[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

PV Police Chief's Gun Missing (Realizes he left it in the Library Bathroom, 4 days later)

General says he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike

Happy Thanksgiving 2017!

Vegas Massacre Cover-Up: PR Firm Hired by Mandalay Bay Exposed Pushing Disinformation on Conspiracy Theories

20,000 DWI Cases May Be Thrown Out After Cop Arrested for Tampering With Breathalyzers

Country music legend Mel Tillis dead at 85

Helter skelter: The history of Charles Manson and rock 'n' roll

Grant Cardone was at Mandalay Hotel and he doesn't believe the official story

How a government-sanctioned scam in Newburgh Heights has taken thousands of dollars from drivers

The Cops Were Chasing a Shoplifter. They Ended Up Destroying an Innocent Man's Home.

Amtrak train smashes car in New Hampshire after GPS directed driver onto tracks

Cooking Hamburgers With Thermite

Making Charcoal the Easy Way

Homemade Gunpowder, For Science!

100% TWO ACTUAL SHOOTERS ON VIDEO IN VEGAS - According to Joe

Study reveals how a very low calorie diet can reverse type 2 diabetes

Trump’s overseas trips reap goodwill and trade agreements

Harvard University hosts anal sex workshop (Anal University)

AC/DC co-founder Malcolm Young dies aged 64

Apple's first vice president of diversity stepping down after six months in the job, report says

NY Times Reporter Calls For Censorship of Creepy Videos Of Joe Biden Inappropriately Touching Kids

Al Franken accuser says disgusting USO tour grope photo was an 'in your face' parting shot after nearly two weeks of being 'belittled and humiliated' by future senator

Alabama G.O.P. Says It Stands Behind Roy Moore

Florida Man Being Chased By Police Asks 911 To Call Donald Trump

Ex-Cops Who Fought Against Legal Weed Just Opened a Marijuana Business

Police mistook hibiscus plants for marijuana, arrested Buffalo Township couple, suit claims

Cops Accidentally Film Themselves Planting Cocaine in a Man’s Wallet

FDA, DEA Launch Massive Assault On Kratom – Drug War for Miracle Plant Ramping Up

‘Come Meet a Black Person’ Event in Atlanta

After Admitting to Secretly Experimenting on Troops, Army Refusing to Provide Them Medical Care

A Sheriff Just Threatened Charges Over ‘F*ck Trump’ Sticker — and the Internet Is Destroying Him

Cops Accuse Innocent Man of Breaking Into His Own Truck—So They Shot Him, Twice

"I've Been Banned From Facebook For Sharing An Article About False Flags"

Health Effects: Alcohol vs. Marijuana

Toledo Cops Raid Wrong House, Kill Dogs, Thousands in Damage

Clearwater Beach man facing eviction over emotional support squirrel

U.S. Chamber:"Dreamers" Make America, Americans Have No Role

FBI Seeks Senate Documents on Abortionists' Sale of Fetal Tissue, Body Parts

oman accuses Al Franken of kissing, groping her without consent

What is the worst restaurant experience you ever had?

Judge Moore Sends Defiant Open Letters to Hannity After Fox News Host Gives Him Ultimatum

Trump's cheeseburger draws a crowd at Tokyo restaurant

The universal Rebel and the psy-op to neuter him

Cops Beat Innocent Homeless Man to a Pulp Because He Was Sleeping

Congresswoman: Taxpayers Have Paid $15 MILLION to Silence Sexual Abuse Victims of Politicians

2017 a Record Year for Opium Poppy Cultivation in Afghanistan (The fruits of 16 years of war)

New Wisconsin Gun Law Lets Kids Of Any Age Hunt If An Adult "Mentor" Is Present

The Rot Inside the Republican Party

US hires company with KGB link to guard Moscow embassy

People for sale (Libyan slave markets)


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: This Dogma Won't Hunt
Source: Christianity Today Magazine
URL Source: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ed ... ban-sanders-and-new-relig.html
Published: Sep 10, 2017
Author: Ed Stetzer
Post Date: 2017-09-10 15:04:59 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Bible Study Ping*     Subscribe to *Bible Study Ping*
Keywords: None
Views: 322
Comments: 36

This Dogma Won't Hunt: Feinstein, Durbin, Sanders, and the New Religious Test for Office So much for Article VI of the U.S. Constitution | ED STETZER

Excerpt :

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is the most recent, joined by Dick Durbin, and preceded (most famously) by Bernie Sanders. In all cases, their comments are catching notice on the right and left, and appropriately so. Furthermore, the frequency with which we are seeing it occur is beginning to cause concern for those who hold to religious beliefs today.

Feinstein admonished Amy Barrett, a Trump nominee for a judgeship on the 7th Circuit, saying that Barrett’s Roman Catholic “dogma lives loudly” within her. Lest her words be out of context, here is the context of her statement:

Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that— you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.

Dogma is defined by Merriam Webster as, “a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.” In other words, these are things that people of faith have settled upon in terms of doctrines or beliefs.

This, perhaps, might remind us that dogma lived loudly in many of the nations founders. And it might also remind us of Article VI of the United States Constitution that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States.”

More:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ed...t-feinstein-durban-sanders-and-new- relig.html

Click for Full Text!Subscribe to *Bible Study Ping*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: redleghunter (#0)

Just GREAT! A tyrannical religious freak such as "redleghunter" discussing "dogma." I learn so little from your BS posts.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-10   15:22:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: buckeroo (#1)

More of your chickenshit sniping from the cheap seats.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-10   16:19:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: redleghunter, Vatican rulings (#0) (Edited)

Feinstein's anti-Catholic remarks and line of questioning, as well as Sen. Dick Durbin, who asked during the same confirmation hearing if Barrett was an ‘orthodox Catholic.'

libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...cgi?ArtNum=52690&Disp=All


Religious Test for Office So much for Article VI of the U.S. Constitution

There's a difference between a religious test for office, and concerns that she'll consult the Vatican prior to rendering decisions.

Durbin came closest to asking the relevant question, will she be calling Pope Francis often while deliberating cases?

President Trump and the GOP elite leadership are afraid to question the judicial rulings of Francis. Thank God, Dianne Feinstein has to balls to do so!

And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head

hondo68  posted on  2017-09-10   18:29:40 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: hondo68 (#3)

Yeah that dog don't hunt either.

Feinstein would love for Catholics to get Frank's approval as he is of the same cloth.

redleghunter  posted on  2017-09-11   0:36:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: buckeroo (#1)

That is because you lack the ears to hear. Try to get the right ears buckeroo.

Also redleghunter is an outstanding human being. You not so much. You just whine a lot and offer nothing of value to this chit chat channel.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-11   0:57:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: buckeroo (#1)

tyrannical religious freak such as "redleghunter"

Interesting.

From this day forward you are required to call me "Tyranus."

redleghunter  posted on  2017-09-11   10:30:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: redleghunter (#6)

From this day forward you are required to call me "Tyranus."

What the HELL are you going to do if I don't comply? Manifest more tyranny to save your belief system?

Answer this post, "Tyranus."

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-11   22:16:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: redleghunter (#0)

Yep, the three-headed subversive Dem-Left-Atheist-Globalist-Occultist monster is feeling quite comfy these days, aren't they?

These mutant anarchists and fascists now obviously and arrogantly feel they control the narrative and public opinion and discourse to the degree that their PR and MSM muscle will win the day.

Ironic that these lying fascists feel entitled to exercise their tyranny and bigotry AS the Constitutional Rights of Christians are clearly abused. TYRANTS accusing others of "tyranny." Hitler pulled this crap. Pure projection and lies -- the usual Game Plan from the usual insane, evil suspects.

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-13   21:15:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: buckeroo, redleghunter (#1)

Hilarious!! A pro-Fascist, pro-Tyranny Atheist claims the High Ground!! You're kidding me??

What's *your* dogma," Bucky? I mean besides your "Ain't No God!" shtick? supporting the principles and ethics of Baal?

You're running out of time to straighten out your spiritual confusion. Some of us have tried to help you and a few others here -- you all have the same 'tude. Is your anger, vanity, bitterness at God, and refusal to understand and embrace the Gospel worth the gamble? You'll only be foolishly spiting yourself.

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." ~ 1 Corinthians 2:9

When the Almighty peers down at your name and shakes His head, the sentence won't be "Eternal Life". It'll be your worse nightmare for all Eternity. Think about *that*.

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-13   21:29:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: redleghunter (#6)

From this day forward you are required to call me "Tyranus."

Lol...

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-13   21:30:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: redleghunter (#4)

Feinstein would love for Catholics to get Frank's approval as he is of the same cloth.

Cloth....that reeks of sulfur and rotting flesh. This fake Pope NEVER promotes the Gospel. Yet...no one seems to care that the "Vicar of Christ" is anything but.

I find it amazing the the vast number of RCCs haven't revolted. But then most of them are RCINO.

The Vatican has run the biggest shell game in history. The day the so-called revered Pope Paul kissed the Koran -- a Satanic Book of Death -- was THE day you knew the entire RCC was a deceptive, anti-Christ charade and cult.

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-13   21:37:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: redleghunter (#0)

Feinstein admonished Amy Barrett, a Trump nominee for a judgeship on the 7th Circuit, saying that Barrett’s Roman Catholic “dogma lives loudly” within her.

I wonder (not really) if Feinstein approves of whatever lives loudly within, and comes out in opinions of, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-14   4:03:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Liberator (#8)

Ironic that these lying fascists feel entitled to exercise their tyranny and bigotry AS the Constitutional Rights of Christians are clearly abused. TYRANTS accusing others of "tyranny." Hitler pulled this crap. Pure projection and lies -- the usual Game Plan from the usual insane, evil suspects.

And the committee chairmen let the Dims get away with it too.

redleghunter  posted on  2017-09-14   13:58:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: nolu chan (#12)

I wonder (not really) if Feinstein approves of whatever lives loudly within, and comes out in opinions of, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan?

That's a good point. However, the counter argument will always be that political ideology is not a 'religion' and is accepted in secular society.

Our elected and appointed officials have a very infantile understanding of what Jefferson meant by 'separation of church and state." We have some who actually believe such a statement exists in our Constitution.

redleghunter  posted on  2017-09-14   14:03:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: redleghunter (#13)

And the committee chairmen let the Dims get away with it too.

Outlaw Comittees. Outlaw gubmint.

At what point are outlaw Reps arrested?

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-14   14:11:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: redleghunter (#14)

However, the counter argument will always be that political ideology is not a 'religion' and is accepted in secular society.

One's religious belief should not be dispositive. The Judge should answer the question of what the Government has been delegated power to do lawfully, or what it cannot do. For example, deciding whether the power to decide the issue of abortion has been delegated to the Federal government is a legal question. It is not a moral question of whether abortion should be legal or criminal, but a question of who has the power to decide the issue, the States or the Federal government.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-14   18:30:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: nolu chan (#16)

You are correct.

redleghunter  posted on  2017-09-14   23:39:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: redleghunter (#17)

Tyranus, are you aware of the fallacies you exude in your posts?

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-14   23:47:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Liberator (#11) (Edited)

The day the so-called revered Pope Paul kissed the Koran...

You mean this event? As best I recall, it was May 14, 1999 when Pope John-Paul II smooched that Koran.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-15   0:38:20 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: redleghunter (#6) (Edited)

From this day forward you are required to call me "Tyranus."

I'm a little confused.

Do you mean Tyranus as in Count Dooku (Darth Tyranus) from Star Wars?

Or Tyrannus from the Book of Acts?

School of Tyrannus
School of Tyrannus, Ephesus

"And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus... And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks." (Acts 19:1, 8-10)

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-15   8:04:31 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Tooconservative (#19)

You mean this event? As best I recall, it was May 14, 1999 when Pope John-Paul II smooched that Koran.

Uh, yeah. Dat wuz it.

Should have been world-wide outrage from Christians. AS WELL AS PAGANS! That book as you well know is an instruction manual on MURDER.

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-15   14:34:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: redleghunter, nolu chan (#14)

However, the counter argument will always be that political ideology is not a 'religion' and is accepted in secular society.

Yes. Simply because the Secular Humanist MAKE THE RULES. They have shrewdly established a technicality that has advanced their subversive agenda.

Truth in advertising: Secular Humanism is INDEED a "religion" by any definition or metric. They merely believe Man = God.

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-15   14:44:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: redleghunter, nolu chan (#14)

Our elected and appointed officials have a very infantile understanding of what Jefferson meant by 'separation of church and state." We have some who actually believe such a statement exists in our Constitution.

Oh, I believe most indeed "know" the difference; It just a matter of feigning ignorance and semantic contortionism that allows their secular humanist cult to displace legit faiths/religions (AS defined and intended by the Founders.)

Yes -- then there are the ignorant and willful useful idiots who DO believe such a statement exists in our Constitution. (Thank the Left's Secularists of so-called "Academia" for that monumental lie which found universal traction in our subverted culture.)

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-15   14:51:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: nolu chan, redleghunter (#16)

It is not a moral question of whether abortion should be legal or criminal, but a question of who has the power to decide the issue, the States or the Federal government

The entire issue has been mucked up by design.

Q: Why isn't the act of abortion BOTH a moral AND legal question??

Square ONE: The REAL question is with respect to defining when "LIFE" begins. IF it begins (at which most sane people believe -- when the heart beats), then "abortion" thereafter is clearly MURDER.

Who shall be the arbiter for this issue? Science? Common Sense? A single Judge? Nine SCOTUS Judges? Or We The People?

Ergo, with respect to "authority," does the State OR fedgoob have the moral or legal right to sentence a fetus to death?

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-15   14:59:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: buckeroo (#18)

Bucky, the “Tyranus” deal was a joke. If this joke provoked you to anger, you have my sincerest apologies.

What can we say further to each other? You clearly operate from the material world in which we both live. The world we see is a lie. We either love the lie and willfully live by that lie; or we reject the lie for the Truth of the world we cannot see which is in Christ Jesus and His Promise. A Promise most sure which Christ demonstrated in His life, death, resurrection and ascension into Heaven to be seated at the Right Hand of Power.

It comes down to these two ‘worlds.’ The one we currently live in which is a lie. It is a world of bloodshed, corruption, greed, lust, cold-heartedness, and covetousness. Best summed up by the apostle Paul:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

We have to ask the question. Where do we put our hope? In the world of sin and hate, or is our hope in Christ and His Promise?

Instead of giving you an interweb sermon I prayed for you this morning because I used to love the lie of this world. It is a prison cell. The lie of the fallen world is self-perpetuating. It is a world of death. Yet so many love it and live by it.

However, there is Hope. And this will be my prayer for you Bucky….to have the heart to accept the Truth which is Christ Jesus.

redleghunter  posted on  2017-09-15   17:22:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Liberator, redleghunter (#24)

It is not a moral question of whether abortion should be legal or criminal, but a question of who has the power to decide the issue, the States or the Federal government.

Q: Why isn't the act of abortion BOTH a moral AND legal question??

It is both depending on context, but in a court it is not a moral question. We have courts of law, not courts of morality.

When taken to Federal court, the first question to address is whether the Federal government possesses the power, delegated from the people, to decide the matter, or whether said power has not been given and is reserved to the states, or to the people.

If the Federal court lacks jurisdiction to decide an issue, the case muswt be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Square ONE: The REAL question is with respect to defining when "LIFE" begins. IF it begins (at which most sane people believe -- when the heart beats), then "abortion" thereafter is clearly MURDER.

If the government has not determined that some act satisfies all the elements of what it defines as the crime of murder, it ain't murder.

If left to the States to decide, it could, and likely would, be murder in some states and perfectly legal in others.

When the Federal government is elevated to impose someone's morality on everybody, you may not always be satisfied with the version of morality they choose to impose. If SCOTUS decides on constitutional grounds, then the only available legal pathways to change are (1) an amendment to the Constitution, or (2) another SCOTUS opinion overturning the previous one.

In deciding whether abortion is legal or criminal, the court should look to the law. If the law says abortion is legal, the court has no authority to say it is a crime. The court may strike down a law as unconstitutional, but it has no legislative power to enact a criminal statute.

Who shall be the arbiter for this issue? Science? Common Sense? A single Judge? Nine SCOTUS Judges? Or We The People?

The Courts are delegated the authority to be the arbiter of legal issues.

Individuals do not get to impose their morality on others.

If you feel is wrong under any circumstances, you are free to choose not to get an abortion. You are not free to prevent someone else from getting a lawful abortion. You are free to work to get the laws changed.

The people of the United States do not decide to do anything in a collective, consolidated sense. The members of the union are the States, not the people. In a presidential election, the popular vote does not elect the President.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-16   1:20:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: nolu chan (#26)

I realize you post as what the courts actually do. I do have one small point though. I don't know of you agree or not. But morality is just morality there isn't different versions of it. Also the law should be moral.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-16   1:39:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: nolu chan (#26)

We are ruled by what has become an amoral system. No one person can change it. Since it was corrupted the system will just get worse and worse.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-16   1:41:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: nolu chan (#26)

In deciding whether abortion is legal or criminal, the court should look to the law. If the law says abortion is legal, the court has no authority to say it is a crime. The court may strike down a law as unconstitutional, but it has no legislative power to enact a criminal statute.

I think we discussed criminal statutes before.

I brought up the fact some states have fetal homicide laws for a fetus which can also be selectively aborted.

For example, a woman on her way to have an abortion is shot in the abdomen while at an ATM getting money for an abortion. She survives but the human fetus dies. In some states the shooter can be charged under fetal homicide laws even if the woman wanted to kill the child herself.

I would consider such both a legal and moral inconsistency.

redleghunter  posted on  2017-09-16   1:45:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Liberator (#9)

A pro-Fascist, pro-Tyranny Atheist claims the High Ground!!

Naw. I just call the shots based on my perspective which is not influenced by religious zealotry, such as your Tammy Fayes, et.al.

I have never claimed to be an atheist; moreover, how anyone can take away from my brief posts such a concept is puzzling. I believe you are caught up in semantics because of your own zealotry, that is to say, any deviation or variation from your personal belief system leads to charges such as your silly post cited just above.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-16   10:19:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: buckeroo (#30)

He called you an atheist because you regularly attack Christian concepts. Regularly may be to harsh but sometimes you do.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-16   10:26:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: redleghunter (#25)

Bucky, the “Tyranus” deal was a joke.

No it wasn't as it was a classical Freudian slip, Tyranus. In other words, you blew it, Tyranus and you did so in publick among your peers; this is why you are backtracking on your earlier post, calling your rampage a mere "joke."

What can we say further to each other?

Not much but I want to point out, your communication skills literally "suck." Your formal education must have been horribly supported to you by your parents.

You clearly operate from the material world in which we both live. The world we see is a lie. We either love the lie and willfully live by that lie; or we reject the lie for the Truth of the world we cannot see which is in Christ Jesus and His Promise. A Promise most sure which Christ demonstrated in His life, death, resurrection and ascension into Heaven to be seated at the Right Hand of Power.

You deny reality, Tyranus. You live here, just as I do; in time, energy, space and matter, as it abounds for all living creatures; yet, you suggest some sort of game as, "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD" because you believe in some mystical property designed especially for you. Let me explain beliefs in a few brief words ... you are operating without fact based evidence to support your decisions and as a result, you will fail despite your conviction. You are akin to a sleepy little child waking up from sleep, rubbing his eyes with nothing more than hope of and about the tooth faerie.

It comes down to these two ‘worlds.’ The one we currently live in which is a lie. It is a world of bloodshed, corruption, greed, lust, cold-heartedness, and covetousness. Best summed up by the apostle Paul:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

You don't, "get it." There are not "two worlds." There is an infinity of worlds in reality. Reality is not based on "two worlds" or even three, four or five. The world around us is complex and cannot be simplified to your silly misunderstanding of a "two worlds" concept, Tyranus.

We have to ask the question. Where do we put our hope? In the world of sin and hate, or is our hope in Christ and His Promise?

I don't have to ask that question nor do I have a need to ask the question; nor is there a need for an answer. You are an absolute idiot, Tyranus.

Instead of giving you an interweb sermon I prayed for you this morning because I used to love the lie of this world. It is a prison cell. The lie of the fallen world is self-perpetuating. It is a world of death. Yet so many love it and live by it.

How precious!

However, there is Hope. And this will be my prayer for you Bucky….to have the heart to accept the Truth which is Christ Jesus.

Astounding! Yet, your tyme is spent on worthless pursuits. You must have fact based evidence to support or otherwise substantiate your thoughts, ideas, motivations and ACTIONS.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-16   11:51:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: buckeroo, redleghunter, AKA Stone, nolu chan, Too Conservative (#30)

1) Redleghunter quotes the definition of "dogma" from Merriam Webster...then buttresses the case for the the reader that the Founders held that, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States.” This exposed the State of California as hypocrites and anti-Constitutionalist.

2) Buckeroo partial retort: "A tyrannical religious freak such as 'redleghunter' discussing "dogma."

3) Liberator: "A pro-Fascist, pro-Tyranny Atheist ['Bucky'] claims the High Ground!!"

4) Buckey: "I just call the shots based on my perspective which is not influenced by religious zealotry, such as your Tammy Fayes, et.al.:

Bucky, first you deny your cheap shots and name-calling, then claim you're some kind of Yoda: "I just call the shots based on my perspective which is not influenced by religious zealotry, such as your Tammy Fayes, et.al...

CHALLENGE: Then back up you YOUR OWN claims. IF YOU CAN.

Exactly what "semantics" would YOU use to describe or define Red's "religious zealotry"? (OR the term, "religious zealotry" for us in YOUR words?)

Moreover, What does Tammy Faye Baker have to do with Redleghunter's faith?

Bucky: "I believe you are caught up in semantics because of your own zealotry, that is to say, any deviation or variation from your personal belief system leads to charges such as your silly post cited just above.

Go ahead and tell us, Oh great Yoda -- DEFINE "religious zealotry"; And exactly WHICH specific religion "zealotry" do you regard as "silly"? As well as how it "deviates from Red's personal belief system"? (Do you *know* what Red's "belief system" is??)

Take ALL the time you need in answering the bell. Thanks.

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-16   11:53:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: buckeroo, redleghunter (#32)

Let me explain beliefs in a few brief words ...

...you are operating without fact based evidence to support your decisions and as a result, you will fail despite your conviction. You are akin to a sleepy little child waking up from sleep, rubbing his eyes with nothing more than hope of and about the tooth faerie.

Tell us Bucky: WHAT ARE THE "Facts"?? (according to you?)

Which "evidence" of Red's faith must he dismiss in your opinion as "insufficiently proven"?

"NOR [is] there a need for an answer."

An answer which children often give to avoid admitting the truth.

You must have fact based evidence to support or otherwise substantiate your thoughts, ideas, motivations and ACTIONS.

Red has repeatedly over the years presented and substantiated "thoughts, ideas, motivations and ACTIONS"; And also the consequence for ignoring the obvious. It's your own free will that allows you to accept or deny or dismiss the obvious.

Baseline FACT #1: YOU WERE CREATED. Baseline FACT #2: ALL CREATION HAS A MAKER. Baseline FACT #3: ALL CREATION HAS FUNCTION, PURPOSE AND REASON.

NONE of these three obvious baselines can be denied if one is intellectual honest.

Subsequent factual Baselines are the realm of those who seek the truth and way.

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-16   12:13:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: buckeroo, AKA Stone, redleghunter (#30) (Edited)

I have never claimed to be an atheist; moreover, how anyone can take away from my brief posts such a concept is puzzling.

You waddle. You sport an orange beak. You quack. Yet you expect us who read your posts to believe otherwise?

Ergo -- are you lying to US? (You refer to Christian beliefs as ("faerie tales"); OR, are you lying to yourself?

OR...Are you indeed admitting and testifying here and now that you believe The Almighty? Or some other Deity? State your specific faith.

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-16   12:18:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Liberator, redleghunter (#33)

Moreover, What does Tammy Faye Baker have to do with Redleghunter's faith?

Beats me. Perhaps she is a goddess that is revered by Tyranus? Are you Tyranus' spokesperson? Seems to me, Tyranus hit the road and won't make another comment on this thread.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-17   14:14:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com