Frank wrote: â€¦ At graduation, only 2 boys said they wanted to serve the Lord in the mission field and no females said their goal was to be wives and mothers.
That squares with what I've heard of parochial schools in our area. And I wonder how many young men are fit to marry girls who *do* have that as a life goal (I have a daughter in that age range, so such thoughts come up). Life here has taught me that Americans break social bonds with distressing ease and frequency, as turnover in our church has made plain. Several coworkers have quit their jobs without even bothering to say good-bye (maybe they hate me but wouldn't say so).
Our civilization is collapsing before our eyes. We are Sodom now.
Wayfarer pilgrim wrote: I wouldnâ€™t hold Southern Theological Seminary in too high regard
I wouldn't trust *any* theological seminary. The Waldensians managed to do without this Roman Catholic innovation.
Why do I say this? The natural goal of all human organizations is self-preservation (cover up scandals, do anything to keep the money coming) and esp. today, self-glorification ("Aren't we wonderful" propaganda). I'm convinced that ostensibly "Christian" ones are no different. It was this "guild" mindset that Jesus faced with Jewish sects of the day, who feared He would undermine their power. And the RCC is the ultimate church form of this.
By contrast, the goal for all Christians is God's glory.
Jim likes this article, thus a powerful incentive to don one's Thinking Cap ... It reads like a puff piece for the Gettys' new Christ-massðŸŽ„ album. Traditional music for this genre is nothing if not sentimental. And they follow hallowed Tradition: practically every major pop singer or group in the past, no matter how ungodly they were, thought it worthwhile to publish a Christmas album, e.g. Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Beach Boys.
But I'll give the Gettys this: at least they mention rest on the Lord's Day, a concept foreign to most American churches today.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Good point, Neil, one good reason I use George Will. He is certainly not an Evangelical,
No, you don't get my point at all. 1) I was referring to the article's subject, not your choice of critics; 2) You commit the Genetic Fallacy. The merit of a proposition is not determined by its origin. Since you like links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Will is a fool if he thinks illegal immigration is harmless, esp. when it's used by Democrats as a form of demographic gerrymandering. And the birth rate is a Red Herring. You socialists have been complaining about overpopulation for about 50 yrs, but I guess it's OK when it helps rig elections.
Mike wrote: If only immigration had something to do with illegal immigration...
Exactly! Media "discussions" of this rarely take the trouble to distinguish legal from illegal immigration. When you look at how other countries regulate their borders, such as in Oceania, they make no apologies about keeping freeloaders, addicts, and other undesirables out, while welcoming productive and useful folks.
Americans would do well to likewise reflect on how Christianity has been grossly distorted by American culture; anyone crying "foul" to its radical pragmatism will be persecuted. Fundamentalists are not immune: they close their Bibles where church conduct is concerned.
I tried reading Confucius's Analects once, and quickly got impatient trying to find any attempt at rational or transcendent justification for ethics. Why should we be virtuous? He, no less than the Greeks, had no answer because they had no transcendent authority for appeal.
Just a Guy wrote: At least other taken over countries tried to fight it first...
In other cases, Communism was fueled by an unpopular tyranny like an absolute monarchy (e.g. Russia) or a corrupt dictatorship (Vietnam, Cuba), which is somewhat understandable. But yes, in our country, Communism is a reaction to constitutional liberal republicanism which made America prosperous and free. Many powerful interests today don't like this, even corporations, who, being run by leftist hypocrites, apparently believe Americans are too free.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Opinion of one farmer on tariffs anyway.
There are other folks who may profit from said tariffs, so why should I listen to some farmer? And for all we know, he could be some stooge for agribiz, who have every incentive to romanticize the obsolete Jeffersonian illusion of the "noble family farmer."
Mike wrote: ...Evolutionists never asks the right questions because they don't want to hear the answers.
Exactly, which is why attempts to reason with them, as creation ministries do, are futile not only because empiricism is faulty, but more importantly, they are depraved. Recall Jesus's conclusion to His story of Lazarus in Luke 16:31: "... If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
So those who claim they would believe if provided sufficient evidence are being disingenuous.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Apparently, Neil, some people don't agree with you about the accuracy of David Hume's
So they're wrong too - you're good at finding easy targets. I'm not commending everything Hume wrote, but I don't need him to argue that "rational mechanism" doesn't logically imply Jehovah designed it. How do you know, from evidence, that there isn't one god of plants and another of animals? It is just as plausible as saying one god designed both. And how do you know it isn't, say, Allah? Thus the hopelessness of the Teleological Argument for apologetics.
And a "Best explanation" isn't a "true explanation."
.. who is being foolish. The man may have a doctorate, but he evidently didn't do his philosophical homework, for Intelligent Design (AKA the Teleological Argument) was refuted by David Hume and others over two centuries ago.
This is why I lost interest in the Creationist movement, for their attempts at using empirical arguments, as Darwinists do, are not rationally defensible. I believe in fiat Creation because the Bible told me so, not Nature.
Granting suffrage to felons (as Sanders has proposed), if combined with populist ballot propositions like these, is fatal to civilization. Don't like criminal laws or police which cramp your style? Don't like low wages? All you have to do is vote.
Yet Sanders says, "I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people."
I would say *especially* terrible people, the natural allies of politicians like him. Under Lenin and Stalin, thieves were considered "socially friendly" and got better treatment than political prisoners.
Don't forget William Tyndale, who not only translated the ancestor of most English Bibles (the KJV retained much of his work), but wrote on doctrine and other controversies as well. Some think he was in turn influenced by Lollards, the followers of Wycliffe persecuted by the Plantagenet kings.
Frank wrote: IMO, what the church has done is compartmentalize the feminist issue where they say it is okay in one instance, but not in another. What they do is take a "general truth" and find a possible exception to that and then that exception becomes the truth.
Good insight, and something I see in other kinds of church conduct as well. Example: We are to be Oh-so-careful about the music we listen to (no CCM or rock), yet sing trad. hymns with dubious doctrine.
S.S. is an example of "Mission Creep" - Robert Raikes wanted to teach Gloucester slum kids basic literacy using the Bible. Hard to argue with that, but then its clientele broadened. Good intentions...
The Amish debated it in the late 19th century, and finally rejected it.