Should a good Christian be patriotic?

[Zaac]

Don't you know Rev? We're not supposed to talk about sin!! Not sure how we preach the Gospel without talking about sin but that is what we are supposed to do! Just tell them that Jesus is the Saviour, (save them from what exactly we don't tell them because after all NEVER TALK ABOUT SIN!!!). Of course what this leads to is more false professions of faith because they came to Christ for a Better life not in broken repentance over sin because we didn't tell them about sin and fleeing the wrath to come! Then, of course we are bewildered over why the church is so worldly and unChristlike. The church needs to be the agency driving social change by reaching people with the Gospel, the WHOLE Gospel. We need to do this by dealing directly with sin, all sin. It doe not work to simply say Jesus loves you.

Nobody said don't tell them what they are being saved from. But how many people do you know whose only sin is aborting a baby?

Preach the Gospel that leads to salvation from ALL of their sin.

The church is so worldly and unChristlike because it's become filled with a bunch of folks whose love has waxed because they've forgotten the sin from which Christ saved them.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sharing the Gospel is an issue of life and death too. Which one have we been commissioned of God to put at the forefront yet the world knows more of us and our pet sins than it knows of us sharing the Gospel in love?

Of course it's an issue of life and death. Everybody gets that just like I hope everybody gets that it's a sin.

But so are a lot of other things.

Lead folks to Christ and disciple them to obey and grow in HIM and the moral issues will take care of themselves.

There is no more political answer to abortion than there is to rampant fornication.

I am sorry but this post is just sick. I am disgusted at the lack of concern for the unborn children being slaughtered. Abortion is not on the same level as fornication.

 

[Revmitchell]

Don't you know Rev? We're not supposed to talk about sin!! Not sure how we preach the Gospel without talking about sin but that is what we are supposed to do! Just tell them that Jesus is the Saviour, (save them from what exactly we don't tell them because after all NEVER TALK ABOUT SIN!!!). Of course what this leads to is more false professions of faith because they came to Christ for a Better life not in broken repentance over sin because we didn't tell them about sin and fleeing the wrath to come! Then, of course we are bewildered over why the church is so worldly and unChristlike. The church needs to be the agency driving social change by reaching people with the Gospel, the WHOLE Gospel. We need to do this by dealing directly with sin, all sin. It doe not work to simply say Jesus loves you.

You know he is just a young kid who does not seem to understand the reality of some things.

 

[ktn4eg]

FWIW, IMHO I believe that there's enough "blame" within the ranks of both political parties when it comes to trying to figure out "Who's the most responsible for the continued murder of our unborn children."

Most of the US Supreme Court justices who played a significant role in the deliberations of the 1973 Roe v. Wade case were appointed and confirmed by supposedly relatively "moderate" [Whatever that means!] political figures from both parties.

If memory serves me correctly, it was Justice Harry Blackmun [a Nixon appointee] who actually wrote the legal decision that some how came to the conclusion that the courts could not interfere with a woman's so-called "Right to Privacy" [Whatever that is!] if she so chose to murder the unborn child who happened to be residing in her womb.

None of the Presidential administrations (both Democrat AND Republican!) that followed this shameful SCOTUS decision did very little--or, in most cases, NOTHING AT ALL, to put an end to this national tragedy.

While some Presidents may have given rather reluctant "lip service" to encourage the "Pro-Life" elements within their respective parties, when it came right down to it, most of the time they simply ignored the "Pro-Lifers'" pleas for real action to actually put a lasting stop the killing of our nation's unborn infants.

One might recall that, prior to the 2012 Republican Party's primary elections in January of that year, presumed "front-runner" former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had been very openly "Pro-Choice" until he realized that most of the voters who chose to participate in his party's primaries and/or caucuses were "Pro-Life."

With that in mind, all of the sudden (out of the clear blue sky), Romney declares that he's now "Pro-Life"!

Whether or not Romney really did have "a permanent change of heart" on this issue is something that a lot of folks still question.

Some rather skeptical pundits tried to corner him with the fact that he never distanced himself from his own so-called "Romney-Care" that he had not only personally conceived, but also "ram-rodded" through the heavily-ultra-liberal-Democrat-controlled Massachusetts State Assembly.

Then, too, Romney remained very vocal in supporting several of "The Bay State's" political candidates (of BOTH parties, mind you!) who were very open advocates of "Abortion On Demand"!

Of course, to no one's surprise, most all of the recent Democrat national-level office holders are avowed members of the Washington (DC) Beltway's "Pro-Choice[?] Political Caucus."

With our current "Dictator-In-Chief's" extreme left-wing socialist administration in place, you know that there's nothing going to be done to put a stop to our nation's disgraceful and inhuman murder of its unborn infants!

Moreover, sad to say, there are very few "promising" GOP Presidential "hopefuls" who seem to place much of an emphasis on trying to permanently stop killing our nation's future generations either.

One could wish that the outlook for the permanent ending of abortion in the USA in the near future would not be as bleak as it seems to be, but I, for one, seriously doubt that it will turn out the way that most of us here who post on "BB Land's" forums wish it would be so. :tear::tear:

 

[Revmitchell]

FWIW, IMHO I believe that there's enough "blame" within the ranks of both political parties when it comes to trying to figure out "Who's the most responsible for the continued murder of our unborn children."

Most of the US Supreme Court justices who played a significant role in the deliberations of the 1973 Roe v. Wade case were appointed and confirmed by supposedly relatively "moderate" [Whatever that means!] political figures from both parties.

If memory serves me correctly, it was Justice Harry Blackmun [a Nixon appointee] who actually wrote the legal decision that some how came to the conclusion that the courts could not interfere with a woman's so-called "Right to Privacy" [Whatever that is!] if she so chose to murder the unborn child who happened to be residing in her womb.

None of the Presidential administrations (both Democrat AND Republican!) that followed this shameful SCOTUS decision did very little--or, in most cases, NOTHING AT ALL, to put an end to this national tragedy.

While some Presidents may have given rather reluctant "lip service" to encourage the "Pro-Life" elements within their respective parties, when it came right down to it, most of the time they simply ignored the "Pro-Lifers'" pleas for real action to actually put a lasting stop the killing of our nation's unborn infants.

One might recall that, prior to the 2012 Republican Party's primary elections in January of that year, presumed "front-runner" former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had been very openly "Pro-Choice" until he realized that most of the voters who chose to participate in his party's primaries and/or caucuses were "Pro-Life."

With that in mind, all of the sudden (out of the clear blue sky), Romney declares that he's now "Pro-Life"!

Whether or not Romney really did have "a permanent change of heart" on this issue is something that a lot of folks still question.

Some rather skeptical pundits tried to corner him with the fact that he never distanced himself from his own so-called "Romney-Care" that he had not only personally conceived, but also "ram-rodded" through the heavily-ultra-liberal-Democrat-controlled Massachusetts State Assembly.

Then, too, Romney remained very vocal in supporting several of "The Bay State's" political candidates (of BOTH parties, mind you!) who were very open advocates of "Abortion On Demand"!

Of course, to no one's surprise, most all of the recent Democrat national-level office holders are avowed members of the Washington (DC) Beltway's "Pro-Choice[?] Political Caucus."

With our current "Dictator-In-Chief's" extreme left-wing socialist administration in place, you know that there's nothing going to be done to put a stop to our nation's disgraceful and inhuman murder of its unborn infants!

Moreover, sad to say, there are very few "promising" GOP Presidential "hopefuls" who seem to place much of an emphasis on trying to permanently stop killing our nation's future generations either.

One could wish that the outlook for the permanent ending of abortion in the USA in the near future would not be as bleak as it seems to be, but I, for one, seriously doubt that it will turn out the way that most of us here who post on "BB Land's" forums wish it would be so. :tear::tear:

So what? Appointing someone does not leave you at fault. That is an odd logic.

And the Republicans have worked very hard and have been quite successful at limiting abortion across the country.

 

[OldRegular]

I believe all need a list of what you consider anti-christian policies before anyone can make a rational reply.

What policies are you talking about?

The slaughter of unborn children should be at the top of the list!

Refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act is another.

Obama evolving to the elevated level where he now supports the marriage of homosexual perverts is another

 

[ktn4eg]

Revmitchell:

....And your political solution to permanently end any and all forms of abortion at the national level would be .....???

Maybe where you happen to call home there might possibly be some rather limited examples of where abortion was made relatively less available, but that, IMHO at least, doesn't appear to be the trend at the national level for the foreseeable future.

Although, my brother and friend, I wish it were not the case, I, sadly, stand by what I've written in my above post on this thread.

 

[OldRegular]

The question was for Yeshuda.

To your first paragraph, no one is forcing the employee to accept contraceptive devices.

They are forcing Roman Catholic groups to fund contraceptives including the those that induce abortion!

 

[OldRegular]

When are you going to stop defending the party of death and misery for the living, the GOP. I oppose both abortion and mistreatment of the poor, the elderly and the ill.

Crabbie why do you continue to lie. No one believes you! You support the party of death and the continued slaughter of the unborn child.

I would also point out that it is the Republican party which is trying to save medicare and Social Security from bankruptcy while the "party of death" is trying to spend the country into bankruptcy.

If you are going to scream about the unborn, why not the same about the misery inflicted on the living?

Actually in 2007 I began to predict that Obama would destroy the economy and the country. We are now in the 5th year of the Obama Depression. By the time he gets kicked out we will be in the seventh year of the Obama Depression the same as that of FDR!

You continually take threads away from the subject of the OP. This is understandable occasionally, but it happens in your posts on just about every thread you respond to and it should stop.

Not, go back and address the issue of the OP, patriotism and the church.

Thanks.

I did not derail the thread Crabbie but I believe it is unChristian and unAmerican to slaughter the unborn child.

I do agree with you on one thing you posted earlier. I do not think the American flag should be placed in the Church Worship center. In fact I don't think any banners should be in the Worship center.

 

[Revmitchell]

Revmitchell:

....And your political solution to permanently end any and all forms of abortion at the national level would be .....???

Maybe where you happen to call home there might possibly be some rather limited examples of where abortion was made relatively less available, but that, IMHO at least, doesn't appear to be the trend at the national level for the foreseeable future.

Although, my brother and friend, I wish it were not the case, I, sadly, stand by what I've written in my above post on this thread.

Then you need to keep up with the news because it is more than a trend. Abortion clinics are closing down all over the country.


http://www.christianitytoday.com/gl...-closing-planned-parenthood-abby-johnson.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/abortion-clinic-closures_n_3804529.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/abortion-clinic-closures_n_3804529.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...aper+(Nation/Politics+-+The+Washington+Times)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...t-record-pace-after-states-tighten-rules.html

 

[OldRegular]

Revmitchell:

....And your political solution to permanently end any and all forms of abortion at the national level would be .....???

Maybe where you happen to call home there might possibly be some rather limited examples of where abortion was made relatively less available, but that, IMHO at least, doesn't appear to be the trend at the national level for the foreseeable future.

Although, my brother and friend, I wish it were not the case, I, sadly, stand by what I've written in my above post on this thread.

The following is from an unlikely source but the facts presented refute your argument!

The Stealth War on Abortion
While more Americans support upholding 'Roe v. Wade' than ever, the Tea Party and the Christian right have teamed up to pass hundreds of restrictions eviscerating abortion rights in GOP-controlled state legislatures across the country

Since 2010, when the Tea Party-fueled GOP seized control of 11 state legislatures – bringing the total number of Republican-controlled states to 26 – conservative lawmakers in 30 states have passed 205 anti-abortion restrictions, more than in the previous decade. "What you're seeing is an underhanded strategy to essentially do by the back door what they can't do through the front," says Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is currently litigating against some of the new anti-choice laws. "The politicians and organizations advancing these policies know they can't come right out and say they're trying to effectively outlaw abortion, so instead, they come up with laws that are unnecessary, technical and hard to follow, which too often force clinics to close. Things have reached a very dangerous place."

Last June, the right's stealth attack on abortion rights became front-page news, when, in an attempt to block a vote on a sweeping omnibus bill that included 20 pages of anti-abortion legislation, Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis embarked on an 11-hour-plus filibuster in the Texas Statehouse. Wearing rouge-red Mizuno running shoes and an elegant string of pearls, the blond, blue-eyed Davis, a onetime single mother and a graduate of Harvard Law School, became an overnight symbol of what, in many states, is a growing popular resistance to the conservative anti-choice agenda. But Davis' filibuster failed to prevent the Texas Legislature from holding a special session in July to pass the bill, despite widespread public opposition.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-stealth-war-on-abortion-20140115#ixzz2vz1zn6jI
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

The following is long but again it is from an unlikely source and refutes your previous argument!

Bush's Strategy to Restrict Reproductive Freedom: A Chronology
To understand President Bush's ongoing strategy to restrict women's reproductive freedom, you need only look at his record since taking office in 2001. Bush has nominated over 200 anti-choice judges to the federal bench, has made a host of other anti-choice appointments to non-judicial posts, has enthusiastically signed anti-choice legislation passed by Congress, and has used his administration to further policies limiting access to safe and legal abortion.

January 2001 (on the President's first official day in office)

The President reinstated the Global Gag Rule. The Gag Rule prohibits any government funded international entity from using its own private funds to perform or provide abortions, lobby their own government for a change in abortion laws, conduct public education campaigns about abortion, refer women to safe abortion providers, or even provide medically accurate counseling about abortion to their clients.

January 2002 (and subsequent years)

The President declared January 18 "Sanctity of Life Day." The proclamation states that we must pursue a civil society "that will democratically embrace its essential moral duties, including...caring for children born and unborn."

January 2002

The Bush Administration directs states to classify a developing fetus as an "unborn child." The Administration recommends changing SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) so that states may cover children from conception until age 19.

December 2002

The President appointed Dr. David Hager as a member of the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA. Dr. Hager is a member of the Christian Medical Association and Physicians Resource Council for Focus on the Family, two virulently anti-choice organizations. In his book As Jesus Cared For Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, Dr. Hager states that the symptoms of premenstrual syndrome can be cured by prayer and reading Scripture.

2002 (and every year since)

The President withheld the Congress-approved $34 million for the United Nations Population Fund. UNFPA provides critical services to women around the world including educational materials, reproductive health services and contraception.

November 2003

The President signed the federal abortion ban. Three federal district courts and one federal appellate court have struck the ban down as unconstitutional. It provides no exception to protect women's health.

April 2004

The President signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, an attempt to establish a precedent that could be used to weaken a woman's right to choose. The specific language of the legislation elevates the fetus with rights distinct from a pregnant woman.

May 2004

The President supported the FDA decision to withhold approval of over-the-counter distribution of emergency contraception. The FDA is scheduled to decide by September 1, 2005 whether to approve non-prescription sales of emergency contraception.

September 2004

The President applied heavy pressure on Congress to approve $273 million for abstinence-only education programs.

October 2004

The President pressured Congress to pass its Department of Defense Authorization bill denying federal funds to women in the military seeking abortions in the case of rape or incest.

January 2005

The Department of Justice issued its first ever guidelines regarding medical treatment of sexual assault survivors. The guidelines did not include any mention of emergency contraception.

January 2005

President Bush gave a recess appointment to Charles W. Pickering to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit after a failed cloture vote. Pickering has been quoted as saying, "The Supreme Court decision of the United States allows abortion on demand. It gives the husband no say-so.... The taking of life is wrong and we should oppose abortion."



http://www.prochoice.org/policy/executive/bush_strategy.html

 

[OldRegular]

Continued from previous post!

February 2005

President Bush gave William Pryor a recess appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pryor has been quoted as saying, "I will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the lives of millions of unborn children."

February 2005

President Bush re-nominated several extreme judicial nominees, including four who opposed reproductive choice, that were previously rejected by the Senate.

February 2005

The United States delegation to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women attempted to manipulate the language in the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing conference's platform. They proposed an amendment specifying that the platform not include a right to abortion or "create any new international human rights," ignoring the original recommendation that abortion should be safe in places where it is legal and that criminal charges should not be filed against any woman who undergoes an illegal abortion.

May 2005

Three of President Bush's most extreme nominees hostile to choice are confirmed to the federal appellate courts: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and Bill Pryor.

July 2005

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a pivotal vote on the Supreme Court in upholding a woman's right to choose, retired. President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to fill her seat. Roberts had once argued for the reversal of Roe v. Wade and stated that there was "no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution" for the reasoning behind Roe. Roberts had also co-authored a brief arguing that "[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled..." in a case where the validity of Roe was not at issue. Roberts also referred to a fundamental right to privacy as merely a "so-called" right and argued for narrow interpretations of other women's rights in cases of constitutional protection against sex discrimination, equal opportunities in education, and protecting women in the workplace. Roberts even argued against the federal government's protection of women being harassed and physically intimidated at reproductive health clinics.

September 2005

Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away. President Bush switched Judge John Roberts' nomination and nominated him to become Chief Justice, a position that is very influential on the Supreme Court and is the head of the judicial branch of government. He was confirmed by the Senate at the end of September.

October 2005

President Bush nominated Judge Samuel Alito from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. Alito had a history of supporting restricted access to abortion and limiting the right to privacy. Alito would have upheld a provision requiring women to notify their husbands prior to having an abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Justice O'Connor, whose seat he was nominated to fill, voted to strike down that provision, joining the plurality opinion that found women most affected and most afraid to notify their husbands of their pregnancies were in the gravest danger.

In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, he wrote his own opinion making clear he joined the decision on New Jersey's ban on certain abortion procedures only because he was required to follow the Supreme Court precedent of Stenberg v. Carhart (Carhart I), a precedent he would no longer be required to follow as a Supreme Court justice. He is confirmed by the Senate in January 2006.

July 2006

President Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This legislation passed both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate with strong bi-partisan support, and was also supported by a majority of Americans. The President's veto reflected a decision to put politics above the lives and health of millions of Americans.

November 2006

President Bush appointed Dr. Eric Keroack to the post of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs (DASPA), the department that oversees Title X, the nation's family planning program. Dr. Keroack was the medical director for A Woman's Concern (AWC), six crisis pregnancy health centers located in the greater Boston area. Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) are designed to discourage pregnant women from seeking abortions, and in many instances they misinform and intimidate women to achieve their goal. His appointment was deeply troubling given Title X's long-standing commitment to medically accurate information. The CPCs that he directed claimed that contractption was "demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness." NAF and many other health care and women's organizations sent a letter to Michael Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services, to express serious concerns over the appointment of Dr. Keroack. He resigned in March 2007.

April 2007

The United States Supreme Court issued its decision upholding a federal ban on certain safe abortion procedures in Carhart v. Gonzales. In the first decision issued since Justice O'Connor's retirement, the Court retreated from a core principle of Roe v. Wade - that women's health must remain paramount. The ruling was a major set back for women's health and access to abortion.

June 2007

President Bush again vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, an action out of step with the majority of Americans who support this potentially life-saving medical research. Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to find new treatments, or even cures, for diseases that affect millions of Americans such as cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, ALS, and Alzheimer's.

July 2007

President Bush's Department of Health and Human Services revised its website, replacing factual data about teen pregnancy with biased information and misleading claims, including one that states, "Abortions can have complications. There may be emotional consequences, as well: some women say that they feel sad and some use more alcohol or drugs than before."
http://www.prochoice.org/policy/executive/bush_strategy.html

 

[ashleysdad]

Nobody said don't tell them what they are being saved from. But how many people do you know whose only sin is aborting a baby?

Preach the Gospel that leads to salvation from ALL of their sin.

The church is so worldly and unChristlike because it's become filled with a bunch of folks whose love has waxed because they've forgotten the sin from which Christ saved them.

I am sorry but I stand by what I wrote. The church is unChristlike because the Gospel has been consistently watered down to where it is essentially "Jesus saves you to give you a better life". This mentality has essentially led to unsaved people filling the churches and determining the direction they go in. Which leads to more false converts flooding the church and a continuation of the cycle. The only way to stop that cycle is to confront sin with the true Gospel. Do I believe that abortion or the other sin that we aren't supposed to talk about on open forums are the only sins people commit? No, of course not that is foolish. The reality is however that we are seeing a steady progression of the church compromising on sin after sin because of the ongoing flood of false converts determining the churches view of right and wrong. Think about that for a minute, unsaved people determining what is right and wrong in the church. The two above mentioned issues are simply the most recent in the progression. The church has already accepted (church is used generally here) compromise in many other areas. The logic seems to be to just get them to come to church, don't offend them and hopefully the gospel (read Jesus loves them) will win them over. The problem is they don't doubt for a minute that God loves them. After all God loves everyone and everyone is going to Heaven. I submit that the gospel (little g on purpose) is very lovingly and kindly sending thousands to Hell! What needs to happen is the Gospel (capital G) needs to be preached, sin needs to be called sin and not in some vague, fuzzy "sin is anything that displeased God" way but in a direct manner laying open the hearts of men and women and pouring in the truth of Gods Word and letting it come into direct confrontation with their sin. Then and only then will the church regain a vestige of Godliness! Until then, expect the church to act like the world. Sometimes simply saying "everyone sins" is not enough, sometimes sin must be called out by name and exposed for the evil it is! Paul says basically this in Romans 7:7 " ....I would not have known what coveting (sin) was except the law said you shall not covet".

 

[Crabtownboy]

The slaughter of unborn children should be at the top of the list!

So you are pro-life for the unborn. But still you refuse to be pro-life for the living, the elderly, the ill, those in poverty. In fact you support the party that has worked to make things harder on these living folk.

I suppose you will continue to derail threads.

 

[Zaac]

I am sorry but this post is just sick. I am disgusted at the lack of concern for the unborn children being slaughtered. Abortion is not on the same level as fornication.

You'll be okay. You see what you want to see because ain't nobody expressed a lack of concern for unborn children. It just isn't supposed to be the holy grail of sin that you and others have made it into as though no other sins matter.

Abortion is on the exact same level as fornication.

 

[Zaac]

The slaughter of unborn children should be at the top of the list!

Refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act is another.

Obama evolving to the elevated level where he now supports the marriage of homosexual perverts is another

Again a bunch of foolishness. Because politics is primary in some of yall's lives does not trump God's word.

As a Christian, at the top of your list should be what GOD placed there. And HE didn't commission us to place a focus on abortion and homosexuality before His Commission to Go and share the Gospel that saves.

 

[Zaac]

I am sorry but I stand by what I wrote. The church is unChristlike because the Gospel has been consistently watered down to where it is essentially "Jesus saves you to give you a better life". This mentality has essentially led to unsaved people filling the churches and determining the direction they go in. Which leads to more false converts flooding the church and a continuation of the cycle. The only way to stop that cycle is to confront sin with the true Gospel.

I agree wholeheartedly. But part of that watering down of the Gospel is preaching to folks about ONE sin. That ain't the Gospel at all.

When yall can present to me one person who has only one sin that needs to be forgiven, then there would be a point to be made.

But every person in existence, to be saved,needs to be forgiven of ALL his sins. SO folks in the church need to get off this ego trip about confronting one sin.

Are we trying to win an argument or see folks come to faith in Christ?

Do I believe that abortion or the other sin that we aren't supposed to talk about on open forums are the only sins people commit? No, of course not that is foolish. The reality is however that we are seeing a steady progression of the church compromising on sin after sin because of the ongoing flood of false converts determining the churches view of right and wrong. Think about that for a minute, unsaved people determining what is right and wrong in the church.

Is that any worse than folks who should know better preaching to folks about ONE sin as though that's all that needs to be forgiven?

The two above mentioned issues are simply the most recent in the progression. The church has already accepted (church is used generally here) compromise in many other areas. The logic seems to be to just get them to come to church, don't offend them and hopefully the gospel (read Jesus loves them) will win them over.

Au contraire. Frankly they don't have any business at the church unless the church is doing an evangelistic outreach, IMO. The Church is supposed to be for the Body of Believers to be equipped to go out and share the Gospel.

The problem is they don't doubt for a minute that God loves them. After all God loves everyone and everyone is going to Heaven. I submit that the gospel (little g on purpose) is very lovingly and kindly sending thousands to Hell! What needs to happen is the Gospel (capital G) needs to be preached, sin needs to be called sin and not in some vague, fuzzy "sin is anything that displeased God" way but in a direct manner laying open the hearts of men and women and pouring in the truth of Gods Word and letting it come into direct confrontation with their sin. Then and only then will the church regain a vestige of Godliness! Until then, expect the church to act like the world. Sometimes simply saying "everyone sins" is not enough, sometimes sin must be called out by name and exposed for the evil it is! Paul says basically this in Romans 7:7 " ....I would not have known what coveting (sin) was except the law said you shall not covet".

Again, I agree. But the GOSPEL has to be preached. And the GOSPEL addresses ALL of a person's sin, not just abortion or the homosexual offense.

 

[Zaac]

So you are pro-life for the unborn. But still you refuse to be pro-life for the living, the elderly, the ill, those in poverty. In fact you support the party that has worked to make things harder on these living folk.

I suppose you will continue to derail threads.

And right here is why so many in the church lack a leg to stand on MORALLY when it comes to abortion. Because as CBT says, so many "within the church" try to feign such care for the unborn while harboring an evident disdain for those who have already been born.

Focusing on one sin will always come across as condemning. And Jesus didn't come to see anybody condemned.

 

[OldRegular]

So you are pro-life for the unborn.

I am unalterably opposed to the murder of the unborn child. You crabtownboy support the continued slaughter of the unborn child. May God have mercy on your soul.

But still you refuse to be pro-life for the living, the elderly, the ill, those in poverty.

Being one of the elderly whose health is suspect I am most certainly pro life for the elderly and the ill! I am also disposed to help those who are poor and unable to work.

That being said I favor capital punishment for those guilty of certain murders. Gosnel of Philadelphia falls in that category. I also favor the death penalty for those guilty of treason.

When it comes to the government stealing money from those who work and doling it out to those too lazy to work that is a different story. I simply appeal to Scripture, something you seem to shy away from crabtownboy.

2 Thessalonians 3:10. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

1 Timothy 5:8. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Now crabtownboy if you want to help those too lazy to work I am certain that the Federal Government would be happy if you would simply double the income tax you pay!

In fact you support the party that has worked to make things harder on these living folk.

I am happy to support the party who wants the citizens to live by Biblical principles, work hard, help the poor unable to work, fight to overturn abortion, support the Biblical concept of marriage and family, fight to maintain the security of this country both fiscally and militarily.

Certainly you know that you support the "party of death" who celebrated the slaughter of the unborn child at its 2012 convention. Certainly you know that you support the party that is working to destroy the family, supports marriage of homosexual perverts, believes it takes a village to raise a child, not a mother and father. Certainly you know you support the party that has worked incessantly to destroy the moral fabric of this country, aided and abetted through the trash put out by the leftist hollywood crowd.

I suppose you will continue to derail threads.

I am always ready to point out the horror of abortion which you and the "party of Death" support so vigorously.

 

[OldRegular]

And right here is why so many in the church lack a leg to stand on MORALLY when it comes to abortion. Because as CBT says, so many "within the church" try to feign such care for the unborn while harboring an evident disdain for those who have already been born.

Focusing on one sin will always come across as condemning. And Jesus didn't come to see anybody condemned.

Are you like crabtownboy in that you support the party of death, the democrat party and its abortionist-in-chief Obama. You spend all your time in judgment of those on this Forum who disagree with your endless pious ramblings about preaching the gospel but I have yet to see one word from you condemning the party of death, the slaughter of the unborn child, or Obama!