nl wrote:
Deuteronomy 4:29 'But from there you will SEEK the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you SEARCH for Him with all your heart and all your soul.'
2 Chronicles 7:14 'If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and SEEK my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land'
Proverbs 8:17 '...those that SEEK me early shall find me'
In our generation, many go often to Google to seek for information. In our generation, God continues to reward those who diligently seek Him.
Hebrews 11:6 '...for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently SEEK Him'.

John Yurich wrote:
Every Baptist and other Fundamentalist Protestant that I have known was saved by praying to Christ and asking Him to become their Savior which is the same thing that it states in Romans 10:9-10. And there will only be one Anti-Christ which will be the very last Pope of the RCC and thus no other Pope and nobody else has ever been the one and only Anti-Christ. There are anti-christ's but there will only be one Anti-Christ.

Wayne wrote:
Where was the White church when Black people were being lynched and hanged in this Country that is "One Nation Under God?
where was the White church when Blacks could not eat at the same restaurant or the same section as Whites? where was the White church when Blacks could not vote? where was the White church when Blacks were being bitten by dogs and hosed down by high powered water hoses?
Are we to assume that because the White church and White "Christians" were strangely silent that they espoused these types of atrocities? Can we say that every White person who set back and did not cry aloud against this kind of evil are themselves evil and therefore, we should conclude that they were in agreement with what was going on?

John Yurich wrote:
No of course the Pope is not the Anti-Christ and nobody has ever been the Anti-Christ because there will only be one Anti-Christ. As a Catholic who is Born Again by reason of having prayed to Christ and asked Him to become my Savior I believe that the very last Pope of the Catholic Church will be the one and only Anti-Christ which I believe will be the next Pope after Benedict XVI.

One is not "born again by reason of having prayed . . .". One is born again, "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Titus 3:4-5

Perhaps this is why you do not believe the truth that the Pope is the Anti-christ, the "son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thess. 2:4

John Yurich wrote:
You really are totally off of your rocker for stating that the RCC wants to claim the birthplace of that crazy lunatic McCartney instead of the birthplace of that great Saint and Apostle Saint Paul. What is wrong with you anyway? Why do you have so much hatred in your heart? That is not being very Christlike. Christ did not hate anybody.

Firstly, I was being sarcastic. Secondly, it is not hatred to point out the foolishness of RCC doctrine and principality. Thirdly, before you say that Christ did not hate anybody, you should consider the eternal nature of the Son of God and the following verses:

"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Rom. 9:13

Jhawk44 wrote:
Mixing evolution with faith? Evolution requires more faith than Christianity does!

33k wrote:
There is no shortage of accurate information available in the mainstream or "liberal" media about this and all the previous treaties.
Your statement is false.
With regard to diatribes
"I suppose from your comment that you are in favor of the surrender of British sovereignty." Please demonstrate the robust logic by which you have made that deduction and then I will consider responding to it.

33k wrote:
Firstly, may I likewise ask what was the point of your original comment?
The fact is that this Treaty presents no fundamental change in the status of Britain within the European Union.
Britain's sovereign status was lost in 1972. I suggest you look up the writings and speeches of the time of Conservatives such as Enoch Powell and Socialists such as Tony Benn.
I do oppose the Roman Church. Please note that there was nothing about Rome in your or Minnow's comment. What is the point of your second comment?
"I suppose from your comment that you are in favor of the surrender of British sovereignty." Please demonstrate the robust logic by which you have made that deduction and then I will consider responding to it.

Rosy wrote:
I wonder if any one of you who is condemning Jeremiah Wright has heard his whole sermon or are you passing judgement based on the 10 second clips played on TV? Good biblical interpretation requires us to consider the context of a scripture before determining what it means. I think the same principle should apply to this situation. Please refrain from your judgemental views until you have heard the whole message.

33k wrote:
It would be sad if it were true.
If you or Minnow had followed reputable news sources such as the BBC over the years you would know that British sovereignty was given up by numerous treaties and acts of Parliament that don't fit with Minnow's dreamworld.
Please note the following Acts and treaties by Minnow's favoured Conservatives:-
Treaty of Rome (1972, Ted Heath)
Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985, Margaret Thatcher)
Single European Act (1986, Margaret Thatcher)
The Maastricht Treaty on European Union (1992, John Major)
With neo-cons like these Britain has no need of the "liberal" bogeymen that Minnow is so obsessed about. But why let facts get in the way of an opinion?

Minnow wrote:
The source of this story is "Christian Science." Whilst it holds the title "Christian" - it is no more Christian than any other CULT on the planet. These guys wouldn't know the Bible from the bus time table.
______________________
The subject of the article whereby Britain is giving up it's sovereignty is true however.
One should remember that Britain is no longer a democracy, - it is an Oligarchy where the disease of politically correct Liberalism is already bringing the demise of this nation, both church and state.
The bureaucratic elite of this country has legalised sodom and gomorrah on the island, legalised the murder of babies for mammon and invited satanic cults and religions to make their home here.
As for the vast majority of the plebian, they have voted for the patricians to rule their minds, hearts and lives.
Therefore guilty as charged and no longer worthy of the status once held in the world.

Wayne wrote:
Dear JP:
Good try. However, I am not buying your rationale for one moment. Why? There is no doubt that GWB is just as a deceiver as the rest of his administration! What about the Scooter Libbey case? I suppose that Dick Cheney was innocent in that as well? Mr. Libbey was stupid for taking the fall. If that had been me, I would have outed Cheney and Bush in a heart beat! They're all crooked!
There was a time in America that we thought Democrats were the "ungodly" proponents of government, but we've since learned that the Republicans are even more corrupted and greedy!
And to answer your question about John McCain and Colin Powell, the answer is a resounding NO! To elect McCain is tantamount to a third term of GWB. I can assure you my friend that America is having no part of that!

I think that you are right. I also believe that for the reasons you mention, Americans may be ready for a third party . . . if it is not too late.

nl wrote:
Amen.
"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?" - Luke 11:13
The Holy Spirit is offered to those who will ask the heavently Father. Prayer and asking the heavenly Father are forms of seeking God. Diligent use of all appointed means is necessary. God is a great King. He has given commands. Neglect of God's commands is sin.

nl wrote:
Jesus Christ said "Seek ye first". He also said "Strive to enter at the narrow gate."

A)It seeks to free the black mind from those beliefs and attitudes which frustrate the impulse and movement toward liberation.

B)It seeks to "legitimate" this liberation strategy as "the Christian way",i.e., it purports to establish an equation between black power and the gospel.

He goes on to say: "Advocates of the religion of black power . . . appear to replace the Christian ontology of love with an ontology of powerism. In this connection, it is noteworthy that Joseph Washington, who makes the biblical model normative for black theology, concludes that Marx's concept of power is a 'necessary supplement to the biblical ontology'".

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Dr. Phil, and Lord Acton was really talking about Popes, too But of course since the Papacy above everything else is a political office, it is a good description of all politicians.
One thing I haven't seen is pointed out about Michelle Obama seems to agree with Mr. Wright, her religious leader, q.v., [URL=http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/03/anti-american-comment-number-two-from.html]]]Anti-American Comment Number Two From Mrs. Obama[/URL]. So, the [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil_salesman]]]Snake oil[/URL] salesman, Berack Obama, will make excuses for his religious leader, but none yet for his wife? It is probably because he agrees with both of them.

You must give Barack credit for one thing, he has fit the mold of the American politician, i.e, keep your true objectives hidden by telling the people what you perceive they want to hear. Michele does not have the experience at doing that as her husband. Therefore, I think that you are correct in assessing Barack more truthfully by listening to Michele. Furthermore, there is no way that Barack can escape his belief in Black Theology.