Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $73,753
83%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 83%!! Less than $14.3k to go!! Thank you all very much!! Let's git 'er done!!

Posts by RaceBannon

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • My Mother passed away last night at 9pm

    05/27/2015 9:32:53 AM PDT · 153 of 153
    RaceBannon to ELS

    many thanks :)

    Thank you all, it means a lot

  • “Six Seconds”

    05/27/2015 3:46:26 AM PDT · 33 of 37
    RaceBannon to mabarker1

    its why todays Marines make me just as proud and yesterday’s Marines

  • My Mother passed away last night at 9pm

    05/26/2015 3:49:27 AM PDT · 148 of 153
    RaceBannon to 5th MEB

    Thanks, and to everyone ;)
    It’s gonna be a long week

  • My Mother passed away last night at 9pm

    05/25/2015 8:05:32 PM PDT · 140 of 153
    RaceBannon to RaceBannon

    Thank you everyone
    We’ve been waiting a long time for this
    I am glad I was able to pray with her and sing to her
    She did squeeze my hand a few times but never showed facial recognition or words
    I have hope I will see her again
    :)

  • My Mother passed away last night at 9pm

    05/25/2015 4:10:07 AM PDT · 1 of 153
    RaceBannon
    Please keep my sister in your prayers, her husband now has a cerebral vascular degeneration, meaning dementia has set in at age 67.

    Carol took care of both Mom and Dad the most, living closer than the other sisters, and now her husband is going through it, too, so, please keep her in your prayers.

  • Why I am No Longer a Dispensationalist

    05/22/2015 5:40:24 PM PDT · 10 of 610
    RaceBannon to Mrs.Z

    the Church will not go through the tribulation, the 7 yer tribulation, but genuine believers have been slaughtered for centuries

    it is a great misunderstanding to think that believers will never be in dire peril of their lives

  • Men's Rights Activists Call For Boycott Of 'Mad Max: Fury Road,' Citing Feminist Agenda

    05/18/2015 2:42:37 AM PDT · 44 of 46
    RaceBannon to RandallFlagg

    careful, it is NOT a family movie

  • Men's Rights Activists Call For Boycott Of 'Mad Max: Fury Road,' Citing Feminist Agenda

    05/16/2015 12:28:36 PM PDT · 25 of 46
    RaceBannon to drewh

    if this idiot thinks that cheering for Charlize Theron while she blasts away at loser zombies, then he is the wimp for not cheering on Rhonda Rousey...

    There’s other reasons I think scenes should have not been in the flick, but a lack of testosterone is NOT one of them

  • Men's Rights Activists Call For Boycott Of 'Mad Max: Fury Road,' Citing Feminist Agenda

    05/16/2015 12:25:18 PM PDT · 22 of 46
    RaceBannon to DoughtyOne

    I saw it last night
    GO!

  • New Mad Max movie a feminist/liberal screed? [vanity]

    05/16/2015 5:29:08 AM PDT · 44 of 63
    RaceBannon to matt1234

    it was unreal
    I was glued to the screen

    kind of a hokey plot, all mad max are, but very entertaining

    as far as feminism, I didnt see any of it, but I saw TONS of testosterone

  • New Mad Max movie a feminist/liberal screed? [vanity]

    05/15/2015 11:44:01 PM PDT · 33 of 63
    RaceBannon to matt1234

    the plot was weak
    the action was non stop
    It was goofy and entertaining
    and like most modern action movies these days, women are heroines, but they are also feminine

    it is not your Daddy’s Mad Max

    but it was not a lost ticket

    the men actors played the craziest of characters, it was like the zombie apocalypse with common makeup

  • The Vatican Against the Jews [Numbers 23]

    05/14/2015 2:16:40 PM PDT · 21 of 24
    RaceBannon to Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

    2Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
    2Cor 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
    2Cor 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
    2Cor 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,
    2Cor 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

  • Liberals Rediscover an Old Communist Theory on Poverty and DNA

  • Liberals Rediscover an Old Communist Theory on Poverty and DNA

    05/14/2015 3:13:53 AM PDT · 17 of 32
    RaceBannon to Kaslin

    actually, their comments on telomeres is correct.

    it is what they did with that information that is stoopid

  • earthquake off Japan, 6.8

    05/12/2015 2:57:09 PM PDT · 1 of 40
    RaceBannon
  • Prayer Request

    05/09/2015 11:41:56 AM PDT · 2 of 76
    RaceBannon to Rusty0604

    So sorry :(

  • Why events like the Mohammad Cartoon Contest are important

    05/04/2015 5:52:44 PM PDT · 14 of 19
    RaceBannon to upchuck

    this thought is quite related:

    Written in 2010:

    What the Koran burning in Florida and World Trade Center mosque controversy is really all about.
    September 11, 2010 at 10:28pm
    The problems with the Koran burning and the WTC Mosque

    In all this argument of recent days, the most important fact of the matter has been obvious from the start, but is rarely spoken of by the media or the public....Regarding the Florida Koran burning, has anyone stepped back and listened to what people are saying in detail? The first thing a person will hear is how that Pastor has the Constitutional right to do what he is doing.

    The next series of statements, however, are always the majority of statements made in these conversations, namely: It is the wrong thing to do, it is inciteful, it is a cult in Florida, Muslims will hate us, it will endanger the troops, and, most importantly for this conversation: we are not at war against a religion, but extremists of that religion.

    This is important because of the Islamic world’s reaction to this Florida Pastor; namely, that the Islamic world immediately protested the planned Koran burning by condemning the entire country of the United States and marched and chanted promoting our deaths to cries of
    “DEATH TO AMERICA!”

    The response by virtually all American politicians has been an apologetic tone, one where they immediately call for the Koran burning to stop, observations that it IS inciteful and that the threats to Americans at home and American Troops abroad are not acceptable and
    that the safety of the American public are paramount in this case.

    Their tone has been to cower in fear at these threats. Not one politician has stepped forward and exclaimed, “Islam is not being attacked by an entire country or an entire religion, Islam is only being attacked by a radical. Islam needs to remember we are not all against Islam and threats to our safety are wrong and inciteful and hate filled.”

    Not one. They cower to the Islamic world, refuse to hold them to the same standard of behavior as they insist from their own people, refuse to insist that the Pastor in Florida is an anomaly and that the United States is no threat to Islam. What they did was bow in submission to the sensitivities of the Islamic world and deny the Florida Pastor his civil rights to speak out like an American.

    The Islamic world will not notice. They will riot anyways. It is identical to the cartoonists in Denmark. All it took was one cartoonist to make a cartoon of Muhammed and the entire Islamic world was in the streets and threatening to kill anyone who makes a cartoon of Muhammed.

    Theo Van Gogh made a movie about this Islamic submission in Holland, and they killed him for making the movie.

    The Florida Koran burning case is quite similar to the Ground Zero Mosque case with some differences. In Florida, the Pastor must stop his Koran burning or there will be violence across the globe, and in fact, even if he does stop, there will be violence across the globe due to him stating he wanted to burn Korans. In New York City, the Imam who wants to build a Mosque 2 blocks away from Ground Zero, he said on CNN that if we move the Mosque or deny it’s construction, there will be violence across the globe.

    In both cases, if we do not submit to Islamic sensitivities, there will be violence across the globe, in fact, even if we do submit to Islamic sensitivities, there will most likely be violence anyways due to the fact that we spoke of those things. Free speech is threatened in Florida, and a new twist is happening in New York City, something that Israel has seen does not work, and that is LAND FOR PEACE.

    The Ground Zero mosque is about LAND FOR PEACE. If we give Islam the land to make a mosque, there will be peace. If we do not give
    Islam the land, there will be violence. Think this through people. In both of these cases, neither has anything to do with the original concerns people expressed. It is solely about whether we submit to Islamic sensitivities or have violence.

    It is about Islamic blackmail of the United States.

  • Iran seizes U.S. ship, 34 sailors

    05/04/2015 3:01:57 AM PDT · 107 of 107
    RaceBannon to thackney
  • Iran seizes U.S. ship, 34 sailors

    05/04/2015 3:01:30 AM PDT · 106 of 107
    RaceBannon to Yehuda

    my heart still hasnt calmed down yet
    especially after last night, too

  • Earthquake Swarm, Including Magnitude 4.0, Shakes East Bay Cities

    05/03/2015 5:17:17 PM PDT · 10 of 24
    RaceBannon to conservativejoy

    where did you hear of an earthquake in CT??
    http://earthquaketrack.com/p/united-states/connecticut/recent

  • New Cold Climate to Devastate Global Agriculture within Ten Years

    05/03/2015 10:10:57 AM PDT · 24 of 169
    RaceBannon to citizen

    WHAT DO WE WANT?
    GLOBAL WARMING!
    WHEN DO WE WANT IT?
    NOW!

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/01/2015 8:28:40 PM PDT · 117 of 835
    RaceBannon to Kandy Atz
    Excellent addition! May I plagerize it? 😁
  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/01/2015 8:26:10 PM PDT · 116 of 835
    RaceBannon to Grateful2God

    The point is not kjv, the point NT is the Biblical error of a pope at all, and the error that Peter has primacy

    I would bet the douay defends ny point exactly

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/01/2015 5:10:28 PM PDT · 37 of 835
    RaceBannon to MamaB

    no idea

    But, it is plain to see if you want to see it

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/01/2015 4:49:45 PM PDT · 31 of 835
    RaceBannon to NYer

    Each time the word ROCK is used in the Bible in reference to any providing of the people, it is used as God being the one provided. Here is the first verse in the Bible in the KJV showing just that.

    (Exo 17:6 KJV) Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

    Who pointed out where the ROCK was? God did. What came out of the ROCK? Water, water to drink. Who is referred to as LIVING WATER, water that must be drunk to live eternally? Jesus.

    (John 7:38 KJV) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
    Each time the word ROCK is used, where God provides the ROCK, it is either a literal ROCK, like just above, where WATER came out of, water to allow the Isralites to live, it came from GOD, not a man.

    When it refers to a spiritual meaning, the word ROCK is used to describe God as creator or Saviour! IT IS NEVER USED TO DESCRIBE A MAN!

    (Deu 32:1 KJV) Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.

    (Deu 32:2 KJV) My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
    (Deu 32:3 KJV) Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
    (Deu 32:4 KJV) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
    Who is the ROCK? God is, He is our support, our Saviour, our Creator.NOT A MAN.
    (Deu 32:18 KJV) Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
    GOD is the ROCK, the Creator, not a man.
    (Deu 32:30 KJV) How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?
    (Deu 32:31 KJV) For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.

    Who is the ROCK? It is GOD, not a man!

    (1 Sam 2:2 KJV) There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
    Who is the ROCK? It is not a man, it is GOD!
    (2 Sam 22:2 KJV) And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;
    (2 Sam 22:3 KJV) The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

    Who is the ROCK? It is GOD. NOT a sinful man who denied his God, but GOD Himself.

    Peter is NO ONE’S shield.

    Peter is NO ONE’S high tower.

    Peter is NO ONE’S refuge.

    and Peter is NO ONE’S Saviour! To say anything like those statements are true of a sinful man is blasphemy.

    Most Catholics never read the section before or after this part:

    (Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    That is one reason some people do not find it obvious.

    Here is what it says::

    (Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

    (Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

    (Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

    (Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

    (Mat 16:17 KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

    What was the original topic of discussion?

    (Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

    Jesus asked,

    That was the topic of discussion.

    What was the response?

    (Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

    They were all over the place, it seems that there was not many who were catching on to exactly who Jesus was.

    So, what was the next sentence?

    (Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

    (Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

    Jesus asked the disciples themselves what THEY thought, not just one disciple, but ALL of them.

    Peter gave the best answer, that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the living God.

    Right from there, many people ignore what was just said, and only concentrate on what comes next.

    However, that is where the error lies, in ignoring what was just said.

    It is like explaining to someone that people put sodas in the soda machine first, then act surprised when soda comes out of the machine when you put money into it. People forget what happened first: someone loaded the machine.

    In the same respect, Jesus set the tone for the conversation: WHO IS HE?

    Peter had it right: Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

    That was the point of what Jesus was saying. That He was the Christ.

    That was what He just said!

    We all know what comes next, and it is because people ignore what was just said, that they get this part wrong:The Context of the ongoing conversation is important:

    (Mat 16:17 KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

    (Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    Jesus explains that Peter’s revelation did not come from His logic, it came from God the Father Himself. This type of instruction was done on a spiritual level, not fleshly, it was something that Peter would have never figured out for himself.

    What did Jesus say next? Peter is blessed because he was BLESSED with this information.

    What information?

    That Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

    That is the point.

    What Jesus said next is the most misused verse in the entire New Testament.

    (Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    Peter and Rock. Is Peter the rock spoken of here, or is the IMPORTANT POINT THAT GOD REVEALED TO PETER the rock?

    17 And [ 2532] Jesus [2424] answered [ 611] (5679) and said [ 2036] (5627) unto him [846], Blessed [ 3107] art thou [ 1488] (5748), Simon [ 4613] Barjona [ 920]: for [ 3754] flesh [ 4561] and [ 2532] blood [ 129] hath [ 601] [0] not [3756] revealed [601] (5656) it unto thee [4671], but [ 235] my [ 3450] Father [ 3962] which [ 3588] is in [ 1722] heaven [ 3772].

    18 And [ 1161] I say [ 3004] (5719) also [ 2504] unto thee [ 4671], That [ 3754] thou [ 4771] art [ 1488] (5748) Peter [ 4074], and [ 2532] upon [ 1909] this [ 5026] rock [ 4073] I will build [ 3618] (5692) my [ 3450] church [ 1577]; and [ 2532] the gates [ 4439] of hell [ 86] shall [ 2729] [0] not [ 3756] prevail against [ 2729] (5692) it [ 846].

    18 kagw [ 2504] de [ 1161] soi [ 4671] legw [ 3004] (5719) oti [ 3754] su [ 4771] ei [ 1488] (5748) petroj [ 4074] kai [ 2532] epi [ 1909] tauth [ 3778] th [ 3588] petra [ 4073] oikodomhsw [ 3618] (5692) mou [ 3450] thn [ 3588] ekklhsian [ 1577] kai [ 2532] pulai [ 4439] adou [ 86] ou [ 3756] katiscusousin [ 2729] (5692) authj [ 846]

    Peter =
    4074 petroj Petros pet’-ros
    apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m
    AV - Peter 161, stone 1; 162
    Peter = “a rock or a stone”
    1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus

    rock =
    4073 petra petra pet’-ra
    from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f
    AV - rock 16; 16
    1) a rock, cliff or ledge
    1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
    1b) a rock, a large stone
    1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

    Due to what Jesus was talking about, the ROCK had to be the truth Peter had revealed to him from God the Father, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

    There is no other sensible explanation of the verse unless it is twisted to make someone believe what is not there in the text.
    Because of all the previous uses of the word ROCK to describe the attributes of God as Creator, Deliverer, Saviour, to ascribe those attributes to a man, that is a total misunderstanding of Scripture.

    Too many people form what they believe around their doctrine, and then interpret the Bible in the light of that doctrine.

    That is wrong. Doctrine should come from what the Bible clearly says, and then base their doctrine on what it clearly says!

    The Bible nowhere grants Peter any authority that is not also given to the other disciples.

    Jesus is also called the ROCK or CORNER STONE in many other verses, but PETER IS NOT!

    Notice what is said in this passage::

    (Mat 7:24 KJV) Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

    (Mat 7:25 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

    (Mat 7:26 KJV) And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

    (Mat 7:27 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

    What is it that a person built their house upon and survived? A ROCK.

    If a person is foolish, what does a person build their house upon? SAND. What did Jesus say that those who rejected his words built upon? SAND.

    If the foolish reject Jesus and build upon SAND, then those who BELIEVE and RECEIVE what Jesus said, which of the two men is Jesus comparing them to, the SAND builder or the ROCK builder?

    It is CLEAR that Jesus is referring to those who BELIEVE on HIM and trust HIM as one who builds their house UPON A ROCK.

    That is JESUS own words several chapters before Peter’s declaration.

    This is repeated in more detail in Luke::
    (Luke 6:47 KJV) Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:

    (Luke 6:48 KJV) He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

    (Luke 6:49 KJV) But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

    Note again, the PERSON who believes on the WORD OF GOD, is likened to someone building their house UPON A ROCK.

    So, what does the reference to A ROCK in ALL these cases refer to?

    Is it a MAN or is it the WORD OF GOD revealed?

    This is not difficult to read, but too many people have been taught to interpret the passage in Matthew in such a way to twist what is actually being said, and these alternate passages repeat the same basic message: THAT GOD is what matters, not men or a single man.

    Paul wrote in Romans 9::
    (Rom 9:33 KJV) As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

    Who is Paul speaking of when he SAYS A ROCK of offense? A Stumbling stone? It is Jesus, and refers to those who refuse to believe.

    (1 Cor 10:4 KJV) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

    Who is the ROCK?
    It plainly says the ROCK WAS JESUS, not Peter.

    There is no other place where Peter is praised or given any authority, in fact Peter is rebuked for his actions by other persons.

    (Gal 2:11 KJV) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

    (Gal 2:12 KJV) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

    (Gal 2:13 KJV) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

    (Gal 2:14 KJV) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

    If PETER is the ROCK of the Church, then WHO IS PAUL to REBUKE PETER?

    Paul clearly rebuked Peter in this passage because PETER was WRONG and at FAULT!

    The ROCK of the Church CANNOT HAVE ANY FAULT, or else there is NO FOUNDATION to stand upon but error!!

    Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter, also. While the book of Acts clearly tells Peter to witness to a Gentile first, Peter is NOWHERE granted any position or title that PETER is the Apostle to the Gentiles, but PAUL clearly IS named as SUCH!

    (Rom 15:15 KJV) Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,

    (Rom 15:16 KJV) That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

    The Book of Galatians is the clearest refutation to many false doctrines concerning this::

    (Gal 2:1 KJV) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

    (Gal 2:2 KJV) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

    Now, read the next passage carefully:: WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY??

    (Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

    (Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

    THE GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION WAS GIVEN TO PAUL, NOT PETER.

    PETER WAS TO BE THE APOSTLE TO THE JEWS.

    (Eph 3:1 KJV) For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

    WHO WAS? PAUL was, not Peter.

    (Eph 3:8 KJV) Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

    WHO WAS?? Paul was!!

    (1 Tim 2:7 KJV) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

    WHO IS A TEACHER OF THE GENTILES?

    Paul is! NOT Peter, every time Peter is mentioned as to WHAT PEOPLE Peter is to be associated with it is the JEWS, WITH ONLY ONE EXCEPTION, and that is Acts chapter 10.

    Only ONCE, while PAUL is repeatedly and openly called or referred to as the Apostle of the Gentiles.

    In fact, there might even be more references to PAUL witnessing to Jews then there are references to PETER witnessing to Gentiles! And this from the man who is KNOWN as THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES!

    (Acts 9:19 KJV) And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

    (Acts 9:20 KJV) And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

    (Acts 9:21 KJV) But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?

    (Acts 9:22 KJV) But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

    Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. 5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

    Acts 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed. 2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.

    Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

    Acts 17:(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

    (Acts 18:4 KJV) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

    (Acts 18:5 KJV) And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

    (Acts 20:21 KJV) Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

    (2 Tim 1:11 KJV) Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

    (2 Tim 4:17 KJV) Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.

    Strengthened who? PETER?? NO!
    Paul!

    The doctrines of Peter being the ROCK are clearly not supported by Scripture.

    That cannot be denied by anyone who knows how to read for themselves.

    (Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

    (Acts 17:11 KJV) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

    (Acts 17:12 KJV) Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

    Neither did Jesus rename Peter, he clearly called Peter a stone. To believe otherwise means you believe Jesus changed the subject of His being the Messiah. Jesus entire passage was n the Church, His founding of it being the Messiah, and the fact that HIS church would have no end.

    It had NOTHING to do with a sinful man being any sort of a foundation. The only foundation for the Church was Jesus Christ Himself.

    Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

    47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:

    48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

    Jesus clearly says HE is the rock that the man built his house upon, not Peter.

    What did Paul say about building upon a MAN’S foundational work?

    (Rom 15:20 KJV) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:

    Paul said he would NOT go anywhere another man had alreayd preached. Since we KNOW Peter was in Rome after Paul, and they may have met there, Peter surely would have known this verse and this course of action and would NOT have built upon Paul’s work in Rome.

    (1 Cor 3:10 KJV) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

    3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

    Paul makes it clear: The FOUNDATION of the Church is JESUS CHRIST, not Peter.

    (Eph 2:20 KJV) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

    In that last passage, ALL the Apostles are called foundations, NOT JUST PETER, and it is CLEAR:: Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, NOT PETER, and ALL the Apostles are given the same rank and status, and PETER is NOT NAMED ONCE.

    (Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

    (Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

    (Gal 2:9 KJV) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

    And Again, Paul clearly states PAUL is the Apostle to the Uncircumcision, and also noteworthy, in Gal 2:9, Look again what PAUL said::

    (Gal 2:9 KJV) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

    Paul called 3 men, 3 Apostles the pillars of the Church, 3 men, not just Peter!!

    Like I said before: Doctrine needs to be based on the Bible and what it says. People who read the Bible and interpret the Bible in light of their doctrine are in error. The Bible should tell you what your doctrine is, instead of your doctrine telling you what the Bible clearly says.

    There are just too many ways to Biblically defeat the doctrine of Peter’s supremacy in the Church. He WAS an Apostle, and that is greater than I ever will be, but as far as the FOUNDER or LEADER ALONE of the Church, someone who is considered the foundation of the Christian Church in Europe or something, that is just not Biblical.

    You also just showed you do not know your Bible when you said this:

    Christ did NOT state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity.

    Well, just what was Jesus doing here in this collection of verses then, if not using SCRIPTURE as the final authority on faith and morals?

    (Mat 12:3 KJV) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

    (Mat 12:5 KJV) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

    (Mat 19:4 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

    (Mat 21:16 KJV) And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

    (Mat 21:42 KJV) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

    (Mat 22:31 KJV) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

    (Mark 2:25 KJV) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

    (Mark 12:10 KJV) And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

    (Mark 12:26 KJV) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

    (Luke 4:16 KJV) And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

    (Luke 6:3 KJV) And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him;

    Jesus used Scriptue to defeat Satan, not the teachings of the Synagogue, nor the teachings of a future Church that we are disputing about:

    (Mat 4:4 KJV) But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    (Mat 4:7 KJV) Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

    (Mat 4:10 KJV) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
    Paul’s statement of the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15 is NOT the subject of what you claimed, either:

    (1 Tim 3:15 KJV) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

    IT IS GOD that is the Pillar and ground of truth, and it is the SPIRITUAL Church that it is referring to, not any physical building, nor a any sinful man’s creation of a denomination.

  • Geraldo just said 50 years of failed liberal policies caused Baltimore!

    04/30/2015 4:15:53 AM PDT · 5 of 66
    RaceBannon to gattaca

    He sure did!!

  • Geraldo just said 50 years of failed liberal policies caused Baltimore!

    04/30/2015 4:10:48 AM PDT · 1 of 66
    RaceBannon
  • Justice Roberts revives an old argument that could save gay marriage

    04/28/2015 10:05:54 PM PDT · 6 of 120
    RaceBannon to murron

    Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
    Mt 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
    Mt 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

  • ‘You Will Burn In Hell!’: Protester Disrupts Supreme Court During Gay Marriage Arguments

    04/28/2015 10:01:04 PM PDT · 41 of 55
    RaceBannon to Olog-hai

    Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
    Mt 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
    Mt 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

  • Iran seizes U.S. ship, 34 sailors

    04/28/2015 2:00:54 PM PDT · 93 of 107
    RaceBannon to tanuki

    my ptsd is kicking in, I tell ya...

    35 years of this, hearing it, seeing it, all presidents going through this since 1979

    not one has gone to war to blast them the way they deserve

    and we just had the rescue attempt reunion last weekend, too, I went from so high to just furious today

  • Iran seizes U.S. ship, 34 sailors

    04/28/2015 8:28:53 AM PDT · 2 of 107
    RaceBannon to RaceBannon

    NOT AGAIN!!
    http://www.rewscueattempt.com

    and that Marxist muslim in the white house wont do a thing!!

  • Iran seizes U.S. ship, 34 sailors

    04/28/2015 8:28:26 AM PDT · 1 of 107
    RaceBannon
    JUST DAMN!!
  • Please pray for my Mom

    04/25/2015 8:41:50 PM PDT · 138 of 143
    RaceBannon to Tolerance Sucks Rocks

    AMEN!

  • hostage rescue attept ceremony Saturday at noon, Arlington

    04/23/2015 8:01:04 PM PDT · 18 of 19
    RaceBannon to exnavy

    I forgot :)
    Just had dinner with the helo crew, relived some of the funniest things they did
    Found out some personal information about a few,too, quite interesting :)

    Most all of us old men, I the youngest at the dinner at 55, the pilots all 70 almost

  • Please pray for my Mom

    04/23/2015 7:59:26 PM PDT · 109 of 143
    RaceBannon to Tolerance Sucks Rocks

    covered

  • hostage rescue attept ceremony Saturday at noon, Arlington

    04/23/2015 1:24:36 PM PDT · 14 of 19
    RaceBannon to Marine_Uncle

    no sweat brutha :)

  • hostage rescue attept ceremony Saturday at noon, Arlington

    04/23/2015 1:23:59 PM PDT · 13 of 19
    RaceBannon to exnavy

    I was on the Oki, what ship were you on?

  • hostage rescue attept ceremony Saturday at noon, Arlington

    04/23/2015 5:50:25 AM PDT · 2 of 19
    RaceBannon to RaceBannon; stowaway; Mrs.LoneGOPinCT; underbyte; badbackman; Bigfitz; mcswan; posterkid; ...

    If you can, please make it and ping to others

  • hostage rescue attept ceremony Saturday at noon, Arlington

    04/23/2015 5:49:30 AM PDT · 1 of 19
    RaceBannon
    35th anniversay this year
  • Alabama Woman Joins Islamic State, Urges Americans to Follow Her

    04/21/2015 6:08:17 PM PDT · 12 of 36
    RaceBannon to markomalley

    Hoda?

    Hoda Bomblikdis?

  • University Cops Detain Military Veteran Trying to Stop Flag Desecration

    04/21/2015 5:31:07 AM PDT · 16 of 40
    RaceBannon to Kaslin

    Google Michelle Manhart and select images
    She is a nude model, nude body paint model
    I am glad she did what she did, but I wont march with her

  • No, Senator Rubio, Homosexuals Aren't Born that Way

    04/20/2015 5:03:08 PM PDT · 4 of 191
    RaceBannon to xzins

    As Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council points out, rigorous studies of identical twins have now made it impossible to argue seriously for the theory of genetic determination. If homosexuality were fixed at birth, as the misguided thinking of homosexual activists goes, then if one twin is homosexual, the other should be as well. The “concordance rate” should be 100 percent.

    But it’s not. One early proponent of the “born that way” thesis, Michael Bailey, conducted a study on a large sample of Australian twins and discovered to his chagrin that the concordance rate was just 11 percent.

    Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, researchers from Columbia and Yale respectively, looked at data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and found concordance rates of just 6.7 percent for male and 5.3 percent for female identical twins.

    They determined that social environment was of far greater significance, and their research led them to reject “genetic influence independent of social context” as an explanation for homosexuality. They concluded, “... [O]ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.” In other words, post-birth experiences shape sexual orientation, not genes.

    Bearman’s and Bruckner’s research is born out by no less than eight major studies of identical twins in the U.S., Scandinavia and Australia over the last two decades. They all arrive at the same conclusion: gays aren’t born that way.

    As Sprigg observes, “If it was not clear in the 1990s, it certainly is now — no one is ‘born gay.’”

    From:
    No, Marco, homosexuals aren’t born that way
    Bryan Fischer - Guest Columnist
    From NE News Now (News from a Christian perspective)

  • No, Senator Rubio, Homosexuals Aren't Born that Way

    04/20/2015 5:02:42 PM PDT · 3 of 191
    RaceBannon to xzins

    The Importance of Twin Studies
    N. E. Whitehead, Ph.D.
    A constant stream of media articles—several per year—assures us that there is a link between homosexuality and biological features. These articles mention genes, brain structure, hormone levels in the womb, ear characteristics, fingerprint styles, finger lengths, verbal skills...... and by the time you read this, some others may have appeared. The headlines imply that people are born with tendencies which infallibly will make them gay or lesbian, and that change of sexual orientation will be impossible.
    Individually some of these pieces are not very convincing, but the sheer volume of them suggests that they must amount to an overwhelming influence—or if not, further research will add to them and make it so. This is not true either, and we see shortly that twin studies refute it.

    Twin Studies
    Twin studies in their modern form investigate both identical and fraternal twins, but this article emphasizes studies of identical twins, which are sufficient for our purposes. Studies of non-identical twins are detailed elsewhere (1).
    Earlier studies mostly used informal or “snowball” samples of twins recruited from gay and lesbian associations, and by advertisements (e.g. 2,3). Such studies are possibly biased by the nature of twins who volunteer, but even so, if one identical twin was homosexual, only about half the time was the co-twin concordant (i.e. also homosexual).
    Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as “registry” studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.
    The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.

    Interpretation
    Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known in the scientific community for a few decades (e.g. 6) but has not reached the general public. Indeed, the public increasingly believes the opposite.
    Identical twins had essentially the same upbringing. Suppose homosexuality resulted from some interaction with parents that infallibly made children homosexual. Then if one twin was homosexual, the other would also always be homosexual. But as we saw above, if one is homosexual, the other is usually not. Family factors may be an influence, but on average do not compel people to be homosexual.
    Twin studies suggest that as a class, events unique to each twin—neither genetic nor family influences—are more frequent than genetic influences or family influences. But many individual family factors (such as the distant father) are commoner than the individual unique factors. Unique events would include seduction, sexual abuse, chance sexual encounters, or particular reactions to sensitive events, when young. Everyone has their own unique path which only partly follows that of the theoreticians!
    A fascinating sidelight on all this comes from the work of Bailey (7). His team asked non-concordant identical twins (one was homosexual, one not) about their early family environment, and found that the same family environment was experienced or perceived by the twins in quite different ways. These differences led later to homosexuality in one twin, but not in the other.

    Strength of Influences
    At this point, some of you will be asking—what about the concordant identical twins who were both homosexual? Could their genes have “made them do it”?
    No. It can be a strong influence for a few, but even for those few, it is never overwhelming. The record strengths for genetic influence on behaviors are 79% in a group of highly addicted women cocaine addicts (8) and about the same or somewhat higher, for ADHD (9). Because those figures are not 100%, even among addicts or those strongly pushed towards some other behavior, there is room for outside intervention and change. Hence even if homosexuality is as addictive as cocaine for a few individuals, their genes didn’t “make them do it.”
    For perspective, it is valuable to compare genetic contributions to homosexuality with the question - is a girl genetically compelled to become pregnant at 15? Her genes might give her physical characteristics that make her attractive to boys - but whether she gets pregnant will depend greatly on whether her community is Amish or urban, conservative or liberal, whether they use contraceptives, and whether the parents are away for the evening.
    So the influence of the genes is very indirect. We can see this by thinking further - if she was in solitary confinement all her life, would her genes make her become pregnant? Of course not! Some influence from the environment (in this case a boy) is essential! The effects of genes on behaviors are very indirect because genes make proteins, not preferences.
    So the results of identical-twin studies are critical in understanding the biological influences on homosexuality. Only for physical traits like skin color are identical twins 100% concordant; otherwise they don’t necessarily follow either their parents’ genes...or their parents’ admonitions! In this, homosexuality proves to be no different from such unrelated behaviors as violence, being extroverted, or getting divorced. All may be influenced by genes, but not overwhelmingly determined by them.

    Future Biological Research
    Will continuing research eventually find some overwhelming biological influences to produce homosexuality, or find that added together, all the biological influences are overwhelming? No. The twin studies prove that future research will never discover any overwhelming biological factors which compel homosexuality.

    Future Psychological Research
    The complementary finding is just as true. There are many influences from upbringing, and probably many we have not yet discovered—but however many we find, it will always remain true (because the twin studies tell us so) that family influences will never overwhelmingly compel children to be homosexual.
    Childhood Gender non-conformity (essentially strong sissiness, rather than a diagnosis of GID) is the strongest single influence ever found associated with adult homosexuality, but even this factor is not overwhelmingly compelling. 75% of a sample of extremely “sissy” boys became homosexual when followed through to adulthood (10). But we must remember they were so sissy that parents were extremely concerned and referred them to the research clinic for help. Only a small percentage of sissy boys from the general population become homosexual as adults (11). This is even more true of other factors which have been researched and publicized in the media, and leads to a another important rule of thumb: “Only a small minority of those exposed to any predisposing factor become homosexual.”
    This may be a surprise to some clinicians, who may have found high percentages of sissiness, tomboyishness or same-sex parent deficits in their clients. But that is a clinical sample - out in the extra-clinical world, surveys show that only a small percentage of those with poor same-sex parent relationships become homosexual. For whatever reason those factors have often become extremely influential in such clients’ lives and must be taken very seriously; but because they are minor factors in the whole population, clinicians must not force everyone into the same box, which may be uncomfortable, or simply not fit. They must be open to any unusual factor which has been important for the specific client.
    The scientific truth is - our genes don’t force us into anything. But we can support or suppress our genetic tendencies. We can foster them or foil them. If we reinforce our genetic tendencies thousands of times (even if only through homoerotic fantasy), is it surprising that it is hard to change? Similarly, we have a genetic tendency to eat, but it is possible to foster this tendency and overeat for the pleasure it brings. If we repeat that often enough, we will not only reinforce a genetic tendency to become overweight, but find that “starving” the habit takes a long time!
    In summary:
    1. No scientist believes genes by themselves infallibly make us behave in specified ways. Genes create a tendency, not a tyranny.
    2. Identical twin studies show that neither genetic nor family factors are overwhelming.
    3. Conclusion 2 will not be altered by any research in the future.
    4. We can foster or foil genetic or family influences.
    5. Change is possible.

    References
    1. Whitehead, NE; Whitehead,BK (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Layfayette, Louisiana. See also www.mygenes.co.nz .
    2. Bailey, JM; Pillard,RC (1991): A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry48, 1089-1096.
    3. Bailey, JM; Pillard,RC; Neale,MC; Agyei,Y (1993): Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 50, 217-223.
    4. Hershberger, SL (1997): A twin registry study of male and female sexual orientation. J. of Sex Research 34, 212-222.
    5. Bailey, JM; Dunne,MP; Martin,NG (2000): Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample.J. Pers. Social Psychology 78, 524-536.
    6. West, DJ (1977): Homosexuality Reexamined. 4th ed. Duckworth, London.
    7. Bailey, NM; Pillard,RC (1995): Genetics of human sexual orientation. Ann. Rev. Sex Research6, 126-150.
    8. Kendler, KS; Prescott,CA (1998): Cocaine use, abuse and dependence in a population-based sample of female twins. Brit. J. Psychiatry 173, 345-350.
    9. Rhee, SH; Waldman,ID; Hay,DA; Levy,F (1999): Sex differences in genetic and environmental influences on DSM-III-R attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J. Abnorm. Psychology 108, 24-41.
    10. Green, R (1987). The “Sissy Boy Syndrome” and the Development of Homosexuality. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
    11. Bell, AP; Weinberg,MS; Hammersmith,SK (1981):Sexual Preference: Its Development In Men and Women. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

  • Veteran detained after taking American flag from protesters who were walking on it, report says

    04/19/2015 4:58:24 AM PDT · 8 of 30
    RaceBannon to eastforker

    I think those are civil air patrol

  • The Doolittle Raid

    04/18/2015 1:01:35 PM PDT · 13 of 30
    RaceBannon to Retain Mike
  • The Doolittle Raid

    04/18/2015 12:57:26 PM PDT · 12 of 30
    RaceBannon to Retain Mike
  • WalMart closings alert!

    04/16/2015 2:52:43 AM PDT · 50 of 148
    RaceBannon to Mr Ramsbotham

    HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

  • Why the Confederacy Lives

    04/11/2015 8:15:00 AM PDT · 183 of 594
    RaceBannon to iowacornman

    states rights to own slaves, yeah

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq84DI3D7mQ

  • Oklahoma state representative: Use Article V powers to address federal debt

    04/09/2015 2:40:33 AM PDT · 16 of 17
    RaceBannon to cotton1706

    but we have those in the Constitution already.

    I know it is cynical, and I think we do need to do something, however, without a moral people who obey laws, the text of the law is meaningless.

    There is , to use algore’s verbage, no controlling legal authority to make Congress obey the Constitution.

    All there is, is the electorate. And it takes a minimum of 2 years to make any correction to bad law or bad obedience to the law.

    It would be toothless to make these changes unless we install checks and balances not presently in the Constitution. Term limits is about as far as I would go in amending the Constitution, even though I agree with the principles of the Liberty Amendments.

    We have no way to ensure Congress follows the Constitution but voting them out. And in today’s world, too many things happen too quickly, and too many things dont get changed back to what is good. And an article 5 convention wont change that, for the language of the Constitution is not what is at fault, but the morality of the elected and the electorate.

  • Can the Jews Be Destroyed? A Message For All Those Who Say Israel Has No Future

    04/09/2015 2:29:28 AM PDT · 19 of 20
    RaceBannon to kvanbrunt2

    I didnt even read the source, I just posted it for the facts

    I met Dr Showers several times at Bible conferences :)

    He is a great scholar, and I LOVE his teaching style
    clear, plain, not pretentious, and definitely not milk, but steak