Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Bloomberg Is Spiritually Bankrupt

May 5, 2014

To The Reader’s Forum: Proud of his gun-control efforts, Michael Bloomberg carried that pride into the realm of religion by boastfully declaring, “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(25)

apologeticsnow

Jun-03-14 8:59 PM

Monkey, you cannot even deny or offer a rebuttal to being a homo-subjectivist. You are not for equality. "Equality" for you is code for homo-subjectivism. It sounds much more politcally-correct to say equality than homo-subjectivist.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

Jun-03-14 8:29 AM

Monkey, you are being evasive.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

Jun-02-14 2:11 PM

Monkey, you say that I sound desparate. What is desparate in saying about your position, "You are not for equality like you want to make yourself out to be. You are for homo-subjectivism, but that doesn't sound near as good as equality. If you were for equality, you would say that anyone can marry who they want, but you really don't mean it. It is your homo-subjectivism that actually comes through, not your phoney equality argument?" Your response in saying that I'm desparate is avoidance, not desparation on my part. You avoid answering my claim about your homo-subjectivism by calling me desparate.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-22-14 9:59 PM

Monkey, you are not for equality like you want to make yourself out to be. You are for homo-subjectivism, but that doesn't sound near as good as equality. If you were for equality, you would say that anyone can marry who they want, but you really don't mean it. It is your homo-subjectivism that actually comes through, not your phoney equality argument.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-21-14 2:41 PM

Monkey, it is not equality that you are arguing from but homo-sujectivism. If you are serious about equality, you let anyone get married to whoever they want without you dictating the terms. You dictate it now with your homo-subjectivist point of view.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-21-14 2:39 PM

Monkey, on what foundation was marriage based throughout the history of western civilization if it was not the Bible?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-21-14 2:38 PM

Monkey, you say, Bluesman, 10 years ago a majority of the US population did not support same-sex marriage. Today they do. Why is it so surprising that politicians also have evolved?" The, what is to stop the evolution from having marriage be redefined in another 10 years or will it make it stop from evolving into something else?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-19-14 9:23 PM

Monkey, it is just your baseless opinion that only the mainstream clergy who agree with you visit the sick and help out the down and depressed. Besides, they don't have a blblical leg to stand on when the argue like the world for distorting and defrauding what the Bible says about marriage. Can you cite the clear text from Scripture that gives crendence to changing the definition to what they want it to be?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-19-14 9:20 PM

Monkey, you say, "You seem to have a few frothy doctrines of your own." No substance, just opinion. You say, "Don't you worry about my church's "wayward, heretical and frothy doctrines". No usbstance, no exmaples, just opinion. The best you have is ad hominem attacks, logical inconsistencies (as if your defintion doesn't discriminate???) and homo-subjectivism in the assertion of civil marriage being different from marriage itself. You use your homo-subjectivism to use as club while you cry against the club you perceive that I am using. Nothing in the Constitution says the homo-subjectivism trumps the Bible's definiotion of marriage in the public square. In fact, when it was wirtten, the framers of the document would have turned in disgust to think that men would use the homo-subjectivist argument to overturn the biblical definition in the public square.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-19-14 3:17 PM

Capri, any minister who claims the Bible supports homosexuals and lesbains marrying one another is reading a different Bible. They are worldly and choose to follow its wayward, heretical and frothy doctrines. No Scripture supports their views. Matthew 19: 4-5 says marriage is one man for one woman. That is the word of Jesus himself. Ministers changing what He says are treading dangerous ground.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

73capri

May-19-14 5:40 AM

This question will never be settled because ministers cannot agree on a answer. I attended a same sex wedding last fall. The ceremony was performed by a long time minister of a church. The church and congregation was larger than Rev. Mel's. I'm sure they used the same bible and had the same 10 commandments as all other Christians use. I don't know why so many humans spend so much time judging who will go to heaven or h e l l when I was always taught that God has the final judgement of our lives. Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-18-14 10:01 PM

Monkey, you have not dealt with the question as bluesman so aptly pointed out. Again, you resort to irrelevant statements or ad hominem attacks. Every point you make; bluesman counters it. You have no answer for it except go beat your head against the wall and NYS has settled it. So as long as NYS settles something that in your mind somehow makes it right???? That's your baseline argument??? Whatever the government says, that's the way it is. How weak, lazy and empty that is for an intellectual argument!

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-17-14 11:06 PM

Monkey, you simply are engaging in ad hominem attacks. You did not address the question in relation to the logic of your statement. Bluesman, just asked a great and fair question. Simply by replying with the "slippery slope" card is bogus. BTW, name the exact place in the Constitution where marriage is defined as two consenting adults. Where in the Constitution does it even address marriage?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-15-14 6:21 PM

Monkey, again you avoid the question by playing and accusing me of the slippery slope card. You, not me, said, "They just shouldn't be allowed to dictate who other people can marry." That is not slippery slope statement. You want people like me shut out of the public square concerning marriage and only allow your view. If peoole like me aren't allowed to dictate the terms of marriage, then are the polygamists not alowed to dictate it, the bisexuals or polyamorists? Who is left to dictate the terms? What right do they have to dictate them?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-11-14 10:44 PM

Monkey, I think you see the logical corner you painted yourself into when you said, "They just shouldn't be allowed to dictate who other people can marry," so you come back with a lame remark of "Give it up Mel. You lost. Deal with it." As you tell us not to dictate, should your view dictate the prevention of three people getting married?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-10-14 7:13 PM

Monkey you say, "They just shouldn't be allowed to dictate who other people can marry." By that line of reasoning, then who should be kept from marrying anyone they want and how many they want? Is your statement absolute?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jhwinnyc

May-10-14 5:23 PM

Just curious whether you all think the PJ deliberately made it possible to comment here without "subscribing" to their ridiculous paywall model, or are they just technologically incompetent? Maybe they'll run a "poll" with that question ;)

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SilverTurtle

May-08-14 8:49 PM

formerly, to whom was your question directed? 3:32p

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-08-14 4:42 PM

Try setting the standards for YOURSELF and try to meet them and let others worry about their own spiritual journey. Monkey,is what you are saying the truth? How so? You make it your standard against the Word of God. Do you really want to go there?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-08-14 4:38 PM

Monkey, it's not our standard. It is the standard of the Word of God, It is not our words, but His word, When you say, "Try setting the standards for YOURSELF and try to meet them and let others worry about their own spiritual journey," why should we believe it and what good is it in light of the Word of God where Jesus says that he is the way, the truth and the life?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SilverTurtle

May-08-14 1:34 PM

It's not OUR standard, it's God's. Monkeyboy, we are not telling you that you need to change your life. If you're feeling defensive, maybe you need to change something so you don't feel so guilty. We are conveying truth, denouncing falsehoods and standing for what we know is right. The beat down you refer to is more appropriately associated with the deterioration of morals and common sense taking place in society due to the heavy liberal bias pushed by bullies in leadership roles. That is the real bully club. Haha I used a pun... billy club... nevermind.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SilverTurtle

May-07-14 8:37 PM

I can't tell you who will be admitted into heaven or not, but I know true and false statements when I hear them. I can't let wrong thinking prevail when I know that I know better.I know Bloomberg won't be barging in on his own terms, but I don't know what will happen to him. Did someone infer that I was JW? That's not correct.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dengo45

May-07-14 2:39 PM

It is amazing that a rich person such as Bloomberg that has progressive ideas has no chance to get to haven, But the **** Brothers are alright. Mark 10:18-22 18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. “Only God is truly good. 19 But to answer your question, you know the commandments: ‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.’[a]”

20 “Teacher,” the man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.”21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22 At this the man’s face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

May-06-14 6:52 PM

As usual monkey is making his own judgmental assumptions.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SilverTurtle

May-05-14 8:13 PM

I know he's a Rev. and all, but a few simplifications, because I was even getting confused. So, 'faith without works is dead' so Bloomberg at least has one aspect right. That's where it ends. Works should be done for God, not 'hey I happened to do stuff I thought was good'. Well written villains always think they are doing what's best. It's hard to get good works to fit all the criteria, which are: commissioned by God (i.e. commandments), for the glory of God (not personal gain or praise for yourself). The Rev. has one thing very wrong. What we do does amount to rags, so to speak, but we have to do our best to follow Christ's teachings and try our best to live as He did. Jesus' sacrifice and accepting Him makes up for the rest, which is quite substantial.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 25 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web