betsy

Your statement is not right. There is no denial about His resurrection by claiming He died. That He resurrected means He came back from the dead. He lives. Answer this question then. How can He be resurrected if He didn't die?

Harris Decima guy was asked on CBC how effective is that ad that showed Layton and Harper on each side of the coin. He considers it quite poor.

CTV Power Play showed a clip of an old Parizeau slowly walking towards the podium, helping Duceppe in his - what the guest panelist termed as "saving the furnitures" - campaign. Don Martin marveled about bringing in the "old guards." Then he said: Isn't it odd that they bring out Parizeau with his cane....to knock out the other guy (Layton) who's also using a cane!

They had a poll a while back with either CTV or CBC. #1 priority issue is about jobs. #2 is healthcare #3 economy (?) Environment was at the bottom of the list. With only 3% I think. I got the numbers all mixed up. Here's the source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110415/environment-election-non-issue-110417?s_name=election2011

Uh-uh. Nothing sticks, remember? But Ignateiff is tanking. And he just got boo-ed!!! They're definitely on to the LIBERALS cheap tricks!

Yes it does say the devils also believe. After all Satan was the angel formerly-known-as Lucifer, who rebelled against God. I don't know how to answer you Bloodyminded, about Satanists (practitioners of Satanism; followers of Satan). They must believe that God exists...but could that be termed as having "faith?" Like I don't have "faith" in Satan just because I believe he exists....because that's what the Bible says. And that is assuming the Satanists accept what the Bible says. I don't know what Satanists actually believe in, like how they believe did Satan came to be....and if they believe Satan is their god, then why would they believe in God. SO I don't really have an answer to that.

The House became a zoo not because of the Conservatives! Political talk shows had to contend with complaints from viewers because of rude interruptions by Liberal panel (Gerald Kennedey was specifically named when Duffy was still host). As for drowning out media bs....well what can I say? That's the supporters finally fed up into action by biased media! People are on to cheap tricks. That's why nothing sticks!

Your version is missing 19 and 20. Here's the interpretation from the Bible Study: 2:14-17. Can faith save him? This statement and others in verses 14-26 persuade some critics that James is teaching salvation through faith and works. Luther called this epistle "strawy," believeing it emphasized works too much. Today, some regard it as a late writing in which in which the author is reacting to Paul's doctrine of salvation by faith alone. This is not the case. James' teachings reflect neither a negative nor a positive response to Paul's teachings. For Paul, faith practically equals salvation. James however sees two kinds of faith: saving faith and professing faith (much like the usage today). For Paul, justification is by faith (Rom.4:5). For James, justification is by a faith that works - by a geniune faith that manifests itself in post-conversion works. Before salvation, these Jews had believed in the efficacy of works. Now some were reacting at the opposite extreme, imagining that works play no part in the salvation experience. James retorts that the kind of faith that does not produce works is not saving faith. As Calvin said: "Faith alone saves, but a faith that saves is never alone." Thus, James's question is not simply "Can faith save?" but as the Greek text may suggest, "Can thatfaith save him?" Can merely professed but undemonstrated faith save? The Greek grammar expects a negative answer to the question that ends verse 14. Hence it can be rendered, "That faith [i.e., the one mentioned in verse 14a which is without works] cannot save. 2:19, 20. The reference to faith in one God probably alludes to Israel's great creedal statement of Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." Adhereance to a creed is not true faith. Even the demons know and accept the truth of the creed, but they do not possess saving faith. If one does nothing to enact his knowledge of God, he worse than the demons, for they at least tremble. 2:21-24. These verses present the crux of the issue: Is a man justified by works? Do Paul and James contradict each other? Several factors demonstrate that they do not. First, as already noted in verses 14-17, the apostles use the word for faith with different meanings. Second, they used "justified" in different senses. It is customary to identify all nuances of this word with the theological idea Paul popularized - that is, God's act of declaring all believers righteous on the basis of Christ's redemptive work. But a common Old Testament and gospel usage involves demonstrating or showing something to be righteous (cf. Ps. 51:4; Luke 7:35; Rom. 3:4); it is the usage that James follows. Third, though both men use Abraham as an illustration, they focus on different aspects of his life. Paul shows that Abraham was declared righteous by faith when he trusted God (Gen.15:6). James declares that he was shown to be righteous by his offering up of of Isaac (Gen. 22:9). Fourth, even the terminology of these two apostles differs. Paul constantly speaks against the works of the law, as being a false use of those works to merit salvation. James however, is speaking of works of love that follow belief. Fifth, the tow apostles are discussing totally different subjects, since they are confronted by different problems. Paul, opposing the Judaizers, seeks to prove the Gentiles can be saved and sanctified apart from circumcision or any other work of the law. James, opposing merely nominal, professing Christians, seeks to show that true faith confirms itself by deeds of love. If James wre fighting Paul over law and grace or faith and works surely the subject of circumcision would have arisen, since it lies at the core of that issue. James and Paul are not face-to-face fighting each other they are back-to-back fighting opposite foes! 2:25. Just as James presents two examples of spurious faith (vv.16, 19), he concludes with two examples of genuine faith: Abraham and Rahab. One was a Jewish patriarch pf great sanctity, whose faith was perfected by his works. The other was the lowest citizen of a condemned Gentile city, whose newfound faith was dramatized by her works. No matter whether one has the mature faith of an Abraham or the baby-like faith of a Rahab, there must be evidence of that faith. 2:26. The point of this analogy between the body and ones faith is that both require an energizing element. The absence of that element renders the other component dead.

A lot of Canadians (those who were born and raised in Canada), regardless of race, do not fully comprehend what real poverty is. Poverty does not mean not being able to get the latest XBox game, or can barely afford an Ipod or cellphone, or having the same fastfood take-out for dinner night after night. Poverty is having to survive with just the most basic necessities such as a roof over one's head (whether it be leaky or made of tarp), putting food on the table (be it once a day or sometimes not even that), when nutrition is not on the equation....but just something to have to fill up the belly, where the meaning of existing is just trying to stay alive.... Considering the turmoil all over the world, and real heartwrenching poverty.....I feel grateful and thankful for what we have.

I was referring to Molly's own description - which is her own personal opinion. To me, she is describing the Liberals. Funny how this evoke a mental image of posturing Liberals! But of course the difference between the posturing Liberals and an angry Baird is that Baird walks the talk! Spittle-laced sentences from gattling gun or not, no posturing there! An angry Baird....is truly an angry Baird.

It should be good for everyone since this is all about human rights!

Making deals. Actually that's what I'm afraid of. Of course Liberals aren't too far behind.

I find him neutral.

You said it! That's how I feel about Goodale. And Brison too! Among the Liberals, it's only Martha Hall who seem to try at honesty...and good manners! Speaking of good manners, that's what's terribly wrong with the Liberals! They think rudely interrupting someone speaks, shouting and drowning out the rebutts of their opponent is actually...winning. They don't know how disrespectful and irritating it is for viewers, and hosts of Power Play (Duffy, Clark etc.,) have had complaints about them. ESpecially Gerald Kennedy! CBC Solomon and Barton had to be firm and put their feet down at times. The Liberals behave like children in front of the cameras! Unruly. And that includes during Question Period - all preening for the cameras. Notice the chest puffing as they stand up to blast away - all with same tutored look of crocodile indignant posture and mock outrage!

There's a difference. Baird walks the talk, so to speak!

Losing integrity? For accepting the position in the senate? It's one thing if he's still a journalist....but he's not. Furthermore, the fact that he's been able to maintain his objectivity as a journalist only serves to illustrate that he's earned his position in the Senate. He didn't let partisanship stand in the way of his credibility as a journalist....why shouldn't we assume that he'd not do the same as a Senator?

Whatever.

Funny how this evoke a mental image of posturing Liberals!

Why should it be embarrassing for him to accept it?

He honestly explained to the caller what they can only try to do, and what they cannot promise to do! For a politician to unequivocally admit that, that's honesty!

You're just their offspring! They have every right to teach you their own values...after all, you'll be dwelling under their roof! Once you've reached your maturity, you can question and learn about other religion, or forsake religion....as most atheists do! Having been baptized, confirmed, and having had the first communion did not stop them from becoming atheists. So what's your complaint? Nothing stopped you!

Sir Bandelot, this young man clearly feels comfy with you. Having someone to confide in, to talk to, to pour out his heart to....that's what he needs the most I think. I'm no therapist or psychologist, but even though he's moved out....perhaps you and he can still maintain that line of communication open. However, it's important too to remember that this fellow is on drugs. They can be manipulative, because of their addiction....so proceed with caution. Hopefully as the friendship and respect deepens, you could talk him into assessing where he is right now and where he wants to go. You cannot talk someone into rehab...it has to come from their own will - the desire to tackle and beat their own demon. You can only help inspire and and nurture that desire in him to beat drugs....and even if he falls off the wagon as most of them do, you'll be there to help him get on again....continuing with what you do now, without being judgemental. This man is lucky to have found you. God bless you both.

I'm rooting for Jack to be the official opposition. He is surely working his bumbum off in this campaign....but I worry about his health. He looks tired lately.

If the youth really comes out to vote....who's more like to benefit now?

The longer the campaign....the longer there's no government in power. During that time, we're in limbo. Furthermore, with the gruelling pace of fierce campaigning I wonder how long our campaigning leaders will last on the trail - healthwise?