CPR

I don't see anything vague about their website. We take communion every week. We believe that as often as we do so, we proclaim the death, burrial and ressurection of Christ. We value historical tradition of the church, and respect our forefathers in faith, and maintain a sense of connection through liturgy and participatory worship. We value being led by the Holy Spirit and following his direction for our lives and for our church, so that is where the charismatic comes in. We are unashamedly evangelical because it is our mission to carry the love and message of Christ into the world. We are traditional because we value great hisotrial tradition such as hymns of the faith, greath theologians, etc. our philosophy on communion is that if you are a believer and follower of Christ and have been baptized, you may take communion and share in the proclamation of his death, burial and ressurection.

Why still anglican? Because the founders of the church were anglican and valued the Anglican tradition, and were sad to see the direction fo the Episcopal church. They want to reform the chruch as a whole where needed, while maintaining what is good about their faith tradition.

I don't want to get into an extensive debate over the church I attend. I posted the link because someone was interested in viewing it. I attend this church because it is where God has led me to attend and serve in this season of my life. I attend because I find deep, authentic meaningul ways to serve and worship God, and for the deep sense of community that I have with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I have no problems with it being Anglican or having some liturgical worship. I find it very meaningul.

Kindofblue, your church sounds wonderful. Keep going there and growing in your faith and do not pay any mind to people who seek to tear you down.

A little about why I just popped up - I used to post here but I stopped due to attacks like this. I am Episcopalian. I also love Jesus with all my heart and believe in helping my fellow man as he taught us. You aren't going to convince anyone on here that your church is "right" in their eyes. Fortunately, no one's eyes on earth matter. Remember that and keep doing what you're doing.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Pope John Paul II visited America in the 80s and was welcomed as a great man by massive crowds everywhere he went and by government and business leaders at all levels. Most all forms of paganism and false religions are accepted in America; from various forms of voo-doo to Mormonism to Morrish Science Temple, satanism, wicca, etc.

This is going to be my last post I hope.

Pope John Paul II was a godly man. I am not Catholic but I respect the Pope as the Bishop of Rome. I also respect any leader who seeks to build bridges instead of walls.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding among fundamentalists and liturgical and even mainstream Christians. We all believe in the same Jesus, but after that, it may get a little fuzzy. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you think something beyond an understanding of what Jesus did on the cross is essential for salvation.

At the end of the day, I'm a Christian and you're a Christian and I hope that we all see each other in Heaven. To be perfectly honest, this board is not that positive for me currently. It's a bit addictive and negative and it's bringing me down. I need to focus on serving in my church, which is where I get joy and I have a purpose and I know that I am doing God's work.

I thank God for all of you that have encouraged me, especially those that I have gotten to know though PM. Please feel free to keep contacting me.

May God be with you all.

Glory be to the Father
And to the Son
And to the Holy Ghost
As it was in the beginning
Is now and ever shall be
World without end Amen, Amen.

And only a couple years ago this Governor was considered by some conservatives and professing Christians as a good choice for VP or even president in the future.

The Repub Party, like the Dem Party, is controlled by the ungodly who are not only lost sinners, but lost sinners intent upon promoting that which is ungodly.

Um, I can't believe I'm even going to bother saying this, but this hardly means that Gov. Crist isn't a Christian. (I don't know that that's what you were saying, but it sounded like you were insinuating that with your second sentence.) Also, this doesn't mean that he wouldn't be a good choice for VP or POTUS. I would actually look at him more closely as he might be a decent middle of the road choice willing to listen to both sides and take many things into consideration. That's what I want in a leader.

To "punish" murderers by giving them life in prison (even if it is without any chance of parole) is putting the burden on the taxpayers and making them support the one who has committed a heinous crime. That is quite backward. As trc pointed out, trials are not conducted in the way they should be. Too often circumstantial evidence becomes "fact" and it is what convicts. That ought not be. Witnesses (more than one, and witnesses who have something against the person ought to be suspect as to motive for their "witness"). Now we have forensics which can uphold witnesses (in actual fact, forensic proof can also be a witness).

The death penalty is a deterrent to crime: God is the one who instituted the death penalty...methinks His ways work best.

All good points to think about.

These are all leading into the theories of the justice system. You are both intelligent people so I'm sure I'm "preaching to the choir" as they would say, but it all goes into if we think the penal system should be for rehabilitation, retribution, or deterrence. Now, I think all three under different circumstances, and hopefully the second less than the other 2.

To address some of the points that both of you brought up; trc, I think your point is that the shoe is on the other foot when something terrible happens to ourselves or our loved ones. I agree, it's easy to sit in our ivory towers and say that the death penalty is wrong when we can hold it at arms length. I hope that I would feel the same way if a situation were to hit close to home and I pray I never have to find out.

Also, I would say that someone who has had to watch something so heinous happen to his family has already had the system fail him. The person who did that needs to be punished, but nothing will bring the victim's loved ones back. That's why we need social reform to keep kids off the street and reach them before they start committing crimes.

Happy, yes prisons are expensive. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I've seen them, and death row is extremely expensive. It costs an awful lot to house a criminal in that kind of maximum security facility even for a short time and then to actually perform the execution. It's a medical procedure (and I think we all know how expensive those are!). Actually, we could relieve a lot of the burden on taxpayers and the prison systems if we didn't lock up so many non-violent offenders (ie people caught with marijuana). But that's a discussion for a different day...

Murder and other crimes certainly should be punished, but I have to say that I strongly believe that the death penalty is not the way. The United States is one of the few industrialized countries that still has the death penalty and it's a shame. We have had many people on death row that have later been exonerated. How terrible to wrongly punish someone in such a permanent way! Studies have shown that the death penalty isn't a deterrent either. I for one know that my conscience would never allow me to sit on a jury and condemn a person to death.

It most certainly is not!


Jesus was often offensive to satanists. For example, in John 8:44 He called some heathen Heebs children of the devil. OBviously, there is nothing wrong with that. We have to reason to concern ourselves with what this or that heathen might find offensive. We must speak the truth, preach the Bible (KJV 1611 ONLY), and stand steadfast for what is right. Episcopalians, and the Anglicans, used to know how to do just that back when their congregations were Christian.

It is one thing to point out that someone needs Jesus (which some might find offensive) but quite another to call someone offensive names and make derogatory comments based on someone's outward appearance. Surely you can see the difference.

With that being said I really need to heed trc's advice and stop feeding this troll...

Just like every year there are some good incumbents and some bad and the same goes for the new faces.

As far as O'Donnell, I would not support her if I lived in her area, but I will agree that the tendency to dredge up irrelevant things in a politician's past is vicious and generally more mean spirited than anything else. However, many conservative politicians bring up their religious affiliation first (I believe O'Donnell did but I could be wrong) so additional prOBing into something that they have already placed in the public forum is to be expected.

Winnie

My dear true Christian friends,

While the once bastion of goodness that was the British Empire has long been seen a lost cause by most of you, it is truly heartbreaking to read and watch the Fox News reports about the current happenings. Overrun by the Mooslims and other satanists, the "Albion" has now welcomed the Pope. Not only that, but instead of plotting or at least turning the blind eye to any attempts to either shorten this visit or make it the last of its kind on the British soil, they are arresting some individuals who are allegedly threatening the chief heathen of the whore of Babylon.

I do miss the time when the "Pope" would've been either shot on arrival, or would've been lynched for his heresy. But nowadays' English don't have the guts to do the right thing. They are all a bunch of lard-slurping snOBs, save for who exactly they are snubbing remains an international mystery! If you ever visit their forsaken land, you can see for yourselves that the majority of them are cold-blooded queers with nasty complexions and terrible teeth packed away in their shabby, antiquated, and bankrupt little back alley of a country which is slowly winding down like the ill-crafted clockwork playthings of which their undersized children are so fond.

Ha! These people once brutishly conquered half the world, yet they still can't seem to figure out central heating! They are just lucky WE were around for both world wars! Yet, they keep on rejecting Jesus and are inviting disgraceful satanists to come to their lands in droves.

Oh dear, there are so many errors in this and so many offensive things that I could never address them all.

First of all, they are called Muslims.

Second of all, regardless of how you feel about the Pope and Catholicism, it is wrong, illegal and unchristian to wish harm on anyone.

Finally, there is no reason to use such ugly and derogatory language when referring to people or another country. It's offensive.

There are many more things that I could and prOBably should address, but that's all for now...

I did not say I, we, Christians kept a win column, I did however say, "I feel sure the Muslims are making a mark in the win column." So, I send the 'Really though,' back to you..

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I meant that if radical Muslims were keeping a "win column" they were prOBably as misguided in their application of that as they are in other things. In that case we shouldn't really bother ourselves with their judgements of wins and losses.

Ahh, I see what you're saying. Very well; I will try.

He would...
1. Be a godly man, a good husband, a good father.
2. He would read his Bible and pray consistently every day, in large quantities, with much quality.
3. He would refrain from secular movies, television, music, etc.
4. He would exhort healthy living.
5. He would hold the Bible to be the ultimate source of moral truth.
6. He would believe in much lower taxes.
7. His wife wouldn't work.
8. He would hold right views on Bible doctrines, men and women's roles, etc.
9. He would advocate the death penalty in many cases of crime.
10. He would be against abortion and homosexual marriage.
11. He would be sold out utterly and completely to God.
12. He would be brave, tough, masculine, and chivalrous.

I suppose I could put a lot more, but I hope this at least somewhat answers your request.
In Christ,
Joel ><>.

Fair enough. I could offer some examples of a few men who meet prOBably 11 of 12 of your requirements. The only one I don't know is your #3; I'm not sure that in all cases the men I'm thinking of refrain from all secular forms of entertainment. However, rest assured that there are some politicians, some of whom I know personally that adhere to your requirements. I may not agree with everything they do, but I do respect them.

Actually, it does. What profit it anyone if they gain the whole world but lose their soul? If I provide food and water for a million people a year yet I don't present them with the Gospel I've done them no good.

Not true. You've done them good, just not the ultimate good. Perhaps by providing for their physical needs you've opened a door to share the gospel with them. Might make a little more sense than telling a bunch of starving people that what they really need to do is concentrate on their spiritual needs, right? Maslow's hierarchy, my friend.

Palin is not remotely "far right." Her very existence as a female politician proves she is a liberal. She is a self-proclaimed feminist.

I don't think there's much point, since what we see as 'conservative' and 'liberal' is OBviously quite different. I really can't give examples anyway, since every single person out there that I know of is messed-up.

Forgive me I am misunderstanding your question.
In Christ,
Joel ><>.

I know from reading your profile that you do not believe women should be in politics, but regardless of your view on that, I can assure you that Palin is not a feminist in the classic sense. The political ideologies that she espouses are very right wing. She by her own admission is trying to take back the term feminist from liberals who she believes have corrupted the word.

Conservative and liberal relative to ourselves are prOBably different, but conservative and liberal relative to the entire spectrum really shouldn't be different. I'm asking you to give examples of what you think a true conservative would be and then contrast that with all the "liberals and fakes" that we've seen. I'm not asking you to give examples of specific conservative people because you haven't claimed that they exist. Apologies if I wasn't clear.

If it isn't what God wants, then remove youself from it and pray about it. It isn't the numbers. God is a majority, and He rules.
As bad as it might seem - it seems to me that politics really skates around the prince of this world trying to get Christians
not to pray to their Father like they know He's really in charge. Its amazing how things suddently change a new way when
Christians start praying and ignore the noise.

Isaiah 9:6-7 (King James Version)
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

This may be what you meant, I'm not sure, but those verses do not speak of earthly government but of heavenly or spiritual government. That's why the people of that time were confused (and Herod tried to have Jesus killed) because they were expecting an earthly ruler.

This is and fyi also will be and should be, part of law. Its called criminal intent.

If I kill my neighbor's pig, and it is an accident, it is one thing, and I still owe for it.

If I kill my neighbor's pig, and it was on purpose, and it is proved I coveted that pig, and talked
about it and carefully watched it and eyed it, and a jury finds enough evidence there was criminal intent,
its something else.

What we intend in our hearts is pretty much the whole difference in criminal cases.

ie
In criminal law, mens rea – the Latin term for "guilty mind"[1] – is usually one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty".

So in conclusion - yes, the whole bible is part of our legal system and of necessity has to be.

Yes, but coveting, by definition is passive and only involves the mind and the heart. It is lawful but it is against God because it is more than just a desire it is an all consuming desire that is unhealthy and could be malicious. Everything that you have mentioned here is a sin that falls under another commandment. Granted these sins can be brought on by coveting and it is prOBably a true statement that coveting is usually accompanied by another sin. Sooo, that goes into mens rea, meaning that if I commit adultery or if I steal then I had to have coveted first. But, i could potentially covet something that my neighbor has and not let it go any further than that.

I think we might mean the same thing, but I am saying that coveting, while a sin, isn't illegal if there isn't an accompanying illegal action.

I do see what you mean by conspiracy, but that implies an intention or plan to commit another, unlawful sin, so it's going beyond the realm of mere coveting.

I think there is a difference between simply wanting something and acquiring it by lawful means (this is a nice plot of land for a house for my family so I think I will seek God's guidance and see about purchasing it, or I think God is calling me to be a teacher so I am going to look into pursuing my goal of higher education). That is a goal or a desire. Coveting would be: "I can't believe my neighbor drives a Mercedes and I still drive this old Honda. He doesn't even go to church most Sundays. I really wish I had a nicer car this old thing is the worst. God, why won't you give me money for a nicer car I totally deserve it..." and so forth. It's a consuming and unhealthy desire that takes up our time and takes us away from the important things. It can also lead to other sins.

Ok, I don't know where I woke up today, but it must have been in Sodom and Gomorrah, and not the United States. And God delivers his people out of Sodom and Gomorrah.

All the last commandments are illegal in this country. Adultery is illegal, and sodomy is illegal - even though a poster said they weren't. Coveting - meaing to desire something illegally, is illegal (OBviously), such as conspiring to defraud my neighbor out of it, sleep with his wife, etc.

So have the other ones been at the founding. People forget in arguments with athiests we had infidelity laws in this country long after its founding. Blasphemy would go under OBsceneity laws and may still be rightfully persecuted, Sabbath laws have been awhile around and you'll hear seventh day adventists talk about them all the time.

When our courts have the ten commandments traditionally displayed, the bible used to swear people in traditionally, and its completely part of our common law, don't let the present lukewarm generation sell off your birthright - our court system doesn't work unless you have God's judgement involved in godly judgement. And the court system is in fact completely broken.

There may be a very few states where laws against adultery and sodomy are still on the books, but we all know they have been either de facto or actually nullified. Actually coveting isn't illegal and I'm not sure where you are getting that info from.

cov·et (kvt)
v. cov·et·ed, cov·et·ing, cov·ets
v.tr.
1. To feel blameworthy desire for (that which is another's). See Synonyms at envy.
2. To wish for longingly. See Synonyms at desire.
v.intr.
To feel immoderate desire for that which is another's.

That is something that we should strive to rid our hearts and minds of, but it is not illegal. Acting on it by stealing or engaging in fraud would be illegal. However, this is a heart issue that cannot be legislated. How can we legislate hearts and minds in the secular world? We can't.

Osie

Wesley

I'm the wrong one to tell. Tell the one who came up with this.

I hope someone does! Really though, no one should have to tell him since he is a pastor he should know the Bible and should know this passage and many others that condemn his original plans.

I haven't heard of any of it being used that way.

That doesn't mean that it's not being used for worthy causes that help people. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does some wonderful work.

The stated purpose for the burning of the korans was not to evangelize but to let Muslims know that if they are going to keep hurting "us" then "we" are going to hurt them in a manner they can understand.

I've dealt with many Muslims directly, and I've never burned a koran.

I've dealt with many Catholics directly too, and I've never burned one of their books either.

I have been blessed to have been used of the Lord to lead several Catholics to Christ and to see them come out from that false religion.

That is a direct contradiction of this verse. "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19. As Christians we are not to take revenge or to answer a wrong with another wrong but to "turn the other cheek".

Just about 8 miles from here in Canterbury, there is the University of Kent. Many of the students are from Muslim countries. There are quite a few Christians who work with them, and other non Christians, some of which have never heard of Christianity. There are also believers working on the streets, some with chalk boards, some just with bibles, some befriending students and inviting them to their homes and churches and others just handing out tracts. Many of those reached are muslims.

There are many other anti Christian organisations, the head of which is the RC church, the head of which, the papal Antichrist, is visiting our country at this very time.

I imagine no one is burning Qurans in the street and I imagine that would not be very effective either.

Interestingly, on AFR today there was someone on there confronting "moderates". He pointed out there is no such thing. That whether a Dem or Repub calling themselves moderates, what it really means is they are liberals who generally support homosexual "marriage", abortion and such.

When it comes down to it Christians are to base their views and positions upon the Word of God and nothing else. Scripture tells us one of the functions of government is to thwart evil and Scripture gives examples of that which the government should stand against.

As well, Scripture is clear as to the position Christians should hold on the issues at hand. God created marriage and the family. God's Word tells us all we need to know.

The question is, are we going to follow Christ or someone else?

Why are you so bound and determined to say that there is no such thing as a moderate? Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that that is not the case. In fact, wherever there is a range of views to be held there will be moderates. AFR? Figures.

To be honest, the labels conservative, moderate, liberal and so on are comparative labels. Their meanings change frequently and only have meaning when being compared to other views. For example, compared to your views on many issues my views are liberal. However, compared to say, the late Senator Kennedy or perhaps Congresswoman Pelosi, many of my views are conservative. Therefore, when you examine me within the spectrum, the only fitting label is moderate.

Yes, on this board or according to AFR I am liberal. Yes, at a NOW gathering I would be conservative. However, the only way to determine a true political label is to examine beliefs within the entire range of possible views.

It did seem like an odd selection of possible actors to portray Reagan. It would be good to see a fairly done program on Reagan.

For most of them (Zac Efron, really?) I wonder if it's a joke! I do think that, of the ones mentioned, Tom Hanks would prOBably do a good jOB. He's a gifted actor and a history buff so I think he would do well in the role.

O come, all ye faithful