I had been actively researching this topic and could not find anything of substance. Thank you for this providential resource. I also bought the book and can’t wait to read it.
@@CrossExamined Do you know if the debate that Frank moderated between Hugh Ross and Terry Mortenson at the SES apologetics conference can be seen on someone's channel? Thanks
I grew up in war and I saw my mother worry about preparing safe hiding places in the house and heard stories about people not being able to clean dead bodies to send to their loved ones, and how resentment eats up people and.................. After living 40 years in peace here, one thing that could be considered potentially dangerous: Any person may want revenge for losing the ones they love (and houses,....) in war but he may want revenge for what they could not possibly get in peace. It is (partially) up to us to make this world an incubator for love or sin.
Hallelujah!!! I’m blessed and favored with $60,000 every week! Now I can afford anything and support the work of God and the church. For Your glory, LORD! HALLELUJAH!
Because in plenty of our churches the pastor is using his pulpit and telling the people that it’s not about politics, it’s just about preaching the gospel and God will take care of the rest. It’s so frustrating because so many people listen to the point where they even say that the founders and the revolution was a sin.
As Christians, are first priority should be living and preaching the gospel. Not that there is anything wrong with voting. But the AntiChrist will come no matter who the President is.
Another culprit is the growing number of pastors spreading the falsehood that good works are unnecessary for salvation. That God would save you even if you don't do good to your neighborhood or community or country.
@@stephenmac191WRONG. We are told to help people, be compassionate. Love is the greatest not faith. Even if you have great faith you're nothing without love (1 Corinthians 13:2,3,13). We are also told by God to do good ALL PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY FELLOW CHRISTIANS (Galatians 6:10). There are many Christians running in this election. Don't bother to help them if you are not a true believer, my friend.
@@carlorivera3035 We are to love God with all our might and love others as ourselves. I didn’t say anything about faith but faith is a requirement to serve God. Part of living the gospel is living others which extends to helping them. So nothing you say really contradict me. As for there are many Christians running in this election, lol, define many. Both the Democratic and Republican candidates claim to be Christian. That is 4 right there; hardly qualify as many. Perhaps the independence and Geeen party candidates and Allen West are Christians? By the way I voted - for Nikki Haley as a write-in candidate, so relax.
@@kinggenius930 American energy production, American workers, strong economy, low inflation, secure border, limited government regulation and many others.
Mr. Turek, haven't we considered that our belief in ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED is causing many of us Christians to sit back or be couch potatoes? Another that is contributing to complacency is the belief that good work are unnecessary for salvation. Many don't care now. They want to leave everything to our Lord Jesus.
(43:52) _It goes back to pre-Reformation Franciscans versus Dominicans. Dominicans after St Dominic. They're the ones that says the Creator gave us dominion over the Earth and and we're supposed to use it for his glory. Where the Franciscans said no no, anything material is is is sinful. So St Francis and his order of poor Franciscans gave away all their money, would wear brown burlap sacks, walk barefoot, and just preach the gospel. This division was inside of the Catholic church. It's sort of a gnostic mentality-anything physical is wrong._ _So the Pietist said you can only be involved in one and if you're spiritual you'll withdraw from the government and just be involved in church. That brings up an interesting scenario because if all the spiritual people withdraw from government who's left to be involved but the less spiritual_ -Bill Federer
Jesus said to his disciples: “I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God. But whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God. “Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. When they take you before synagogues and before rulers and authorities, do not worry about how or what your defense will be or about what you are to say. For the Holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you should say.”
How would you explain Mark 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him. Please, thanks.
Pretty sure this was God's way of showing that no matter what you teach anyone unless the heart is changed it's totally fruitless! Thus God tells them in Deuteronomy He will circumcise the heart of His people's children!
How many laws do you need to pass, how many jails will you need to build to make jesus happy? What restrictions will you impose in a free society that appeases your god? Honest question.
Do you think the laws we vote for only make God/Jesus happy. The laws God would approve of would make me happy too. A free society doesn't mean that all things are permitted. Honest answer.
@@TheGuy.. actually a free society means just that. Jesus is happier when we remove laws that restrict individual freedom. It’s a give unto Caesar thing. How many more jails would you have to build to make your god happy?
@@QXr30 So you disagree and think a free society means to remove more restrictions and that this is what Jesus would approve of? Ok, so you're saying that Jesus would be happier if we remove the r@ρe restrictions, theft restrictions, mυrder restrictions, vandalism restrictions and all the other laws that would be imposed on us that keeps us from placing others in danger of harm (like speeding laws, etc)? Looks like you don't understand the biblical Jesus. When Jesus said to render to Caesar, He is being in support of government laws that are beneficial. Taxes are supposed to be beneficial. If the governors enacted laws that said all Christians should be killed, do you really think Jesus would agree and say "do the give-unto-Caesar thing" and obey his laws, lol? Ridiculous. So to answer your question, make the all the necessary jails needed and perhaps consequences/deterrents to be more harsh for lawbreakers. That should lower crime and lower the number of jails needed. That would probably please God, and me too for certain. Biblically, God has a huge jail for the rebellious and disobedient. I agree with that too. I don't want them mixed in with my eternal family.
God doesn't need people to build jails. People put themselves in jail by their deeds against the LAW. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law and prophets, but to fulfill it. He upholds the law, dies in our place for our transgressions, so we don't have to be separated from God, and all we have to do is CALL upon his name to forgve our sins, and live our lives unto the LORD, but those who break the law will still have judgement, and will be subject to punishment according to the law, without Jesus, but with Jesus, we ARE FREE. Call on Jesus and run to the mercy seat.
@@sarahlantto8913 yea, but what if god isn’t real? Then it’s just mankind choosing to imprisoning people who don’t think like you. We live in a free society. So how many jails does jesus need to make him happy?
Christians are of course free to speak up and get involved in politics. However, if they want to claim a law should be passed or change made because it is what their god wants, they should be able to prove that.
Why apply a higher standard to Christians than everyone else in a democratic environment? Many people want laws passed without even the first idea about how to prove it. (Whatever 'it' is and whatever 'proving it' means)
@@HarryFaber-z7l It's not a higher standard, I would apply the same standard to everybody. If you want to sink taxpayer money into a new tech, or research, then prove its benefit. Want to change laws on law enforcement, show there is a genuine issue and that this will solve it. Want to ban gay marriage because god wouldn't allow it, prove said god exists and that he asserts that.
@@kinggenius930 In a democracy, everybody gets a vote, regardless of how clever or how informed they are. If you look at any one of the big issues facing us today, often the loudest voices have no idea what they are talking about. One view point will gather support from many without any element of truth in the claims. Labels get attached to leading politicians without any evidence. The major problem in western democracies is that the ordinary man on the Clapham Omnibus never knows who is sponsoring the parties or their candidates. The public image is swallowed without investigation or thought. You raise the subject of 'gay marriage', it was introduced into law to win popular votes even though there was never a need to introduce it. People have been free to create relationships throughout my lifetime, and if two people had a joint agreement, they always had recourse to law in the dissolution of that agreement. How about the introduction recently of laws that prevent me from not endorsing marriages that I think are wrong? Were they passed on any real, tangible, evidence or were they just based on emotional knee jerk responses? All my life, I was able to simply say 'I will not be involved in that marriage', didn't need to give a reason, didn't have to say 'because' but now I find it safer not to offer services at all because if I refuse to provide those services in some cases, I can be taken to court, prosecuted and punished. You mention 'new tech'. Often laws that support new tech are done so based solely on the pressure applied by the enterprises that stand to grab most profit without any meaningful 'envoronmental impact assessment'. In my own life, that often involves the amendment of regulations by statutory instruments that permit the use of new building materials and methods. I suspect you have not closely studied the roof construction of the 'Dolphin Centre' in Romford and understood the engineering issues and how amendments in regulation allowed a developer to maximise profits made from public funds with disastrous results for the people who were saddled with the bill. We are still trying to sort out the mess of asbestos in building materials that was allowed by regulatory amendments made based solely on the dubious evidence supplied by the producers. The few voices that opposed were told to sit down and shut up and that they were standing in the way of 'progress'. Standards of evidence for the changes were flexible, especially in the minds of regulators who wanted free holidays.
@@HarryFaber-z7l "How about the introduction recently of laws that prevent me from not endorsing marriages that I think are wrong?" Sorry, what laws are you referring to?
@@kinggenius930 Dependant on which country we are talking about, those laws created which have left people such as guest house owners unable to refuse services to couples whose lifestyle choices are different to their own, several cases where cake makers have found themselves in trouble for refusing to decorate cakes how people demand. I assume you are familiar with the sources of law including case law, statutory instruments and so on. If a baker provides the service of decorating a cake, it has become a minefield. there are laws which prevent him from using certain words, and if some prospective purchasers ask for certain words, the baker needs to have a detailed knowledge of 'law'. If That baker, whose product will be sold under his name, probably packed in a box with his name on, refuses to decorate a cake for a same sex couple, he stands to be prosecuted. He can refuse to add satanic decoration if someone wants a 'halloween cake', he can refuse to add decoration if a group of hedonists want words relating to their preferred activities, in some cases, if he did not refuse, he could be prosecuted under obscenity laws, but if he refuses to decorate a cake with words that he finds to be contrary to his beliefes, he may also be prosecuted. The same applies to people who rent wedding and funeral cars, venues and so on. When I say 'recently', I mean during the last 10 to 20 years. I include all sources of law.
@@mattslater2603 Duhhhh, and how was it you came to accept some experimental pseudoscience 💉 if it wasn't manipulation, peewee? Well, actually now that I think about it, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, so you probably still endorse that pseudoscience as beneficial. Still wearing a mask, Popeye? With a mug like that, you should 🙄...
![[PODCAST] Silence Equals Consent: The Sin of Omission with](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
