Supreme Court's top judge issues chilling warning as Trump targets his own appointees

illinoisguy said:
If I express disagreement with the head of state and/or government of China, or Russia, or Canada, does that mean that I am a racist and that I hate all people of Chinese, Russian or Canadian ethnicity?

We have been told that we are fighting Iran purely on behalf of American interests, and in order to free the Iranian people that we love so much. Supposedly this war has nothing to do with Israel, we are not fighting for Israel, it's purely a coincidence that Bibi has been begging us to attack Iran for him for the last 30 years. So, since it's absolutely not about Israel, how is it that any expression of disagreement or doubt about the wisdom of the war with Iran is "anti-Semitic?"
Click to expand...
So, you’re for the war.

You will not see it that way in five years.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
We can agree that we live in a hyper partisan culture. Where we disagree I guess is in how we as Christians respond and react to that culture
Click to expand...
Feel free to lament with me the active and avid participation of our Christian brothers and sisters in the ungodly behavior of the world via the ugliness of the current state of our political interactions.

Paul's list in Romans gets truncated down to just the sexual stuff. We tend to ignore the other stuff that too often applies to us. And even if we aren't actively participating we still enjoy the show, so to speak.



Romans 1:29 ... They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 ;slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

You rag on me about purity. This list is about the fact that we all have to contend with the struggle for purity. If nothing on this list applies to you by your own actions or you never find yourself condoning, excusing, ignoring, overlooking it when someone else is guilty of something on the list, then you are claiming a purity beyond anything that I have ever dared to say about myself.

I have given the example before but will say it again. Rush Limbaugh was a guilty pleasure for many Christians. He was not godly. He was not edifying. He was as worldly as a man could be. Yet he was followed, quoted, extolled and considered to be a great man of maybe even heroic proportion. But he can be found in the list above and there is no shortage of Christians who approved of those actions on his part.
 
subllibrm said:
Feel free to lament with me the active and avid participation of our Christian brothers and sisters in the ungodly behavior of the world via the ugliness of the current state of our political interactions.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what that means.
I’m not sure who that references.
I’m not sure what your purity political standards are and what they prohibit you from doing.
I’m not privy to what you see and hear other than on the forum.
I do not believe being interested in politics and policy are sinful
I do believe that how you propagate said interest CAN be sinful.
I’m not sure that they would matter to me personally anyway as each of us must give an account of himself to God.
 
Mario said:
I agree! Even the American founding fathers, responsible for so many rights and freedoms the Free World enjoys today, didn't see eye to eye on everything. An example would be Hamilton vs Madison on how much federalism, or lack thereof, is ideal!
Click to expand...
We’d be much better off as a country if the Anti-Federalists had won, but at least they got us a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution.
 
Mario said:
Let me ask you a question, please: where do you "draw the line" regarding "up to the states" and "goes on the federal government's table"?
Click to expand...
One example is marriage. Obergefell v. Hodges took what was traditionally a state issue and made it a federal issue, the result being that gay marriage became legal. Rather than argue the moral or ethical aspects of gay marriage, the SC decision took what was traditionally a reserved power of the states and federalized it.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
I’m fine, thank you very much.
Considering I’m a nut, a liar, an old coot and a snowflake I’m doing very well.
And, I’m the one who’s triggered. 😉
Click to expand...
That’s an impressive resume! If I ever have the pleasure of meeting you in person, I’d like you to autograph my Bible. 😉
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
One example is marriage. Obergefell v. Hodges took what was traditionally a state issue and made it a federal issue, the result being that gay marriage became legal. Rather than argue the moral or ethical aspects of gay marriage, the SC decision took what was traditionally a reserved power of the states and federalized it.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on the Federal Government regulating state election procedures which is charged to the responsibilities of the states?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top