@ 2 Timothy 3:1-5. It talks about personality traits that people would demonstrate in the ';last days';. Of special interest is the notation in vs. 5 -- it says people would ';have a form of godly devotion but prove false to its power';. What do you think that means?In 2 Timothy 3:1-5, what does ';have a form of godly devotion but prove false to its power'; mean?
Compare these verses:
2 Cor 11:13-15:
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Titus 1:6
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny [him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.In 2 Timothy 3:1-5, what does ';have a form of godly devotion but prove false to its power'; mean?
I'm pretty sure it alludes to those who claim to be godly but don't live up to it.
There are a lot of people in the church that only say they are Christians and even pray, but live a life that is very far removed from biblical values. There are 'godly' men who abuse they're wives and preachers who have affairs and clergy that molest children.There are tele-evangalists who rip people off thousands of dollars by manipulating tithes and offerings. In the churches I used to go to there was as much back biting and gossip as there was in any secular club. One would think that godly people would be different being devoted to God and all.
These type of people have a form of Godly devotion and 'prove false to it's power because they are obviously not 'practicing what they preach'
This was initially the reason I left the whole church scene.
The proper rendition of that verse that is closest to the original Greek is: ';Having a form of godliness but denying the power.';
This applies to people who appear to be godly or claim to be godly but they have no personal relationship with God and deny His power to do what He says He will do and conversely their lives are powerless as well in the spiritual realm.
I think it is a warning against smugness in one's beliefs. Christians can be..well...arrogant. I think it comes down to the difference between humbly and compassionately praying for a person and that passive/aggressive ';I'll pray for your soul'; that many Christians employ to express distaste with another persons actions or beliefs.
Religion changes the character of people. The power of piety sometimes includes the power to heal. We see the form of religion in people trying to please their communities by appearing to be pious but deep inside they really are weak and easily tempted.
They look like ';power Christians'; but their doctrines reveal them as fakes.
';Wolves in sheep's clothing';. ';They'; can 'act' the part but behind closed doors they are 'different'.
It means that they give lip service to the faith, but they don't walk in it.
It means that some will know of God but not know God.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Monkees: Were they serious or were they a false group?
I know there was a tv show so I was wondering if their songs and group were just for that or were they really a group who did tours and things?The Monkees: Were they serious or were they a false group?
The Monkees was a pop-rock quartet created in Los Angeles in 1965 for the American television series The Monkees, which aired from 1965 to 1968.
The primary members were Micky Dolenz, Davy Jones, Michael Nesmith, and Peter Tork, who were the public face of a music production system under the supervision of Don Kirshner.
At the start, the band members provided vocals, and were given some performing and production opportunities, but they eventually fought for and earned the right to collectively supervise all musical output under the band's name.
On their third album, Headquarters (produced by Chip Douglas and issued in May 1967), the four Monkees wrote and played on much of their own material. Nearly all vocals and instruments on Headquarters were performed by the four Monkees.The album shot to No. 1, but was quickly eclipsed by a milestone cultural event when the Beatles released Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
After the television show was cancelled, Rafelson directed the four Monkees in a feature film, Head, originally titled ';Untitled.'; The film was executive-produced by Schneider and co-written and co-produced by Rafelson with a then relatively unknown Jack Nicholson. Rumors abound that the title was chosen in case a sequel was made. The advertisements would supposedly have read: ';From the people who gave you HEAD.'; [5]
Nicholson also assembled the film's soundtrack album. The film, conceived and edited in a stream of consciousness style, featured oddball cameo appearances by movie stars Victor Mature, Annette Funicello, a young Teri Garr, boxer Sonny Liston, famous stripper Carol Doda, and musician Frank Zappa. It was filmed in Screen Gems Studios and on location in California, Utah, and The Bahamas between 19 February and May 17, 1968 and premiered in New York City on November 6 of that year (the film later debuted in Hollywood on November 20).
Head was not a commercial success, in part because it was the antithesis of The Monkees television show, intended to comprehensively demolish the group's carefully-groomed public image. Rafelson and Nicholson's ';Ditty Diego-War Chant'; (recited at the start of the film by the Monkees), ruthlessly parodies Boyce and Hart's ';Monkees Theme.'; A sparse advertising campaign (with no mention of the Monkees) squelched any chances of the film doing well, and it played only briefly in nearly-empty cinemas. In commentary for the DVD release, Nesmith said that by this time, everyone associated with the Monkees, including the four Monkees, ';had gone crazy.'; They were each using the platform of the Monkees to push their own disparate career goals, to the detriment of the Monkees project. Indeed, Nesmith said, Head was Rafelson and Nicholson's intentional effort to ';kill'; the Monkees, so that they would no longer be bothered with having to deal with the matter. Tork said in DVD commentary that everyone had developed such difficult personalities that the big-name stars invited as guests on the show would invariably leave the experience ';hating everybody.';
Over the intervening years Head has developed a cult following for its innovative style and anarchic humor, and the soundtrack album (long out of print, but re-released by Rhino in the '80s and now available in an expanded CD version) is counted among their most adventurous recordings. Members of the Monkees, Nesmith in particular, cite Head (the first Monkees album not to include any Boyce and Hart compositions) as one of the crowning achievements of the band. The highlights include the Goffin/King composition Porpoise Song.
which i recomend you find
its a great song
The Monkees: Were they serious or were they a false group?
They were a group that were hand picked for the TV show. No one knew the other in the group before that. They and the show became so popular, they DID tour and stay together a while. My fave was Davey.
The Monkees was a pop-rock quartet created in Los Angeles in 1965 for the American television series The Monkees, which aired from 1965 to 1968.
The primary members were Micky Dolenz, Davy Jones, Michael Nesmith, and Peter Tork, who were the public face of a music production system under the supervision of Don Kirshner.
At the start, the band members provided vocals, and were given some performing and production opportunities, but they eventually fought for and earned the right to collectively supervise all musical output under the band's name.
On their third album, Headquarters (produced by Chip Douglas and issued in May 1967), the four Monkees wrote and played on much of their own material. Nearly all vocals and instruments on Headquarters were performed by the four Monkees.The album shot to No. 1, but was quickly eclipsed by a milestone cultural event when the Beatles released Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
After the television show was cancelled, Rafelson directed the four Monkees in a feature film, Head, originally titled ';Untitled.'; The film was executive-produced by Schneider and co-written and co-produced by Rafelson with a then relatively unknown Jack Nicholson. Rumors abound that the title was chosen in case a sequel was made. The advertisements would supposedly have read: ';From the people who gave you HEAD.'; [5]
Nicholson also assembled the film's soundtrack album. The film, conceived and edited in a stream of consciousness style, featured oddball cameo appearances by movie stars Victor Mature, Annette Funicello, a young Teri Garr, boxer Sonny Liston, famous stripper Carol Doda, and musician Frank Zappa. It was filmed in Screen Gems Studios and on location in California, Utah, and The Bahamas between 19 February and May 17, 1968 and premiered in New York City on November 6 of that year (the film later debuted in Hollywood on November 20).
Head was not a commercial success, in part because it was the antithesis of The Monkees television show, intended to comprehensively demolish the group's carefully-groomed public image. Rafelson and Nicholson's ';Ditty Diego-War Chant'; (recited at the start of the film by the Monkees), ruthlessly parodies Boyce and Hart's ';Monkees Theme.'; A sparse advertising campaign (with no mention of the Monkees) squelched any chances of the film doing well, and it played only briefly in nearly-empty cinemas. In commentary for the DVD release, Nesmith said that by this time, everyone associated with the Monkees, including the four Monkees, ';had gone crazy.'; They were each using the platform of the Monkees to push their own disparate career goals, to the detriment of the Monkees project. Indeed, Nesmith said, Head was Rafelson and Nicholson's intentional effort to ';kill'; the Monkees, so that they would no longer be bothered with having to deal with the matter. Tork said in DVD commentary that everyone had developed such difficult personalities that the big-name stars invited as guests on the show would invariably leave the experience ';hating everybody.';
Over the intervening years Head has developed a cult following for its innovative style and anarchic humor, and the soundtrack album (long out of print, but re-released by Rhino in the '80s and now available in an expanded CD version) is counted among their most adventurous recordings. Members of the Monkees, Nesmith in particular, cite Head (the first Monkees album not to include any Boyce and Hart compositions) as one of the crowning achievements of the band. The highlights include the Goffin/King composition Porpoise Song.
which i recomend you find
its a great song
The Monkees: Were they serious or were they a false group?
They were a group that were hand picked for the TV show. No one knew the other in the group before that. They and the show became so popular, they DID tour and stay together a while. My fave was Davey.
Who is really behind the (in my opinion false) perception that men like ultra-thin bodies on women?
Yes, most men have an initial positive reaction to Victoria's Secret models and the like, but I think most of us would ultimately prefer at least 15 - 30 pounds more?Who is really behind the (in my opinion false) perception that men like ultra-thin bodies on women?
Fashion industry.
Most of people there are too detached from reality.
My guess it that models are supposed to look good in pictures, not feel good when you hug them.Who is really behind the (in my opinion false) perception that men like ultra-thin bodies on women?
IN the UK we know men prefer curvy women. But the whole reason women want to be a size zero is to impress other women that's the only reason.
Hollywood(though H.wood is starting to put more ';fleshy'; women in leading roles that aren't for comedic relief or have tragic life stories), the fashion industry and the women's magazines that use the ultra thin models in their ads and place them next to articles about how to get a man, keep a man, and please a man, and use the thin models for what fashions are ';in';. If the fashions that were ';in'; were put on women of all body types instead of mostly the thin models, there might be less confusion in that respect.
The fashion industry and Hollywood. We fail to remember that the fashion industry is dominated by men who like other men so it makes sense that they would eshew curves. Vickies isn't the worst of the bunch and actually deserve a little bit of credit as does SI. They have long had standards for their models that other companies/publications didn't with regard to being too thin.
It's primarily the fashion industry. They're only interested in selling clothes, so they want models as skinny as coat hangers so their clothing will hang well on them. The industry is all about the clothes, not the attractiveness of the women, but other women get the mistaken idea that men find that look desirable. We don't.
I'm going to be politically incorrect here and say that I find Keira Knightley quite attractive. But I also find Freema Ageyman very beautiful. Women's beauty can come in many shapes, sizes, and colors, and I hope for everyone to be able to accept and value themselves for their uniqueness.
It has nothing to do with men it's a woman thing. We are our own worst enemies and project these images onto men pointing proding the men askin, ';You thinks she's hot don't you?'; Once we promote more positive self-images then we can finally accept ourselves for who we are.
Men like what feels good and the most attractive quality is confidence.
There is nobody behind it other than all of us as consumers. If women (or men) objected to those images, then they would stop spending money at Victoria Secret, stop buying Cosmo magazine, stop watching the VS fashion shows (low viewership means less revenue). What matters is where people put their money. They are selling an illusion of beauty which women will try to project on themselves. Do you really think if they showed 200 lb women in bulky sweaters, women would suddenly flock to VS? Not likely.
Well, Portwine, I'll take the skinny ones. Sure, instead of the 5'6'; 110 lb. model, you want the 140 lb one (added 30 lbs). Then after marriage or a LTR, she gains another 30 to be 170. Ah, but if I start with 110, then she'll be 140 after marriage. If you haven't noticed, many people gain weight after marriage or when in a LTR. It is much easier to be 110 going to 140 than to be 170 trying to get back down to 140.
men
I'm an assman. But no fat stomachs!!! Unless the a'ss sticks out more than the stomach.. to make up for it.. hehe
I agree but with somen men, it seems like it's all about the breasts. Like people say how the women a skinny as a rail. Well yes they are rails, with big boobs. Meaning skinny, except for the curves up top. I like boobs as much as the next guy, but I like proportion. And while the Victoria's Secret girls are beauitul, they are soo tiny. There legs are so skinny, like girlish and not like a woman's. A like a woman's body and a booty to her, not huge, but something there. Meaning meat on the legs, and wide hips Many of the women actually do have natural breasts, but I do think they are exceptions considering how skinny they are to have such large breasts. Usually a woman has to have some meat on her bones or atleast not tiny like these women to have large breasts.
Gay male fashion designers.
And yes, AT LEAST 15 - 30 pounds more than those underfed models...
when i was pregnant, i got hit on more than ever. seriously. one guy even asked me, ';do you have a baby daddy already?';
my boyfriend has said over and over again that he found me most beautiful when i was pregnant. i don't really agree, but i think it shows that if you love the one you're with, you don't really agonize over their weight.
I agree, it's the fashion industry, and they are detatched. I also agree that most men don't want to be stabbed by a protruding rib or elbow when they're close to a woman, that's not sexy at all.
Any guy who wants a woman who looks like a little boy, has issues to deal with.
Women, IMHO, should be women.
Example: Kate Winslet
I am not a man, but I agree, fashion industry, hollywood, television, etc....but the great thing is that REAL MEN in real life, at least in my experience, like real women.....all sizes and shapes. So while the media portrays ONE, in real life it's a variety. Women....yes WOMEN.....are much less flexible than men. (in my opinion)....WE want to be stick thin with big boobs, no blemishes etc....
Blah Blah Blah... What it all comes down to is that if they had 10-15 extra ponds they'd get slammed for being cottage cheese. These girls are rock solid and I LOVE IT! As a woman I don't want to be that skinny but then again I don't have to strut my butt down a runway barely clothed and in high heels no less but they do. It's their living. Alessandra only trains like 3 times a month and confesses to eating chocolate every day. These girls are just blessed with long legs and skinniness mostly by nature. now their boobs are pulled and taped until they look large even though they are not. But yeah it's not just Hollywood it's people in general. If you're bigger you're invisible, I know I was there. WHen you have a waist to hip ratio (divide waist by hip size) of .70 you are the most attractive to men. Most of those girls are anywhere from .65-.74.( That's based on scientific research byt the way not personal opinion) I blame men but then my ratio is .71 so I can.
jessica alba is what I prefer.
God bless you - every one!
:)
They say they don't just to make you feel better. If a man tells a woman he likes more meat it means that he thinks they are fat but still wants to get laid.
I knew I would get some thumbs down on that one.
Fashion industry.
Most of people there are too detached from reality.
My guess it that models are supposed to look good in pictures, not feel good when you hug them.Who is really behind the (in my opinion false) perception that men like ultra-thin bodies on women?
IN the UK we know men prefer curvy women. But the whole reason women want to be a size zero is to impress other women that's the only reason.
Hollywood(though H.wood is starting to put more ';fleshy'; women in leading roles that aren't for comedic relief or have tragic life stories), the fashion industry and the women's magazines that use the ultra thin models in their ads and place them next to articles about how to get a man, keep a man, and please a man, and use the thin models for what fashions are ';in';. If the fashions that were ';in'; were put on women of all body types instead of mostly the thin models, there might be less confusion in that respect.
The fashion industry and Hollywood. We fail to remember that the fashion industry is dominated by men who like other men so it makes sense that they would eshew curves. Vickies isn't the worst of the bunch and actually deserve a little bit of credit as does SI. They have long had standards for their models that other companies/publications didn't with regard to being too thin.
It's primarily the fashion industry. They're only interested in selling clothes, so they want models as skinny as coat hangers so their clothing will hang well on them. The industry is all about the clothes, not the attractiveness of the women, but other women get the mistaken idea that men find that look desirable. We don't.
I'm going to be politically incorrect here and say that I find Keira Knightley quite attractive. But I also find Freema Ageyman very beautiful. Women's beauty can come in many shapes, sizes, and colors, and I hope for everyone to be able to accept and value themselves for their uniqueness.
It has nothing to do with men it's a woman thing. We are our own worst enemies and project these images onto men pointing proding the men askin, ';You thinks she's hot don't you?'; Once we promote more positive self-images then we can finally accept ourselves for who we are.
Men like what feels good and the most attractive quality is confidence.
There is nobody behind it other than all of us as consumers. If women (or men) objected to those images, then they would stop spending money at Victoria Secret, stop buying Cosmo magazine, stop watching the VS fashion shows (low viewership means less revenue). What matters is where people put their money. They are selling an illusion of beauty which women will try to project on themselves. Do you really think if they showed 200 lb women in bulky sweaters, women would suddenly flock to VS? Not likely.
Well, Portwine, I'll take the skinny ones. Sure, instead of the 5'6'; 110 lb. model, you want the 140 lb one (added 30 lbs). Then after marriage or a LTR, she gains another 30 to be 170. Ah, but if I start with 110, then she'll be 140 after marriage. If you haven't noticed, many people gain weight after marriage or when in a LTR. It is much easier to be 110 going to 140 than to be 170 trying to get back down to 140.
men
I'm an assman. But no fat stomachs!!! Unless the a'ss sticks out more than the stomach.. to make up for it.. hehe
I agree but with somen men, it seems like it's all about the breasts. Like people say how the women a skinny as a rail. Well yes they are rails, with big boobs. Meaning skinny, except for the curves up top. I like boobs as much as the next guy, but I like proportion. And while the Victoria's Secret girls are beauitul, they are soo tiny. There legs are so skinny, like girlish and not like a woman's. A like a woman's body and a booty to her, not huge, but something there. Meaning meat on the legs, and wide hips Many of the women actually do have natural breasts, but I do think they are exceptions considering how skinny they are to have such large breasts. Usually a woman has to have some meat on her bones or atleast not tiny like these women to have large breasts.
Gay male fashion designers.
And yes, AT LEAST 15 - 30 pounds more than those underfed models...
when i was pregnant, i got hit on more than ever. seriously. one guy even asked me, ';do you have a baby daddy already?';
my boyfriend has said over and over again that he found me most beautiful when i was pregnant. i don't really agree, but i think it shows that if you love the one you're with, you don't really agonize over their weight.
I agree, it's the fashion industry, and they are detatched. I also agree that most men don't want to be stabbed by a protruding rib or elbow when they're close to a woman, that's not sexy at all.
Any guy who wants a woman who looks like a little boy, has issues to deal with.
Women, IMHO, should be women.
Example: Kate Winslet
I am not a man, but I agree, fashion industry, hollywood, television, etc....but the great thing is that REAL MEN in real life, at least in my experience, like real women.....all sizes and shapes. So while the media portrays ONE, in real life it's a variety. Women....yes WOMEN.....are much less flexible than men. (in my opinion)....WE want to be stick thin with big boobs, no blemishes etc....
Blah Blah Blah... What it all comes down to is that if they had 10-15 extra ponds they'd get slammed for being cottage cheese. These girls are rock solid and I LOVE IT! As a woman I don't want to be that skinny but then again I don't have to strut my butt down a runway barely clothed and in high heels no less but they do. It's their living. Alessandra only trains like 3 times a month and confesses to eating chocolate every day. These girls are just blessed with long legs and skinniness mostly by nature. now their boobs are pulled and taped until they look large even though they are not. But yeah it's not just Hollywood it's people in general. If you're bigger you're invisible, I know I was there. WHen you have a waist to hip ratio (divide waist by hip size) of .70 you are the most attractive to men. Most of those girls are anywhere from .65-.74.( That's based on scientific research byt the way not personal opinion) I blame men but then my ratio is .71 so I can.
jessica alba is what I prefer.
God bless you - every one!
:)
They say they don't just to make you feel better. If a man tells a woman he likes more meat it means that he thinks they are fat but still wants to get laid.
I knew I would get some thumbs down on that one.
[TRUE OR FALSE]: The small nucleus of a paramecium is involved in a reproductive process called conjugation. ?
I believe it is true since the micronucleus is involved in cell division, however I am not completely sure about the other portion of the statement.
and also:
Which of the following algae are only found in ponds?
a) Dinoflagellates
b) Euglena
c) Green algae
d) Paramecium
e) None of the above
I was thinking Euglena, but I'm not entirely sure.
Thanks in advance ^^[TRUE OR FALSE]: The small nucleus of a paramecium is involved in a reproductive process called conjugation. ?
well, hello there [: ,
i would say true...
and then b...[TRUE OR FALSE]: The small nucleus of a paramecium is involved in a reproductive process called conjugation. ?
True-or so i read. lol
and
b. Euglenaprivate myspace
and also:
Which of the following algae are only found in ponds?
a) Dinoflagellates
b) Euglena
c) Green algae
d) Paramecium
e) None of the above
I was thinking Euglena, but I'm not entirely sure.
Thanks in advance ^^[TRUE OR FALSE]: The small nucleus of a paramecium is involved in a reproductive process called conjugation. ?
well, hello there [: ,
i would say true...
and then b...[TRUE OR FALSE]: The small nucleus of a paramecium is involved in a reproductive process called conjugation. ?
True-or so i read. lol
and
b. Euglena
Tru or False (10 points) Can the General Assemby approve a proposed amendment to the constitution?
by a 3/5 vote from its members, can the General Assembly approve an amendment to the U.S. Constitution??????Tru or False (10 points) Can the General Assemby approve a proposed amendment to the constitution?
Anybody and his brother can ';approve'; of a proposed amendment.
A ';proposed'; amendment can have 100% approval by the entire world but unless 38 states in the Republic of the United States votes affirmative for the change, it will never be part of the Constitution.
The answer is true but the only approvals that count are the ones from 38 states.
The Constitution provides four paths an amendment can take to become part of the Constitution.
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Notice that two paths don鈥檛 even mention the US federal government.
Two paths originate with the states and all paths terminate with the states.
The Federal government鈥檚 ability to change, access to and power over the Constitution is exactly the same as the General Assembly鈥︹€hich is no ability, no access and no power to change the Constitution of the United States of America. A vote of approval by Congress or the UN General Assembly is not binding on the states.
Each of the states are free to reject any proposals from wherever they originate.Tru or False (10 points) Can the General Assemby approve a proposed amendment to the constitution?
The General Assembly usually refers to the UN, which has no power whatsoever to approve or reject amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
To Propose Amendments
* Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
* Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
To Ratify Amendments
* Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
* Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.
shamelessly copied and pasted from
There is no Federal general assembly. And the answer is NO. To amend the U.S. contitution, there is a very difficult and lengthy process. The process, in the end, requires 3/4 of the states to ratify the amendment.
Yes they can. In order for the proposal to be enshrined in the constitution, it will also require the approval of 3/4 of the states.
NO !
Actually, the UN General Assembly can approve anything it wants, but something like this would be of no force or effect with respect to the US Constitution. A foreign body has no authority at all to change the US Constitution.
No... It takes 2/3rds of *both* the House and Senate to *Propose* an amendment.. *THEN* 2/3rds of the States must vote to ratify the Amendment... The US has no General Assembly.
Did your school really ask this as a True or False question or are you just rephrasing it incorrectly?
False, They need 51% not 3/5.
true.simple as that.
No,
but yes to 10 points ;)
FALSE
false :D
Yes %26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;best answer%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;
true, hands down, ture.
Anybody and his brother can ';approve'; of a proposed amendment.
A ';proposed'; amendment can have 100% approval by the entire world but unless 38 states in the Republic of the United States votes affirmative for the change, it will never be part of the Constitution.
The answer is true but the only approvals that count are the ones from 38 states.
The Constitution provides four paths an amendment can take to become part of the Constitution.
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Notice that two paths don鈥檛 even mention the US federal government.
Two paths originate with the states and all paths terminate with the states.
The Federal government鈥檚 ability to change, access to and power over the Constitution is exactly the same as the General Assembly鈥︹€hich is no ability, no access and no power to change the Constitution of the United States of America. A vote of approval by Congress or the UN General Assembly is not binding on the states.
Each of the states are free to reject any proposals from wherever they originate.Tru or False (10 points) Can the General Assemby approve a proposed amendment to the constitution?
The General Assembly usually refers to the UN, which has no power whatsoever to approve or reject amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
To Propose Amendments
* Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
* Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
To Ratify Amendments
* Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
* Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.
shamelessly copied and pasted from
There is no Federal general assembly. And the answer is NO. To amend the U.S. contitution, there is a very difficult and lengthy process. The process, in the end, requires 3/4 of the states to ratify the amendment.
Yes they can. In order for the proposal to be enshrined in the constitution, it will also require the approval of 3/4 of the states.
NO !
Actually, the UN General Assembly can approve anything it wants, but something like this would be of no force or effect with respect to the US Constitution. A foreign body has no authority at all to change the US Constitution.
No... It takes 2/3rds of *both* the House and Senate to *Propose* an amendment.. *THEN* 2/3rds of the States must vote to ratify the Amendment... The US has no General Assembly.
Did your school really ask this as a True or False question or are you just rephrasing it incorrectly?
False, They need 51% not 3/5.
true.simple as that.
No,
but yes to 10 points ;)
FALSE
false :D
Yes %26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;best answer%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;
true, hands down, ture.
Why did Jesus identify false teachers as kleptos - was He warning about thieves in the church?
John 10:1 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/鈥?/a>Why did Jesus identify false teachers as kleptos - was He warning about thieves in the church?
Yep. (Just like satan's little followers, only to steal, kill, and destroy!)Why did Jesus identify false teachers as kleptos - was He warning about thieves in the church?
Good point, but I think this means more to do with honesty than anything else. People try to go around, under and over the Cross of Calvary- but there is only one way- Through the Cross.
What publication of the Bible do you have where Jesus calls false teachers kleptos? Woe unto thee, kleptos! I just don't see Jesus saying that. How would you translate kleptos into Aramaic?
They try to snatch you out of The Father's hand. But, as you know, No one can snatch you out of The Father's hand! God Bless!
people that falsely represent themselves maybe?
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/鈥?/a>Why did Jesus identify false teachers as kleptos - was He warning about thieves in the church?
Yep. (Just like satan's little followers, only to steal, kill, and destroy!)Why did Jesus identify false teachers as kleptos - was He warning about thieves in the church?
Good point, but I think this means more to do with honesty than anything else. People try to go around, under and over the Cross of Calvary- but there is only one way- Through the Cross.
What publication of the Bible do you have where Jesus calls false teachers kleptos? Woe unto thee, kleptos! I just don't see Jesus saying that. How would you translate kleptos into Aramaic?
They try to snatch you out of The Father's hand. But, as you know, No one can snatch you out of The Father's hand! God Bless!
people that falsely represent themselves maybe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)