|
Page 1 | Page 11 · Found: 229 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
3/22/13 1:10 PM |
|
Add new comment
|
Excellent! Truth Truth Truth!!! Amen! in full agreement with Janine Elizabeth. Thinking "even professing
Christians don't believe in absolute
Truth" |
|
|
11/17/12 10:46 PM |
|
Add new comment
|
Please hear this Sermon This Sermon is from 2005, but it needs to be heard again. With all that has crept into churches today.Thank you Voddie, for contending for the Faith. |
|
|
11/9/12 8:55 AM |
|
Add new comment
|
'Everyone should hear this Sermon' If Christ has saved you, please share this! |
|
|
9/26/07 10:04 AM |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
CMI sued Answers May 31 in the Supreme Court of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, accusing Answers of un-Biblical conduct.The chief complaint involved two magazines that CMI published and Answers distributed. The lawsuit alleged that Answers misled subscribers into thinking that CMI was no longer publishing the magazines, and instead signed them up for Answers in Genesis' own, new magazine, "Answers." CMI said that it lost 39,000 subscribers that produced annual gross revenue of $252,000. When the suit was filed, Answers called the allegations baseless and without merit. In its defense, Answers said it had offered to settle the dispute through binding arbitration. Before initiating legal action, CMI commissioned a former chief state magistrate in Australia, Clarrie Briese, also a nonvoting member of CMI, to investigate the dispute. In a report he prepared for CMI, he found that the dispute started in August 2004, when CMI staffers offered some proposals to reorganize Answers. They sought to correct what they saw as poor morale and too great a dependency on Ham. That provoked retaliation from Ham, Briese reported. He found that in October 2005, Ham persuaded CMI's board of directors to sign over virtual control of CMI to Answers. |
|
|
9/3/07 5:11 AM |
Ken | | | |
|
Add new comment
|
Great Sermon! Martyn Lloyd-Jones offers an excellent balance to this, if you can get out of speaking/working/etc for Jesus, do so, because if it is of God, you will not be able to do so-try/prove the spirits.
Just because it's 9:30 pm and your in the meat section of the store, no one but one person is around, 5' away, and you're a Christian, DOES NOT mean that God wants you to witness to that person.
Ezekiel was a watchman, not everyone is. How shall the preach except they be sent. Let your quiet obedience speak louder, so that God can orchestrate the complement of your words.
There should be no awkwardness before, during or afterwards, no embarrassment, or you were in the flesh. Christian's Secret to a Happy Life by H.W. Smith, War on the Saints, Full Text, 1912 ed. by Jessie-Penn Lewis will help more with this.
As Tozer said, sound mind and led of the Spirit, not led by chance, coincidence, opportunity, or your environment, like a cork drifting upon the waters. Know God to discern what His will is. Don't presume, assume or act on a whim. Don't reinvent the wheel. It's a humiliating road to pass this advice by.
May God bless you. |
|
|
7/18/07 6:15 PM |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
R.D.: "You must first believe in something, before you don't believe in it!"That's just silly. If I heard of some ancient god from South America today, I guarantee I wouldn't believe in it for a moment. "Atheism is another form of man's ignorance and his total depravity." Ah. If you or John are simply using the the term "depravity" to replace the word "atheism" from God's point of view, I suppose that would make a sort of sense. It just wasn't obvious from John's context. John: "I would NEVER presume believers sin more than non-believers." Nobody said either is more or less ethical than the other. The atheist isn't making a straw man when he points out that Gerson is incorrect to claim that those with a God have a moral compass, and those without, don't. But you're right -- if the atheist is wrong, he will have to one day give an account to God. BUT, Gerson wasn't talking about the afterlife when he said the atheist has questions he can't answer. He was talking about this life, and in that context his argument is full of holes. He claims the choice of being good can only come from a desire to please your god. That atheists can't possibly choose 'good' reliably, like a religious person can. That's a laughable argument that that atheist rightly shot to pieces. |
|
|
7/18/07 8:46 AM |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
John,"...Atheists...determine what God should or should not be like..." The atheist who rebutted Gerson's article was just pointing out that the majority of Christians *say* they believe in the morality of the God of the Bible, but they clearly don't. They pick and choose their own morality. They ignore Old Testament laws when they conflict with their own morality, but then claim the Ten Commandments must be followed. The atheist is right on that point. "Human depravity on their part aside..." Part of his point was that, if non-believers were somehow inherently immoral than believers, you'd expect them to exhibit more unethical behavior. But he's never seen any evidence that that's true. (And neither have I.) Claiming non-believers practice human depravity more than believers is just an empty insult -- a claim it *must* be true without any evidence. |
|
|
7/17/07 5:07 PM |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
KK,Yes, the courts ruled *against* Free Speech. That, and that alone, was the issue. A woman complained to the city that the flier targeted and disparaged her. Nobody disputes that that's what the flier did -- it insulted and condemned. The boss took down the GNEA group's insults. Then, the people of faith (the GNEA group) who had put up the flier were offended that someone noticed their insults and suppressed their free speech. They complained that they had the right to state what they saw as the truth, even if it did target and insult someone. The courts disagreed. That's not a double standard. Equating a woman complaining about being insulted with a group complaining about not being able to insult that woman is the only double standard, and it is not valid. Now,the free speech issue -- that was a valid complaint, and it's what the case was about. And the article was lying when it asserted that what's going on is all about making "Natural family," "Marriage," and "Union of a man and a woman" into unlawful hate speech. The court case is available online. It's all in black and white. |
|
|
7/17/07 1:03 PM |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
The author of this article, Michael Gerson, doesn't seem to have thought this through very well. I think this atheist answers Michael Gerson's article very completely and articulately.http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-theists-dont-ask.html The atheist's counter-arguments are pretty solid. Here's an excerpt: "Michael Gerson didn't make an argument for modern liberal Christianity; he made the more general claim that believing in a higher power solves the problem of morality. Of course it doesn't. Belief in a higher power simply adds a level of arbitrary abstraction to your moral decisions. You are no less likely to commit acts of atrocity, only now you are free to attribute these actions to the deity of your choice. Instead of picking your morals, you are picking your god, as well as your interpretation of what the god wants... Most people are ready to argue that they shouldn't be expected to accept some of these edicts that were supposedly directed by God [stoning unruly children to death]. At that point, the question of "Where do you atheists get their morality?" is easily answered: "It's probably about the same place YOU get your morality, since it clearly isn't from God." I think Michael Gerson really dropped the ball on this one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|