Lawrence O’Donnell, reported some information based on an anonymous source on one of the NBC networks and over Twitter.
Oops, it turns out Larry was wrong and NBC didn’t apply it’s usual rigorous vetting of items based on anonymous sources.
No, there’s no bias in the media, it’s just a tiny little boo-boo.
FYI, the retraction reads that Larry made an “error in judgment”, which indicates that he chose to run with this even though he knew it wasn’t properly sourced.
I’m guessing this doesn’t meet the “fake news “ standard either.
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Love
“We often confuse unconditional love w/ unconditional approval. God loves us w/out conditions but does not approve of every human behavior.
God doesn’t approve of betrayal, violence, hatred, suspicion,...they all contradict the love God wants to instill in the human heart.”
Sunday, August 25, 2019
I know this might seem crazy
But, I think that individual organizations in which participation is voluntary should have a great deal of leeway in deciding what their requirements for membership or leadership should be. By definition any group whose membership is voluntary should be able to determine who gets in.
This freedom virtually guarantees that some group somewhere will restrict membership in a way that offends someone. But we don’t have the right to be free from being offended.
Let’s take churches for example. There are like 8 billion churches in the US. The beliefs of those span the spectrum from “God doesn’t exist”, to the leader of the church is God incarnate. To say that there is a church to fit everyone is an overstatement, and if you can’t find one to your liking then you can start your own.
Now here’s the question. If there’s a church that has well established and we’ll known guidelines for membership, and the members all agree with those guidelines, and if there are 4 million other churches within a 20 minute drive, should someone be able to force the church to accept a member who won’t agree to the same things as all the other members?
I know churches who required signed conduct agreements for certain positions and events. For example, they require that high school students and their parents sign an agreement that states that the students won’t bring alcohol or illegal drugs when they go to church camps. We’re talking 15-18 year olds in a state with a drinking age of 21. One year some kids broke the agreement and got sent home. Shockingly enough their parents got passed that their kids got sent home. Not that their kids broke the law, broke their agreement, or lied about it.
I’m sorry, but if you join a group that has established rules, and you refuse to abide by those rules, then I don’t have a problem if you get excluded. Especially if there is an equivalent group that has rules that accommodate your choices.
Again, call me crazy, but I don’t think I can unilaterally impose my choices on a group that is voluntary. Of course there is almost always a way to change or amend rules, but following the established process is different from using force or coercion to impose your will on others.
While I despise the Klan and everything that stand for, I couldn’t support using force or coercion to compel them to accept members. Of course, I can’t understand why anyone would try to force themselves into a voluntary group that opposes them,
This freedom virtually guarantees that some group somewhere will restrict membership in a way that offends someone. But we don’t have the right to be free from being offended.
Let’s take churches for example. There are like 8 billion churches in the US. The beliefs of those span the spectrum from “God doesn’t exist”, to the leader of the church is God incarnate. To say that there is a church to fit everyone is an overstatement, and if you can’t find one to your liking then you can start your own.
Now here’s the question. If there’s a church that has well established and we’ll known guidelines for membership, and the members all agree with those guidelines, and if there are 4 million other churches within a 20 minute drive, should someone be able to force the church to accept a member who won’t agree to the same things as all the other members?
I know churches who required signed conduct agreements for certain positions and events. For example, they require that high school students and their parents sign an agreement that states that the students won’t bring alcohol or illegal drugs when they go to church camps. We’re talking 15-18 year olds in a state with a drinking age of 21. One year some kids broke the agreement and got sent home. Shockingly enough their parents got passed that their kids got sent home. Not that their kids broke the law, broke their agreement, or lied about it.
I’m sorry, but if you join a group that has established rules, and you refuse to abide by those rules, then I don’t have a problem if you get excluded. Especially if there is an equivalent group that has rules that accommodate your choices.
Again, call me crazy, but I don’t think I can unilaterally impose my choices on a group that is voluntary. Of course there is almost always a way to change or amend rules, but following the established process is different from using force or coercion to impose your will on others.
While I despise the Klan and everything that stand for, I couldn’t support using force or coercion to compel them to accept members. Of course, I can’t understand why anyone would try to force themselves into a voluntary group that opposes them,
Saturday, August 24, 2019
The true test...
“Technology has, in an enhanced way, given mockers a platform to set society on fire with polarizing speech. Internet culture privileges those whose insults are click bait. It disadvantages the civil, respectful, patient dialogue that brings a diverse people together.”
Vileness as Virtue
“So many people nowadays try to display their “virtue” based on what they hate.
The more vile you are toward something or someone deemed undesirable, the more virtue you have.
It’s gross.”
Friday, August 23, 2019
Harsh language
There has been a fair amount of discussion about Jesus using "harsh" language directed at "the Pharisees". This has been extended to try to permit people to use "harsh language" against people they disagree with. I've been thinking about this, and have some questions that might help get a better sense of this topic.
Does Jesus have a different level of authority than the rest of humanity?
If He does, then what is it and where does it come from?
What is Jesus' motivation when using "harsh language"?
What is Jesus trying to accomplish by using "harsh language"?
Can we derive information about His motivation from what He says in context?
If this use of "harsh language" is to be emulated by His followers, why don't we see anything equivalent from the Apostles?
Do we have the same authority, motivation, and goal as Jesus did when He used "harsh language"?
Are more modern obscenities, blasphemies, vulgarities, and expletives an accurate analogue to the "harsh language" Jesus used?
When believers use "harsh language" towards each other, are we showing non believers the love and grace that Jesus spoke of?
I may add more questions as they come to me, or if anyone else has questions they think appropriate.
From a housekeeping standpoint, the only acceptable comments in this thread will be direct answers to these questions, with the question copy/pasted in the comment or additional questions that should be on the list. Any comments containing anything other than those two responses will be deleted, edited, or posted elsewhere depending on the content.
Does Jesus have a different level of authority than the rest of humanity?
If He does, then what is it and where does it come from?
What is Jesus' motivation when using "harsh language"?
What is Jesus trying to accomplish by using "harsh language"?
Can we derive information about His motivation from what He says in context?
If this use of "harsh language" is to be emulated by His followers, why don't we see anything equivalent from the Apostles?
Do we have the same authority, motivation, and goal as Jesus did when He used "harsh language"?
Are more modern obscenities, blasphemies, vulgarities, and expletives an accurate analogue to the "harsh language" Jesus used?
When believers use "harsh language" towards each other, are we showing non believers the love and grace that Jesus spoke of?
I may add more questions as they come to me, or if anyone else has questions they think appropriate.
From a housekeeping standpoint, the only acceptable comments in this thread will be direct answers to these questions, with the question copy/pasted in the comment or additional questions that should be on the list. Any comments containing anything other than those two responses will be deleted, edited, or posted elsewhere depending on the content.
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Outside the box take on the Epstein story
https://theopolisinstitute.com/leithart_post/what-jeffrey-epstein-got-right/
"Jeffrey Epstein called our bluff.
Writing in the New York Times, James B. Stewart reports Epstein’s opinion that “criminalizing sex with teenage girls was a cultural aberration and that at times in history it was perfectly acceptable.”
What’s wrong with what Epstein reportedly said?
To begin with, he was too generous. What we now condemn as statutory rape didn’t just occur “at times in history.” The unpleasant truth is that, historically speaking, using children, even relatively young children, as objects for men’s sexual satisfaction has been the rule, not the exception. What we call “child abuse” is a recent category. It is not at all part of the way ancient peoples thought or acted.
Slaves were regarded as legitimate objects of sexual satisfaction (lust). No ancient culture included laws about how old a slave had to be before the master could take advantage of him or her. That’s still the case in modern Muslim countries that allow slavery. Sexual relationships with children of virtually any age haven’t been thought of as “abuse” or “perverted.” It was just what some men — actually, very, very many men — did. "
"It wasn’t limited to slaves or even prisoners of war. Poor families from almost every land and during every age sold their children into prostitution. In their eyes, it was the only way to get by. No one thought of the men who frequented such young women as perverts or abusers. They were customers — often powerful and rich men to be feared, but also, as in the ancient city of Corinth, sailors looking for a good time. No one cared or asked the age of the young women they paid for. It was a transaction. Morality wasn’t an issue.
The ancient cradles of civilization — Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China — did not have laws about “child abuse” or “sexual abuse of minors” because the whole concept was simply not part of who they were or what they believed. Prostitution was tolerated and prevalent. And from the most ancient times in virtually every civilization, many prostitutes were what Jeffrey Epstein would have considered just the right age — maybe even a little “old.” "
"So, what happened to change all of this? Why is modern Western culture sensitive to this matter? What made our modern/postmodern world different? This is the question. But no one is asking it. Why not? Because the answer is too embarrassing to admit."
Y'all can check the link for the rest, but it's worth a read.
It's also an indictment of those who argue that morality is subjective. That morality is defined by the prevailing culture and not be anything external and objective.
If someone truly holds to that culturally defined morality, then it's simply impossible to call those cultures wrong.
"Jeffrey Epstein called our bluff.
Writing in the New York Times, James B. Stewart reports Epstein’s opinion that “criminalizing sex with teenage girls was a cultural aberration and that at times in history it was perfectly acceptable.”
What’s wrong with what Epstein reportedly said?
To begin with, he was too generous. What we now condemn as statutory rape didn’t just occur “at times in history.” The unpleasant truth is that, historically speaking, using children, even relatively young children, as objects for men’s sexual satisfaction has been the rule, not the exception. What we call “child abuse” is a recent category. It is not at all part of the way ancient peoples thought or acted.
Slaves were regarded as legitimate objects of sexual satisfaction (lust). No ancient culture included laws about how old a slave had to be before the master could take advantage of him or her. That’s still the case in modern Muslim countries that allow slavery. Sexual relationships with children of virtually any age haven’t been thought of as “abuse” or “perverted.” It was just what some men — actually, very, very many men — did. "
"It wasn’t limited to slaves or even prisoners of war. Poor families from almost every land and during every age sold their children into prostitution. In their eyes, it was the only way to get by. No one thought of the men who frequented such young women as perverts or abusers. They were customers — often powerful and rich men to be feared, but also, as in the ancient city of Corinth, sailors looking for a good time. No one cared or asked the age of the young women they paid for. It was a transaction. Morality wasn’t an issue.
The ancient cradles of civilization — Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China — did not have laws about “child abuse” or “sexual abuse of minors” because the whole concept was simply not part of who they were or what they believed. Prostitution was tolerated and prevalent. And from the most ancient times in virtually every civilization, many prostitutes were what Jeffrey Epstein would have considered just the right age — maybe even a little “old.” "
"So, what happened to change all of this? Why is modern Western culture sensitive to this matter? What made our modern/postmodern world different? This is the question. But no one is asking it. Why not? Because the answer is too embarrassing to admit."
Y'all can check the link for the rest, but it's worth a read.
It's also an indictment of those who argue that morality is subjective. That morality is defined by the prevailing culture and not be anything external and objective.
If someone truly holds to that culturally defined morality, then it's simply impossible to call those cultures wrong.
Monday, August 19, 2019
Bizzarro world
The whole discussion around how to interpret scripture has been going on for quite some time, and certainly isn’t going to get solved here.
What I’m noticing is they people whose default position is to not interpret scripture literally will occasionally jump on one small line or verse and attach a wooden literal meaning to it, while relegating the rest of the immediate context as figurative. Or they’ll take a passing line or phrase and elevate that above other clear passages.
I guess where I’d be concerned is when the only time people take scripture literally is when it seemingly helps reinforce their opinions.
What I’m noticing is they people whose default position is to not interpret scripture literally will occasionally jump on one small line or verse and attach a wooden literal meaning to it, while relegating the rest of the immediate context as figurative. Or they’ll take a passing line or phrase and elevate that above other clear passages.
I guess where I’d be concerned is when the only time people take scripture literally is when it seemingly helps reinforce their opinions.
Justice
"Rather, I simply expect answers to questions and the basic recognition
of reality. If he answers questions and if he recognizes reality, he can
comment here. But given his long history of failing on both points, I
have little patience remaining for rants, false claims and a failure to
recognize reality."
Justice would be if I chose to apply this standard to Dan.
Grace is allowing him to comment here any, knowing that he'll never even attempt to meet the standard he demands of others.
Justice would be if I chose to apply this standard to Dan.
Grace is allowing him to comment here any, knowing that he'll never even attempt to meet the standard he demands of others.
Saturday, August 17, 2019
ANTIFA
More violence and destruction in Portland, liberal racism is on display, I wonder if the usual suspects will continue their silent support of these leftists.
I know, I know, it’s all right wing extremists.
I know, I know, it’s all right wing extremists.
Friday, August 16, 2019
God is
“And God is a God of grace and love, not rules.”
Or
“We never said that we have no rules.”
Pick one.
Aside from the grammatical faux pas, this is quite the claim.
God’s been stripped of all His attributes except 2 and severely limited by a human. I wonder if He knows?
God doesn’t do rules, He does commands.
Or
“We never said that we have no rules.”
Pick one.
Aside from the grammatical faux pas, this is quite the claim.
God’s been stripped of all His attributes except 2 and severely limited by a human. I wonder if He knows?
God doesn’t do rules, He does commands.
Muslim ban
“The Muslim Ban is real:
Somalia
Algeria
Bangladesh
Brunei
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Oman
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Syria
UAE
Yemen
Are the Muslim majority countries Israelis are banned from entering.
But Ilhan has nothing to say about that.”
The imam of peace
Thursday, August 15, 2019
There’s no bias here
“Opinion: No politician in living memory has been treated as badly as Ilhan Omar.”
That’s saying quite a bit since both Ronald Regan and Steve Scalise were shot and Rand Paul was brutally attacked.
Way to go The Independent, well played.
A point of clarification. I'm not suggesting that the 3 politicians are the only politicians who have been more harshly treated than Omar, just that there are at least 3 who have been treated worse.
Unless you consider being denied entry to a country you despise being treated more poorly than being shot or beaten.
Of course the lies being told about this are so bad that they probably fall into the category of stupid lies, which would disqualify anyone telling them from public office.
A point of clarification. I'm not suggesting that the 3 politicians are the only politicians who have been more harshly treated than Omar, just that there are at least 3 who have been treated worse.
Unless you consider being denied entry to a country you despise being treated more poorly than being shot or beaten.
Of course the lies being told about this are so bad that they probably fall into the category of stupid lies, which would disqualify anyone telling them from public office.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
You decide
49 year old starts a dating/sexual relationship with a 16 year old.
Appropriate ?
Inappropriate ?
Appropriate ?
Inappropriate ?
Marty Sampson
Full disclosure, I've never heard of Marty Sampson, and am unaware of I've ever heard or played any of his music. I also have no desire to turn this into a discussion of Hillsong Church or their music, I'm not saying those aren't valid topics, just that this isn't the place.
Apparently Marty has decided that he's out on Christianity, and felt the need to share this in Instagram. Again, I'm not interested in speculation on his salvation or lack thereof.
What I'm interested in are his reasons.
"Time for some real talk... I'm genuinely losing my faith.. and it doesn't bother me... like, what bothers me now is nothing... I am so happy now, so at peace with the world.. it's crazy / this is a soapbox moment so here I go xx how many preachers fall?" Many. No one talks about it.
"How many miracles happen. Not many. No one talks about it. Why is the Bible full of contradictions? No one talks about it. How can God be love yet send 4 billion people to a place, all coz they don't believe? No one talks about it.
"I want genuine truth. Not the 'I just believe it' kind of truth. Science keeps piercing the truth of every religion," he writes.
"Lots of things help people change their lives, not just one version of God. Got so much more to say, but for me, I keeping it real.
"Unfollow if you want, I've never been about living my life for others. All I know is what's true to me right now, and Christianity just seems to me like another religion at this point."
What's interesting isn't the fact that he has questions and doubts. Everyone has questions and doubts.
What's interesting to me is his refrain, "No one talks about it.".
I have to ask, what planet he's living on.
No one talks about; pastors who fall, miracles, Bible contradictions, God's love and just nature, Truth, and science. Really, "No one"?
Every one of these issues has been addressed, from all possible perspectives within the scope of what we consider christian, for hundreds of years. Yet, he claims "No one" is talking about these things.
I could understand if he said, "I've spent years studying these things and after reading lots of different arguments I just don;t agree with any of them.". I think it's absurd that someone honestly seeking answers would reject every single answer to these questions ever given, but it's possible.
I get that sometimes the answers aren't persuasive, but to deny the fact that the questions are aven being discussed, ridiculous.
I suspect many will be quick to point fingers at the more conservative folks and say, "See the Pharisees drove him away.", but let's be clear he couldn't find ANY voices in the christian spectrum that were even talking about these questions. Remember what he said "No one talks about it.".
I respect and understand what it's like to have a crisis of faith. I respect and understand doubt and feeling disconnected. I sincerely hope that he finds the answers he's looking for and that those answers lead him to Jesus.
But, right now, given what he's said, I suspect that the "No one is talking about it." is a smokescreen for something else.
I really truly wish him the best in his search, and this isn't meant as trying to minimize or demean his questioning and searching for the Truth. I'm just pointing out the reality that people of all sorts of theological stripes are talking about these things all the time.
If he wants to hear my miracle story, I'll be happy to talk to him as much as he wants.
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
If...
If we’re to believe the current narrative, the guy who shot up an ICE office, is a angry, white supremacist, racist, whose out to eradicate black and brown people from the face of the earth.
Or it’s one more leftist ANTIFA whack job.
Or it’s one more leftist ANTIFA whack job.
Feo
I’m choosing to respond to your comments, and give you a limited time opportunity.
First, let me say that the only reason why you aren’t allowed to comment here, is you and your behavior.
Second, until 10:00 pm tonight (Eastern Time) you can post your entire plan in the comments section of this post. If it had the specifics, details, and definitions I’ve been asking for. I’ll post it as it’s own post and allow you to comment on that thread.
As it has been for quite some time, the ball is in your court and you can choose what you want to do.
Otherwise keep whining. I don’t care that much.
First, let me say that the only reason why you aren’t allowed to comment here, is you and your behavior.
Second, until 10:00 pm tonight (Eastern Time) you can post your entire plan in the comments section of this post. If it had the specifics, details, and definitions I’ve been asking for. I’ll post it as it’s own post and allow you to comment on that thread.
As it has been for quite some time, the ball is in your court and you can choose what you want to do.
Otherwise keep whining. I don’t care that much.
Monday, August 12, 2019
Not so strange bedfellows
"Men against abortion are just jealous they'll never know how good it feels to kill a baby"
" I have aborted the baby once I found out it was a boy. I'm a staunch and unapologetic radfem. I have never regretted my decision, what I know for sure is that had I kept it I wouldn't have loved it like I would love a daughter."
For y'all who spout the pablum about "bodily autonomy" and unrestricted "choice", this is the kind of thing y'all support.
" I have aborted the baby once I found out it was a boy. I'm a staunch and unapologetic radfem. I have never regretted my decision, what I know for sure is that had I kept it I wouldn't have loved it like I would love a daughter."
For y'all who spout the pablum about "bodily autonomy" and unrestricted "choice", this is the kind of thing y'all support.
Sunday, August 11, 2019
Stupid lies
Remember when we were told that Trump telling stupid lies about as enough to disqualify him from the presidency?
At what point will we here the same about Joe Biden?
At what point will we here the same about Joe Biden?
Is it racist?
This might be the first in a series.
Is it racist to refer to an African American as an “Uncle Tom”?
Is it racist to refer to an African American as an “Uncle Tom”?
Go without saying
I would have thought that there were some things that would go without saying, yet due to stupidity I have to say them.
I oppose any and all assassination of any and all politicians, political candidates, judges, and anyone else who might be assassinatable. Of course ending the life of any innocent human is wrong.
I oppose anarchy.
I oppose any sexual harassment, battery, assault, or unwelcome contact or groping of anyone by anyone else. I especially find this behavior by people in positions of power particularly egregious.
Given the reason I had to post this, I’m sure I’ll have to add to this at some point.
I oppose any and all assassination of any and all politicians, political candidates, judges, and anyone else who might be assassinatable. Of course ending the life of any innocent human is wrong.
I oppose anarchy.
I oppose any sexual harassment, battery, assault, or unwelcome contact or groping of anyone by anyone else. I especially find this behavior by people in positions of power particularly egregious.
Given the reason I had to post this, I’m sure I’ll have to add to this at some point.
Friday, August 9, 2019
White nationalism
We’re constantly bombarded with the narrative that white nationalism/supremacy is a significant and growing problem. Leaving aside the fact that these terms seem ill defined, we’re told it’s a crisis.
Just a thought though, if this narrative is true then why would we restrict access to firearms to those who might want to protect themselves from this plague. It seems like disarming the potential victims just makes them more vulnerable.
H/T to that horrible racist Larry Elder
Just a thought though, if this narrative is true then why would we restrict access to firearms to those who might want to protect themselves from this plague. It seems like disarming the potential victims just makes them more vulnerable.
H/T to that horrible racist Larry Elder
Thursday, August 8, 2019
I could try to re word this, but why should I?
https://winteryknight.com/
The double standard on social media for those on the left is astounding. Just look at what gets through the "censors" when it comes to attacks on people like Dana Loesch and CJ Pearson. This is much worse than the vile stuff that ends up here or gets deleted in moderation, and it's on a much more public forum than this.
The amount of denial that goes into ignoring this increasing trend is impressive.
The double standard on social media for those on the left is astounding. Just look at what gets through the "censors" when it comes to attacks on people like Dana Loesch and CJ Pearson. This is much worse than the vile stuff that ends up here or gets deleted in moderation, and it's on a much more public forum than this.
The amount of denial that goes into ignoring this increasing trend is impressive.
Truth free zone
Since some places have become Truth free zones, I’ll leave this here.
Despite the claims of others, Wal Mart does not sell “assault weapons”. A quick check of their website will make this Truth abundantly clear.
It’s too bad when people suppress the Truth, and elevate lies.
Despite the claims of others, Wal Mart does not sell “assault weapons”. A quick check of their website will make this Truth abundantly clear.
It’s too bad when people suppress the Truth, and elevate lies.
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
Just curious
I’m curious if anyone I know might have been involved in the peaceful protest at McConnell’s home recently.
You know, the one where a bunch of peace loving, pacifist, tolerant, accepting , progressives chanted “Stab the MF”, yeah that one.
Embrace grace.
You know, the one where a bunch of peace loving, pacifist, tolerant, accepting , progressives chanted “Stab the MF”, yeah that one.
Embrace grace.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
Spineless...
“I'd just soon that you leave the personal names out of it.”
I don’t think this is a case of lying so much as just a general hesitation to cross ones homie. It’s really just kind of a wish or fantasy about a nonexistent civility.
Saturday, August 3, 2019
Tax exempt
Currently churches are tax exempt under the US tax code. Part of that exemption is an injunction against some forms of political speech “from the pulpit”.
Now, this subject can be debated and im sure there are good arguments for and against this.
But I don’t want to fight that battle, here and now.
I do want to ask what “from the pulpit” means at this point in history? Usually it’s meant that speaking on issues in a general sense was ok. Speaking for or against specific candidates or issues on the ballot was crossing the line.
For example inviting some political candidates and excluding others seems to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
Another example. When an ordained pastor posts on social media things that directly and specifically support or attack specific candidates or office holders, it seems to cross the line of what’s permissible.
Ultimately I’m asking if churches or pastors decide to cross this particular line, should they forgo their tax exempt status and the restrictions that go with it? Or is it ethical to indulge in forbidden behavior while trying to avoid the consequences.
Personally, I’m on the side that applauds people who take stands and are willing to pay the price for their stand. I have less respect for those unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
In this case, one wonders if the churches these folx serve would be as financially generous if they didn’t have the tax deduction and if these folx are willing to risk their livelihood to support political candidates.
Now, this subject can be debated and im sure there are good arguments for and against this.
But I don’t want to fight that battle, here and now.
I do want to ask what “from the pulpit” means at this point in history? Usually it’s meant that speaking on issues in a general sense was ok. Speaking for or against specific candidates or issues on the ballot was crossing the line.
For example inviting some political candidates and excluding others seems to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
Another example. When an ordained pastor posts on social media things that directly and specifically support or attack specific candidates or office holders, it seems to cross the line of what’s permissible.
Ultimately I’m asking if churches or pastors decide to cross this particular line, should they forgo their tax exempt status and the restrictions that go with it? Or is it ethical to indulge in forbidden behavior while trying to avoid the consequences.
Personally, I’m on the side that applauds people who take stands and are willing to pay the price for their stand. I have less respect for those unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
In this case, one wonders if the churches these folx serve would be as financially generous if they didn’t have the tax deduction and if these folx are willing to risk their livelihood to support political candidates.
I’ve got your pro choice right here
Silence from the “pro choice” crowd when a 21 year old college student is murdered by her boyfriend/father of her unborn child because she made the wrong choice. She chose not to have an abortion. It’ll be interesting to see how many murders he’s charged with.
One wonders why this one particular choice is held up as more sacred than all other choices. Why this one particular choice must be protected in any and all cases, while other choices aren’t.
One wonders why this one particular choice is held up as more sacred than all other choices. Why this one particular choice must be protected in any and all cases, while other choices aren’t.
Friday, August 2, 2019
His own worst enemy
“If Trump shut the hell up for the next year and a half, he’d walk into reelection as the Democrats fumble the ball on their own. But he’s determined to keep the Dems in the game by constantly saying stupid crap and making it harder and harder for moderates to vote for him. Trump is going out of his way to alienate suburban female voters and urban voters. He cannot win without them. He cannot win with a coalition consisting almost exclusively of white Boomers who watch Fox News every day.“
Thursday, August 1, 2019
Don’t ya think.,,
“I don't know what to do with that level of delusion, but I don't need to provide a forum for that. Which is why Craig and Marshall can't comment here now. It's not that I'm not allowing them to comment here, it's that they need to answer some questions that demonstrate they understand reality.
They can't/won't/don't, so they can't comment here.
I expect conversations here to be fact-based, not delusional or non-factual.”
They can't/won't/don't, so they can't comment here.
I expect conversations here to be fact-based, not delusional or non-factual.”
This is an amazing example of a complete absence of self awareness, in immunity from one’s own hypocrisy, and of a spectacular double standard.
You know what’ll really get your comments deleted, pointing out Truth. That’s the kiss of death.
Discuss
“The tragic fallacy of the last hundred years has been to think that all man's troubles are due to his environment, and that to change the man you have nothing to do but change his environment. It overlooks the fact that it was in Paradise that man fell." — D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
When you take God out
I was at some training last night for a new volunteer role I am starting soon. The group passed out coasters with their motto on it.
"Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly"
They freely admit that they've pulled this from Micah 6.
While I completely agree with the sentiments expressed on both the original and truncated versions, I was struck by a problem with the paraphrase.
By what standard to you measure justice, mercy, and humility, when you remove God from the equasion?
It seems like the human takes on all of those three is flawed and tainted by self interest at best.
We see people chanting "No justice, no peace.", which means "Give us the result we want, or we'll throw a tantrum.". We see the results on the Kavanaugh debacle in which he received neither justice, nor mercy. We see people who aren't willing to extend the slightest bit of mercy to their enemies, even to the point of placing extraordinary weight on actions engaged in as a youth. We posthumously destroy the legacies of public figures for not living up to 2019 mores, back in the day. We live in a society where the "humble brag" is a thing.
I realize that the aspiration to those things above is noble. I think that the only place we truely find justice or mercy is before the throne of God.
"Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly"
They freely admit that they've pulled this from Micah 6.
While I completely agree with the sentiments expressed on both the original and truncated versions, I was struck by a problem with the paraphrase.
By what standard to you measure justice, mercy, and humility, when you remove God from the equasion?
It seems like the human takes on all of those three is flawed and tainted by self interest at best.
We see people chanting "No justice, no peace.", which means "Give us the result we want, or we'll throw a tantrum.". We see the results on the Kavanaugh debacle in which he received neither justice, nor mercy. We see people who aren't willing to extend the slightest bit of mercy to their enemies, even to the point of placing extraordinary weight on actions engaged in as a youth. We posthumously destroy the legacies of public figures for not living up to 2019 mores, back in the day. We live in a society where the "humble brag" is a thing.
I realize that the aspiration to those things above is noble. I think that the only place we truely find justice or mercy is before the throne of God.
Why?
“Sen. Mitch McConnell's net worth:
2005: $2,962,015
2015: $26,927,535
Increase: $23,965,520 (+809.1%)
How does a senator earning $193,400 a year increase their net worth by nearly $2.4 million a year, every year for a decade?”
I saw this on Twitter this morning from one of my liberal friends.
I think that this is a valid line of question to ask.
However, there’s one question that isn’t asked, that probably should be.
Why single out Mitch?
You can’t tell me he’s the only person in government who’s managed to amplify his personal wealth significantly.
I’m pretty sure the Clintons went from complaining about having no money to 100 million while Hillary was in government service.
If y’all want to criticize these folx for getting richer, go for it. Just remember that when you’re nakedly partisan it tends to undercut valid questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)