Online dating john piper

online dating john piper

In it, John Piper answers the question, “What do you think of using the a series of articles dealing with the stigma of online dating but nothing. How should Christians begin a new relationship? One counselor shares two common problems he sees in the early days of dating. Horrible Sexist Blog Post from John Piper's Desiring God Site: to it pop up all over the internet, by Christians who felt it was terrible. Here it is. This site uses cookies. We can pray for our wives, read the Bible with them, and make space for them to pursue meaningful spiritual friendships with other women. This can take many forms. But until that day, until death do us part, husbands have the staggering privilege of getting our wives ready for Jesus, their true husband. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. You are commenting using your Facebook account.

Post navigation

Online dating john piper BINGTEXT-1-3
Online dating john piper BINGTEXT-1-3

Here it is with reflections of how awful it is below, by me and by jonn Common male refrain, even from Christian men. I sure as hey do not need to marry a guy who also does all that sort of stuff. Email required Address never made public. My Twitter acquaintance Teresa Dating television programmes. Some of you, perhaps aided by your upbringing johhn temperament, count it all joy to correct others. On that basis alone, his online dating john piper is pure garbage.

Navigation menu VIDEO

Is Oral Sex Okay? // Ask Pastor John

online dating john piper

During this time, Flash asked the Spectre to erase everyone's memories of his secret identity, due to his wife suffering a miscarriage from an attack by Zoom. It was later revealed that Barry Allen had Zatanna tamper with the mind of supervillain the Top , turning him into a hero the Top had gone on a murderous rampage and Allen believed this was the only way to stop him from causing more harm. As a hero, the Top went insane over the guilt of his earlier deeds.

After Allen had died, Wally received a letter from Barry asking him to restore Top's mind if he ever returned. After Wally had Zatanna restore the Top's mind, the Top revealed that when he had been a hero he had attempted to reprogram many of the other Rogues into heroes as well, including the Pied Piper. When the 'good' Rogues went after the remaining 'bad', Top returned to undo his brainwashing on the redeemed Rogues. When the Piper battled the Flash, West unmasked himself, triggering a flood of memories of their friendship and causing the Piper to pass out as his mind repaired itself.

When he awoke, Piper appeared to be his old self again and came to Linda's aid. Piper remains the only Rogue to no longer be a villain, save for Magenta. He later had all charges for murder cleared.

Piper reveals to have rejoined the Rogues with a plan of infiltrating them, but when Captain Cold , Heat Wave , and Weather Wizard successfully murder Bart Allen , [4] he and Trickster are forced on the run together.

They are pursued by heroes and villains alike in the form of the Suicide Squad , the Question and Batwoman , Poison Ivy and Deathstroke , and eventually Piper's former friend and the newly returned previous Flash, Wally West. They manage to escape the wedding assault, and inadvertently picking up Double Down as a passenger.

The trio stop at a diner, only to be attacked by the Suicide Squad. Double Down is captured, but Piper and Trickster, using an invisibility field, decide to follow the Squad and free the other captured villains. After encountering and freeing Two-Face , Piper and Trickster are again attacked by Deadshot , who pursues them relentlessly until he succeeds in murdering Trickster.

With Trickster's death, the cuffs activate a hour self-destruct, which Piper is able to delay with his flute. When the train they are on is submitted to a border check, Piper flees into the desert. Delirious from the heat, he begins to imagine Trickster's corpse is talking to him. After severing the hand from the rest of the corpse, Piper is brought to Apokolips by DeSaad. Desaad unlocks the shackles, and claims that Piper can channel the Anti-Life Equation and control the planet. Before the Piper can do so, Brother Eye finishes assimilating Apokolips. Piper agrees to play, but upon hearing that DeSaad was the mastermind behind his recent misfortune, in an almost successful attempt to break his spirit and take control of him, he kills DeSaad with a tune.

Pied Piper returns in the Final Crisis: He invades the police precinct, and picks up Trickster's will, which is actually a fake that contains information on the other Rogues, written in invisible ink. Piper later steps into the middle of the fight between Inertia, Zoom and the Rogues, using his flute to paralyze the combatants, and taking the opportunity to revenge himself upon Mirror Master through a kick in the face.

Before he can do anything else, Libra appears, and stabs Piper in the shoulder with his spear. Although wounded, Piper is able to contribute in the killing of Inertia by holding him in place for the Rogues using his flute. Thirdly, they understandably hate the news media so much that they refuse to believe anything negative about their guy especially when Gloria Allred is attached , even when they would buy the very same allegations about a liberal in a heartbeat. The whole thing is beyond depressing and makes me further question the entire movement.

What is most wretched personally is that I am quite sure that, just like with Sarah Palin, I will be further unfairly attacked for simply pointing out the obvious truth about a presidential contender whose nomination would certainly lead to four more years of President Obama. I am beginning to believe that this result may be exactly what we deserve. So, is this really how your political saga is going end?

By letting down your remaining supporters and telling them, with a straight face, that you can do more to impact change as a Fox News Contributor than you can as President of the United States? I was almost positive you would run because it appeared that your brand demanded it from a career maintenance perspective. I had even written a long letter blasting you for being either selfish or delusional in making a decision to run which could help President Obama get reelected. While I applaud you for making the right decision, thanks to the way you made it, I must also question your real rationale.

One of the many reasons other than the conversation I had earlier this year with Todd about working on your campaign I was so sure you would give it a shot was that I figured you were way too smart to go this far with a blatant tease without a legitimate exit explanation. It is hard to believe that even the most crazed of your fans will buy that, but I am sure at least some of the remaining lemmings will.

Of course, there is no way you actually believe it yourself. You mean to tell us that in the last year since you started talking openly about running for president that this never occurred to you before? Why did you selfishly put your supporters through the long wait and stunt the process for the actual candidates? Secondly, exactly what change have you impacted since resigning from office? The only reason the liberal media has been obsessing over whether you might run for president is that you would have added to the entertainment value of a Republican race with which they are already getting bored.

The conservative media has been going along with this charade as well because they see their own ratings as more important than the cause of beating Obama and because they fear offending your fans who are some of their most important customers. Unlike with Chris Christie did you notice how much more passionately the media pined for him than you? If the Republican ends up winning you will no longer have a purpose at all unless you go really rogue and decide to be the chief conservative critic of the new president and is obviously not an option, especially with no way to significantly enhance your resume.

If they lose, by the time comes around a whole new wave of Republican superstars will be ready to take the plunge and you will have already shown yourself to be afraid of getting in the water even when people were still begging you to get in. About the only way you could retain any semblance of political potency is to become the conservative Ralph Nader, constantly threatening a third party run.

Now, if you realize all of this, then I praise you for making a selfless decision for the betterment of the cause. However, based on my personal experience, I have lost my faith in your ability to correctly perceive reality or to be totally honest with yourself and the public. Therefore, I question whether this realization was truly the motivation for your decision not to run. For instance, on several occasions you have gone out of your way to boldly state, in the face of a mountain if evidence, that you could beat Obama.

Pretending for a moment that you actually think that is true, then why in the world would you not even give it a try when the stakes for the country are so high and you claim to have the fire in the belly? Michele Bachmann has faded and Rick Perry appears to be following that same path. And yet you still decided to disappoint your supporters and give up perhaps your last chance to show the American public that the media was wrong about both you and Obama during the election.

Evidently, the response was not nearly what you had hoped or expected. You also have to know that your two biggest weaknesses organization and electability are also the two most important qualities in a protracted nomination battle, the only type of contest you could have even theoretically won in such a crowded field. The bottom line is that it seems to me that you have made the right moral decision for all the wrong reasons.

Ironically, you think you are preserving your political career by not exposing yourself to a potentially embarrassing loss, but in reality you are ending it. This is the exact conclusion for which the seeds were sown during your resignation. As you recall, my warnings about such an inevitability began a rift between us that ultimately resulted in the end of over two years of colorful and consequential contact. As someone who attended your spectacular convention speech and who put their fortune, career and reputation on the line in your defense, this is a very sad day for me.

There is no doubt that you were dealt a horrible hand by a media determined to destroy you because you were once a threat to Obama. I still believe that had you stuck it out and remained as governor of Alaska things could have been very different today. I certainly never could have imagined that things would have turned out this way when we met at your house for the most extensive interview you have ever done about the election.

You once stated that in politics you are either eating well or sleeping well. Given the state of your life I wonder if your nights are nearly as restful. I read with great interest the glowing article in the current Newsweek which features a rare "mainstream" interview with Sarah Palin. This was hardly just because the take away line from the story is "I can win," though I will address that first. Sadly, Sarah Palin, as I have written extensively before at great personal cost, is dead wrong in such an assertion.

I have no doubt that she really does think she can win as I have learned that she usually is not prone to saying things she doesn't actually believe, but in this case her sincerity is no virtue. I would actually feel better if she was lying like most politicians do. While the interview appears to have been done before either of the two newest polls from Alaska came out showing her losing to Obama and with deeply under water popularity there, it is currently hard to see how she even wins her home state.

This seemingly shocking to those who haven't been paying close attention reality is not just devastating because it is the state where she was governor two years ago and one where any conservative should easily defeat Obama. The real significance of this is that Alaska is way ahead of the curve on the issue which would easily bring down any Palin candidacy in a general election: While the rest of the nation has largely forgotten about her quitting, Alaska obviously has had a far more intimate experience with her decision which, at least to the average person, can only be understood when seen as a bid to get rich and remain famous.

When I get ripped by Palin fans for having the gall to raise this perilous issue and its obvious consequences in a general election, I often feel as if I am arguing with the same people who thought OJ Simpson was innocent. How in the world are we even discussing whether someone out of office, already with 99 percent name recognition, 60 percent disapproval rates, and losing numbers in their home state can beat an incumbent media darling like Obama?!

And yet the stunningly sycophantic Newsweek article by normal mainstream media Palin standards it makes an average Larry King movie review seem critical makes no mention of these realities and will surely only feed the delusion that Palin is correct in her electoral assessment. But despite my well-known interest in chronicling Palin-related media coverage, the remarkably softball nature of the article was not the most noteworthy element of the article to me.

Instead, it was that it was written by Peter J Boyer. He wanted to discuss the story of my two years on the fringe of Palin's world, having produced the only film for which she ever did an interview and been an informal advisor to her for a period of time. Over several days we talked for well over three hours. He never told me exactly what story he was working on, but he strongly led me to believe that the article would focus on my experiences and crusade to tell the truth about Palin both good and bad.

You wouldn't know it from the story he ended up writing, but he seemed to totally understand how absurd it is to think she could be elected president in Numerous sections of it appeared written by a completely different person than the one I spoke to all that time. As is almost always the case with reporters, I figured he would eventually either wimp out or screw me, so my expectations for what he would do with our discussions were low if you wonder why I would bother to even talk with someone I expected to do me wrong, you are obviously smarter than I am.

So when he went silent for awhile I figured the story was dead. When he emailed me saturday morning and laughably claimed that my narrative, though interesting, required more space than he had, I chuckled to myself and emailed him back that he was full of crap I wish people just had the balls to tell you the the truth when they are doing you wrong. But when I read his article on Palin I was truly outraged keep in mind, having been treated almost universally horribly by reporters in my career it is almost impossible for me to be outraged by anything these jackals do.

Not because my story is not mentioned who in the world wouldn't ditch my tale after getting a one on one with her?! You see, at the end of one of our very long phone calls Boyer asked me to forward to him the last email I sent to Sarah and Todd before my Daily Caller essay ran. Since it appeared he was doing a feature on my experiences such a request made perfect sense and after several hours on the phone I stupidly started to trust him.

When I forwarded the email I did so under the condition that he not use or disseminate their addresses. While obviously I can't prove in court that he broke this promise which he agreed to via email , the idea that within a couple of days of getting Palin's email he went from seemingly doing a story on my attempts to educate conservatives on why she can't win and making zero mention of having had any contact with her or her people, to suddenly doing an exclusive interview with her and Todd in Iowa and an extremely positive story on her, would be a coincidence of biblical proportions.

When I called him on it via email surprisingly he did not return my phone call , he denied it, but absent an alternative explanation I will remain convinced he lied to me, especially since he was clearly deceitful during other elements of our interaction. I realize that a reporter breaking an agreement and misleading a source to land a big interview is barely worthy of mention in our increasingly immoral society, but I am clearly a dinasour in this realm. Of course the ultimate irony here or perhaps just proof that couldn't pick the winner of a one horse race is that after spending most of the last three years of my life fighting against unfair coverage of Palin and paying a heavy price for doing so, I am still getting the short end of the stick even when she suddenly is getting news treatment far better than her increasingly likely presidential candidacy deserves.

KABC's Doug McIntyre writes John Ziegler three times twice after telling him he would never write him again to complain that their freindship didn't prevent Ziegler from calling him on his Obama sellout. Governor Sarah Palin does an amazing 16 minute live interview in which she gives her first reaction to the David Letterman controversey. Snippets of Ziegler's Palin interview are used in newscasts nationwide as the Letterman controversey grows.

I now know that Sarah Palin is exactly who I thought she was. Over 14 years after he brutally killed two people, O. Fortunately, this judge was no Ito why is it that they only people who have any balls anymore are women? Hopefully it means that Simpson will die in prison. As for the Goldmans, they finally got some sense of justice. It most certainly did! The Goldmans finally made that point in dramatic fashion as JZ has been trying to get his friend Kim to do for over a year now!

The two videos below do not make up for the pain and suffering that the injustice that this case has caused, but they sure are nice to watch. The first is Simpson groveling. The second is the Goldmans finally taking in a true victory. A new poll commissioned by www. How Obama Got Elected" was released today and the results are provoking lots of discussion.

The poll was done after "popular demand" following the release two weeks ago of a Zogby poll that, for reasons that had nothing to do with bias, included only Obama voters. This new poll, done by Wilson Research Strategies was commissioned after Zogby caved to the left-wing pressure and refused to duplicate the first poll. The results, which can be found at www. John Ziegler's op-ed as well as video of his appearance last night is here. A WND article on the reaction to the polls is here. The Wall Street Journal whose reporter, in an interview with John Ziegler actually questioned whether Democrats really controlled congress!!

Front Page Magazine interviews John Ziegler here. The Philadelphia Bulletin put this story on its front page. Alan Colmes lies about Ziegler's beliefs regarding Obama's religion and insults all Muslims, here. AOL did a poll on Ziegler's poll here. Below are two great videos of interviews done with Ziegler today. The first is with Hot Air's Ed Morrissey. The second video is a live head-to-head match up with Nate Silver the total fraud who started the criticism of Zogby poll by incorrectly calling it a "push poll. It gets rather heated. This site is guessing that Silver does not post the interview on his blog, lest his blind followers see the light and see that he is indeed full of crap.

Today they told him that they would refuse to do so. Here is a Politico article that has been linked in red on Drudge and which includes extensive quotes from Ziegler. It is important to point out that NONE of this was the intent of poll. John Ziegler's statement on all of the attacks on this project ever-evolving with developments , can be read here. In light of the massive of reaction to the release of www. Below is video of the "B-cast" on which Ziegler appeared today to explain much of the story behind all of this.

As part of his forthcoming documentary, "Media Malpractice All of the shocking results can be found at www. Please feel free to spread the videos as much as you can! In my day before the election predictions were arguable the best in the nation right down to predicting John Edwards would come out and try to lay the groundwork for Florida recount part 2, though I got the time of his address wrong by a couple of hours. Here are my predictions for Like , the exit polls are going to be gruesome for the Republican side. Then, I think very early on it will look like McCain is holding his own and maybe even going to pull off a miracle.

As for the actual result, I am guessing , but that is very much on the optimistic side. As for popular vote, I say it will be The DVD can be purchased at a discount here. The Hollywood Reporter did a front page article on the film here. Daily Variety has come out witha laughably biased review of the film, which can be read here. This website is considering revealing the bizarre e-mail exchange that John Ziegler had with the person who wrote the review. Below is a video just released on YouTube of the September 11th double screening of the film in Orange County.

The video was put together by orangecountyfilms. John McCain waved the flag not white, that might be racist of surrender today. Just a day after being dramatically urged to finally tell the truth about Barack Obama, McCain told supporters that Obama is a good man of whom we should not be scared. He might as well have conceded the election without even a proper fight.

Incredibly Barack Obama is going to become President without even having to face a real campaign even though he "faced" Hillary Clinton and John McCain who are known for their alleged toughness. The War Hero has lost his nerve and the country will suffer because of it. The John McCain Presidential Campaign has finally decided to tell most of the truth about Barack Obama's radical ties and the Democrat's culpability in the current financial crisis.

Unfortunately, they have decided to do so at exactly the worst possible moment. As for the Palin-led attacks on Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist Bil Ayers, they are despite the best efforts of the media to disparage them dead on. Unfortunately, McCain is afraid of being called a racist despite Obama HIMSELF having called the issue "legitimate" and considering the bizarre fact that Palin has already been called racist by the Associated Press for talking about the Messiah's relationship with a white man, his fears are well founded, if also cowardly.

Hillary didn't learn this lesson and niether did McCain. This is what the Republican Convention should have been for, if McCain hadn't been pretending to be so concenred about a hurricane that neverly really happened. As for finally trying to set the record straight on the Democrat's role in the sub-prime mortgage mess, McCain is being played a little bit like a comic book superhero by the villains who use his better nature against him. McCain couldn't tell the truth about this at the first debate because if he did so he would likely blow up the very fragile "deal" for the so-called "bailout" bill.

Once the perception has been created it is almost impossible to reverse, especially when you are down in the polls and have the media dead set against. The first video is classic Palin on the Ayers issue. The second is McCain going to town on the real causes of the economic crisis. As great as they are, they will likely only make for nice items in the museum for losers.

Governor Palin and her family as well as true conservatives everywhere deserve better than this. Thirteen years to day after having been wrongly acquitted for two murders he clearly committed, O. Simpson was finally convicted on all twelve counts in an armed robbery that occurred in Las Vegas last September.

Despite the fact that the judge in the case kept out a lot of the most damaging and important evidence for fear of influencing the jury with elements of the double murder case, the jury was able to figure it all out in just thirteen hours of deliberation before coming back with convictions on all counts. Though this case could be seen as rather complicated, the jury was able to see the simple fact that O.

Personally, the best part of all of this is how and why it happened and not just because I played a small role in the falling dominoes, which I will be writing about in more detail shortly. For those who believe "what comes around , goes around" this situation is a case study. But it never would have happened had Kim and Fred given up. I know from speaking to Kim that they are both thrilled with the verdict.

I told her that she and her father should be very proud of how they have kept their promise to Ron to never stop pursuing justice, and that our nation owes them a debt of gratitude. The root of this problem came from too much government-directed socialism and reverse racism in the home mortgage industry. There are no two people more to blame for this than Democratic members of Congress Barney Frank and Maxine Waters watch the second video below to see why. Would you still be able to cast that vote? I urge you to listen to the radio interview with Karl Rove on this topic that is linked below.

Since, like most film festivals in the LA area, the Valley Film Festival is hardly known for its political conservatism, Ziegler was surprised that the film was even accepted into the festival and shocked that it actually won the award for best documentary against some good competition. In addition to winning the award for best documentary, here is a sampling of other praise for the film:. Joel Surnow, the creator of the smash hit TV show "24," said, "Terrific film. This movie needs to be seen. Pulls no punches and informative. Lots of information that the general public would have no way of knowing.

A case study in cowardice and courage. Acclaimed writer David Horowitz said, "I thought it was excellent, first rate. It was a very difficult story to tell and you did a superlative job. I actually have not a single critical comment to make. I wouldn't change anything. I think you touch on a lot of new ground here. You did a good job. On tomorrow's show, Mike is scheduled to interview many of the primary players in "Blocking the Path," including John Ziegler.

John Ziegler has written this column for Fox and Realclearpolitics. Ziegler also did an interview with FrontPage magazine that can be read here. Their second is here. Fox News did an extensive article on the film's revelations here. The WashingtonTimes and realclearpolitics. While there, Ziegler was one of the very few who were brave stupid?

The snippet with John Ziegler which caused the Daily Show crowd to groan and boo comes in at about the 53 second mark in the video below. The second is a clip from the film itself that deals with Barack Obama's view of handling terrorism. The top video is of Ziegler introducing the film. The second video is the crowd reaction to the end of the film. Here is an article that ran in the LA Times on the day of the premiere. Here is an article on Politico that mentions the premiere.

I am not sure what is the most amazing part of the latest attempt by the Messiah to insert race where it isn't and shouldn't be. Is it that much of the Messiah's entire campaign is built on the totally fraudulent notion that he is "above race," when his career and and candidacy has been built entirely around carefully and brilliantly using his race to his advantage?

Its a tough call. Watch the clips and decide for yourself. The first is the most recent race statement. The second is from the first episode a few weeks ago and is even more unfreakingbelieveable because it includes CNN "news" people falling all over themselves to congratulate Obama on blatantly playing the race card. The truly remarkable thing is that he really meant it. Also, amazing is that this is the same guy who lamely claims drilling is a bad idea because it won't impact the price of gas today.

Even if we accept that potentially faulty premise, that logic is much like parents deciding not to save for their child's college education because it won't help them pay for the European vacation this summer. Sadly, though predictably, thanks to being once again given cover by Matt "I'm so far in the tank for Obama I can't see the surface" Drudge who briefly linked to the Obama statement and then quickly took it down , the news media has almost totally ignored what easily could have been a game changer, or even ender, for the Messiah. My greatest fear in this election is that Republicans are so afraid of being called racists that they run a wimpy campaign.

While McCain's aversion to using the Reverend Wright issue which should be a game ender , indicates those fears are warranted, this Internet ad from the Republican Party gives us some hope that the forces of evil will not be able to continue with a completely free pass. In this video is one of the most important and by far the most underrated statements of the campaign was when Hillary literally "endorsed" John McCain over Obama at least four times in one week.

I have always felt that, if used properly, this statement is devastating to Obama and probably required him to keep Hillary off the ticket, which gives McCain an opening with the white female vote.. The level of fraud that is Barark Obama may have no bounds. One of the many areas where the myth does not meet reality is that he is somehow extremely intelligent and an amazing speaker. Sure, with a huge crowd of people ready to faint at the mere mention of "hope" and "change," and a TelePrompTer filled with a speech someone else wrote and is often plagiarized he is awesome, but strip him of those props and he is quite ordinary.

Witness these two clips especially the second one where the Messiah gets totally lost on Iraq and ask yourself if this is a guy that can really continue to con the American people even with the media's help for the next five months. BTW, I spoke to an Obama supporting friend of mine in North Carolina today and he was talking to be about the damage McCain's Vietnam torture had taken on his "cognitive abilities. When I let him know that it was Obama and not McCain who had made such a remarkable gaffe, it seemed to have lost most of its significance.

I never thought I would see the day when I felt sorry for Hillary Clinton, but that day has come. Even though she has won just as many votes, won more states and delegates over the last three months, and is clearly the stronger general election candidate, she was forced to get out of the race well before history would ordinarily dictate she should. But of course, when the Messiah, Barack Obama is involved, history, as well as logic and facts, seem to be rendered meaningless.

Hillary was forced by the media to give in, lest she make life even more uncomfortable for their Chosen One. The media's love for Obama is so great that it much to my shock even transcended what has normally been their carnal desire for some sort of contested convention. In , and there were candidates who were much further behind than Hillary is and who felt zero media pressure to concede all the way to the convention.

But Obama is crippled and, like a fight promoter who owns their boxer's next bout, the news media needed to call the fight so that their guy didn't get even more bruised than he already is. Still, there is discontent in the Democratic party. Note the boos in the video when Obama's name is mentioned. Over a generation later, well over half of the American people still believe that JFK was killed by a conspiracy which was covered up by the government. The Warren Commission got it right, but mostly by accident. I believe that there is remarkably little evidence to support a conclusion that has had a dramatic impact on all the other analysis of this event.

If it was the second shot, there there is absolutely no way to account for the definitive testimony of both John and Nellie Connelly. I also question how Oswald, both mentally and physically, could have missed SO badly on his first shot and then instantly gathered himself and fire two nearly perfect shots in the next seconds. As for Teague, I find it amazing that a nick on the cheek after the most traumatic event he could ever witness with no bullet fragments found is enough to dictate everything else about what transpired.

Because the rest of the evidence so strongly contradicts this missed first shot theory, I believe it never happened that way. I think the first shot was fired slightly earlier than the Warren Commission concluded the entire shooting took closer to 7 seconds rather 6 seconds; a little girl chasing the limo just feet from the President in the Zapruder film suddenly stops on a dime and looks up to towards the 6th floor of the depository building just BEFORE the Commission claimed the first shot that "hit" took place and was described by the secret service agents and others as sounding like a "backfire.

A key fact that supports this theory is that both John Connelly and his wife went to their deaths absolutely POSITIVE that they saw JFK reacting to being hit by the first shot saying nothing about his throat wound or him grabbing his throat before Connelly was hit. Senator could not make the timing of three shots work to insure that Oswald was the only shooter which was clearly everyone's goal from the start of the investigation unless both Kennedy and Connelly where hit by the same bullet. I believe the second shot missed JFK completely and created all of the many wounds in Connelly while likely getting largely "lost" through Connelly's damaged bones and body with the remnants never being found which is not unusual in normal crime scenes.

The third shot hit JFK in the head and blew out the contents of his skull forcing his head to go in what appears to be an odd direction when being hit by a shot from the angle from which Oswald would have been shooting. However, there is other evidence to support the theory that the shot came from Oswald's direction. In that photo there is NO crack in the front windshield of the limo. As for those who are convinced by the "back and to the left" motion of JFK's head after impact, you have been deceived. His head actually does move forward after impact for one frame of the film and then is pushed in that "odd" direction by the force of JFK's internal matter exploding from his skull.

A series of coincidences contributed to this phenomenon. Thirdly, because of the convenient placement of the small hole the doctors at Parkland opened it up to use as a tracheotomy in an effort to save JFK's life, thus destroying much of its evidentiary value. However, there were NO traces of metal found in any of those holes. So where did the holes come from? This theory is consistent with the photo taken from in front of the limo before the third shot.

However, Oswald was the only bookstore employee who did not show up for role call after the shooting and he was seen coming into work that day with a package consistent with his dismantled rifle which he had clearly purchased and that was found on the 6th floor with shell casings matching the rifle. Oswald was seen after the shooting on a different floor than where the shooting took place, but he had PLENTY of time to get there before anyone realized what had happened. Also, Oswald's behavior the day of the shooting before and after when he clearly killed police officer J.

Tippit is perfectly consistent with him being the shooter and there is not one shred of evidence identifying anyone else. As for Jack Ruby's shooting of Oswald, the known evidence seems far more consistent with an impulsive act of attempted heroism, then of being part of some grand conspiracy. If he knew he was going to kill Oswald, why was he not there remotely on time and why did he leave his beloved dog in his locked car? I am still mystified as to why Oswald never took credit for the assassination.

Obviously we will never know why that was the case. However, I believe that the theory as to HOW he did it outlined here is the only one proposed that does not conflict with any of the known evidence in the case. Years after I came up with this theory, Mark Furhman, of O. Simpson infamy, wrote a book based largely on a remarkably similar theory. So why do so many people still believe that JFK was killed by a government conspiracy? I think this is because they WANT to believe that such dastardly act could not have been pulled off so easily by a lone loser like Oswald.

Also, for fans of Kennedy his mystique is magnified by the "mystery" surrounding his death as well as the prospect that he was so dangerous to the establishment that he had to be snuffed out by the highest powers. Admittedly, this is an intoxicating premise for those prone to being taken in by it. However, as is so often the case, the reality and the mythology of the Kennedy assassination appear to have very little in common.

Fifty years later they do not. Fifty years from now I shudder to think just how off the public perception of that event will be, but if I am still around I will be trying to set people straight. John Ziegler's Probabilities percentages change day to day based upon events Chart. There seems to be a growing sentiment within the conservative ranks to lump all pollsters in with the mainstream media when it comes to political bias.

No key group is more outside of the reach of the Romney campaign than young women. Obviously the election is about getting to Electoral College votes and, while there are more theoretical paths for Romney to win than most observers seem to realize, it is very difficult to imagine one that does not include winning at least Ohio or Virgina. This is a popular myth among conservative opinion leaders and Tea Party members. Most are smart enough to realize that kind of language will not go over well, so it is implied with all manner of wordsmithing.

It is a sin for the decision-makers, party-line definers, and chief influencers wielding said party-line to be women. It is a sin for male non-empathics not to occupy these roles. Leslie Piper is cast as the bad guy, the villain. She is the reason for the divorce which Barnabas has painted for us in his montage of social media effluent. Her pedophile ex-husband gets a pass on such things. This group of Christians have a system. My father had the same one, mock, belittle, and dismiss, rape, child rape, wife beating, and child abuse.

Basically their is only two real wrongs in their version of Christendom. Women and children having the right to tell men no and escape them. He sounds like a confident cool man that is secure the women in his life actually like, love, and want him. Next year we will celebrate our 30th wedding anniversary! And i expect it all to be uttered with ease. Easy pronouncements from on high, with more of the same ignorance of what it means for those at ground zero.

Their new revised theology and doctrine will accommodate the likes of Barnabas Piper. They will take no responsibility for the pain and messed up relationships and lives in their wake. My heart goes out to you. What you describe has nothing to do with Christianity, nothing to do with Jesus Christ. It is quite the opposite! It makes me sick as well as angry! The same thing goes for emotional women. Home, school, church, family and social contacts expect us to behave certain ways from birth. Men who show emotion are considered to be weak.

Well, Daddy spends his time when not in front of a camera or audience shut in his third-floor study Parsing Theology, ringing for non-Muscular wifey to bring him tea. Sixty years ago, he would have gotten back at Daddy by becoming a fervent Communist instead of furvent Calvinist. They prove our total depravity and that is a good thing as it brings God Glory and shows us all our total vileness. But this just crushed my heart. In a young man, 18 years old, attended a summer camp.

At this camp, an educational film was shown on sexual abuse. In viewing this film the young man became angry and upset. He had been sexually molested by Chantry in and had never dealt with the situation and realized he needed to. This is very detailed and supported by annoying things like facts and documentation. Even a countdown of sorts. That we all would understand, I actually grant this person that given his response and leave it at that. My point, his ilk in no way would do the same for others in similar circumstances concerning doctrinal or social issues.

They would pile on with a vengeance and keep piling on. RW comes to mind. You might get my point. They mock all that is emotion and human in us because of their belief that we are just so vile evil horrid etc. One of my triggers I have brought up here before has been fire, I almost died in a fire and was burned rather severely. This article did that to me and for me. But I am very secondary if even important in this, there are still people out there that are trapped in the guilt, fog, anger, and worst of all aloneness that need healing and help.

That is why covering up such things is so insidious, especially what appears to be reflected in this article allegedly in my point of view. I happen to believe the allegations presented in the article as factual given the information. To where you can shine your Stupid Ray on all the ignorant masses: I agree but also think this is generational and going away in most parts of society. Boys and girls socialize freely in groups these days, with more friendships across genders than used to be the case.

Somewhat OT, but this makes it easier for young men to work for a woman when they get that all-important first job. Unfortunately the comp movement seems intent on gender segregation before marriage, and on up-armoring the men in the Battle of the Sexes. So we will never run out of guys like Ralph Kramden. Kan a Kardashian step away from the Spotlight? Highborn of House Piper.

It might look something like conflict of interest or double dipping, but the alternative is to take a manuscript to a competitor. Most book editors put in very long hours, so they would not be seen as stealing company time. Actually makes a lot of sense. I feel sad for all concerned. That question right there is the one I would say I have yet to answer for myself. There are complementarians who would be uncomfortable with a woman doing anything in a worship leading context whether it was leading worship or giving announcements on a Sunday morning.

That stuff seems kind of silly to me. So is there a difference between the local body, this core body, and a conference say like Catalyst? I think there is but I would be hard-pressed to give a firm argument on that. He seems more honest than a lot of his Young Calvinist ilk in trying to sort out his thinking before making pronouncements. I saw the same kinda thing with almost everyone I knew at Liberty…. Peter Masters has written an excellent critique of Christian Hedonism: Except under strictly-defined and controlled circumstances, which is why we see the Cro-Magnon Craziness in the stands of football stadiums.

Dear Ockrapod, you sound like you were entirely the innocent party in your divorce. I do not condemn the person who takes out the divorce per se the legal process I only judge the person whose attitude and conduct broke the marriage covenant. So, since your husband was in fact the one who broke the covenant by his conduct and attitudes, he is the one I would condemn and I would entirely support you. In cases of domestic abuse and in cases of heinous crimes like sex crimes, financial crimes, etc, the spouse who applies to the court for divorce is almost always the innocent partner. You sound like that kind of innocent partner.

At our blog A Cry For Justice we support people like you and we talk about how naive and judgemental many bystanders are when it comes to divorce. You may not have read all the comments in this thread, so kindly allow me to point you to my comments where I have explained and backtracked some of the things I originally said. You can find them here:. In divorce, it is always wise to examine the information available to see if there are any indicators of abuse. It is wise to do that because if one partner has been abusing the other then it is vital for Christians to support the victim and hold the abuser accountable.

But looking for indicators of abuse is not the same as automatically going into witch-hunt mode to find an abuser under every rock. With respect, Chris S, I reject your allegations. I do not I do say that all marriage problems are about abuse. There may be people out there who have that belief, but I am not one of them. Nor do I define abuse subjectively. But he has gone public with writing that he is blameless in his divorce and has implied that the responsibility for the divorce lays at the feet of his wife.

Is this not a revelation of a very poor, immature character? To publicly shame a wife, the mother of his children? We have heard one side of this situation. It may be against his will, but it may be with good reason. It is a healthy response as opposed to trusting everything the tweeter tweets. It is a very interesting read.

We have quite a few readers at A Cry For Justice whose abusers were siblings, parents, or parents-in-law. It was that book which first turned on the lightbulb for me about my husband being an abuser. Where did BP blame his wife. It even leaves room for understanding why she left. But I suspect Lydia or was it Dee? He is certainly young enough to make the change. But it would be hard to find that high of a salary at his age.

Frankly, I am surprised LifeWay did not have a problem with his view on women teaching men — as vague as he was in the interview about sorting it out. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:. I feel a little uneasy shaming fellow believers, especially those who find themselves divorced against their will.. I got divorced from my LocalChurch against my will. Does that make you feel uneasy? How is he being shamed? Christian culture does it again, takes a perfectly good word and turn it into something grotesque. I think that the damage that is done is not in whether or not he thinks that females are allowed behind the pulpit but rather the basic way he sees relationships working.

Are relationships based in reality or pretense? Those kinds of things which are formed very early in life which are very, very hard to unwind later on. Once the clay has dried and then been fired…. And that is a weird way of looking at it, IMO. A marriage is not something that exists independent of the two people as if it can die independently. One or both of two people married to one another did or did not do something which caused one or both of them to no longer desire to be married to one another.

That was not my experience. I am glad that you have been married a long time and are still married to the same man. But there is also the possibility that marriages that survive as compared to those that do not might be described in different terms. It is still marriage, but it is based on other things than whatever it was that the people involved thought they were setting out to create in the beginning.

Forget marriage a moment and let me talk about mothering. I am not arguing against love but merely saying that it was more complicated than that in my experience of mothering. It was also more complicated than that in my marriage. I think that an analogy might be the way a snake sheds its skin, or the famous chambered nautilus moves to larger quarters.

The old has to die for the new to come into being. Sometimes the new is better, sometimes worse, but certainly different when that happens. I would think that it well could be that old marriage sometimes dies but the new marriage is stillborn. So I can call it a divorce? I had never thought of that. Too bad there is no property settlement. Stanley was the victim. Who knows what that means in real life, but people can and do change their thinking. I would be nice to get back the money I sent their way all those years. Not that I need it now but I know of a lot better uses. There is one church that I cannot stand the thought of finding out what our money supported.

This is an interesting comment. Thanks for the info. I second what Dee said. Your father is a criminal and you were his victim. God is angry at the wicked every day Ps 7: Link to that response of mine here: Moreover, BP and his church community hold to some pretty stringent rules that apply to marriage and divorce, for everyone now? Or for everyone else but a Piper, now that BP is divorced? Announcing a reversal would be too direct, too explicit, too transparent — it would lay them open to direct fire from the watchblogs.

If they do backtrack or reverse, I expect they will do so in fancy footwork and prosody, and lots of things left unsaid, and by scrubbing items from their websites … so as to leave themselves plenty of wriggle room for plausible-deniability when the watch-blogs pinpoint the failure to fully confess and admit error. Let them be put to shame and dishonor who seek after my life!

Let them be turned back and disappointed who devise evil against me! Let them be put to shame and disappointed altogether who rejoice at my calamity! Let them be clothed with shame and dishonor who magnify themselves against me! Let those be put to shame and disappointed altogether who seek to snatch away my life; let those be turned back and brought to dishonor who delight in my hurt!

He will send from heaven and save me; he will put to shame him who tramples on me. Selah God will send out his steadfast love and his faithfulness! Let them be put to shame and confusion who seek my life! Let them be turned back and brought to dishonor who delight in my hurt! It comes from many centuries of mistranslation of Malachi 2: See this post for an explanation: Are we attempting to shame Barnabus Piper?

But I have also learned that sometimes people who have experience in something pick up on little things that you might not. Then more information came out later. Sometimes what seems like a snap judgement is really just a recognition of patterns. Liberal in church parlance tends to be very accepting of things that other churches are not. For those who call out calvinists, feel free, but know that there is a calvinist denomination that fully accepts women. Your site serves such an important role and has done wonderful work, why pollute it with national enquirer type gossip, picking apart the words of a recently divorced man, insinuating that he might be an abuser?

Without knowing the full story, there is a chance that you are abusing a victim, is that really what the wartburg watch wants to be? It used to be possible to be liberal in some areas and conservative in others without it being some kind of a stigma. Now these words are used as all-encompassing labels to demonize and divide people. The New-Calvinist movement is doing the same thing to words like gospel, grace fellowship, church, elder, etc. You are so right. And as you say the New-Calvinist movement is no different.

Thanks for the link Barbara. I have not had chance to look into the translation issues in detail but it is helpful. The book has some side points which many people including myself will disagree with but the central point is that the two greatest commandments — love for God and for neighbour — controls how we use the law and other written texts. The Bible condemns deception but it also commends Rahab and the Hebrew mid-wives in protecting the innocent by misleading those desiring to destroy them.

As I had not dug into that text itself I could not argue with him effectively about it. His interpretation which appeared to be water-tight on the surface showed no love or respect for his sisters in Christ. The application of any text or law which causes harm to other people is a serious misuse of it. When the Southern Baptists voted and removed Jesus as the criterion for interpreting scriptures this was a huge mistake IMO. This is where going off on a tangent leads people astray.

They breached the first and greatest commandment by removing Jesus as the criterion for Biblical interpretation. They do not like the Jesus of the Gospels and have done everything humananly to remove him from their lives and some of them in the churches they preach include very little Jesus in their sermons. I will be sure to correct any misuse of this verse in Malachi by people in the future.

Do these groups do anything other than have conferences and promote glossy books by the truckload? It is possible that our LORD is using the foolish things of this world to confound those who profess to preach the truth, and yet do not model it within their own lives. Piper theology used to be in my portfolio of must hear sermons, until I believe the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and heart to the truth of their heresies. If you put divorce in the context of its time then divorce for a woman could be tantamount to a death sentence, given that a woman would be wholly dependent on her husband for a livelihood.

I think Jesus edicts on marriage were meant for those of his time. I read them as more of an overarching message of keeping commitments. This is the 21st century and I think those who adhere to literal scripture paint themselves into all sorts of corners because the Bible isn't consistent. Be careful here, because if Jesus if the criterion for biblical interpretation, then the passage in Malachi must be read by Christians in light of the question the Jews asked Jesus concerning divorce.

It is not alright to exegete something from the OT and apply it to Christians outside of any commentary on the subject from Jesus, according to the criterion you have sited. Consider these assumptions, since conclusions are based on the validity or lack of it of assumptions. Assumption that any solitary statement in scripture is to be understood as comprehensive such that one need not consider any other statements on the subject in the scriptures as pertinent. Assumption that failure to mention something in any statement is just as strong a statement as actually mentioning something.

The argument from silence. Now look at the arguments from Malachi, and the arguments that Jesus gave, and the things that Paul had to say on the subject. What I find when I do that is that an enormous number of people selectively pick and choose verses, translations, understandings, cultural arguments and complexities to fit their own desired exegetical outcome. On both sides of any argument. Here is a brief outline of where I disagree with you: A journalist is not responsible for confirmation bias.

Your emotions are not the criteria for journalistic direction. This is a baseless assertion. You have no criteria for establishing congruence between any given article and the National Enquirer. This is emotive language that describes your own feelings, not anything to do with facts or objective analysis. This is how op-ed journalism works when it is done well. Leaving aside the fact that you have no criteria for judging if this statement was carefully worded, the fact is that Barnabas did, in fact, write it and publicly post it.

As such it is not only subject to public conversation, but we would be irresponsible not to. This is so basic to journalism it is nearly congruous with the dictionary definition. I find your position here to be ignorant and dangerous. This is another unfounded and poorly thought through assertion. Thinking through a statement intentionally made public by its author is our responsibility. Your words imply that Barnabas might be a victim and that if so, analyzing his words might harm him. But he chose to bring his story about his divorce into the public eye, and he chose to use the words that he did.

In conclusion I find your comment confused, illogical, sentimental rubbish. I recommend, if you wish to engage in public discourse, that you take the time to polish your critical thinking skills. That is a good point and a perspective I had not considered. My marriage has changed over time in good ways, so it is reasonable that marriages could change over time in bad ways. They have little, if any, critical thinking ability. Leaders of the reformed movement know this and take advantage of spiritual naivety to populate their churches and buy their books.

Big fingers, little phone. So was executing adulterers, homosexuals and disrespectful kids. My point is the Bible is smorgasbord of history, philosophy and prophecy and it needs to be interpreted through our lens of discernment. If it seems wrong, it probably is. A friend of ours husband left her. He filed divorce papers. Apologies if I made you think I thought you were disagreeing. I was just thinking out loud and also thinking of a few specific young families. Friendship is Magic and its Expanded Universe of fan-created works. Reality cannot be permitted to oppose Pure Ideology, Comrades.

A LOT of real eggs. This does not lead to peace and harmony among men. Remember Dr Gene Scott he of the dedicated cable channel, cigars, and funny hats? At least when he went off on a tangent, he announced he was doing so. Like Tutsi or Hutu in Rwanda — break out the pangas and start filling those mass graves. The Church of the Living God needs to be praying desperately for our young people … that the Holy Spirit — the Spirit of Truth — would open more eyes to the ails of New Calvinism and the teachings of its leaders.

We are losing a generation to this aberration of faith. Once young folks become disillusioned with the smoke and mirrors — their eyes opened to the deception — they may never return to church again to seek Truth. Certainly people continue to change as they mature, experience various things in life, undergo tragedies and all that. Also, I think that people in some aspects do not actually change so much as they come to understand themselves better and react accordingly. Well, her personhood did not change, she is who she always was, but her behavior and priorities and opportunities-and those danged hormones-certainly changed.

I feel so good about my new religion — it gives me the right to be wrong! Do I hear you correctly that you are saying that one does not use the criterion of Jesus for understanding scripture, both OT and NT, but that one instead uses other criteria? I think this can be true in a positive sense also: But sometimes difficulties come that are not foreseen and present challenges that are also opportunities to grow together.

What we examine here at TWW with the heavy patriarchist abusive treatment of the dignity of women is NOT going to work in favor of a marriage lasting, no. Everything about the contempt of the husband for the dignity of his wife and everything about how she must tolerate a level of unending abuse in the form of being looked down on is obscene ….. I personally, sat under the ranks of those preaching the heresy of the Hebrew Roots Movement, still strong in this day and age.

Gentiles trying to follow OT laws and such, and boy, are they ever miserable church folks, working diligently to steal liberty and freedom we have in Christ regarding our dietary needs. Adding a bit of fried bacon to my asparagus and onions for dinner! So true, so true. Try witnessing to a legalist and see where that gets you! Individualism or individualistic thinking that does not align with whatever group is pretty much defined as selfish these days.

It is much harder to convince an individualistic person they must be under the authority of the elders in a local church. Or, they must believe this or that in agreement with the group to be considered a good person by that group or they are maligned. When you read both OT and NT and fail to see a scarlet thread woven in the fabric, you cannot properly interpret Scripture.

I was sadly humored over the debate that raged in SBC ranks over who has ultimate authority: Jesus or the Word. Somehow, these otherwise intelligent folks forgot that Jesus is the Word! I am not quite sure what you are getting at here. I probably did not explain myself well. My point was that any theology or ideology that does not produce love to God Jesus and man is suspect. I have been to churches that were fixed on young earth creationism, Calvinism and complimentarianism and that set their agenda.

I have been to other churches where the emphasis was on Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection for our sins, they practiced hospitality and they were very warm and loving. I completely agree with you about cherry picking a verse in isolation and ignoring any other verses on it. My previous comments on 1 Timothy is a case in point: They have then ignored other passages like women prophesying in Corinth, Phillips four daughter prophesying in Acts or they explain them away like Deborah.

Win-win for the abuser. Oh that is so true. We were reading Lundy Bancroft this morning because the subject of flattery came up. Considered a sin Bancroft wrote a short piece warning about charming people. It is so hard to convey these concepts to teens much less adults. What you mention above is one of the tactics. They are never publicly uncharming. They let the victims do it. I was basically referring to the conversation between Barbara and you about the passage in Malachi and her post which she linked.

I do not come to the same conclusions that she comes to, and my reasons are in the assumptions that I cited. When I read your comment my first thought was the need to define Love. Is that our model for some of the religious leaders of our time? Most see it as unloving and even cruel treatment. The exchange between Jesus and Peter in John 21 is interesting on this score.

Jesus asks if Peter agapas Him. Peter answers, yes, I philo you. Peter is affirming his affection for Jesus. Jesus is asking whether Peter has the love of reason and esteem. If a faith community celebrates diversity in non-essentials, individuals stand a far better chance of their person-hood being respected and treated with dignity. Sometimes a Church can even pray with those from other religions, Christians with Jews and Christians with Muslims, in special ceremonies where the extended community meets together to observe what is important to the whole community.

But you will never find fundamentalists participating in all-faith services. They are not inclusive even in matters that bring all men and women together as representatives of humanity in the midst of crisis or celebration. It has a place in Christianity because such was Our Lord who honored the Samaritan and the centurion and the women of his day.

You have a valid point concerning the heresies our young people are following due to apostate teaching within the church. The fact remains, as in my case, that I left my faith to that of another individual, faithfully, and I mean diligently listening to the teachings of the Pipers, the Sprouls, and my very own local pastor, who subscribed to the view of ESS.

I believed they were right in every teaching they presented, and the fruit of my actions in trying to follow their preaching, was that I became a very depressed and miserable woman. This apostate religion promoted by false ministers creates miserable, unhappy, and a depressed people, who are in need of prayer. Much prayer, for I lived this! But a funny thing happened, the Holy Spirit began working inside of me, personally, and I began reading the Gospels for myself, and loved still love every minute of it.

Jesus told His Disciples that all authority in heaven and earth hath been given unto Me, which pretty much trashes the apostate doctrine of ESS. Wow, was that ever liberating to me, so overwhelmed with joy when I read that truth. I agree with you whole-heartedly. Group think is the norm for the visible church in these times, as if God, the Holy Spirit, does not work through individual believers through the power of His divine illumination. And yes, I have been publically flogged with words from the public pulpit man regarding my belief concerning the drunk in the spirit heresy, ever so popular and practiced within the ranks of charismatic and Pentecostal religion.

That is a whole other can of worms. I never heard that term until this very moment, so my understanding of it is limited to a short article I found on line. However, there is a lot out there more or less related to Judaism and Christianity and what Paul and Jesus did or not think, and such. I am quite interested in the scholarship that has developed since the s or so about the New Perspective on Paul.

Anyhow, the most recent scholar that I have found on youtube on this topic is Paula Fredriksen, a professor of Judaism both in the US and at Hebrew University in Israel. She is an excellent lecturer, but she throws out a lot of information quickly so it takes a lot of concentration. She starts and stays in antiquity, deals with the translation of the Hebrew scriptures from Hebrew into Greek and mentions a mistranslation here or there, and also talks about how modern Christian thinking is misunderstanding some things from scripture.

Where did I suggest people who are different should not be treated with respect? Do I need remind you Catholics have a closed system? Let me mention this to try to entice whoever is interested to listen to what some of these people are saying. Paul says, and quotes from both OT and NT that there was no monotheism in Judaism or paganism in that day, not as we understand monotheism.

They were all polytheists as we today define polytheism. She shows in scripture where it is accepted by all, including Paul, that there are many gods but that the requirement for Jews was that the Jewish God was One and was the highest god. And she says that the God Fearers were pagans who also gave respect to the Jewish God and that the Jews of that day and for several centuries made no effort to convert those God Fearers to Judaism or to require that they give up their cultural gods.

And this caused quite a ruckus all round. Thus there were three groups of people at the time involved in this issue; the Jews, the God Fearers, and the Gentile Christians. This, she says, is coming out of the New Perspective on Paul. So, IMO, that the emphasis on Judaism as it relates to Christianity is here big time and is to be dealt with as time goes on. It has been such a joy in my small area, to literally witness Muslims coming out of their apostate religion.

Upon hearing the Gospel shared with a love that transcends mere human understanding by followers of Jesus, they have renounced their religion and have become born again believers Christ for their salvation. It is so exciting to literally see the moving of the Holy Spirit working in the lives of sinners for Jesus hath set them free! I did not know this beforehand and was surprised at this revelation. The service was Lutheran, slash Muslim, in sharing the wedding ceremony.

Our family could have conformed to keep the peace, but my faith in Christ could not allow me to do so. I also have family members who attend church every Sunday, that are extremely upset with me, for I do not agree with their apostate theology, that Christians and Muslims worship the same god. I can love my Muslim neighbor, and yet, not share in their false faith. In my former town a few decades back there was a tragedy involving some Muslim children who drown, apparently the elder while trying to save the younger. The whole town grieved. They held a Muslim service in the large UMC church and we all went.

It was a wonderful service, full of faith and hope. The leader invited the entire crowd to participate in reciting some stuff, but the only person who knew the stuff and participated was one man who was an Orthodox Christian from Syria who worshipped with the local Episcopalians. Everybody else stood quietly and respectfully. I stood quietly and respectfully. I believe that is sufficient to show respect and grief for the family. We see them both as worshiping the God of Abraham. We have no problem with all-faith services in the larger community. What concerns me is WHY that assumption happened.

I thought I was adding to the conversation. I do not agree with their apostate theology, that Christians and Muslims worship the same god. We do not worship the same LORD. Beware of the insidious Chrislam movement in America. My comment was about individuals.


    comments user

    Mezisida Says :

    22.08.2018 at 03:14

    A STUDK is a student's ticket, just a shortened version (RAZG.)

    comments user

    Kigar Says :

    27.08.2018 at 12:23

    Gay? He thinks you're a guy. Your cunt is idle.

    comments user

    Kagal Says :

    02.09.2018 at 03:10

    He is stroked by another snow Queen so your Kaya's hands are so cold.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields *

Powered by WordPress. Theme: Fino by: Design By freepsdworld.