Minnow wrote:
I guess both our nations have stirred the pot and indigenous doesn't amount to a hill o' beans anymore.

What matters is:
1 Spiritually, whether people are in Christ.
2 Legally, whether people are treated equally before the law.

I commend to you the points made by TT and Neil from Tucson on the "Muslims turn to homeschooling" thread.

I obviously read your posts more carefully than you do.

I quoted you in the context of your response to AVA's point of "WATER-BAPTIZED only by IMMERSION !".

You earlier made the point to AVA that the method of baptism by immersion was "brand new in the life of the church".

If it's brand new, it cannot be biblical. Happily baptism "only" by immersion is both the biblical context and attested to secondarily by YOUR chosen defence of "Greek translation and ecclesiastical history".

The Greeks baptize only by immersion and understand the biblical Greek koine language in context only in that way. They present no significant support for your alternative later inventions of sprinklings and pourings.

Minnow wrote:
ONLY
In the REwritten historical narrative of baptist conjecture.
Greek translation and ecclesiastical history records a different set of facts.

Jerry wrote:
It is a shame so-called 'Christians spend so-o-o much time fighting amongst themselves, then claim they are biblical to do so. Satan is having a field day; such actions do not promote the gospel whatsoever. Remember this, we will be held accountable for how we spent our time, as well as our mean-spirited words. What happened to thinking of others as better than ourselves??!! Is this how the Lord wants us to rightly divide the word?

With respect sir the way forward is very clear and not opaque.

The issue is not whether we live in an imperfect world (2 Pet 1:19).

If you make blatantly false and unsupported accusations in violation of the 9th commandment then it is sin. Biblical love requires me to show you your error in this which I have done. The way forward is for you to repent.

Many Bible texts are relevant but Titus 3:1-11 seems pertinent to several concerns here. I also commend to you the book of Esther, specifically the example of Haman.

Minnow wrote:
Thus the term "Liberal" is a common label, for a common problem/heresy among the nations, even if nuances do apply.

So be it. Where do you stand Minnow by your own standard?
1. You seem to regard yourself as having some free-market credentials – by the standards of classical liberalism that makes you the “Liberal”.
2. In contradiction, you believe in socialised healthcare. That makes you the “Liberal” that you love to anathematize after the US mould of Clinton, Obama etc.
3. You believe in a “common problem/heresy” across all the various and contradictory forms of political and economic and theological liberalism. So by your standard it is you Minnow that is the “C of E” homosexual supporting theological Liberal and the “Arminian” purveyor of a false gospel.

eutychus wrote:
"but sadly you have chosen to make unsupported accusations against me on other threads."
You two did seem to come into this with a bit of heat.

That last comment is a bit rich considering on another thread

JP wrote:
GWB did not decide to oust Hussein independently, nor has it been demonstrated that he lied, either knowingly or unknowingly.

Canada also refused to support an illegal, unlawful and altogether foolish war in Iraq.

You may wish to watch this video though I am sure you will be completely unswayed by the overwhelming evidence.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lies/index.html

fyi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Disputes_over_whether_
modern_liberalism_is_derived_from_classical_liberalism

"Whether modern liberalism is founded upon the philosophy of classical liberalism is a subject of dispute. Scholar Leonard Liggio (a self-described classical liberal) holds that modern liberalism does not share the same intellectual foundations as classical liberalism. He says,

"Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. Happily they did not capture it in Europe, and were glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are."

He believes that this is why liberalism means something different in Europe from in America.[46] Proponents of the Austrian School and the Chicago School (sometimes called neo-classical economists), such as Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, also reject claims that modern liberalism represents a continuous development from classical liberalism."

I apologise unreseverdly for using the word "dreamworld" for its pejorative overtones.

It has been clear for many years that we have both opposed theological liberalism but sadly you have chosen to make unsupported accusations against me on other threads.

Some of your politics comes across as "classical liberalism" and yet other of your comments come across as quite "socialistic" - e.g. "The rich get richer and the poor get stuffed, - as history has demonstrated before." Overall you appear to be a Conservative Party supporter, but that is a guess not an accusation.

I suggest that you meaningfully define the terms you use and I will respond accordingly. Certainly it is incorrect to lump political liberalism and theological liberalism together in the way that you do.

There is nothing liberal about modern government and politics.
There is everything liberal about the modern churches.

As for "Your the one supporting this evil nation. " That is ad hominem.

Your statement is false.

Minnow wrote:
You know 33k I'm more and more convinced that you are a Liberal!

Now clearly you are of the Arminian doctrine and don't accept the Sovereignty of God

Please note that as such they are ad homimen personal attacks and in violation of sermonaudio guidelines.

"God does not draft His own into the likes of the SS." Prove that from the Bible please.

"In the war in Iraq as in WWI, WWII true Christians came out to fight against evil and tyranny".
What was this righteous cause in WWI?
Do you believe that there were no German Christians in WWI? WWII?
Do you believe that none of the over 1000 Christians in the 2 evangelical churches in Baghdad were conscripted into Saddam's conscript army?

I am not a military man, being in my 40's neither I nor my father for that matter were old enough to be conscripted into the British army. But I am old enough to have been involved in gospel mission work behind the Iron Curtain during the Communist era. Yes, I met evangelical Christians who were conscripted into the armies of the Warsaw Pact.

The fact is that this Treaty presents no fundamental change in the status of Britain within the European Union.

Britain's sovereign status was lost in 1972. I suggest you look up the writings and speeches of the time of Conservatives such as Enoch Powell and Socialists such as Tony Benn.

I do oppose the Roman Church. Please note that there was nothing about Rome in your or Minnow's comment. What is the point of your second comment?

Dr. Phil wrote:
What a sad testimony to admit that "The Christian Science Monitor", a heretical rag, provides more information than the CBS News or the BBC!

If you or Minnow had followed reputable news sources such as the BBC over the years you would know that British sovereignty was given up by numerous treaties and acts of Parliament that don't fit with Minnow's dreamworld.

Please note the following Acts and treaties by Minnow's favoured Conservatives:-

Treaty of Rome (1972, Ted Heath)
Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985, Margaret Thatcher)
Single European Act (1986, Margaret Thatcher)
The Maastricht Treaty on European Union (1992, John Major)

DJC49 wrote:
I suppose that Christian men drafted during WWII should have resisted? Someone needs to reread Romans 13:1,2

Minnow wrote:
Ah then Vigilante, you would have stayed at home and allowed Adolf and his like to murder, mayem and mutilate. Courage, for some, is a negotiable currency in the human condition.

MM Outreach wrote:
There is some misinformation here. There is no taking of cash into the US. The Canadian government charges Charities who are shut down with 100% tax so the shutting down of the Charity means that everything is gone and we must start fresh with nothing. In order to have our equipment to use in ministry we had to purchase them back from the Charity and the proceeds go back into the Charities bank account with all of it taxed 100%.

Minnow wrote:
Liberalism is a fact.

Minnow wrote:
I've noticed over the years 33k, that you always find ways of supporting Liberalism. Are you C of E?