Buckeyes wrote:
(John 8:32) @Lurker,
Thank you for your service. Your response exhibited more grace than mine probably would have. Have a blessed evening!

Erik Casey wrote:
Lurker, thank you for exposing who and what you worship by quoting from the document of your false god. But the true and living God is a consuming fire who commandeth all men every where to repent. Acts 17.30!

Since you are obviously settled in your convictions, I'll bid you farewell and say to you what I've said to others on similar occasions:

Some thoughts that came to me today while working.

There are presently 195 nation/states in the world and I dare say God has at least a few people in each and every one with the obvious exception of Vatican City.

With that in mind, if a Christian theocracy is God's will for His people, as you have been so diligently trying to demonstrate from scripture, why is it we can't name one anywhere in the world except Vatican City, the seat of Satan?

And why is it your focus centers only on the USA? What about all the other people, called of God, scattered around the world? Should they all emigrate to the USA or should there be 194 Christian theocracies? How's that going to work?

Seems to me that if a Christian theocracy is God's will for His people..... well, you get the idea..... a complete failure. However, if it is His word being spread to all nations by means of the vernacular bible..... I'd say it has been a tremendous success for the past near 500 years as promised:

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Erik Casey wrote:
Lurker Congrats- that was me. A couple points concerning your message.

That said, it's my opinion that if God wanted the USA to be a Christian theocracy it would have been so. But it isn't. Yet we, as English speaking people, have a bible with His very words in our own language and we are free to read it and derive what we will. That wasn't so prior to 1560. And the constitution has guaranteed that freedom. Does God need anything more to call those He has foreknown to Himself?

"In 1660 Scotland rejected God's Christ as ruler over their country. In 1643 Scotland made a covenant with God, England and Ireland called the Solemn League & Covenant. When they rejected Christ as head of their nation by breaking this oath, they began on a path of utter destruction. (cf Hebrews 10:28-31) Therefore, God sent a strong delusion. (2 Thess. 2.11) They were already infected with the baptist heresy of toleration, which became codified at the Glorious Revolution. The delusion became stronger by the demonic movement called The Great Awakening which bore its fruit in the US Constitution as the 1st Amendment. You are either with Christ or against him. The 1st amendment declared war on Christ. It's our duty to repent of breaking this oath, to reject the US Constitution and do a covenant renewal of the SL&C, or else suffer the same demise as Europe."

It seems Erik would prefer the USA have a national church with a man's covenant similar to the failed Solemn League & Covenant.

Sixteen43 wrote:
In 1660 Scotland rejected God's Christ as ruler over their country. In 1643 Scotland made a covenant with God, England and Ireland called the Solemn League & Covenant. When they rejected Christ as head of their nation by breaking this oath, they began on a path of utter destruction. (cf Hebrews 10:28-31) Therefore, God sent a strong delusion. (2 Thess. 2.11) They were already infected with the baptist heresy of toleration, which became codified at the Glorious Revolution. The delusion became stronger by the demonic movement called The Great Awakening which bore its fruit in the US Constitution as the 1st Amendment. You are either with Christ or against him. The 1st amendment declared war on Christ. It's our duty to repent of breaking this oath, to reject the US Constitution and do a covenant renewal of the SL&C, or else suffer the same demise as Europe.

John UK wrote:
So does Lurker want us to be literal in the above example? That is how it reads. He even says that no-one pays attention to these actual words of Jesus.

You've missed the point. This round in the never ending discussion about biblical wine went in the usual direction; the literal aspect. I suppose that was to be expected since that is what the news item is about. Yet when I post a text that says the blood of Jesus is wine, it's immediately said it's figurative. How are we to objectively know that? Are there versions of the bible out there that I'm not aware of that have HS inspired footnotes?

I understand what bro US posted and appreciate his input but that hermeneutic is totally subjective. And that is my point. Scripture interprets scripture isn't really so if it's subjective.... it's whatever the reader is predisposed to believe. Is that as good as it gets from the greatest Author know to mankind?

This will be my last post on this thread so prod me with questions if you must but I'll not reply.

Kieron wrote:
There is no such verse in scripture that teaches a “wise moderate use of alcohol”. If anyone knows show my two or three verses rightly divided now is your chance.

Matt 26:27-28 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament...

Take note Jesus said "this *is* my blood", not "this is like unto my blood". Yet no one pays attention the words of Jesus when it comes to this subject. Why?

There are two types of blood mentioned in the bible, just are there are two types of wine; the blood of Jesus for the remission of sin (Matt 26:28, Rom 5:9, 1 Pet 1:18-19) and the blood of bulls and goats which can never take away sin (Heb 10:11).

Carl in Raleigh wrote:
[…] Those of clergy who want to pass off on governments what the Bride of Christ should be doing are simply Harlots riding the beast.

When I read the article it became clear that a liberal political agenda is at play within the UMC. From the article:

"They’re unsettled to see a fellow member of the United Methodist Church (UMC) enforcing policies their tradition opposes, specifically, the White House directive to apprehend and separate families crossing the US border."

Christopher000 wrote:
I sure hope everyone gets out to vote with 19 Democratics states, and even more wildcards. Just imagine life once again with Pelosi and Schumer sitting on their thrones, and a Democrat controlled house. Their first order of business will be to try and impeach Trump, maybe even Kavannaugh, if that's possible, and Maxine Waters will be their voice to incite the ignorant. What a joke these people are talking about civility, and the overall hipocrisy is so unbelievably over the top.
Case in point: Anyone catch, or hear Hillary's comment regarding black people during an interview with Recodes, Kara Swisher last week?
Well, that was Eric Holder," Clinton noted.
"Eric Holder, oh, Eric Holder, sorry," Swisher said.
"Yeah, I know they all look alike," Clinton quipped to a wave of laughter and applause in the room."

Yes, I saw her intentional black remark. Apparently she's too big to fall and gets a wink instead. Disgusting.

Buckeyes wrote:
John 8:32 @Christopher000,
Could you imagine if Trump or Pence had said the same thing Hillary said there? They would be plastered all over the news media being condemned as the typical Republican. That type of statement deserves to be condemned whether it comes from a Democrat or a Republican, but in this era of team player politics, if it comes from a player wearing a blue jersey, blue team will be 100% behind them no matter what they do or say. We must be careful we don't go there as well. The Democrats seem to have lost their minds since last election. Since when do these people think the ones who create the most violence, and violent rhetoric are gonna get elected? It's a crazy world we live in right now. Let's take up our responsibilities as Christians and do our best to be a light to those around us.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Just because the shooter was a Nazi anti-Trump character, really doesn't let Trump off the hook ❗
[ https://tinyurl.com/y8ulngyo ]

"The president did not tell a deranged man to send pipe bombs to the people he regularly lambastes on Twitter and lampoons in his rallies, so he’s not at fault. Trump didn’t cause another deranged man to tweet that the caravan of refugees moving toward America’s southern border (the one Trump has complained about endlessly) is paid for by the Jews before he shot up a synagogue. Trump certainly never told him, “Go kill some Jews on a rainy Shabbat morning.”

But this definition of culpability is too narrow, too legalistic — and ultimately too dishonest. The pipe-bomb makers and synagogue shooters and racists who mowed a woman down in Charlottesville were never even looking for Trump’s explicit blessing, because they knew the president had allowed bigots like them to go about their business, secure in the knowledge that, like Nemtsov’s killers, they don’t really bother the president, at least not too much. His role is just to set the tone. Their role is to do the rest."

Plain Old Tim wrote:
Yes, Lurker, there are left-threaded as well as right-threaded wingnuts, but there seem to be more liberal wackos than conservative. Someone sent me a meme this morning from the Babylon Bee in which demons are begging Jesus to cast them out of a screaming liberal mob and into the abyss. One could almost sympathize with the devils.

Backwoods Duck Farmer wrote:
I'm a white lactose intolerant guy.

Plain Old Tim wrote:
Speaking of Democrats, I’m sure you’ve all heard by now that what appear to be bombs have been found at or near the homes of the Clintons, the Obamas, and George Soros as well as at the offices of CNN and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. While I by no means endorse these actions, I must say that Hillary Clinton declared war on conservatives when she called for an end to civility, and when you declare war you shouldn’t wonder that shots are fired. I wouldn’t be surprised if the perpetrator turns out to be a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad.

Frank wrote:
Good comment brother. And let me add that normally these folks resort to the same methodology that they are accusing others of doing. I thought I made a scriptural argument for the way I address Jim and I never attacked Steven Hamilton at all. His response was either I was not a Christian or lying to myself. AMAZING.
Anyway, thanks for your wisdom!

Steven Hamilton wrote:
... the constant attacks against one another (from people who CLAIM to be Christian) I find genuinely repulsive!!!!!! I most definitely do not agree with most of Jim’s viewpoints, but I also do not agree with the actions of others on here professing Jesus as their Lord and Savior who do not even try to follow his commands in regards to interacting with others inside and outside the body of Christ!