Wayne wrote:
. . .I have both an undergraduate and graduate degrees from two well known Bible College & Seminary (Talbot & Dallas Seminary). You can't get any more evangelical and conservative as those schools! . . .

Well this explains a lot. First, neither of these "schools" are evangelical or conservative. They do not teach justification by faith alone and like John Hagee they promote dispensational heresy.

Wayne wrote:
". . .the best that they can come up with is 'he is un-American, un-patriotic, he has a funny name, he is a muslim, he has no experience, his wife doesn't love America,' etc." This is laughable!

the metal-urgist wrote:
I have to admit, Lance, that's a pretty funny coffee mug.
Dr. Phil:
Two questions:
If you are the real Dr. Phil, how do you trim your 'stache? And, what does empiricism have to do with anything?

PS:
I have no mustache nor is my head bald. Empirical assumption.

Lance,

Lance Eccles wrote:
"The other danger is that people will think that by wearing a "Jesus is my homeboy" t-shirt, that that by itself makes them a good Christian."
I don't think I'd wear one of those, but at least you can say that the wearer is witnessing to his faith. (I don't know how effective this sort of witness is.)
I'm reminded of the ad for a coffee mug I saw on an RC website. It had on it a picture of a woman helping her husband barbecue sausages. As she helped him, she was thinking: "I'd rather be burning heretics."

Regardless, this "what would Jesus Buy?" question yields to the irrationalism of the subject. It implies that a)God is in need of something to buy it, and b)he would have to give up something to get it. This is particularly ludicrous in the light of "He that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things."

"Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?"

Jethro wrote:
I know Evangelicals, of which I am one, are not renowned for paying attention to the original Bible languages, but it isn't rocket science to discover that the two Greek words 'arsenokoites' and 'malakos', imported into some modern English translations of the Bible as meaning 'homosexual', don't actually mean that at all. Even if they did, singling out homosexuality for special treatment is not only unfair, but misses Paul's point completely.
Having done that elemetary homework, I fully understand why Rowan Williams believes the Bible doesn't forbid all same-sex relationships.
Surely, he MUST be faithful to what he believes Scripture genuinely teaches, and not be swayed by what men try to tell him it teaches, even if these men are the Evangelical establishment.

Daniel Lee Ford wrote:
[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=725081115266]]]why vote McCAIN Kevin Swanson[/URL]
The Democrat candidate is the first pro-infanticide candidate to run for political office.
And NOW we see he's pro-killing Christians.
(SA story above)

Kevin Swanson tries to assemble a few reasons to vote for John McCain but has a hard time whipping up much enthusiasm in that order. It's sort of hard to figure out who should preside over the continued amassing of political tyranny and the breakdown of a society. But more importantly, what does God think about our political priorities? How does God want us to vote?
(2) 'issues' lead to the LORD God wiping out a nation:
a. shedding innocent blood
[URL=http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/john-mccain-is-not-pro-life/]]]McCAIN is not Pro-life[/URL]
b. support of sodomy
[URL=http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1132 ]]]McCAIN dont ask don't tell illegal view[/URL]
John McCain's repeated and mistaken defense of
"don't-ask-don't-tell" . . .

KK wrote:
.
.............................................. ... You're 110% Right !!!
I only posted that link to show where "User Comment #36" came from ------- I don't believe Obama is affraid of himself, but I do believe he is the most unqualified, puffed up, arrogant, dangerously twisted, damnably perverse, anti-American, agenda driven individual "We" have ever seen run for the seat of the Presidency ... it says a great deal about the condition of America ... it says a great deal about the Democratic Party !!!
"We The People" best wake up !!! --- How much more will "We" take ???
When I look at Obama, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and so many others in DC I just get visions of Hitler, Satan and Hell itself...
By no means do I think McCain is the right man for the job, but in light of the alternative he will have to do --- AND "We" MUST BE EVER WATCHFUL TO SEE THAT McCain WALKS THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW !!!
Have a great day !!!
"IN" Christ, KK

Dan Finney wrote:
. . . Your Pharasaic hatred and fear is overshadowing your Christian love.

Pardon me, but it appears that your "Christian love" is overshadowing your better judgment and discernment of Barak Obama. He has expressed enough of his mind to indicate where his true loyalties rest, and where he intends to take this country. He only says enough of what people want to hear to gain their confidence. It will be too late to do anything about it once he is in the White House.

"MARK THEM WHICH CAUSE DIVISIONS CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE WHICH YOU HAVE LEARNED; AND AVOID THEM."
ROMANS 16:17

Barak Obama's Black Liberation Theology is contrary to Biblical Doctrine.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Partial Birth Abortion. . .A murderous proceedure near to the heart of Michelle Obama and sadly to many "liberals" who voted for her husband knowing this is what he would defend as being legal and lawful in this country.

How does Osteen's message square with, "Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?"
James 2:4-6

In fact, Osteen is the master of ceremonies in the modern "Worship Circus".

Regarding GG, and the "Church's Spear" (Lance 'Ecclessia'):

lyn wrote:
Jodie, again, what is a neutral site one could go to to verify these healings? Just because Bentley 'claims' proof is not proof. Even demonic spirits can perform signs and wonders; what message is Todd preaching with his healing? Does it line up word for word with scripture? Did you read the article, if not, why not? I must correct an earlier post of mine, this couple traveled their home in Texas to Denton, Texas, just outside of Dallas. Their son was turned away at their request for healing because he didn't 'look the part'. HOW DO YOU DEFEND THIS? Can Bentley only heal certain people who look like they can be healed?
I am not questioning your salvation, I am questioning your upholding Bentley's teachings and healings, so there's no need to repeatedly remind everyone of that.
I repeat my questions, what message does he preach, and if he has power to heal, how do you defend turning away a 7 year old autistic child for healing?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Dr. Phil, Obama said,"...I am confident that we are going to be able to find a church we feel comfortable with and that will reflect our concerns and values." --from [URL=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811069,00.html]]]Obama's Church Moves On After Exit[/URL]. You can relax, Dr. Phil, he won't be contaminating any Christian Church.

But I was more concerned with the thought that a President of the US may be joining a Muslim "mosque". Haven't read the URL yet but, did he say anything about that as someone had said he did before?

Har D. Har-har wrote:
Dobson and Mohler can talk about abortion as if it's a slam-dunk win for McCain, but I'm not so sure it's so simple.

John Yurich wrote:
That is totally false that Catholics are loyal to the Pope. I am a Catholic and I am not loyal to the Pope. I do not pay attention to anything that the Pope says. Where do you come up with this nonsense that the Pope claims to have authority over all churches, not just the Catholic Church? I do not believe that the Pope has authority over any other church but the Catholic Church. I believe that the Pope is just the earthly leader of the Catholic Church.

Lance Eccles wrote:
Of course it comes from the RCC, and of course I defend the RCC, the only authority with the right to interpret the scriptures.
Others may think that they have some personal right to interpret scripture for themselves, but they contradict one another, and only sow confusion.

Moreover, you forgot mention how "the RCC" contradicts the scriptures that they say they have the sole authority to interpret. For example, what contradiction do we see in the interpretation of: "There is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Yet the RCC interprets this clear teaching to mean that there is a multitude of mediators - Mary, the saints, the priests, the Pope, etc. etc.

PS: You did not answer my question regarding yours and the RCC's interpretation of the doctrine of Grace.

Lance Eccles wrote:
The lies are a way of rejecting God's grace.

Or as another writer, Voltaire, said regarding the RCC: "Lie, lie, lie. Some of it will stick."

The Grace of God is a gift wherein faith and repentance are granted to turn men away from rejecting the gospel to belief of the truth. (Eph. 2:1-9) Now, this logically means that men have not received grace if they persist in rejection.

Therefore, your wrong view of grace indicates that you have believed the lie regarding the grace of God. Where does your training come from but the RCC that you persist in defending?

Now, who is the liar?

PS: Did Voltaire the liar really say this "regarding the RCC"?

Sir Richard Francis Burton once said,

Jim Lincoln wrote: