Saw the new "Members in Action" section. Can't believe that people join an organization or group just to say they are a member. Being a part of an organization means supporting it, helping it grow, and IF necessary, defending it. There is strength in numbers, and the numbers of AMAC grows everyday, yet when an opportunity presents itself to help that organization grow, people just don't seem to have the time. They want "someone else to do it". Sad.... So very sad. If you are going to hand over your money to a group to use, why not have a say in what that group does with YOUR money?
The home office people of AMAC spent a lot of time and effort to put together a way for members to be able to easily contact other members in their area. I find it hard to believe that I am the only member in my area, and I am sure there must be others that feel that way about their areas. Don't give me the bit about, "Well, the holiday season is upon us, and I just don't have the time." Where would we be if Washington and Jefferson, and Franklin had felt that way?
I challenge anyone in the Nevada area to contact me. To see what we can do to make AMAC grow.
I too would like more help coming from this organization, for us in the field. We could make our number grow even faster, with stronger programs and training form the top. the ambassador program is also getting the word out but we are not professionals. I would like to run an add in a local free paper for seniors, but not sure how to go about it. or what it needs to include. Also like that other senior organization local groups would help get word out faster. But how do we organize ? Like yourself I would like to see an ambassador E-mail list published. Bounding ideas off one another would help. Hang in there when I became a member our numbers were not very big. We are growing, the word is spreading and we will get there.
abmassadors@amac.us Can help you out. Currently the Ambassador Program is being looked at but we have SO much going on. I am pushing this program as best I can to help it out. Hang in there guys also feel free to contact the above e-mail with any question you have about an ad or handout and what not.
__________________
"It's amazing how much can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan
Dan L I agree with Tom; more work needs to be done to strengthen the ambassador program. I myself have sent a copy of a business (Calling) card to see if it could be approved for use by other ambassadors. We have registered trademarks and Logos, the use of which should be approved on your end. I also sent along information, on how they could get free business cards printed, or how to do it on the computer that Home. I also mentioned that I put together the PowerPoint presentation. I have not seen this information mentioned anywhere on this site. It’s obvious that we have some dedicated individuals who are willing to help! With an organized e-mail list (voluntary op-in) we can work together on line to come up with some decent programs. Sending them into AMAC to be looked over and approved. This would speed up and strengthen the ambassador program an membership effort. I also agree with Tom, To put the magazine in barber shops and a salon was a good idea.
At the time
I have to mention, I realized advertisement in any magazine makes it less expensive to publish, but our magazine, has too much advertisement, and short on articles. Do we need more writers? Can we ad section for the ambassadors to explain what to do it in their area? How about ask the experts.
AARP is losing membership, they have even admitted that. For us to get stronger, and larger membership we need to be sharp on the cutting edge why not use the free volunteered talent that's being offered. You folks at AMAC lead the way put this is a united effort to strengthen the conservative organization. Remember the old childhood story, about the little train that could? Choo! Choo! Yes we can lets GO!!
I sent an email to the AMAC folks, as for some reason I cannot get into Ambassadors@AMAC.us It tells me "no such address". I also (months ago), talked with the Flordia office for some guidlines on what could be put on a business card, as I know AMAC has a registered trademark. I also wanted to know what could be said in the name of AMAC. ***i.e. Tell a business "If you will give a 10% discount, AMAC will add you to their list on the internet of businesses offering a discount to AMAC members."*** (Have not done this.... yet. But have thought about it.
I also suggested that an Ambassador package be assembled listing the who, what, and where about increasing the name AMAC. Along wth some guidelines about coordinating with other AMAC members in your area, and how to contact a business that you feel would be willing to offer discounts to AMAC members.
I live in a tourist city, (Las Vegas) and I know the businesses here are always looking for customers, and many are willing to offer a discount IF they are getting something back in return (like listing on the AMAC web site for companies that give discounts). I know that a lot of the businesses here are not nation wide companies, but a lot of AMAC members come to this fair city and deposit a lot of money in hotels, meals, entertainment, clothes and gambling.
I know if I lived in Frog Legs Corners, Arkansas and was an AMAC member going to vacation in Las Vegas, I would look to see who is giving an AMAC discount so I could save a few bucks and have more to gamble with.
There are a lot of things I want to do, but am hampered by not knowing what the rules are.
Today I am super busy so I am going to be brief and take a better look at this later but for now real quick I must apologize the correct address is ambassador@amac.us
__________________
"It's amazing how much can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan
I live in the Raleigh, NC area. I have something to support membership in AMAC. I just received my renewal for AARP, which won't happen. I was an instructor, trainer and mentor for the AARP Driver Safety Program and used extensively for aid to other presenters. I started to become a resource person and developed a Power point program to assist in presentintations.
Last fall I was told by a friend to go to AARP web sit and look up gay/lesbian information. They deceive us by not placing it on the initial web page. You have to use their search engine to find it. I was shocked to see that they are now in support of the gay/lesbian life style. I fullfilled the engagements for instructing and then turned in my resignation.
After seeing the information on AMAC I decided that this was the organization to join. They support the moral principals I support and feel that they will do more for the older generation than the AARP since they will not be "politically Correct" in their efforts.
I don't know if AMAC can use this information in their growth initiatives or not. But it is one way we can becaome an ambassador, if need be.
Okay, I won’t challenge your claim to be “one of the most libertarian” in the group. But I will make my own claim to be as libertarian as anyone in the group, including you. LOL. You and I may have slightly (and I do think they are slightly) different understandings of what it means to be a libertarian but to the extent that it means being left alone by the government, and other busy-bodies, to live our own lives as we see fit for ourselves then we are pretty much on the same page.
I don’t know for sure what you mean by the term, “strongly pro-gay” . I can hardly imagine that you mean you actually go out and encourage people to adopt a gay lifestyle. So I am going to take the liberty of assuming (please correct me if I am wrong) that you meant that you support what is commonly known these days as the “gay rights agenda”. If that is the case, then I am in deed more of a libertarian than you. I will explain why I say that.
While, I am a Christian and do therefore recognize homosexuality in all of it various manifestations to be sinful in the Eye of God, I also recognize that I am not God. My personal relationship with God is dependent not one wit upon someone else’s relationship with God. It is incumbent upon each person to work out their own relationship with God. It would give me great pleasure (as it would as give God great pleasure) if no one ever sinned before God but that is not the nature of the world we live in.
The particular sinful habit of any individual is of no consequence in my view—be it adultery, compulsive gambling, substance abuse, casual sex with serial partners, or some form of homosexuality, they all at least damage if not destroys one’s relationship with God. So certainly, in my daily life if I have an opportunity through a personal relationship with some person to persuade them that they would be happier in this life and be saved to eternal life in the next, if they eliminated some of their sinful habits and adopted a Christ-filled life, then I would make a sincere and compassionate effort to do that.
But I would stop there.
I, being a true libertarian, would not draw the sword of the state against them to compel them to live a sin-free life. If I should do that, then what have I left for God to do? Much better that God, through His church, lead them by persuasion to the Cross than that the state force them there by the sword.
I was a libertarian (please note the lower-case l) before I was a Christian and so I was opposed to most of the so-called gay-rights agenda before I was a Christian. I saw that, even though cleverly disguised in their rhetoric, the object of the gay-rights movement is first and foremost not about homosexuals being allowed to live as they have a right to live but about them using the power of the state to stop me from living as I have a right to live.
As a libertarian I acknowledge that a person of faith has a right to decide for themselves whether to rent their upstairs apartment to a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. The liberals supporting the gay-rights movement do not acknowledge that.
As a libertarian I acknowledge that people of faith have a right to decide for themselves whether or not their church will perform same-sex marriages or accept gay Sunday School teachers. The liberals supporting the gay-rights movement do not acknowledge that.
As a libertarian I acknowledge that a private organization such as the Boy Scouts of America, which was originally founded as a Christian outreach opportunity, has a right to decide for themselves whether or not they want to allow homosexual participation in the organization. The liberals supporting the gay-rights movement do not acknowledge that.
As a libertarian I acknowledge that a person of faith who owns a bakery has a right to decide for himself whether or not to bake a cake to be used in the celebration of a same-sex marriage. The liberals supporting the gay-rights movement do not acknowledge that.
I have not nearly exhausted the list of ways the homosexual movement and their supporters have brought the power of the state to bear against the citizens of free states. And I have not yet touched on the one way that is the most onerous—thought control of the entire population. But I think I have made my case that there is precious little if anything in the homosexual agenda for a true libertarian to support. At least not for this libertarian.
-- Edited by FOTH on Sunday 17th of February 2013 04:48:38 AM
-- Edited by FOTH on Sunday 17th of February 2013 05:06:48 AM
I (almost) hate to tell you this, but (as far as I can tell) AMAC is not a gay-bashing outfit. I, personally, am strongly pro-gay. I even recently changed my mind about gay marriage -- I now support it. That's not to say that I'm representative of AMAC members (I'm probably one of the most libertarian), just to say that AMAC may not be quite what you thought it was. I hope this doesn't chase you away and that we agree on most important subjects.
Like you, I also joined AMAC because of their advocacy of conservative issues that matter to the more mature citizen--which also matter to all citizens--at least indirectly.
I'm not sure why the gay-lesbian lifestyles should be advocated by either AMAC or AARP, except for the possibility of a few issues that might involve wasteful use of tax dollars. (None come to mind at the moment.) I do agree with Steve, that as far as I can tell, AMAC is not a " gay-bashing outfit" however, there is a big difference between gay-bashing and not advocating for the gay-lesbian lifestyles.
Regardless of my views on some social issues it gives me pleasure to belong to a group of mature Americans who by and large think as I do on most political and moral issues. AARP was never even close to doing that.
By “think as I do” , I do not mean “exactly” as I do. Surely, we will have differing understandings of moral, religious, social, cultural, legal and political issues but even in our differences we at least begin from an acknowledgement that there are certain moral truths against which the social and political order can be worked out. It is the way conservatives think about things that gives us our commonality more so than what we think. The liberals (for whom AARP is a spokes-group) ascribe to a wholly different worldview and therefore do not think like we do. (By “we” I mean conservatives generally.)
Welcome aboard, Bob, look forward to visiting with you.
Okay, I won’t challenge your claim to be “one of the most libertarian” in the group. But I will make my own claim to be as libertarian as anyone in the group, including you. LOL. You and I may have slightly (and I do think they are slightly) different understandings of what it means to be a libertarian but to the extent that it means being left alone by the government, and other busy-bodies, to live our own lives as we see fit for ourselves then we are pretty much on the same page.
------
SteveT: What you wrote later makes it clear that you and I seem to be approximately 99% in agreement as to what it means to be a libertarian.
FOTH wrote:
<snip>
I don’t know for sure what you mean by the term, “strongly pro-gay” . I can hardly imagine that you mean you actually go out and encourage people to adopt a gay lifestyle. So I am going to take the liberty of assuming (please correct me if I am wrong) that you meant that you support what is commonly known these days as the “gay rights agenda”.
------
SteveT: You are correct. The only people I would encourage to (although not insist) adopt a gay lifestyle are gays. I don't support what you perceive to be the "gay righs agenda" but I do support what I perceive to be the principal aspects of the gay rights agenda, which is that government should not discriminate against gays in its treatment of its citizens.
FOTH wrote:
If that is the case, then I am in deed more of a libertarian than you. I will explain why I say that.
While, I am a Christian and do therefore recognize homosexuality in all of it various manifestations to be sinful in the Eye of God, I also recognize that I am not God. My personal relationship with God is dependent not one wit upon someone else’s relationship with God. It is incumbent upon each person to work out their own relationship with God.
-----
SteveT: Well said, and applicable to inter-religious relationships as well as inter-gender-preference (aka "gay-straight") relationships.
Were I a Christian I (believe that I would) reject the widely-held view of my fellow Christians that homosexuality is sinful -- presuming that one can reject some of the widely-held views of Christians (other than accepting Christ as the Son of God and the Savior and that He died for our sins, as those beliefs are what separates Christians from non-Christians and are therefore obligatory beliefs for a Christian) and still be a Christian. I certainly reject the Judaic biblical view that homosexuality is a sin while still asserting that I am a Jew.
FOTH wrote:
<snip>
I, being a true libertarian, would not draw the sword of the state against them to compel them to live a sin-free life. If I should do that, then what have I left for God to do?
------
SteveT: Well, you could be God's hand, chosen as such by God. But you would not be a libertarian.
FOTH wrote:
<snip>
I was a libertarian (please note the lower-case l) before I was a Christian and so I was opposed to most of the so-called gay-rights agenda before I was a Christian. I saw that, even though cleverly disguised in their rhetoric, the object of the gay-rights movement is first and foremost not about homosexuals being allowed to live as they have a right to live but about them using the power of the state to stop me from living as I have a right to live.
----
SteveT: I do not agree with your characterization of the gay-rights agenda here and later in your reply but to the extent that there are gays, especially in the self-appointed "leadership," that do support such a (sub-)agenda, I fully agree with you. And those libertarian views you identify (choice in association, including to whom one will "rent [one's] upstairs apartment) applied to those of other races (at least in my case -- I am Caucasian) may make us appear racist. However, as long as there is the unfortunate stare decisis resulting in the imposition of "rights" in "public accommodation," I believe that the application of such "rights" to gays must be granted just as they are to African-Americans, with certain exceptions perhaps being allowed due to the ability of gays to hide the attribute that would result in discrimination against them whereas most African-Americans can not and because being African-American is an inherited trait whereas homosexuality seems to not be.
FOTH wrote:
<snip>
And I have not yet touched on the one way that is the most onerous—thought control of the entire population
<snip>
----
SteveT: This one I haven't seen -- at least not with any success. Except insofar as gay "leaders" are primarily liberal and therefore seem to have gained the advantage in "thought leadership" of social mores over most of the past half cetury or so, broken in part by the rise of various brands of conservatism in the very late 1970s into the 1980s.
Steve--I tried to do the quote, snip, and comment format that you used but I couldn't get it to work for me. So guess I have to stick to the narrative method I do know. To help other readers follow the discussion I will precede each of your comments with, You said. And each of my responses with, Steve,.
You said, “I don't support what you perceive to be the "gay righs [sic] agenda" but I do support what I perceive to be the principal aspects of the gay rights agenda, which is that government should not discriminate against gays in its treatment of its citizens.”
Steve, I agree that government should not discriminate against gays. That is what equal treatment under the law means. On the other hand, what the state may not do, ought not limit what the free citizens ought to be free to do. One area in which the gay-agenda had a legitimate claim of being discriminated against by the state (and still do in some states) is gay marriage. Clearly, if the state provides a legal mechanism for two people to form a legally binding contract of personal commitment (which is all that a state sanctioned marriage is) then, any two residents of that state ought to be able to legally bind themselves to each other under that legal mechanism.
You said, “.. as long as there is the unfortunate stare decisis resulting in the imposition of "rights" in "public accommodation," I believe that the application of such "rights" to gays must be granted just as they are to African-Americans..”
Steve, I disagree with you that public accommodation of people of diverse races is comparable to private accommodation of gay people. Racial accommodation does not create conflicts in matters of faith in the way that accommodation of homosexuality often does. I think that is a valid contrast between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement.
You said, “Were I a Christian I (believe that I would) reject the widely-held view of my fellow Christians that homosexuality is sinful -- presuming that one can reject some of the widely-held views of Christians.. and still be a Christian. I certainly reject the Judaic biblical view that homosexuality is a sin while still asserting that I am a Jew.”
Steve, In my opinion, whether a Christian or a Jew, a person may righteously reject widely held views of others of the same faith so long as the widely held views are not established by Scripture. I believe from my own personal study of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, that homosexuality is in fact sinful, therefore, it would be unrighteous for me to reject that view. Nonetheless, what you understand about the teachings of your faith and what I understand about mine should be of no consequence to either of us (with respedt to the other) and won’t be as long as the state stays out it.
You said, in response to my comment about not using the sword of state to repress sin, “ Well, you could be God's hand, chosen as such by God. But you would not be a libertarian.”
Actually Steve, I believe God did put the sword in my hand. (Well, rather the modern day equivalent, a badge and gun.) But in the capacity of a minister of the law, not a minister of the church. (Christ taught through his Apostle Paul that evil doers ought to remember that the magistrate does not bear the sword in vein.) As a police officer I did function according to the ideals of libertarianism in that I protected life, liberty and property to be best of my ability without violating the liberty of those I served. I did so as a libertarian prior to becoming a Christian and I continued thereafter to do so as a Christian Libertarian. I’m not am sure whether the change made a difference to those I served but it sure felt better to me.
In sum, I think you are right that we are at least 99% in agreement with each other.
-- Edited by FOTH on Saturday 23rd of February 2013 03:46:50 AM
-- Edited by FOTH on Saturday 23rd of February 2013 03:53:10 AM
-- Edited by FOTH on Saturday 23rd of February 2013 03:56:13 AM
Steve, I disagree with you that public accommodation of people of diverse races is comparable to private accommodation of gay people. Racial accommodation does not create conflicts in matters of faith in the way that accommodation of homosexuality often does. I think that is a valid contrast between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement.
SteveT: There is that but I don't think the law would recognize the good sense of your point.
FOTH wrote:
Steve, In my opinion, whether a Christian or a Jew, a person may righteously reject widely held views of others of the same faith so long as the widely held views are not established by Scripture. I believe from my own personal study of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, that homosexuality is in fact sinful, therefore, it would be unrighteous for me to reject that view. Nonetheless, what you understand about the teachings of your faith and what I understand about mine should be of no consequence to either of us (with respedt to the other) and won’t be as long as the state stays out it.
SteveT: We seem to part company a bit, here. My view is that if the literal interpretation of Scripture were the standard, the proper punishment for adultery would be stoning. I feel that there are some passages in Scripture for which some judgment must be exercised in deciding whether it should be treated as more (Decalogue) or less (mores that do not have a significant impact on our ability to live in harmony with each other, such as sexual preference) timeless. Furthermore, I lean towards the belief that while a choice one makes can be sinful, it is much less likely that a "built-in" preference such as homosexuality (yes, I do believe it is a naturally occurring condition, not [generally] a choice -- why, prior to the gay rights movement, would anyone have chosen to be gay, with all the social pressure against it?), would be.
Steve--We don’t really part that much. We both come to the conclusion that the gay lifestyle ought not be criminalized and that persons who practice that lifestyle ought not be denied equal protection under the law. We just arrive there by different paths. I come to that conclusion while viewing homosexuality to be sinful but consider sinful behavior to be a matter of the church, not the state. You, if I understand correctly, do not view homosexuality to be sinful and therefore find no reason for state interference. (If I don’t have that right then please correct me.) If, on the other hand, you did consider homosexuality to be sinful would you then think it appropriate to legislate against it? If so then on that we do differ.
As to the punishment of adultery, stoning was the punishment under the law of the ancient Israelites. I have no idea what the Jewish teaching on that is today but the Christian doctrine on adultery was given new meaning By Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Adultery (like homosexuality) is still considered by Christians to be sinful even though the method of dealing with all sinful behavior is not the same as it was under the teachings of the Old Testament Prophets. Jesus himself said that he did come to change the law (i.e., what was a sin is still a sin). He did change how we regard the sinner.
You may be correct (though I remain skeptical) that in some cases the gay-lifestyle may be due to a built-in preference. But it is still a preference. Most testosterone leaden adolescent males have a built-in preference to be promiscuous. We expect them to overcome those tendencies. Some do others don’t. There is no evidence of a natural cause underlying a gay lifestyle preference. Throughout the ages there has been social pressure against all sorts of behavior but people continued to engage in those behaviors even when their behavior, when discovered would destroy their social status, professional standing, businesses, marriages and lives. I think that phenomenon is best thought of as manifestations of bad judgment and lack of restraint
Steve--We don’t really part that much. We both come to the conclusion that the gay lifestyle ought not be criminalized and that persons who practice that lifestyle ought not be denied equal protection under the law.
SteveT: Agreed!
FOTH wrote:
You, if I understand correctly, do not view homosexuality to be sinful and therefore find no reason for state interference. (If I don’t have that right then please correct me.)
SteveT: You are correct!
FOTH wrote:
If, on the other hand, you did consider homosexuality to be sinful would you then think it appropriate to legislate against it? If so then on that we do differ.
SteveT: If I also considered it to be a choice rather than to be caused by some natural condition, and in some way harmful to others, I perhaps would consider certain legal restrictions to be appropriate. It would then be in a class with, say, unarmed petty theft (although not as serious).
FOTH wrote:
As to the punishment of adultery, stoning was the punishment under the law of the ancient Israelites. I have no idea what the Jewish teaching on that is today
SteveT: That depends on several factors, including the affilliation and personal beliefs of the individual Jew. There are many Jews who believe in the literal interpretation of the Old Testament and would therefore regard stoning as appropriate (some even practice it); most contemporary Jews do not accept that belief.
FOTH wrote:
but the Christian doctrine on adultery was given new meaning By Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Adultery (like homosexuality) is still considered by Christians to be sinful even though the method of dealing with all sinful behavior is not the same as it was under the teachings of the Old Testament Prophets.
SteveT: Okay, then we must engage in a thought experiment: suppose Jesus had not changed the designated punishment for adultery? Scripture would then designate stoning as the appropriate punishment, so would you then favor it? I suspect not, which suggests some conflict between your earlier statement that "a person may righteously reject widely held views of others of the same faith so long as the widely held views are not established by Scripture."
FOTH wrote:
You may be correct (though I remain skeptical) that in some cases the gay-lifestyle may be due to a built-in preference. But it is still a preference. Most testosterone leaden adolescent males have a built-in preference to be promiscuous. We expect them to overcome those tendencies. Some do others don’t. There is no evidence of a natural cause underlying a gay lifestyle preference. Throughout the ages there has been social pressure against all sorts of behavior but people continued to engage in those behaviors even when their behavior, when discovered would destroy their social status, professional standing, businesses, marriages and lives. I think that phenomenon is best thought of as manifestations of bad judgment and lack of restraint
SteveT: Reasonable but not, to me, convincing. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I'll only add that unlike other preferences against which there are or have been social pressures, such as, say, pedophilia, prefering to have sex with other members of one's own sex harms no one (provided a homosexual does not engage in acts that would be illegal or immoral were they commited by a heterosexual person, such as unwanted sexual battery) and, therefore, I do not consider it to be bad judgment and lack of restraint to be homosexual, simply an acceptance of one's nature, similar to left-handedness, the social view of which has changed from very evil ("sinister" is [indirectly, through Middle English] from the Latin sinestra -- left-handed -- see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sinister) to a benign physical preference (although we know to a great extent the physical reason that most people are right-handed and some are left-handed). It does seem, however, that there maybe more science on the subject of the physical causes of homosexuality than you are (or I was, until I just did a bit of online research) aware: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality [yes, I recognize that you are under no obligation to accept the "evidence" offered there or elsewhere ].
Steve—On the thought experiment, it is not as simple as Jesus changing or not changing the punishment of this or that. Jesus brought in to all the world a whole new relationship with God and a whole new understanding of sin. With the advent of the Birth, Ministry, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and, Ascension of Christ, sin is now dealt with through His Grace—not through punishment by man, as it had been throughout the ages prior. The Peace on Earth which he brought was not about an end to war or conflicts among men but about reconciliation between God and man. That is why I have said that matters of another person’s sin are not matters to be resolved between myself and that person. They must be resolved between that person and God. All of this is made possible by Jesus, though the Holy Spirit, having a personal relationship with every individual person who knows and believes in Him. Prior to that, God dealt with His Chosen people more or less en masse through the Patriarchs and Prophets whom He chose from among the Hebrew and later the Children of Israel. During the ages of the Old Testament there was no distinction between the government and religion. All governments, from the Babylonian, down through the ages to the Greek and Roman, and including the Jewish, where sacral with no distinction between the civic duties of the state and the sacred duties of the state. That is to say, there was no separation of church and state. Therefore it was the obligation of the civic government to punish sin. In contrast, the church which Christ founded was for the first time in man’s history, separate from the civil government of Rome. Which is why Jesus said, “Give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and unto God that which belongs to God.”. So it is that sin (offenses against God) is dealt with by God; and, crime (offenses against man) is dealt with by the state (or by man on man, in many cases).
I feel like I have explained a lot more here than you are interested in reading but I wanted to make sure you understand that I am not using the old “I don’t deal in hypotheticals” whine as a means of ducking your suggested thought experiment. But for me to imagine that Jesus had not brought in the new age of Grace as the remedy for sin (all sin) would be to ignore the central theme of the Gospel of Christ and to ignore the purpose of His dying on the Cross. Which would put me back where was before I was Saved.
-- Edited by FOTH on Sunday 3rd of March 2013 07:18:56 AM
-- Edited by FOTH on Sunday 3rd of March 2013 07:19:28 AM
New to the action, recieved my packet the other day, have been promoting AMAC to all my friends and aquaintences, set up an email for resposes and for the porpose of contacts, what has been the action of the threads I have read for ambassadors, any ends on email list and corespondance, I live in california central, and am the only person in this area, of coarse, any way was checking to see if there was any changes or info I could gleen from others here who have been trying to improve the way things work, and what tools we have to promote AMAC, any input would be appreciated, if you have good tools or Ideas I would appreciate an email or some kind of contact for info, my email is hamrs62@gmail.com . I alos have a facebook where I actively promote AMAC, any thing appreciated, thanks, hammer
__________________
Native Californinian, conservative to the core, US Navy 74-78, electrician for 33 years, Totally against hussein and his dems friends wo are out to destroy my and your country!!!
Found a great way to get the books and applications in the hands of non-members. I take the books with an application in them, and leave them at barber shops, oil change places, (like Jiffy-Lube), Senior Centers, doctors and Dentists offices, and the Vets office. I take them to any lace a person has to wait for awhile. (Was thinking of taking a few to the DMV.)
thanks Tom, my wife works part time at a appliance store, she also said she could put some the for me!
__________________
Native Californinian, conservative to the core, US Navy 74-78, electrician for 33 years, Totally against hussein and his dems friends wo are out to destroy my and your country!!!
