (as it was termed by the previous admin).  The name containing the necessary condition for any following definition***.

But tedious and cumbersome names never last......and language seeks simplicity.......so "terrorists" gets the point across.....or, at least, conveys the mental picture envisioned by most Americans.  The cart moves before the horse.   And our lack of precision, a carelessness of language, then results in some absurdity when some propandist then wants to scratch a little deeper and make a stab at challenging a category that evolved from laziness.

Because anyone with a peanut of a brain can figure out that there are non-Muslim terrorists in the world.

However, if you narrow the definition of the word, then all bets are off, right?

- - - 

***With language, words often lose or stray from their original intent.  Vulgar used to mean "common" or "the multitude." Profane means "before the temple".....referring to those who had to sit outside (the common people) while The Bonum (Latin: "the Good") took their seats within the place of worship.

"The Good" meant the aristocracy. Those born into nobility and title. So you had citizens who were members of either "The Good" and "The Vulgar." 

Can you imagine the silly semantic conservations that have resulted from this demarcation over the centuries? 

From the perspective of the Bonum, can you guess to which citizens they thought the adjective "bonum" (small "b") belonged? Given our modern conceptions of "vulgar" and "profane" can you figure out what they thought of that class?

Hello,

I m Boazdexter. Today I use this forum first. I learn very much from your forum. Please give me more guidance about this forum. I am very happy after using this forum.

Thank You.




________________________________________
Want to get-on Google's first page and loads of traffic to your website? Hire a SEO Specialist from Ocean Groups  [url=http://oceangroups.org/] seo pecialist [/url]

1Co 12:19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 1Co 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body. 1Co 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 1Co 12:22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: 1Co 12:23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. 1Co 12:24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked: 1Co 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. 1Co 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. 1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

When read in context all the members encourage one another and there is NO SCHISM. It is a wonderful experience to see God work amongst his people. Jesus said "I have many things to say to you but you cannot bear them yet" Interpretation and Prophecy have saved marriages, prevented backsliding, saved lives, converted believers and unlocked mysteries before our eyes.

1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
1Co 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
1Co 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto you a more excellent way.

Not all will have manifestations of all gifts "IN THE CHURCH" But this cannot be a foundation of the belief that All only get one gift or that we are not fully equipped with the potential for all. Of the 9 gifts; tongues was given other functions they are as follow: 1) Sign following believer, 2) Prayer, 3) Edification of our inner man. False religion is rampant, if ever people needed confirmatory evidence of entry into God's plan and the infilling of the Holy Spirit, it is today. Our motivation needs to be careful, studious, loving leadership in the church, not finding the point of least resistance.

Please feel free to check out my websites listed below for more in context:

http://www.hiswaychurch.websyte.com.au

http://www.speakingintongues.websyte.com.au

And on the Mark chapter 16 comments, check out my blog:

http://www.theshellharbourrevivaltimes.blogspot.com

God Bless

Luke 7:35

Further and most importantly; to say that one has the "gift of FAITH" and another has "The gift of Miracles" and so on, has created a position of spiritual ladder climbing which is the opposite of the intended purpose of this chapter. Besides that without the gift of FAITH it is impossible to please God. So we all MUST have that Gift.

Miracles are performed by GOD not our special abilities. Further if someone is healed of blindness it is the patient who has the GIFT of healing not the person praying for another.

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Co 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.

Unity of the Body is emphasized. The Context is specifically (dysfunction in the "meeting or assembling together") Verse 12-14 is however true in application to the greater Body of Christ. But the application in this chapter is IN THE CHURCH SERVICE.

1Co 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 1Co 12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 1Co 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 1Co 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him

Some of the gifts are only manifested in the meeting. Divers kinds of tongues, interpretation and prophecy. Of course If someone never interprets it does not mean that they don’t have the Holy Spirit. The difference with tongues is that tongues had several purposes not the least of which is a confirmatory sign. Notice that tongues in the meeting is termed “Divers kinds of tongues”. We don’t all manifest these gifts in the meeting but according to the “measure of faith” we will manifest them. The gift is already present within us it is unlocked by OUR FAITH!

Tongues are the easiest gift to manifest during the operation of the spiritual gifts because we all received that manifestation upon belief as seal of the Holy Spirit. (See Acts 2:4 & 10:44)

Notice haw Paul the Apostle draws attention to "dumb idols" Dumb means Idols that “Cannot Speak” This is in stark contrast to God who proved himself on numerous occasions verbally. Earlier in this letter had pointed out to the Corinthians that Christianity is a dynamic miracle working religion when he said.

 1Co 2:4 "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (Demonstration of the Spirit) the antithesis of Dumb Idols.

1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (You cannot call Jesus Lord without the Holy Spirit)

The question arises, Is this ability (the manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit) for a select few; or all? The former would lead to resentment perhaps and maybe even a spiritual hierarchy. In many  groups who practice the "grading of gifts" (i.e. Tongues is the least and prophecy or healing are the greatest.) results in a large amount of "non-participant" members. In other words the more extraverted people make all the noise and those who are not confident simply sit and observe. The Bible calls this being "Unequally yoked". This may not seem a big deal to many however the purpose of fellowship is firstly to present the gospel to unbelievers and secondly to exhort and edify existing members. Many in these groups who believe that one gets this gift and another that gift are placed in the position of "spectators" to the show. The Corinthians chapters 11 through 14 model is INCLUSIVE as opposed to EXCLUSIVE. Allowing the weaker to edify the strong and vice versa. This is why I believe this is such an important topic to cover.

1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

We who have received the Holy Spirit are partakers of ONE Spirit. We are born again, our lives are not our own. Jesus lives through us. The concept of each person receiving more or less DEPENDANT on their FAITH is more about SELF GLORY than that of GOD. Anonymity in receipt of the gifts of God, and our use of them bring with them greater rewards in the world to come. That is consistent with Jesus' nature.

1Co 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

Note in verse 6: ALL in ALL!  Meaning: ALL (each and every one of the gifts) in ALL (Each and every Christian) Paul’s letter to the Ephesians helps us to understand this.

Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth All in All.

 1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

This is a key verse: Because it opens with "But the manifestation" ("But" included to contrast previous verse) The Christian is "filled" with all the capabilities available.(verse 6) BUT the manifestation ( DURING the OPERATION) of the spiritual gifts is not displayed by all, but is for EVERYONE’S good. (verse 7)

1Co 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 1Co 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 1Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. 

T Reply...

A word to the wise:

  Blind leaders of the Blind are fairly easy to recognize. They, for the most part avoid the Bible

The Bible says that God's word gives light, in fact it is the light. If we follow that light we will not stumble or fall.

It is noteworthy that our spirited little name caller barely touched on a scripture at all in his/her dose of verbage.

I will however like to respond by addressing the verse that they did quote.......

The Manifestations of the Holy Ghost in the Church Service

The 12th chapter of Paul's letter to the Corinthians is a widely misapplied text of scripture. In this chapter Paul itemises 9 of the manifestations of the Holy Ghost as they are apparent in the church meeting. What many have done today is to cite various texts from this chapter to say that one person is gifted with this gift (e.g. faith) and another is gifted with that (e.g. miracles). A result of this is that some boast of having gifts of healing, miracles and/or knowledge and have therefore given themselves a promotion over others who they perceive as being less gifted. This was never the desired intention of Paul who wrote the letter, or of God who inspired Paul so to write. The following is a brief summary of this chapter that hopefully will clear up any misunderstandings.

Preface:In chapters 11 through 14 of the letter to the Corinthians there is clear instruction to the early Christian church on how to conduct their meetings. Chapter 11 begins with the statement...1Co 11:1  Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 1Co 11:2  "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." It follows that at the close of his directives concerning church services he states 1Co 14:40”Let all things be done decently and in order." These comments act as bookends to the sole instruction in the Bible concerning structure and format in meeting together for Church services. The Greek word for Meeting Together sunerchomai; appears 8 times in the Bible. All in this epistle. 5 times in chapter 11 and twice in chapter 14 and 1 time in chapter 7. Instruction on how to convene meetings IS NOT FOUND in any other epistle. This means that the context of chapter 12 is when the church is in the state of "Meeting Together". Having established the clear context lets continue.

How many christians are terrorists?

Sicko

To coin an old phrase: All muslims are not terrorists, but it seems lately all terrorists are muslim.  Hmmmmmm!

Just my warped viewpoint. I'm a racist. But I'd like to know,since when is Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Israel a race of people?

And what about Messicans, when did they become a race?

More PC BS.

Bill

Mr. Luke, or whoever you are....

Did you know, that NO WHERE in the Bible does it say what you are saying? NO WHERE DOES IT SAY; “To be saved, you must speak in tongues?” The best you can put forth is when Jesus said "signs will follow" and gave “AN INCOMPLETE LIST OF SPIRITUAL SIGNS AND WONDERS. Do you realize what that means? It means anyone including an anonymous Luke7_35 could come along and ADD his or her own “sign or wonder” at any time.

By the Bible and your own words, the list given is incomplete. And, if you’re going to insist we all be so “thorough” on reading the Word of God, please try a little of that your self. The fact is, Paul, later on in Corinthians (after having been visited by the Lord) gave a longer, much more complete list. And even then young man, PAUL DID NOT CONCLUDE WHAT YOU ARE CONCLUDING. In fact, he concluded the EXACT opposite of what you are saying. If you were there then, he would have rebuked you and reminded you of something I find very little of in all your postings. It’s that thing known as charity, for which, a paraphrased Paul would claim, "without charity bucko, you can tongue talk all the way to your grave, but you're still going to hell." He would also “kindly” put his hand on your shoulder and say, “my son, have you never read…..

1Co 12:6-12  And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
1Co 12:10  To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 

To which, Luke7_35 might respond, but, but, but, what about. And Paul would shout over to his friend, (2 Tim 4) “bring with thee the books, but especially the parchments. Luke7_35  the forum hogger is doing these people much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.

Then, dear gentle, patient Paul would go on to exhort Luke7_35 to read further. . . .

1Co 12:28-31  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, Reply...

I just wish all media, journalists, reporters, etc.. would be completely unbiased, neutral.

- - -

I take a different approach.  Bias in media is nothing new. The neutral media you speak of reminds me of the myriad of "golden ages" that each culture claims of its past.....i.e. they never were.

Today, to use an ESPN TV poker analogy: even if the cards are not flipped over......everybody watching from home knows what the player is holding.

And once that happens, is it (bias) even that relevant anymore?

- - -

Also, just a survey of the people who post here indicates that NOBODY is getting their news from just the traditional sources.  Sure you may get info from FOX or CNN, but you also may have saw it first on Drudge or Huffington (both of which I avoid) or you just get a survey of the news from Google (or Yahoo or whatever) or often someone HERE posts something...... and then there are the dozens of radio shows that do influence the masses.

It seems to me that when it comes to a news topic, most everybody here knows both sides of the spin.

- - -

Lastly.....bias is not the same as propaganda.  I don't mind bias (in an effort towards objectivity.) But I don't want my news dictated to me from either the RNC or the DNC.

they seem to all be on his side and they seem to promote him.

And I would probably disagree with this statement. 

- - -

I must tell you that JackA has flogged this horse so much that I am a little wearied by it.

WW. you have to admit that it appears that the majority of the press are liberals

I agree.

and lean towards making BO look good.

No. I don't agree. 

Marilyn.  I would probably agree with the first part of your statement (but not as much as you would think) and definitely not agree with the second part.

I think that you, Marilyn, could be conservative and still report as best you could.  After a few hundred stories, I bet I could guess your bias.  But to me, it wouldn't invalidate your reporting.

There is an undue amount of emphasis placed on it. And because so, it prevents communication.

Is he or isn't he, that is the question.  I am sure this writer may have a biased opinion, but he also is closer to the situation than we are out here.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1128020

Here is the AP's politically correct version(slant) which is slightly different from the C&P I did yesterday.

http://worth-reading-blog.blogspot.com/2010/08/ap-orders-staff-stop-using-phrase.html

Big letters to me is yelling!  Grant's joke where he was eventually down to a word or partial word per line, now that was slow reading!!

So, did you write the word "isn't" just to see what reaction you would get?

I would not be in that population, but it isn't important to seperate the religion from the perps. After criminals area criminals no matter race, creed, or color.

That should say

I would not be in that population, but it is important to seperate the religion from the perps. After criminals area criminals no matter race, creed, or color.

Oh, and I wasn't yelling, I was using big bold words sot it took people a little bit of time to read exactly what I was writing.

The problem lies in that the line is very blurry.  How does a population protect itself when you do not know which one is the enemy.  That is why they get lumped together in one group.  My hubby said it was like that in Nam.  They all looked the same and many times they were all the enemy.  the choice was death or defend against all possible enemy.

I know this is not to that point but how do we keep it from escalating to that degree.

I would not be in that population, but it isn't important to seperate the religion from the perps. After criminals area criminals no matter race, creed, or color.

Sick~O,  it is this population of which I speak:

A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, found that 20% of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80% are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings, and promotion of Jihad and its inevitable concomitant terrorism.

Shoppegirl=

Just kidding,...

Seriously tho, I really don't know how much more could be done.  

 IT WAS MEANT FOR THAT BAD SHOPPEGIRL...

Anyway.... sigh..... yes, the muslims would be more respected by me if they would speak up,  the  90% that are GREAT PEOPLE......

Marilyn, you are totally innocent in this.  You don't have an agenda,  I thought I didn't either, but sicko thinks I do....

What part isn't true?

Afghanistan insurgency is backed with opium money. Insurgent on almost ever battle field have been found to be high on any number of drugs. Specifcally taylored to make them feel no pain and no fear. Think of it as half Columbian and half Iranian, run insurgency and terrorism.

This line "Who loosely use a prevert a religion and drugs to get their goals."

Should read " Who loosley use and pervert a religion and drugs to get their goals"

.WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MUSLIMS. WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EXTREMIST AND TERRORISTS.

Who loosely use a prevert a religion and drugs to get their goals.

The kkk example works just fine, because are lumping one group of identifiable people with the evil extreme inside that group of poeple.

DO WE HAVE MORE PROBLEMS WITH KKK OR MOSLEMS TODAY, 2010?

If needed,  Me, Marilyn, and Taxi would take our butts and protest... (pardon ladies)... but there isn't a need right now.

If that phelps church group comes near charlotte, believe me I will go and protest them....

sicko you are wrong.

According to what I have been reading, well let me cut and paste one source.Most major banks and financial institutions offer Sharia Compliant Funds which have their investments vetted by the most fundamentalist and reactionary of clerics to assure that they advance Sharia Law. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the founder of the proposed Mosque, helps to prepare a Sharia Index which rates countries on their degree of compliance with Sharia Law. In the United Kingdom, many courts have recognized Sharia as the governing law on matters between two Muslims.

But there are non-Sharia mosques where peaceful and spiritual Muslims worship God in their own way without promoting violence. A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, found that 20% of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80% are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings, and promotion of Jihad and its inevitable concomitant terrorism.

Which brings us to the ground zero mosque. There can be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia Law.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285695,00.html

Sunday, July 22 at 3 p.m. ET
Hosted by E.D. Hill

Tune in this weekend, as FOX News Channel presents the documentary the Public Broadcasting System didn't want you to see.

It's a film about the difference between moderate Muslims and the radicals who want to kill us. It asks where are the moderate Muslims and why aren't they speaking out against the jihadists? And it was financed with $675,000 of taxpayers' money.

It was commissioned as part of the PBS series "America at the Crossroads" about the post 9/11 world, but PBS executives rejected it.

PBS claims the filmmakers were "alarmist, overreaching and unfair."

The filmmakers say they were censored because of liberal bias at PBS.

On a topic this important, we think you have the right to decide for yourself.

OH, dear god, in that case both of you must be part of the KKK because you are white and haven't come out against it in huge protests....

That is a silly arguement, there are programs and organizations that are fighting extremism here and abroad. Whether or not you wish to acknowledge what is going on or not is your choice, but it doesn' t make it true.

Marilyn they do, it isn't their fault it isn't popular to show on the news.

Fox News showed the protest of Underwear Bomber.

Are you serious Marilyn, their entire organizations of Muslims against :Islamic Terrorism...

http://www.freemuslims.org/

http://www.m-a-t.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zycGpRB10cA

60 minutes piece... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHPkGGA9fZ8

That took under a minute to find this stuff.

Born	Todd Morgan Beamer November 24, 1968 (1968-11-24) Flint, Michigan
Died	September 11, 2001 (aged 32) Shanksville, Pennsylvania

Todd Morgan Beamer (November 24, 1968 – September 11, 2001) was a passenger aboard.......

I don't think his wife Lisa Beamer has spoken out about the Mosque at ground zero, but I often wonder what Todd Beamer would tell us if he were alive today.  I also wonder how many on this post  or in this America today would have taken the steps he took that day.

While we in the US may not go hungry the very poor amongst the world will. WE SIT HERE AND DITHER ABOUT SOME STUPID BUILDING. WAY TO GO AMERICA FOR KNOWING WHAT IS TRUELY IMPORTANT

Maybe the Muslims could forego the building and raise money for Pakistan and all the starving people in Africa and around the world.  Americas are known for their humanitarian work around the world.  And there is nothing wrong with spreading a bit of the heart felt effort over the survivors of 9/11.

Morning.     The Ha-Mosque issue is very important.   But as I was reading on   www.realclearpolitics.com  this morning   the bigger issue right now is  our  TOTAL NATIONAL SECURITY... its the pitts.  What can we do about that?

We watch  EXTREME MAKEOVER every sunday night with the family.  My favorite words are  MOVE THAT BUS... reminds me now of   MOVE THAT HA-MOSQUE....

sorry was that over the top?   Maybe I need decaf.

Marilyn,  anyone can say that.  And they did.  Its not a tribute against terrorism in my eyes,  but a Victory Mosque.

Maybe I am just synical.... maybe.

THE FACTS:

No mosque is going up at ground zero. (we knew that) The center would be established at 45-51 Park Place, just over two blocks from the northern edge of the sprawling, 16-acre World Trade Center site. Its location is roughly half a dozen normal Lower Manhattan blocks from the site of the North Tower, the nearest of the two destroyed in the attacks.

The center's location, in a former Burlington Coat Factory store, is already used by the cleric for worship, drawing a spillover from the imam's former main place for prayers, the al-Farah mosque. That mosque, at 245 West Broadway, is about a dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center grounds.

Another, the Manhattan Mosque, stands five blocks from the northeast corner of the World Trade Center site.

To be sure, the center's association with 9/11 is intentional and its location is no geographic coincidence. The building was damaged in the Sept. 11 attacks and the center's planners say they want the center to stand as a statement against terrorism.

Any history buffs out there?

Didn't the Muslims,  centuries ago when they took over part of Spain  use a Church to put their Mosque in, their Victory mosque,  AS A SIGN OF VICTORY?

Let me know if you know anything about this.

De javu

And those Native Americans died in other places besides reservations, so your point is moot, unless you admit to having double standards between chrisitans and muslims.

Oh, I didn't miss it.  The building where they WANT to build it was hit by part of one of the planes.  It became 'sacred' and the worth of it went from 18 million to 4 million.  They are getting it on the cheap from their bombings.  Again, when the moderate Muslims are outraged about the terror attacks, I may start to listen. 

If they had been successful with all 4 four planes, do you really believe that we would even be allowed to have these conversations?  The answer is no. 

First the Mosque is NOT ON GROUND ZERO. Nor is the hypothetical church, and no you completely missed the point.

It is meant to point out the hypocrisy when it comes to freedom of religion. Some will say yes to the Catholic Church simply because it is Christian without regard to the history. Some will say no to the Mosque because of the history.

So because there are catholic churches ON the reservations, you mean the Mosque should be built ON the site of the twin towners site? 

I wonder if there would be all this tolerance for Islam if the four planes had been successful in their endeavors?