Adriel wrote: Why would the Russians hack the DNC? The DNC are commie Liberalists anyway!!
You're implying Russians are Communist, or at least sympathetic. As things are going, we conform better to that epithet better than they do! After several tens of millions dead, they may have learned something. We have yet to, apparently.
Russia doesn't worry me, unless we start a war with them, which is likely given the arrogant, chronic militarism of those in the UK and USA who follow Cecil Rhodes in believing the world should be controlled by Anglo-Saxons.
If RCC clerics were as clean living as Mormon missionaries, it would make no difference - it is enough that their church teaches falsehoods. But these days, those impatient with doctrine, in the spirit of Kierkegaard, might hearken to salacious tales instead.
Frank wrote: Very interesting Neil on the issue of indulgencies!
To be sure, while Muslim obstruction of pilgrims visiting "holy" sites as part of their penance was a motive, so also was an attempt by the pope to reunify with the Greek church. But no doubt, pope Urban did promise remission of sins to crusaders, as you said; anyone taught sound Biblical doctrine would've laughed at this. Indeed while many doubted the call, a wide spectrum of fools, noble and peasant, fell for the scam. It's an early example of following the herd over a cliff.
Irony was, geographically uninformed crusaders idiotically wound up sacking Constantinople, which hastened its later fall to the Turks! Hungarians were attacked during the People's Crusade, as were Jews. The whole thing was a murderous joke, as if life wasn't dangerous enough already with plagues, famines, dynastic wars, etc.
BTW there were also crusades against Waldensians, early Russia (who whipped the Teutonic Knights), and Cathars.
Frank wrote: ...I couldn't convince them in the slightest that catholicism is not the same as Christianity.
That's the problem with US coastal media elites, including the conservative minority, who having grown up as urban Catholics or at least near it, consider it Christianity, which has long affected Hollywood movies exported to other countries. This secular article sums it up very well: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChristianityIsCatholic
More to your point, it's not often noticed anywhere that the Crusades were motivated by the very issue Martin Luther objected to: Indulgences. Absent this doctrine, there would've been no reason to travel to medieval Jerusalem.
Somewhat ironically, most American churches today are still obsessed with Jerusalem, though for different reasons.
Often said, but do you understand the background? I found this an instructive and disturbing read: www.historyisaweapon.org/defcon1/bernprop.html
The author Bernays, founder of the PR trade, was one of the most sinister backroom influences of the 20th Century, yet few know of him. Maybe some of your personal purchase habits were affected by his strategies.
Dr. Tim wrote: Almost as bad as the Black Panthers...
In like manner to Hell's Angels, that was originally the nickname of an effective, decorated WW2 combat organization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/761st_Tank_Battalion_(United_States) Jackie Robinson was a 1st Lt. in it. Patton wanted them in his army, and gave them full encouragement despite personal discomfort with blacks, common in the military at that time. "Men, you're the first Negro tankers to ever fight in the American Army. I would never have asked for you if you weren't good."
"Satan's Angels" was the nickname of the 475th Fighter Group in the Pacific Theatre, which had many star aces, whereas "Hell's Angels" was the 303rd Bombardment Group in Europe.
Yeah, I'm not comfortable with such names either, but that's war for you.
Anecdotally, we've heard of this in past churches several times, and in one we don't attend - some yrs. ago, local news reported a youth-group leader at E. Tucson Baptist church ago busted for this. BTW, after this hit the news, they stopped putting cute slogans on their marquee - for awhile.
Never assume church personnel are too nice to be perverts, and be wary of folks who claim to like kids, for perverts are good actors and know that Christians are taught to think the best of everyone.
And Americans are too easily impressed by a Colgate Smile. www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/why-americans-smile-so-much/524967/
The Scots, not so much, apparently: "A glower says [more] than a smile." - The Wee Book of Calvin
Frank wrote: When I was young, I never met anyone that was divorced. I'm sure they were there, but rare in my neck of the woods. The below in brackets is the cut and paste again.
Sorry, I didn't notice that was a quote before.
It's possible we heard little because folks were ashamed to mention divorce, like it was a dirty secret. My late mother-in-law, a Christian, had a very difficult marriage, yet refused to divorce. My late mother was afraid to divorce; I know a reason was fear of penury, but it may also have been the disgrace.
Today though, our culture has systematically diluted shame over anything. So Jer. 6:15 seems applicable: "Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush"
Frank wrote: ...It is a cut and paste from the internet... Today, all states except New York offer some form of no-fault divorce.
Did you forget to paste something? I don't see it. Anyway, while older divorce laws certainly didn't prevent broken marriages, they at least make it harder to be irresponsible. This is one example of how modern social legislation can reward evildoing, if not prevent it.
Divorce was rare and scandalous in my parents' generation (b. 1920s-30s). It was a big deal when one occurred in their social circle. So I was shocked when I learned, upon starting my job in the early '80s, how many coworkers were divorced.
Our '60s Cultural Revolution yielded nothing but bitter fruit. And those who came of age in that time, and run the country now, have learned nothing.
No-default divorce, which varies by State, can be unjust. I have a relative whose scumbag husband cheated on her, but because of her higher income at the time, *she* owed spousal support according to the law in "Calipornia."
The CA law, a first as usual, was signed by a divorced male Hollywood actor.
Just a Guy wrote: The slavery issue was a great (and top five) issue but not the main reason.
Easy to say, but your favorite Lost Cause authors and Southern school textbooks are contradicted by Southerners themselves in their prewar Secession declarations and Alexander Stephens's "Cornerstone Speech." White Southern apologists and black leftists have this in common: Play the Victim and hate Lincoln.
Think about it: Seceding because a President many Americans don't like got fairly elected. Sound familiar?
Wayfarer Pilgrim wrote: The South did muster, but not against a rebellion, but rather against an invasion.
After seceding for no good reason (like Dem outrage over Trump's victory), and firing on Federal property for no good reason either. Think it wasn't about slavery? Read the Secession declarations, avail. online. Gen. Longstreet: "I never heard of any other cause of the quarrel than slavery."
American Christianity has enough credibility trouble (scandals, heresies, etc.) without "Stars and Bars" people blaming Lincoln.