I question his premise that Americans in the past have had a "Biblical worldview." This country has long had a rich buffet of sects, some of which only nominally Biblical (e.g. Shakers, Quakers, Mormons, "Christian" Science). Better to say they had more fear of God than today.
"No fear of God" should be America's epitaph, for I have difficulty finding what the Bible calls "blameless" behavior anywhere, be it in politics, business, families, and organized churches. And for the latter, it makes no difference what the ostensible doctrines are. When the chips are down, will men do what is painful but right, or easy but wrong?
"Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?" - Prov. 20:4
Mike, please don't encourage him. It is incredible to me that the Dems could nominate a man as unfitted for office (mentally and ethically) as Biden is, along with a hard Left running mate. They have truly gone mad. We'll find out soon how many Americans have drunk this Kool-Aid.
Zoologists think they know all about gestation of certain wild animals, a seemingly uncontroversial subject, but God says otherwise in Job 39:1-2. One of two things follows: either man has since gotten wiser, falsifying this passage, or he still doesn't have certain knowledge of these and other matters of nature, and never will.
Should one be tempted to affirm the former, note that history is littered with the carcasses of refuted or superseded scientific theories and claims, even those promoted by well-meaning Christians who thought they were glorifying God.
Jim Lincoln wrote: The problem is generation Z isn't taking examples such as Bill Gates ...
Microsoft is Old News. What too few people understand is that major corporations often like working with their their ostensible ideological enemies. Recall Henry Ford and Armand Hammer being buddies with that murderer Lenin. So it is not too surprising that Google, Twitter, and Facebook are running dogs supporting anti-capitalist traitors like Biden. I can only suppose they're looking for crony status (as they already have with PRC) when the Progressive Fascists take over after Trump leaves office (either next year or 4 yrs hence).
Communists have no problem working with large corporations, so long as they get what they want. It's all about pragmatism, something you have commended before.
Angus King et al. via Jim Lincoln wrote: . But wait a minute. What about the Air Force? Is it mentioned in the text?
No, but these fools Beg the Question in assuming the 1947 Nat'l Security Act (which among other things, established the USAF) conformed to the Constitution. Just because it wasn't challenged (so far as I know) doesn't mean it was Constitutional. The advent of intercontinental bombers and ballistic missiles was a good reason for an Amendment, for these have the same role and high costs as the Navy.
I couldn't imagine an Apostle endorsing a Roman politician, though just the same, the relatively decent ones like Cincinnatus and Cato the Younger (famously incorruptible, a rare quality these days) were long gone, and during the Principate, it was a matter of hoping the next Emperor wouldn't be a fool, persecutor, or sadist.
It was common in ancient elections to bribe voters, which Progressives do today with welfare, if they don't do it outright. I like the way Will Cuppy put it: "Pericles loved Democracy so much, he paid people to vote." Also, note the Romans extended suffrage to foreigners like uncouth Germans.
Jury's out [is this a pun?] on whether this Court will live up to such a claim.
Besides, I wouldn't put it past the Dems to impeach these judges, since we've already seen they're willing to lie to do it to a President they don't like. And of course they would try FDR's dirty trick of packing the Court.
We should dismiss poll results from a *Democrat" pseudo-scientist. Clearly he has a political agenda and thus a Conflict of Interest. And to be fair, Lifesite also has an agenda: scaring their readers.
Though I will grant that young women interested in stable marriage will likely have trouble finding suitable partners.
Wayfarer pilgrim wrote: It is in their priesthood.
A longstanding Tradition, denounced by the Lollards ca. 1396: "... the law of continence annexed to priesthood, that in prejudice of women was first ordained, induces sodomy in Holy Church" Ref. http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/varia/lollards/lollconc.htm
Much Internet content wastes bandwidth. Many of the video lectures I see on YouTube could dispense with the presenter's Talking Head altogether. Audio alone, or perhaps with accompanying slides, should be enough.
So SermonAudio is a good example of efficient resource utilization â˜º
John Yurich USA wrote: It is time that Francis be replaced with a conservative ...
No pope is worthy of commendation by a Bible believer, but an ostensible conservative is worse since foolish "Protestants" are more likely to consider them political allies, whereas a herd-following LGBT sympathizer would put them off.
Or do you really want another Innocent III, who humbled even King John of England? "The best of popes is the worst of popes."
Remember that majority-Catholic countries have long been breeding grounds for anticlericalism (Marxist or not) because the RCC often allied itself with abusive colonial or political authorities. Mexico's 1917 Constitution reflects this.
And nominally Lutheran Prussia had its "Kulturkampf" against the RCC during the latter half of the 19th century, resulting in fines and even jail for some clerics. Same time frame as the "Know Nothing" Party in the USA.
Ironically, during the Reformation era, grammar schools and universities emphasized the pagan Greco-Roman classics. So you have Matthew Henry citing Latin aphorisms throughout his famous commentary. That said, they also read the Bible in Greek (at least), as he mentioned in his preface.
Degenerate modern schools have their hands full with the "Three Rs."
Mike wrote: At our church meeting we are required to wear our .. masks when walking in and standing to pray or sing, but not while sitting.
I'm surprised they actually have a requirement. The church we attend does not; about the only people who continue to wear masks are some who have medical issues. My suspicion is, churches are afraid to enforce such rules for fear of empty pews.
It's revealing that most folks wore masks at 1st, but over time, it declined.
Frank wrote: ...My firm conviction was he was not a Christian...
And the hard thing is, denouncing MLK's false doctrines might give Leftists the fallacious impression I oppose Civil Rights and support the Old South, which I do not. This puts me on both sides' Enemies Lists.