GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
I want to know what the          MSM wants from Trump.

A year ago, when he started on his immigration plan he talked about building the wall and he has continued with assurances he was going to do that. 

At the time he did make reference to Mexicans coming into the US that were murderers and rapists.

HE NEVER... repeat NEVER ONCE said all Mexicans were murderers and rapists.

And back then he did tell us that every illegal Mexican who in in the US would be deported back to Mexico where they would need to APPLY TO COME BACK INTO THE COUNTRY LEGALLY.

NO ONE understood that and a lot of people became upset that their illegal workers, friends, and neighbors
that have been here for 10 or 20 years who have made a life for themselves would be uprooted.

Now.... do you also remember... because if you do not I will remind you.... Trump also was telling us he would surround himself with the best advisers and he would be "LISTENING" to them.

He also listens to the people... as ws evident in the last 1/2 of Hannity's town hall last night.

He has modified and softened his position now.

He wants to get the criminals out of the US. They can never come back legally.

As to those who have a life here.... he wants to work... within the US laws...  (see... he was advised and he is listening) to allow them to stay. Not granting citizenship unless they apply properly and go through the steps, but to continue here... and finally be counted as legal.



That has been so commented on as of late... it is idiotic.

If we, as a people, are not allowed to change or alter our viewpoints as we get older and wiser
there is something wrong...

It is like telling someone that NO... you cannot become a Christian because you held other beliefs and
the first beliefs define you.

The answer is simple, Rella. You are a Trump supporter and you do not want to see Trump criticized for changing his views. Those who support Clinton are naturally going to attack Trump for changing his views.

If Hillary had done the same thing, you undoubtedly would be criticizing her for changing her views.

Theology Forum / Re: Three baptisms?!?!?!?
« Last post by SwordMaster on Yesterday at 03:48:14 PM »
Red, let me remind you that when you take passages dealing with a teaching on literal spiritual fire,
You reminding anyone of anything, does not make what you are saying true....

Ditto, Red.....ditto. At least I can demonstrate the truth of my words, all you do is try to give a passage and the twist it to suit your bias.

Why do you not take the very scriptures that I gave and prove them wrong? And if you will not, then just admit that you cannot~instead of venting your hatred for the messenger bringing the truth.

Because I don't need to. Anyone with a mild sense of what's going on here can see that you are out in left field in your surmisings, and since they can see it, and since you are only here to spout your bias, there's no reason to get into it with you.

And by the way, I don't consider you to be a messenger of the truth of the Scriptures, and there is no hatred there toward you, but nice try. What you bring forth has been demonstrated time and again not to be accurate, particularly since you hold to calvinism, and even "high calvinism" which is so far out there, that Pink teaches God does not love all people...and you "worship" Pink, so what else is there to think?

Theology Forum / Re: Three baptisms?!?!?!?
« Last post by SwordMaster on Yesterday at 03:42:34 PM »
AVZ tried again...

AVZ said...quite humorously I might add...

So your obvious conclusion is based on the speculation that Cornelius was the Centurion who came to Jesus requesting healing for his slave?
And by the way, Cornelius was not in Jerusalem, he was in Caesarea.

No...AVZ...my conclusion is not based on such a speculation, especially since the centurion that is recorded coming to Him was in Capernaum...however, not everything that Jesus did and said is recorded, and we are numb-minded if we think that it was. Jesus visited Caesarea before, as is recorded in Matthew and Mark, and since there was a Roman cohort stationed there (as in all major cities), it is not absurd to suggest that Cornelius had some kind of encounter with Jesus while He was in His ministry.

You got to think outside the box, AVZ.

Let me see, there was a centurion in Capernaum and there also was a centurion in Ceasarea.
You therefore conclude the obvious that in both cases in different places it must have been the same centurion?

Your powers of observation and intelligent comprehension isn't working very well today again, I see.

No, that was not my conclusion. I clearly articulated that Jesus visited both places, and that in both places there was a centurion. Since Jesus visited both places, it is not very hard to pick up on that Jesus was known in both places, and that since the centurions were the cohort officers, they would have been made aware of potential things that might cause issues. Please, try to think about what you are saying.

Historical data shows that there were 5 cohorts stationed in Caesarea. Each cohort has approximately 600 men, and each cohort had approximately 5-7 centurions. So in Caesarea alone there must have been some 30 professional centurions, and since Caesarea was the post of the Roman governor there likely were some retired ones around as well. You therefore conclude the obvious that Cornelius and the centurion in Capernaum were one and the same guy?

No, I didn't. That is your excuse for an argument, and not what I said nor implied at all.

You then proceed to place Cornelius in Jerusalem, which at best is speculation. But you conclude that since Cornelius was in Jerusalem, he must have heard from Jesus.

Negative again, AVZ, you don't listen too well do you? I already told you that the centurion that came to Jesus was in Capernaum, NOT Jerusalem, yet you still bring it up either out of senility or underhanded tactics, eh? Which one? I don't believe you are senile, so it can only be the other one.

Finally you place Cornelius back in Caesarea, because Jesus had been there before and that's where Cornelius got to know about Him. And from all that you then come to the obvious logical conclusion that it was highly likely that Cornelius was a Christian before Peter visited him.

As I said above, you keep bringing up things that have already been dealt with and you are wrong on again...and again...

Talk about thinking outside the box...are you sure you can even remember what the box looks like or if there even is a box?

If your statements above are any indication, then apparently you have this problem, not me!

Seventh Day Adventist Forum / Re: Roman politics
« Last post by Amo on Yesterday at 03:41:20 PM »
The real question about gun control, is who wants it, and why do they want it. While there are certainly sincere and good intentions for desiring such, it should not be forgotten that there most certainly are real and diabolical reasons for wanting to disarm citizens as well. All abusive governments and institutions prefer of course, to disarm all and any they are over. It just makes enforcing tyranny all that much easier. The quotes below are taken from the links above them. The first link addresses where our second amendment rights basically came from, and one of the main reasons why they were established that few know about.



VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Catholic Church's position on gun control is not easy to find; there are dozens of speeches and talks and a few documents that call for much tighter regulation of the global arms trade, but what about private gun ownership?
The answer is resoundingly clear: Firearms in the hands of civilians should be strictly limited and eventually completely eliminated.

But you won't find that statement in a headline or a document subheading. It's almost hidden in a footnote in a document on crime by the U.S. bishops' conference and it's mentioned in passing in dozens of official Vatican texts on the global arms trade.
The most direct statement comes in the bishops' "Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice" from November 2000.

"As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer -- especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner -- and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”

That's followed by a footnote that states: "However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions -- i.e. police officers, military use -- handguns should be eliminated from our society.”


Catholics wondering what the Church has to say about gun control in the wake of the Orlando massacre will find nothing firm from Rome, but a clear drift from the U.S. bishops in favor of stronger limits and the eventual near-elimination of guns from American society.


Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society? Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.

And lest anyone think that the pope’s remarks were limited to international sales, Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago clarified, “Surely America’s political leaders did not think the pope’s comments were limited to arms trade outside of America’s borders.”

Cupich, who was appointed by Pope Francis, is noteworthy for being one of the few American prelates to press for legislation, writing in his Chicago Tribune op-ed:

It is no longer enough for those of us involved in civic leadership and pastoral care to comfort the bereaved and bewildered families of victims of gun violence. It is time to heed the words of Pope Francis and take meaningful and swift action to address violence in our society. We must band together to call for gun-control legislation. We must act in ways that promote the dignity and value of human life. And we must do it now.


The Vatican praised President Barack Obama's proposals for curbing gun violence, calling them a "step in a right direction," the Huffington Post reports. The Vatican's chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Saturday that 47 religious leaders had appealed to members of Congress "to limit firearms that are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths," adding: "I am with them. The initiatives announced by the American administration for limiting and controlling the spread and use of weapons are certainly a step in the right direction." Lombardi renewed Vatican appeals for disarmament and encouragement for measures to fight "the production, commerce and contraband of all types of arms."


The Catholic "church" has been pretty vocal about the fact that they support the complete banning of private gun ownership.
Theology Forum / Re: Three baptisms?!?!?!?
« Last post by SwordMaster on Yesterday at 03:28:58 PM »
You got to think outside the box, AVZ.

No thanks. I have little desire to become like you and create theology based on assumption.

 rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

That's rich indeed!!! Everything that I speak I can back up with solid Scripture and solid hermeneutic interpretation. I am not the one who just reads the Bible and thinks that he knows what it says.

There is a difference between just reading and studying...and studying according to sound principles of Biblical interpretation. You have demonstrated that you have done neither.

Nevertheless...nice try.


Theology Forum / Re: Three baptisms?!?!?!?
« Last post by SwordMaster on Yesterday at 03:26:20 PM »
If one does not enter into the New Covenant by water baptism, then he isn't in the New Covenant, and he doesn't have eternal life, no matter what he claims.

So how that work for the aborigine in deep dark Africa who you claim can also be saved by the goodness of his own works?
How do you propose the aborigine enters into the new covenant?

Being facetious again, eh? OK, I will play your game...

Since you failed to give the Scriptural reference (again) that this comes from, for the sake of those reading, here it is...

Romans 2:12-16
12  For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13  For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14  For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15  They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
16  on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Verse 12 (in context) addresses those who are seeking heaven and eternal life, which Paul AFFIRMS does not come to anyone who is not doing good works (i.e., walking in obedience to God, NOT the written code of the 10 Commandments - vs. 6-8), he says that those who do not have the 10 Commandments to walk in obedience to can still sin, and that they will die according to the sins that they commit that their consciences tell them about in verse 15.

Verse 13 Paul refers to the law of conscience (an argument can also be made that he infers the Law of Christ, but we really do not know which he intended), so the aborigine knows not to rape his neighbor's daughter, therefore if he does, then he knows that he has sinned (aka - he knows that it is wrong and that he should not do that), and he will be judged for that act that his conscience tells him not to do (verse 15 again).

Verse 14...those who do not have the 10 Commandments, or even the Law of Christ, but do what the law demands by nature, then they are doing "good works" (verse 7) and even though they have not entered into the new covenant through water baptism, they may be regarded by God as abiding in it because they are doing - by conscience - what He demands. Which takes us into verse 15...

Verse 15  "They show (demonstrate) that the work of the law is written in their hearts..." The aborigine would fall into the same category of exception as the thief on the cross, only slightly different. He doesn't know that he has to be baptized, so how can he? God deals with us according to what we know, more than He does according to what we don't know.

You have been shown over and over again that the Scriptures say one does not enter into Christ for salvation unless he is water baptized, so YOU know. Whether or not you refuse to accept it, you will have to deal with God on judgment day on that account. But you have been shown...God will take that into account when you stand before Him.

I am not making a judgment call on whether or not you are saved, because I can't know for sure. That's between you and God...but He will not accept the pathetic excuse that "I just didn't believe it."


I live about 20 miles outside Charlotte, NC. Construction is big here, always has been.

I've talked to hundreds of legal Hispanics and it's the same story. The illegals are coming in by the droves and working for much less money under the table. Their jobs are being taken and they are very upset about it. The contractors are not being held responsible!

My message is "Trump is telling the truth," and he's the only one who will fix it! Give him a chance!

Keep up the good work, Charlie.  ::smile::

Theology Forum / Re: Three baptisms?!?!?!?
« Last post by SwordMaster on Yesterday at 03:05:26 PM »
SM, I've read the bible from cover to cover many, many times in my 60 years.

I think I missed the verse where the redeeming blood of Christ is applied at water baptism.

It is applied at baptism, but not a water baptism.

Could you show me that verse?

The Bible doesn't specifically say that God created germs either, so are you going to contest that germs don't exist? The Bible does't say that Melchisedek was saved...yet he was the High Priest of God in Abraham's day...are you then going to contest that we can deduce from the facts given to us that Melchisedek was not saved?

From cover to cover the Bible is all about covenant. When we study covenanting as God ordained them, we learn that each redemptive covenant has a ceremonial rite of entrance into that covenant, and that all of the stipulations of that particular covenant are ONLY applicable to those who participate in that particular covenant.

The Old Covenant was entered into through circumcision, and no one received any of the promises of the Old Covenant unless they were participating in that covenant through walking in obedience to the covenant law of that covenant, being the 10 Commandments.

The New Covenant is entered into through water baptism, and no one receives any of the promises, gifts, blessings, or benefits of the New Covenant unless they are participating in it by walking in obedience to the covenant law of the New Covenant, the Law of Christ (trust, love - I John 3:23-24).

Since the atonement in Christ is a New Covenant stipulation, no one receives it unless they enter into the covenant by water baptism and faith. We don't need to have it spelled out to us when we follow the natural line of understanding given to us in the Scriptures, and understand and apply the cultural amenities through which the writers of the NT Scriptures wrote.

Paul does not tell you not to spit in someone's face, according to your reasoning, then, do you take it that it wouldn't be a sin to spit in someone's face?

The bible does specifically say this,

Rom. 3:25
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God."

It's through faith, not water.

Charlie, again and again and again you keep quoting one verse and making your stand upon that ONE, single, solitary verse. You can't do that if you ever hope to come to a full and complete understanding of the Scriptures. And since your eternal destiny depends upon what you believe, you really need to start studying the Word outside of calvinist doctrines, because they are practically completely wrong at every turn. Why? Because they do the very same thing you are doing here, taking one passage instead of studying the subject matter topically and gathering ALL of the pertinent passages together for a clear, full, complete picture of what Scriptures states about that subject.

Case in point: faith is the conduit by which we receive from God...it is not a magical iota that gives you salvation just because you tap into it. That is not what Scripture teaches...that is what false calvinist doctrines teach. We appropriate salvation THROUGH faith, NOT by faith, not BECAUSE OF faith, when we do what God commands us to do.

when one receives water baptism and makes his covenant oath to do his best to walk in obedience to God, and comes up out of the water symbolizing new life in Christ, his faith becomes the avenue by which the application of the blood or Christ is applied to his life. Like I said earlier, if you get dunked without faith, you are not saved. If you have faith, but do not receive baptism into Christ, then you are not saved according to the Scriptures. If you walk in obedience to God even if you have faith, but do not receive baptism, then you are not saved according to the Scriptures, which you have been shown over and over again but throw them into the trash.

You cannot have it YOUR way...it has to be "the way of God" or you get nothing. Read...

Acts 18:24-26
24  Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures.
25  He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, however he knew only the baptism of John.
26  He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

You are in the same boat that Apollos was in. You have been taught ABOUT Jesus...that He is the Savior, which is true, and he taught others "accurately" things about Christ. However, "he knew only the baptism of John"...in other words, he was NOT saved. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him preaching, they recognized that he was missing something, that he was not yet saved, presumably because he didn't manifest any of the anointing or spiritual giftings in his preaching or teaching.

The pulled him aside and explained to him "the way of God more accurately," and from the identical narrative in Acts 19:1-7 we can accurately assume that Priscilla and Aquila told him that he had not yet entered into saving relationship with God because he had not yet been baptized into Christ. Therefore, we are also safe in presuming that Apollos immediately wanted to get baptized, just as the 12 did in the following reference.

They, like Apollos, believed...but they were not saved until they received water baptism.

You have no solid grounds for the argument that you present, particularly when we have given you numerous passages that dictate, militantly, that the Scriptures teach that one is not saved until and unless they enter into Christ, the living new covenant, through water baptism. Baptism does not save anyone, it is the same as a marriage ceremony.

You love your fiance, but you are not married until you go through the ceremony. It is the same here...you have faith in God, GREAT!!! But you are not married to God, not adopted by God, until you go through the ceremony that He has ordained for just that purpose. I don't know how it can be explained any simpler. And so far all I see is you arguing out of your bias, not because you are trying to learn anything.

Perhaps you should try humbling yourself, saying, "Perhaps I am wrong...what if "so-and-so has a better grasp of this subject than I do..." Then maybe you will actually look at what is being given to you.


Theology Forum / Re: Women as teachers
« Last post by chosenone on Yesterday at 03:04:58 PM »
My concern has always been more about the message than the one presenting it.

I like our male pastor, but also enjoy the occasional guest sermons presented by woman pastors, perhaps more so because they have a different way of looking at things, also they tend to finish up on time; Pastor Mark not so much.

Not keen on some of the famous woman pastors, but not their male counterparts either, so that bias is more about fame and fortune than sex I suppose.

Haven't found any Christian female authors that I like much, not sure why, but if a man reading one of their works finds them edifying, and brings him closer to God, good.

Again, if one is preaching against God's word, we have a problem, if the message is sound, the sex of the conveyor is somewhat irrelevant, unless of course someone needs to hear it from a male.

As for doctors, I have a new one I am quite happy with, a charming young Muslim woman with a wonderful humble disposition I have never encountered in a doctor before.  She's a keeper.

Leadership is elusive to many, some try to gain authority by position (in this case gender) and get all up in arms when someone dare defy that position.   True leaders, be they a man or a woman, simply emerge.

 I am SO glad you are back Carey.  ::smile::
Theology Forum / Re: Women as teachers
« Last post by chosenone on Yesterday at 03:03:21 PM »
He is clearly a man who is very secure in His faith and manhood.

If he's so secure, he wouldn't be reading a self-help book.

We all have room for improvement, well, all who are human that is.The more mature and humble the believer is, the more he will be aware that he still has so much to learn. That's why God gives us teachers, to teach, whether through a book, in a church, or on a DVD.

We can be secure in our faith and in our person yet still know that we have more to learn. That's humility.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]