Some people love to use Jesus' words, "do not judge ...." as some sort of weapon when they are presented by the truth of God's Word. In other words, they attempt to use God's Word against the will of God. Jesus also said, "By their fruit you will know them". Thus is contrived a seeming contradiction. How is "knowing" a person based upon their "fruits" (actions and behaviors) not a process that entails some form of judging? At least judging in the sense of matching one's actions and behaviors against their professions. At the same time, Jesus was saying to "judge not", He was making it clear that the one making the judgment must not be guilty of the same offense - or that person will see the judgment of God. Don't be a hypocrite. Further, the context of that message also included loving others and not condemning them - as if one had the right to render condemnation. And only God has the right to do so. It is the will of God that Christians speak the truth based upon His Word. That they preach the Gospel. And that they admonish others of the perils of their contrary behaviors in light of what we are told in the Bible. Dr. Carson has professed a saving faith in Jesus and he then shares what the Bible has to say on matters of faith and morality. Do I agree with everything that he says? Not necessarily. However, his professed faith in Jesus makes him a Christian and his promoting a Biblical view on matters of faith and behavior makes him an obedient Christian, by definition. Has Dr. Carson rendered condemnation to anyone in particular? Not as far as I can tell. If one feels guilty upon the hearing of God's Word, it is not the messenger, but God that is rendering judgment upon that person's heart through the Holy Spirit. However, someone has to "preach" to make that happen.
Don't judge in a way that you wouldn't want to be judged. Can you know Ben Carson's heart Has Jesus told you he's an "obediant Christian"? Or is that your personal judgment?
Just another piece of unattributerd wisdom for you while you contemplate thumping us with your Bible.
Is it possible Gandhi rejected Jesus as the son of God because he was no a Christian? D'ya think?
Sparty thought Gen. Ripper was the one truly heroic character in the movie "Dr. Strangelove" (with the possible exceoption of Slim Pickens.) In fact, between those two, Sparty didn't grasp that it was a comedy. After all, Spart swore an oath to "ride it down" if necessary. He also had no compunctions about fighting in the war room.
back in may 2014 . .
...Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, all but said on Sunday that negotiations over the country’s illicit nuclear program are over and that the Islamic Republic’s ideals include destroying America.
“Those [Iranians] who want to promote negotiation and surrender to the oppressors and blame the Islamic Republic as a warmonger in reality commit treason,” Khamenei told a meeting of members of parliament, according to the regime’s Fars News Agency.
Khamenei emphasized that without a combative mindset, the regime cannot reach its higher Islamic role against the “oppressors’ front.”
Is he a SDA? Neither here nor there, but thought that 144k was more of a Morman criteria. SDA put a lot of stock in the writings of Ellen White, who explains that atonement is not yet complete.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Perhaps this could be viewed as a prison - that I have come to visit. How many years have you folks been posting the same message that brings no hope and no change to anyone? Where are the converts to any of the ardent political preachers? Where is the fruit? But, here is a secret that you may not know: God's Word, that He has spoken, will not return unto Him void, but it will accomplish what pleases Him and the purpose for which He sent it. Depending upon what you do with it, it can save you; but it will of a certainty judge you.
I did find Response to 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation published by the New Zealand Dept. of Health
1) Some stated reasons (e.g. 1, 4, 8,6 and 50) are statements or comm
ents without scientific content.
2) some of the reasons (i.e. 1, 8, 46, 48, 49 and 50)are not actually reasons but
personal subjective viewpoints, some of which lack literal or factual substance.
Many of the references are from doubtful publications (e.g. 10% are published in the journal Fluoride which specialises in anti-fluoride articles)
Also, Dr Connett lists as reasons his submissions to various government and sci
entific agencies, although no information is provided on the responses from
And then they refute all 50 quoting peer-reviewed scientific studies.
There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. Despite the fact that fluoride has been added to community water supplies for over 60 years, “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation” (Cheng 2007). Randomized trials are the standard method for determining the safety and effectiveness of any purportedly beneficial medical treatment. In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a Grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”
Why are you witnessing for your lord and savior on a finance message board? Why do you think anyone cares?
Did you Google "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation"
Don't be a Chump and believe the folks Barking discredited Dogmas about either vaccines or drinking Rat poison in water.
That's why the Canadians aren't building the pipeline themselves--'cause only the RWNJs in the USA are dumb enough to think building it is a good idea.