Arthur Bright wrote: Why target children? The most upsetting aspect of the Manchester attack is that it targeted an event primarily attended by the teenage and pre-teen girls that make up Ms. Grandeâ€™s fan base. Thatâ€™s likely not an accident. Terrorist attacks in Europe have becoming disturbingly familiar, enough so that they sometimes fail to shock an evermore inured public....
All these attacks were tragic, and no victim is worth less than any other. But from the perspective of terrorists who are trying to stir anger and fear across Europe, the more familiar attacks become, the less effective they are. A terrorist act that provokes a stoic response is a failure.
This attack may not have been completely by a lone wolf and that he may have had a support group? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40032504 ---' Home Secretary Amber Rudd said: "[Monday's attack] was more sophisticated than some of the attacks we've seen before, and it seems likely - possible - that he wasn't doing this on his own."'
Rather than attempt to 'show' our Christianity by opposing the culture, it should be manifest in our actions and words, and in walking as Christ walked. Love and humility are the 'dress' we should adorn. Outward appearances are what the Pharisees considered important.
Yes, we walk contrary to the world. We do not condone what the world condones. However, that doesn't mean all clothing is forbidden. The legalistic Pharisees who come here repeatedly lording over others and spewing out their nonsense wears very, very thin.
Once again, let me remind all the narcissism is a huge problem in Christianity, and it affects both men and women. " Here are more 'signs' of a narcissist, "The narcissist is never, ever wrong, and he likes to present â€śproofâ€ť that he is correct. The narcissist cannot accept responsibility for making a mistake and he is expert at diverting the blame to others. A narcissist will never admit even horrendous mistakes and when confronted, he will deflect, delay and tell more lies. He believes he is invincible and perfect." from http://thenarcissisticlife.com/the-narcissist-is-never-wrong/
Being counter-culture generally fits the Christian life well. But culture is constantly changing. Do we then say fixed opposition to everything in culture, whatever it is, is the mark of the Christian? Seems like more a reflex than Christian thoughtfulness. When we oppose something in the culture for no other reason than "I'm a Christian, that's the culture, so I can't do that, or wear that, or sing that, etc.," we've lost our way.
Youth in Asia wrote: For me to listen to Joel Osteen is self inflicted punishment, but a few times I did reach the end of his message and he does invite people into a sinners prayer a the end and says "if you prayed this, you are now saved, now go find a good Bible church! " So hopefully some will take his advice and find a good church.
I don't know about now, but in his early days he confessed he really didn't know Scripture well when he gave that advice. But you would think now that he has made a living at it, he would have taken the time to become more sound in doctrine. Or maybe he realized if he became more sound, he wouldn't have as many followers?
John UK wrote: If Christianity is not a counter-culture, coming under the authority of God and his kingdom, it is no more than a secular religious way of thinking.
Yes, the church has been afraid for some decades to owe their own distinctiveness.
Some follow the quimera of exclusive internal accountability to justify 'free-willed' patterns of conduct in the externals, ignoring how often external pictures speak of internal realities in God's language, see for instance the language and meaning of baptism, circumcision, OT sacrifices and patterns, head covering, the Lord's supper, etc..
The issue of the victorians was not about precised/exact measurements of skirt length, but as always has been the issue, the instance of rebellion. Any woman breaking the status quo of modesty in that particular context was seen as one doing away with principle. The same has happened since then, especially regarding the breaking away of standards of which America has led the way during the last century. The sad reality is that we've got used to the breaking of the limits that signalise rebellion, and worse, we've got used, to the point of justifying such attitudes as the acceptable norm
For me to listen to Joel Osteen is self inflicted punishment, but a few times I did reach the end of his message and he does invite people into a sinners prayer a the end and says "if you prayed this, you are now saved, now go find a good Bible church! " So hopefully some will take his advice and find a good church.
For those women who insist upon dresses only, good for them. This is another one of those 'matters of conscience issues'. There isn't a verse in all of the bible that forbids women from wearing a pair of jeans designed for women. Again, discernment must be used. Some jeans are a no no, such as 'skinny' jeans. However, God doesn't bind us to a legalistic religion. If what you wear is modest and does not violate your conscience, there isn't a person here who should condemn you.
It's beyond ridiculous how Christians will argue over such matters. Again, the command from the New Testament is to dress modestly.
John UK wrote: Thanks Christopher, and I agree with your post wholeheartedly. If Christianity is not a counter-culture, coming under the authority of God and his kingdom, it is no more than a secular religious way of thinking.
If Gloria Steinem believes babies should die that we might be spared "climate change," euphemism for global warming, then she ought to deal with the fact that she releases way more gas than a baby would, and she eats more, too. If she really believes death will spare us from dying, perhaps she might find a way to set an example of her seriousness.
John From ATL, good day towards you, the Bible clearly teaches one that Sin entered through the First Adam of the Bible, Bro Kev, from San Diego shared Rom 5:12-32. The Bible says sin & ones fallen corrupted nature comes not from Marry, but through the First Adam. Since Jesus hadn't a literal, biological father, the sin nature was not passed down to Him.
We see in Heb 7:9-10 that Levi, a distant descendant of Abraham, is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek when Abraham was the one offering the tithes, not Levi. What this means is that there is biblical support for the idea that the sin nature was passed down through the father.
A helpful read; https://carm.org/why-wasnt-jesus-born-original-sin
Christopher000 wrote: Hello MS John UK Wrote: "The point I have been trying to make, is that the Bible is to mould us to it, rather than we mould the Bible to our way of thinking. I don't hold opinions, I always seek to conform myself to God's will, and to be honest I often fail, sometimes very badly." Well said, John. I'm not sure where I'm at on the pants-slacks issue, but I do pay attention. Really excellent summary on obedience though, and often, the world and what we are brain washed into as being normal, being all we've seen and known, can be a a real hard shell to crack. We must see past this world and the customs of man; always looking to God's Word for our normalcy, and what's right and good, not that of society, common custom, or the opinion any man.
Thanks Christopher, and I agree with your post wholeheartedly. If Christianity is not a counter-culture, coming under the authority of God and his kingdom, it is no more than a secular religious way of thinking.
Hi to MS also, you've been away a long time, and I have some news for you. Later...