ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Are Churches Politically Corrrectc

A megachurch is withholding one million dollars that was suppose to be given to a denominational "church" over comments made against President Trump. Are today's denominational "churches" becoming too political and politically correct? Your thoughts.

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Leadership Bible Quiz
 ---Steveng on 2/22/17
     Helpful Blog Vote (5)

Post a New Blog



Jerry6593:

You wrote: You know very well that Christ characterized the two Love Laws (also found in the Torah) as summaries of the Decalogue.

Yes, they are SUMMARIES, but as Cluny correctly pointed out, they are not, themselves, ACTUALLY part of the Decalogue.

As for the ruse about the beatitudes being found in the Decalogue, I guess I'll have to teach you. In addition to the beatitudes, Christ teaches in Mat 5 the permanency of the Ten Commandments.

This proves the Decalogue is within the Beatitudes - NOT that the Beatititudes are within the Decalogue. The first half of the chapter is NOT in the Decalogue at all.
---StrongAxe on 3/27/17


Cluny: I will assume you are but pretending ignorance. You know very well that Christ characterized the two Love Laws (also found in the Torah) as summaries of the Decalogue.

As for the ruse about the beatitudes being found in the Decalogue, I guess I'll have to teach you. In addition to the beatitudes, Christ teaches in Mat 5 the permanency of the Ten Commandments. He then mentions 3 of them: (1) v. 21 - Murder, (2) v. 25 - Adultery, (3) v. 33 - False Witness.

You continually close with the phrase "Glory to Jesus Christ", and yet you dismiss His counsel as irrelevant or not pertaining to you. Why?


---Jerry6593 on 3/27/17


\\You might also try Matt 5, where Christ, after having attested that the law is permanent, gives several examples of the laws He's talking about - all of which are found in the Decalogue.\\

Where in the Decalogue are the Beatitudes?

Where in the Decalogue Is what Christ called the two greatest laws? I know they are elsewhere in the Torah.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/25/17


Jerry6593:

I never said the Ten Commandments weren't RELEVANT, just no longer NECESSARY. Anyone who truly believes "love your neighbor as yourself" no longer needs SPECIFIC rules to not steal, kills, etc. However, since most of us aren't perfect, 10C are good examples of what "love your neighbor" entails.

I am not speaking about teachings of any specific denomination (because that is not relevant to anyone else's) - just what I get from reading scriptures themselves.

As Cluny asked, how were "do not blend fabrics" or "put your women away during their time of the month", etc. fulfilled on the cross? Leviticus freely mixes ritual laws with others, with no distinction between them.
---StrongAxe on 3/25/17


Cluny & axster: You guys seem to always be looking for ways to get around God's laws. Do you have sermons in your churches on the irrelevance of the Ten Commandments? I know what religion Cluny is, and that they hold the 10C in fair esteem. But the ax can't bring himself to admit his denomination. Why?

Cluny, you asked a fair question as to the discernment of the 10C from the myriad of other ordinances. First, some ordinances, such as ritual sacrifices, have clearly met their fulfillment at the Cross. You might also try Matt 5, where Christ, after having attested that the law is permanent, gives several examples of the laws He's talking about - all of which are found in the Decalogue.


---Jerry6593 on 3/25/17




In other words, Jerry, you think that the Bible's references to "the law" mean ONLY the Decalogue.

Can you please give us a Bible verse that supports that view?

My understanding is that the Bible knows only ONE law: The Law.

Can you also tell us how not wearing blended vegetable and animal fabrics foretold Christ?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/24/17


Jerry6593:

Why not? Isn't God just as much the author of one as of the other?

Which were fulfilled and which are still in effect? People claim there's a distinction, but I have yet to see a precise list in scripture.

Ps 89:34 talks about lips, Pr 13:13 about words - neither mentions stone nor parchment. YOU assume they mean one and not the other.

10C and the Law of Moses were given to Jews. When apostles were asked what parts of Jewish law gentile converts must obey, the list was very short, and didn't include 10C.
---StrongAxe on 3/23/17


Galatians 3:9 - So they which be of faith are blessed, with Faithful Abraham.

Galatians 3:10 - For many of the works of the law are under the curse : For it is written , Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in this book of Law to do them,

Galatians 3:11 - But no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, It is evident , The Just shall live by Faith,

James 2:26 - For a body with out a Spirit is dead , so is Faith with out works is dead,

{ Faith and works go hand and hand, a part of faith , but works in them selves don't save }
---RichardC on 3/22/17


ax: We are not talking about the 600+ ordinances written on parchment by Moses, but rather the Ten Commandments written by the finger of God in stone. Many such ordinances where prophecies of the substitutionary death of Christ as atonement for our sins ("the wages of sin is death"). These ordinances were FULFILLED on the cross, and are no longer needed, but the 10C are eternal ("they stand fast forever and ever" - Psa 89:34).

Pro 13:13 Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded.

What denomination are you that teaches that the 10C no longer apply to Christians?


---Jerry6593 on 3/23/17


Jerry6593:

Then please tell me just how many of the 600+ commandments in the Law do you personally follow, since not a single jot nor tittle from any of them has passed away?
---StrongAxe on 3/22/17




ax: "the Law is now obsolete"

Then Jesus must have been lying when He said:

Mat 5:18,19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You think that "fulfilled" means brought to an end, but Jesus made it clear that we are to keep and teach the Commandments. What denomination are you? Most all major denominations teach that the 10C Law is still in effect.


---Jerry6593 on 3/22/17


Jerry6593:

Jesus said "not one iota would pass away from the law UNTIL IT IS FULFILLED". The very fact that some or all of the law may pass away once it is fulfilled means it DOES connotate destruction - not as a matter of "changing the law", but because the Law is now obsolete. As Paul said, we needed the Law to point our way to righteousness, but it was imperfect - now we have a better way, so the Law is no longer necessary.

If you, in your heart, love your neighbor as yourself, you no longer need to be told not to rob, kill, cuckold, perjure, or envy. You would ALREADY be doing those things without being told. If you love God, you won't blaspheme or commit idolatry either.
---StrongAxe on 3/20/17


Jerry6593:

We Christians are not forbidden from murder and theft because of the Law, which the Jews are under, but we are not. We are forbidden from them because they violate "love your neighbor as yourself". But we are not obliged to keep "do not seethe a kid in its mother's milk", "do not blend fabrics", etc. etc.
---StrongAxe on 3/19/17


ax: "Did Jesus not fulfill the Law?" Yes, but "fulfill" does not mean "destroy". It means He fulfilled the obligation of the Law - the penalty - DEATH. Do you honestly believe that murder, theft, etc. are no longer sinful because Jesus died on the cross? If sin could be eliminated by legislative fiat, then Jesus need not have suffered and died to FULFILL its penalty.



Cluny: We've been over this ground before. The term "the law" can have any of several meanings in Scripture, from the writings of Moses to a principle of carnal temptation. You still don't seem to be able to distinguish them.


---Jerry6593 on 3/19/17


Jerry, the commandment forbidding wearing mixed animal and vegetable fabrics is elsewhere in the Torah.

Or when the Bible says, "The Law," do you actually think this means only the Decalogue?

If the Sabbath Commandment requires worship on Saturday (which it does not), of what did these services consis? They couldn't have included Bible reading, because the Torah had not yet been written down. Please elaborate.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/18/17


Jerry6593:

Fabrics are in a different part of the Law. The Law contains other commandments besides the Sabbath one, although one might not realize that by reading your posts.

The law says one must not light a fire on the Sabbath. Internal combustion engines work by lighting fires dozens of times per second - so no cars (not to mention travel being forbidden). Light switches open and close electric circuits, which cause sparks, which are little fires - hence also technically forbidden.

The Sabbath was made for man - for us to be allowed to REST from work.

Did Jesus not fulfill the Law? If not, why don't we still sacrifice paschal lambs, etc.?
---StrongAxe on 3/18/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


ax: I see that you agree with the Pharisees rather than with Jesus. Pity.

The Sabbath Commandment is found in Exo 20:8-11. You will not find anything in it about fabrics or light switches. It has to do with your daily employment and keeping a weekly appointment with God on the day He chose to commemorate His Creation.

Here is how Jesus feels about His Ten Commandments:

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: ...


---Jerry6593 on 3/18/17


Jerry6593:

Jesus healed on the Sabbath. There are examples where his healing drained energy from him - which made it work, and work was forbidden on the Sabbath. Not working on the Sabbath was a biblical prohibition, not a pharisaical one.

Again, raising ALL days as equally holy as the Sabbath does not violate Isa 58:13, etc.

Psa 119:6: ALL commandments, including not blending fabrics, putting women out of the house during their time of the month, executing people who violate the Sabbath, etc. Do you do all of those?

Do you drive to church on Saturday, or cook breakfast, or flip lights on/off? If so, you violate the Sabbath.
---StrongAxe on 3/17/17


ax: "I follow the example of Christ and treat all days as equally holy"

Really? Jesus rejected the Pharisees' man-made restrictions on Sabbath observance and kept the Seventh-day Sabbath ONLY as holy. Sunday is likewise a man-made institution.

Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on MY holy day, and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable, and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

Psa 119:6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto ALL thy commandments.

Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep MY commandments.



---Jerry6593 on 3/17/17


Jerry6593:

No, I don't think the majority is always right. However, if you are trying to make a point where 90+% of all the Christians on the plantet disagree with you, you have a major uphill battle, and arguing with me about it won't get you very far.

I follow the example of Christ and treat all days as equally holy - he healed on the Sabbath just as much on other days (and got flack for it from the scripturally-correct Pharisees).

Again, I never said I revere Sunday as Sabbath. If you want to have THAT argument, find somebody who actually does.
---StrongAxe on 3/16/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


ax: So that's your final argument, eh (Canadian for huh)? The majority is always right? You might as well be a Muslim then as there are more of them, and besides, they also have a counterfeit worship day (Friday).

I guess the Catholic Church is right in its proclamation that SDA is the ONLY protestant denomination since it is the only one to follow Sola Scriptura on this subject.

One would think that a person who calls himself "Christian" would want to follow the example of Christ who established the Sabbath for mankind at Creation, commanded its sacred observance, and personally kept it while in human flesh. Isaiah tells us that we will even keep it in the earth made new. But you follow someone else.

---Jerry6593 on 3/16/17


Jerry6593:

It said he went to them on the sabbath, but not HOW he observed the sabbath. The Old Testament was very specific about things required on the sabbath: abstinence from work, commerce, travel, lighting fires, etc. Notably absent from these requireents are commands to worship or to teach. Those were customs, yes, but NOT part of the sabbath commandment.

However, it is obvious nothing you say will change my mind, and nothing I say will change yours, so to continue this discussion would just be a waste of both your time and mine. You don't seem to be eliciting any comments from most of the other people on these blogs (most of whom are members of evangelical Sunday-observing denominations). You aren't convincing them either.
---StrongAxe on 3/15/17


ax000: "There is no record of Paul keeping anything."

Must you always show your ignorance of the Bible?

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.


Why do you try so hard to disobey God? Do you think He is going to change and accept your doctrine?



---Jerry6593 on 3/15/17


Jerry659:

You keep claiming this, but the context makes absolutely no mention of it.

Why, if all days were to be held in equal esteem, is there no record of Jesus, Paul, or any of the disciples keeping any day holy other than the Sabbath?

Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. He was obeying the OT law. He HAD to to be sinless under the Law.

There is no record of Paul keeping anything. There is no record of Paul going to the bathroom either, but you would be foolish to use this absence to infer that he never had to go.

Why would Paul mention sabbaths AND holy days, if the sabbaths were ONLY special holy-day sabbaths? That would then be totally redundant.
---StrongAxe on 3/14/17


Send a Free Good Morning Ecard


ax0: "Then why would Paul say "some keep all days equally holy"?"

Because he was talking about feast days - not the weekly Sabbath Day.

Answer yourself this: Why, if all days were to be held in equal esteem, is there no record of Jesus, Paul, or any of the disciples keeping any day holy other than the Sabbath? History tells us that this practice did not occur until apostates began to keep the Day of the Sun centuries later. If Paul really taught this anti-Sabbath lawlessness as you contend, why did no one heed him?



---Jerry6593 on 3/14/17


Jerry6:

The context of Romans 14 isn't specifically about sabbaths or eating (which are just mentioned as examples), but more generally about letting one's faith decide what is and isn't appropriate behavior, and about not judging others who make different decisions than you do. It specifically mentions vegetarianism (which was NEVER mentioned as part of the Old Testament holiday observances).

You can't KEEP something holy that was never made holy.

Then why would Paul say "some keep all days equally holy"?

I don't keep any other day AS the Sabbath. I consider all days equally holy, as Paul said. He also said I'm not to allow you to judge me with respect to that.
---StrongAxe on 3/13/17


ax: "Why is that such a problem for you?"

Because the Sabbath Day of the Fourth Commandment is NOT about eating. The sabbath days of the yearly feasts were. You continue to confuse the two and refuse to be educated on the subject. NO day was ever made holy but the Sabbath Day. You can't KEEP something holy that was never made holy. If you really believe that you are at liberty to choose any day you like as the Sabbath, why, as a Christian, would you not keep the day that Jesus kept - the seventh day Sabbath?



---Jerry6 on 3/13/17


Steveng:

You wrote: Are you in the habit of speaking / writing lies? I keep on repeating that I, and others like me, do NOT belong to any worldly denominational "church."

I replied specifically to Jerry6593, not you.

You believe in revering the Saturday Sabbath. Good for you. Others are persuaded in their own minds otherwise. Good for them.

Everything is doable, but not everything is profitable.

So why do you keep doing something that is not profitable?

Even if you keep harping on this subject, Paul FORBIDS us from listening to you about it - we are to LET no man judge us with respect to sabbaths, holy days, food, etc.
---StrongAxe on 3/13/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


StrongAxe wrote: "Nobody has yet answered why they keep harping on this subject despite "let each be persuaded in his own mind". Why do you keep trying to change the persuasion of those who are already persuaded in their own minds?"

Everything is doable, but not everything is profitable.
---Steveng on 3/12/17


StrongAxe wrote: "...yet you and other SDAs keep arguing the point that they should keep Saturday as more holy."

Are you in the habit of speaking / writing lies? I keep on repeating that I, and others like me, do NOT belong to any worldly denominational "church." Just because I believe The Sabbath is, was, and is forever, doesn't mean I belong to any man-made denominational "church." I, and others like me, just believe in the words of God from the heart - not a member of some denominational "church."
---Steveng on 3/12/17


Jerry6593:

Read ALL of Romans 14.

He who regards one day regards it to the Lord. He who regards all days regards them to the Lord. He who eats eats to the Lord. He who refrains from eating does to to the Lord. Why is that such a problem for you?

Those who prefer Sunday (or no particular day) are perfectly free to do so - yet you and other SDAs keep arguing the point that they should keep Saturday as more holy. Why? Do you know better than Paul? By constantly harping on this, and telling people they are doing it wrong, you are disparaging their faith (see v.10 and 22).
---StrongAxe on 3/12/17


Steveng:

You wrote:

You might just as well ask why would God establish holy days, and then take them away. Or why would God establish the Law and then take it away.

Nobody has yet answered why they keep harping on this subject despite "let each be persuaded in his own mind". Why do you keep trying to change the persuasion of those who are already persuaded in their own minds?
---StrongAxe on 3/12/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


axey: You believe that a mere man - Paul - has the power to abrogate God's law by:

Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

But, the very next verse discusses eating - a subject not mentioned in the Fourth Commandment - but a subject of contention in the early church regarding feast day sabbaths. It says:

Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks, and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.


---Jerry6593 on 3/12/17


There are "sabbaths" and there is "the sabbath."

Something to think about:

Why would God establish the sabbath, take it away, and then reestablish it when Christ returns? Aren't God's laws eternal? Isn't the sabbath mentioned in ten commandments in which Jesus and the apostles taught?
---Steveng on 3/11/17


Jerry6593:

Paul's "persuaded in his own mind" scripture about the Sabbath has NOTHING to do with meat sacrificed to idols.

If "sabbaths" meant "holy days", he would have had no need to mention them twice. Despite your constant claims, NOTHING in the context suggests sabbaths mean anything other than ordinary sabbaths. Why must you twist the plain meaning of scripture to fit your own church's doctrine?

You called "us lefties" a lawless bunch - BECAUSE of challenging the Sabbath (thus disallowing us from being persuaded in our own minds). Wouldn't that also make ALL Sunday Christians (including Catholics and Baptists) also "lawless bunches"?
---StrongAxe on 3/11/17


ax: "*I* don't claim he was a hypocrite. *YOU* do"

Not so! He faithfully kept the Sabbath, but you claim he made it irrelevant. How did I call him an hypocrite?


"How do YOU explain "let each be persuaded in his own mind" and "let no man judge you with respect to the Sabbath"?"

Easy. If you note the context - eating meat offered to idols - and if you could understand that the yearly sabbaths were feast days, then you would understand the it is not the weekly Sabbath being discussed.


"you accuse ALL Sunday Christians as being lefties"

That is a blatant LIE! Nicole is a Catholic Sunday Christian and is just as anti-Communist as I am.
---Jerry6593 on 3/11/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


Jerry6593:

*I* don't claim he was a hypocrite. *YOU* do. Jesus and Paul were Jews, yet came to preach a new covenant. Were both hypocrites?

Paul said "let each be persuaded in his own mind". He was free to keep the Sabbath, and any of us are free to keep it or not. This is totally consistent with what he taught - no hypocrisy there.

How do YOU explain "let each be persuaded in his own mind" and "let no man judge you with respect to the Sabbath"?

By bringing politics into this, you accuse ALL Sunday Christians as being lefties. THAT should stir up a hornet's nest among all the right-wing evangelicals here!

*I* consider Sunday no more or less holy than Saturday or Thursday.
---StrongAxe on 3/9/17


ax: "then Paul was a damned heretic and false preacher"

No, but you claim he was an hypocrite. Here's how: Paul said that the Commandments are true and just and good. As a Jew, he, like Jesus and ALL the Apostles, consistently kept the seventh day Sabbath as holy and never mentioned Sunday as being anything but a common work day. If, as you claim, he said the Sabbath Commandment didn't matter, or was indeed optional, then he was an hypocrite.

Why is it that all you lefties are such a lawless bunch? And I don't think it was me that brought up the Sabbath on this blog. Sunday sacredness is an invention of the Catholic Church, and if you're not Catholic, then you are an hypocrite too.



---Jerry6593 on 3/9/17


Steveng:

You wrote: Those "superficial differences" didn't help Adam and Eve.

That's total rubbish. What superficial differences did Adam and Eve deal with? Whether one creature should be called a monkey or an ape? Or another a rabbit or a hare? Or later, when they made coverings, whether to use oak leaves or maple leaves?

The decision to eat the forbidden fruit was the only one they are actually recorded as having made, and it was one that was fundamental, not superficial.

What, pray tell, makes you believe I don't have fellowship with other christians?

You are constantly condemning anyone who is a member of any denominational church. Do you have fellowship with such people?
---StrongAxe on 3/8/17


StrongAxe wrote: "Such superficial differences don't matter in the long run..."

Those "superficial differences" didn't help Adam and Eve.

StrongAxe wrote: "or use such superficial differences as an excuse to break fellowship with other believers, as you apparently do."

What, pray tell, makes you believe I don't have fellowship with other christians?
---Steveng on 3/7/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


Steveng:

It depends greatly on WHAT those doctrines are. Most critical doctrines are shared by most denominations - the fundamentals. Most doctrines that separate one denomination from another are trivial and non-essential. Believing or disbelieving them neither saves nor damns you. One denomination believes in singing a hymn at the start of service, while another doesn't. Who cares? Such superficial differences don't matter in the long run. It only matters if you elevate the superficial to critical importance (e.g. saying "those who are dunked are saved, while those who are sprinkled are damned"), or use such superficial differences as an excuse to break fellowship with other believers, as you apparently do.
---StrongAxe on 3/7/17


StrongAxe wrote: "... you keep condemning any who choose to share certain practices ?"

The members of a denominational "church" are bonded to the church's doctrine. They sit in pews for an hour listening to the preacher preach. They go to "church," perform their rituals, and leave to go home. You have several dozen people who don't know each other.

On the other hand, when two or more are gathered on a daily basis (and it may not be the same person or group of persons) according to the bible, we talk about our daily successes and failures on a personal level - one on one. We are accountable for one another. We pray with each other. Christians fellowship is important on a personal level.

---Steveng on 3/6/17


Steveng:

You wrote: There is only ONE way - the way the words of God says, "WHEREVER two or more are gathered..."

Guess what. Whenever two Catholics, or Presbyterians, or Methodists, or Baptists, or Pentecostals, or any other kinds of Christians gather together, Jesus is there also. Why do you keep condemning any who choose to share certain practices and beliefs? The differences between them are mostly superficial - the basics are the same.
---StrongAxe on 3/5/17


Luke wrote: "...[Steveng]... looking for faults in any church other then your own."

Christians ARE the church, not a denomination or a building. Read what Jesus said to the GROUPS of christians (not denominations) Revelation 1-3.

Luke wrote: "You seem to believe that your way is the only way Christians should gather."

There is only ONE way - the way the words of God says, "WHEREVER two or more are gathered..."

Luke wrote: "...you taught at some of the churches you now judge."

I was approached by churches to teach. God had a purpose for me to go to certain churches, so I did - and the deeds were done. Didn't Jesus teach at the temples he condemned?
---Steveng on 3/5/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


Jerry6593:

I didn't say that. However, you spend a HUGE amount of your time on these blogs talking about the Saturday Sabbath. Why is that? Paul himself said that some keep some days holier than others, while others keep them equally holy. LET EACH BE PERSUADED IN HIS OWN MIND.

Why do you keep insisting that those who DO that are doing it wrong? If that is, indeed, the case, then Paul was a damned heretic and false preacher, whose teaching is sending people to hell. Do you actually believe that? If so, why? And if not, why not? I'm curious to know.
---StrongAxe on 3/4/17


Luke: "Jerry does the same thing. He judges others who are not of his faith"

You could not be more wrong. I don't judge anybody - that's God's job. But the Bible does indeed define sin and condemn it. By pointing out what God says in the Bible, I am not judging anyone. If you are offended by what the Bible says, you should take it up with God.

If you were at all objective, you'd find that I am one of the few that believes there will be saved people from all Christian denominations - even yours.



ax: Do you then contend that Jesus broke the 10C law, and that He has destroyed the prohibition on adultery? Are you personally now free to commit it? Does your wife agree?


---Jerry6593 on 3/4/17


Jesus stopped the penalty of women. He didn't say it is no longer a sin to commit adultery. Which Paul affirms in Romans 13 when he lists adultery as a sin.

In Matthew 5 Jesus speaks of how the law points out the sins of the heart. Then says I come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

However many take fulfill to mean destroy. Which makes the statement to say I come not to destroy the law but to destroy the law. Which is nosense.

Paul states the law is just and good. He also says the law defines sin. That is it's job.

The law does not save. It condemns. Grace saves. But Grace does not do away with the law. The Holy Spirit brings us to love GOD and love others which leads us to not break the law. Romans 13.
---Samuelbb7 on 3/4/17


Jerry6593:

Paul said the Old Testament Law was but a shadow of things to come. The Old Testament Law gave death, but the Law of Christ gives life.

(1Cor 10: 4)

So what? The lawgiver on Mt. Sinai pronounced the death penalty for adultery, yet when Jesus was shown the woman taken in adultery, he did not condemn her. Why? Because he was proclaiming a new law that SUPERCEDED the law of Moses. Since he himself wrote the OT law, he was perfectly allowed to replace it.

After the War of Independence, there was a period of time when the colonies were free from British rule, but did not yet have a union. They thought that situation needed to be remedied.
---StrongAxe on 3/3/17


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


My thoughts Steveng is that you are always looking for faults in any church other then your own. That has never stopped since you came on CNet.
You seem to believe that your way is the only way Christians should gather. If it is not like the way you gather, then they are wrong in some way. I remember you once mentioned that you taught at some of the churches you now judge. Stop judging others, first remove the log in your eye that blinds your own faults.
Jerry does the same thing. He judges others who are not of his faith, and tells them they sin because they do not worship the way he does. He presumes he never sins because he worships on Saturday, but We are all sinners just like you and Jerry, who very much need Jesus Christ.
---Luke on 3/3/17


ax: "show one of God's laws, that currently ACTUALLY applies to me"

Any honest and rational Christian would have to agree that a Law written by God Himself, with His own finger, would actually and truly be one of "God's Laws". The Bible records Ten such Laws, and if you don't accept them all, you can hardly be called a Bible-believing Christian. Do you?

Further, the NT itself indicates (1Cor 10: 4) that it was Jesus Himself Who was the lawgiver on Mt. Sinai.

Our Declaration of Independence did not free us from the tyranny of England, it merely started the process. It took an 8-year war and a government defined by our Constitution to do that. A moral people can indeed be self governing.

---Jerry6593 on 3/3/17


Jerry6593:

You wrote: Funny, you do the same thing with God's Law. You both disagree with it and disobey it.

Please show one of God's laws, that currently ACTUALLY applies to me (i.e. NOT the Law of Moses), that I disagree with and disobey. Otherwise, beware "do not bear false witness".

No, they wrote it to free the people from the oppression of government.

No, they didn't. Declaration of Independence had ALREADY freed them from oppressive government. They could have lived in anarchy, but instead realized SOME kind of government was NECESSARY.
---StrongAxe on 3/2/17


Be careful who you accuse Jerry you may not know as much about a person as you think.
---PH on 3/2/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


ax: "You have the legal right to disagree, but not the legal right to disobey."

Funny, you do the same thing with God's Law. You both disagree with it and disobey it.


"The founding fathers wrote a constitution for a reason - they didn't want every single American with a gun to be a law onto himself"

No, they wrote it to free the people from the oppression of government. It was the government they distrusted - not the people. You Canadians remain loyal to the British Crown - we Americans are fiercely independent. Deal with it.


---Jerry6593 on 3/2/17


Pharisee:

I don't want to anagonize anyone.

The point I was trying to make was, the law is what it is, regardless of what people's opinions on the law is or should be. They don't have to like it, but they are obliged to obey it. If they recognize a higher law (e.g. the Law of God) that conflicts with it, under that higher law they may be obliged to disobey the law of the land (as early Christians refused to worship Caesar), but that makes them guilty under the law of the land, and must suffer the consequences (e.g. being thrown to the lions). The choice is theirs.

If it's merely their opinion on constitutionality, SCOTUS is the supreme arbiter.
---StrongAxe on 3/1/17


Strongaxe are you trying to antagonize me, get the last word, or win some obscure redundancy award? I really would like to know, what was that last post supposed to accomplish?
---Pharisee on 3/1/17


Pharisee:

You have the legal right to disagree, but not the legal right to disobey.

You have a choice: accept the law of the land, or face the consequences. I, for one, would not be willing to go into a coliseum to be ripped apart by lions (as the early Christians did) for something as petty as disagreeing with the IRS.

The founding fathers wrote a constitution for a reason - they didn't want every single American with a gun to be a law onto himself, doing whatever he thought was right in his own eyes. That way lies anarchy.
---StrongAxe on 2/28/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


Yes accept "legal" corruption if you want to defeatist moderator, I will not nor ever concede against an unjust and unwarranted tax system, and it's domestic terrorist counterpart central banking scam, you people are un-American to roll over and let corruption flourish. Thomas Jefferson said "dissension is the truest form of patriotism," and he was right. Silence is consent and anybody who doesn't denounce this economic terrorism is an enemy of the people. You may not like it but that's my opinion.
---Pharisee on 2/28/17


Pharisee:

Whether you agree with it or not, it's the law of the land. What they "should" have ruled has no legal weight.

The will of the people is not paramount. If it were, we would have no electoral college, and Hillary would be president. We do not live in a democracy, but a democratic REPUBLIC. WE chose representatives, and THEY, in turn, make whatever laws they see fit, whether we like them or not. It's in their best interest to keep us happy (so we will re-elect them) but they are not obligated to do so.
---StrongAxe on 2/28/17


"if you believe in the representation system our Constitution lays out, then it is "the will of the people"

In theory that makes sense.

However It is not, nor was it ever, nor will it ever be, the will of the people for their elected officials to take bribes (I can't prove this, but why else would they do it?) and approve what ALL OF THEIR CONSTITUANTS would say no to.

Misrepresentation is not representation, both the federal reserve act and the income tax act should be repealed. If every American were given a vote right now it would be. It's complete madness.
---Pharisee on 2/28/17


---Pharisee on 2/28/17

In order to be ratified as law, it had to go through both houses of congress and then 3/4 of the state have to approve it. While many have argued it was not done properly if you believe in the representation system our Constitution lays out, then it is "the will of the people." SCOTUS has ruled it is Constitutional.

I'm curious to hear your reasoning if a law was ruled unconstitutional why the Constitution should not be changed.

While I might agree that "no one would pay it", fact is, it is the law.

---NurseRobert on 2/28/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


"I believe SCOTUS has ruled income tax constitutional."

They have upheld the sixteenth amendment despite critical facts concerning it's questionable ratification. Also the "revenue act of 1861" was ruled unconstitutional, so the 16th amendment should have never been considered.

You cannot say it's the will of the people that everyone pay a federal income tax, it's NOT, and given the choice no one would pay it, so who exactly was being represented in Congress the day the 16th Amendment was voted on??? It's been proven that it's NOT needed to fund the Federal Government, it's purpose is to pay interest on the national debt, it's a scam by a private bank known as the "federal reserve."
---Pharisee on 2/28/17


NOW SHOW ME a law where individual wages can be taxed directly without the money being directly apportioned to the people?
---Pharisee on 2/27/17

The 16th Amendment.. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
---NurseRobert on 2/28/17


Nicole_Lacey:

A typo makes sense. On 2/26: (even through we knew he was a demoncrat for decades)

Pharisee also wrote: (I'm not a demoncrat by the way)

Why do Republicans not care for welfare of children (e.g. Flint water, school lunches, health care) once they come out of the womb?

The Constitution grants Congress the right to assess taxes.

Going to a church is free exercise. Funding a church with tax dollars is establishment.



Jerry6593:

The government ALSO has the right to tax them like anyone else. If churches want the privilege of being tax-exempt, that comes with certain restrictions.



Pharisee:

I believe SCOTUS has ruled income tax constitutional.
---StrongAxe on 2/27/17


//there is no "N" in "Democrat". I've regretfully come to expect such name calling from Jerry, but not not from you.//

I NEVER called you or the Democrats the 'N' word.

I said that ONLY Democrats have called me slur words. Black people are allowed to watch FOX NEWS.

//By picking an EPA head who hates the EPA,//

No, he hated the abusive overreach used by the EPA to control people.

//woman in charge of public education who hates public education, etc.?--StrongAxe

She hates failing Public Schools who refuse to change to control people.

Why do Democrats hate Choice when it comes to public schools, but not abortion?

Choice for everyone not a select few appointed by Democrats.
---Nicole_Lacey on 2/27/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


//By what right do churches earn the right to be free of taxes everyone else is required to pay?//

THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE.

Part of the First Amendment: The freedom of speech and in a peaceful assembly.

If the Government has a hand in the Church Financial component, She can control the SPEECH.

//There Nothing in the constitution gives that right.//

I believe you are confusing the Canadian Constitution with our great Constitution.

IRONICALLY the federal income tax or any taxes ISN'T in the Constitution.

A DEMOCRATS President Wilson invented the income tax.

//not endorse specific candidates or laws.--StrongAxe

WHY NOT?

The Obama's Administrations went to many Black Churches.
---Nicole_Lacey on 2/27/17


Nicole_Lacey:

Again, there is no "N" in "Democrat". I've regretfully come to expect such name calling from Jerry, but not not from you.

Cabinet picks? By picking an EPA head who hates the EPA, a woman in charge of public education who hates public education, etc.? He promised to drain the swamp, but instead is manning all the guard towers with alligators. Talk about the wolves ruling the chicken coop!

I don't see how the Johnson's Amendment doesn't violent the right to assemble?

Churches are perfectly free to engage in politics. They just don't get do to that and ALSO be tax-exempt. Most of them would prefer to kiss Mammon than have the freedom to be outspoken.
---StrongAxe on 2/27/17


Churches have the right to do whatever (within the confines of existing law) they want without interference from the government. Ex post facto laws are illegal.



---Jerry6593 on 2/27/17


There IS not just freedom to assemble, but of conscience and freedom of expression. This 501c3 business has NOTHING to do with any of that, they are inalienable rights, and shall not be infringed. So if you're saying that a tax exempt status should limit the rights of expression FREE from government interference I say NAY to 501c3.

NOW SHOW ME a law where individual wages can be taxed directly without the money being directly apportioned to the people? (14th Amendment) The whole income tax system is unconstitutional except in the instance of corporations. THEREFORE the gifts of the people being of their wages, are not duly earned wages of a church, they are GIFTS GIVEN FREELY BY FREE MEN and are not taxable to begin with.
---Pharisee on 2/27/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


//The Johnson amendment was a mistake.//

AMEN!

//(let's face it most of these two party folks love their political stance a lil too much, maybe more than Jesus)//

I agree, but you must admit Republicans voted Trump as their nomine (even through we knew he was a demoncrat for decades) to teach its own party a lesson for behaving like the Democrats (RINOs).

Trump taught Republicans how to be Republicans in his Cabinet picks alone.

//I'm libertarian, a constitutional fundamentalist above all things,--Pharisee on 2/26/17

I don't see how the Johnson's Amendment doesn't violent the right to assemble?
---Nicole_Lacey on 2/26/17


Pharisee:

By what right do churches earn the right to be free of taxes everyone else is required to pay? There Nothing in the constitution gives that right. Part of the deal churches make with government is that government says out of church business, and in return church stays out of government business.

If churches get involved in politics, they become tax-free PACs - able to influence politics much more effectively than tax-paying organizations. Also, it's easy to run afoul of the Establishment Clause, because once a church influences public policy based on its doctrines, it is encouraging government to establish religion.

Churches are allowed to preach Christian values, but not endorse specific candidates or laws.
---StrongAxe on 2/26/17


No they're not political enough. The Johnson amendment was a mistake. I believe it's a pastor/teacher's right to thin his herd of politically challenged individuals by torquing them off and bolster the ranks of the faithful to stand behind candidates that represent Christian values. (let's face it most of these two party folks love their political stance a lil too much, maybe more than Jesus) This election for me was one where I actually voted Republican. (I'm not a demoncrat by the way) I'm libertarian, a constitutional fundamentalist above all things, and I believe Christians should be rising up and crushing the political system as a singular man, representing our master Jesus Christ for the glory of God. Let the redeemed of the Lord say so.
---Pharisee on 2/26/17


It's their money.

In case the denominational church said something which was a bad example to say, then I can see why they might withhold financial support.

God wants us to support people who do God's will.

But I think a public church person can be right to tell what is true about politics. Jesus made comments about the Pharisees who were political leaders, but Jesus said what was true and what our Father had Him say (c:

Being right about political people and issues is part of our example > 1 Peter 5:3. But don't get tangled in it > 2 Timothy 2:4.
---Bill on 2/25/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


Steveng:

Could you please supply a context, e.g. which megachurch is withholding the money, which church was supposed to receive it, where "suposed" to comes from (e.g. is it from a court decision, etc.?) Otherwise, it's very difficult to judge, like "Somebody did something to someone. Was he wrong?"
---StrongAxe on 2/23/17


The Megachurch was correct. People do not donate money to their churches to be distributed out to Churches who are political.

What do you have describe isn't any different than what Unions do with their monthly dues.

They monies are collected dues to help Union Members not to be distributed to political people.

If people wish to be political they need to say it up front before the collection plate is passed around.

Then people can decide whether or not they want to donate to a Political Candidate.
Which is illegal. They can't be tax-exempt if they're going to talk politics
---Nicole_Lacey on 2/23/17


I think the worldly denominational "church" of Steveng is trying to be political.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/23/17


Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.