Rachel Held Evans... Rachel Held Evans... Seriously Jim! I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt and suggest you don't know who she is. She's an "evangelical" leading other "evangelicals" down the steep slide of apostasy. I'd honestly care more about what an atheist, muslim, or hindu has to say about ethics than Rachel Held Evans. She's not even informed enough to know that pro-life laws have been increasing, even over the last eight years. Left-leaning judges have started the wrecking ball already with Texas. So, don't expect the abortion rate to keep going down with a Hillary court. If you don't want abortion, ban it (w/ teeth).
All that said, medical costs and prices are increasing Jim... going up, up, up. What about the history of the West in the last century has led you to believe that state intervention in key industries brings down costs? That's a remarkable viewpoint to hold after all these decades. No, Jim, unlike just about anything else, medicine doesn't have a transparent market subject to market pressures. Join a sharing ministry and start doing cash pay. Pretty soon you'll find out how unbelievably perverse the economics are behind medicine. It is truly unique in its pricing schemes. It's also unique in its rigidity in bargaining for lower prices.
Jim Lincoln wrote: The public school system is adequate for food service era which we are in now. but, if you want to call the information age, then we have to catch up with the other countries and introduce something like common core to catch up with them. one of the few sensible ideas that Jeb Bush has.
The truth is I let myself get sidetracked. The first issue isn't the method of education. The first issue isn't the use of other peoples' money. The first issue isn't the question of whether or not education is economically a public good. The first issue isn't pragmatism or patriotism. The first issue is the tax funding of false religion. Like I said before, Jim, you wouldn't be open to this if the religious instruction was islamic or roman catholic, but you seem indifferent to the state funding of humanism. In the modern, western world, this is the most dangerous religion of all.
[Frank thanks for responding. Sorry I had to delay my response (part 1 of 2)
âWhat would you suggest our legal system do with abortion, homosexuality, greed, feminism and apostates?â
All biblical crimes are sins, but not all sins are biblical crimes. So, for example, beastiality and murder are death penalty crimes, but drunkenness and greed warrant no penalty. The penalty offenses assume witnesses and due process.
âThe Jewish nation had a Sanhedrin that determined the death penalty and this Sanhedrin was originally designed to comply with Godâs demands; not societal demands.â
Donât forget the city elders and the pre-king Judges.
âGod never instituted the judicial aspect of His laws in foreign lands, but only among His people.â
True in part â but like the Canaanites, God did judge pagan nations for violating his moral law. He even sent Jonah to preach to the Assyrians in order to cause them to repent and stay his judgment. Remember, according to Paul, God is done winking at gentiles.
Not why I commented, Jim. You said "Because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality." People in the visible Christian Church need to stop talking like the World. All people are religious. Christians might hold THE faith or THE religion, but everyone should talk as though humanism is just another religion. Actually, it is another false, hell-bound religion. Every human being brings his or her faith commitment to society.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Marty, one reason I put up the commentary, (I hope it's accurate) because it does shows that he's a literate, intelligent man. I would hope that it demonstrates how he is thinking. I seriously doubt that anyone here would agree with everything he said. Without being personally critical, I wouldn't agree with everything that is said there (Some of the comments to the piece were interesting) but Christians for one would say all morality comes from God, and again the sermon, The Inadequacy of Moralism should be listened to.
" the U.S. House of Representatives passed H. R. 4012, âThe Secret Science Reform Act,â to prohibit the EPA from âproposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible.â"
The EPA is making regulations based on science that's not reproducible? ... What in the world? These people with college degrees do understand what the scientific method is, right? ....
Christopher000 wrote: This story also reminded me of what's been coined as the "House of Horrors" in Blackstone, MA, a few miles from me. Three childrens, fully clothed corpses were found dead and hanging in plastic bags in a closet. The home was covered in feces, and filled with dead animals in freezers, etc. The house looked normal, and was within feet of the police station but nobody ever had a clue. The home was gutted for weeks by crews in contamination suits but even after being gutted, the structue was so contaminated that they decided to demolish it a few weeks ago. The living children were covered in feces and lice, and the deceased children are still being investigated as nobody even knew if their existance. You would think this woman would be some crazed lunatic who couldn't communicate, lived in an alternate universe, etc, but she seemed normal with a seemingly normal Facebook page, she sold jewelry, etc. I just don't get what drives some into such darkness.
We don't need just to curse the darkness. There are good ministries to support and act with.
This conversation reminds me of the conversation among Job and his friends. Do not commit the same error as his friends and suppose we know all of God's will. God did not afflict Job because he was wicked, but because he was righteous.
This topic is sobering and miserable. We know God loves life. We know that God is perfectly good and just. We know Satan is a murderer and hates those created in God's image. I agree we don't want to justify abortion, child-killing by saying that it's a quick ticket into heaven. The Bible doesn't explicitly talk about this topic, probably for a good reason.
It hardly seems appropriate to talk about this when reading about a toddler being tortured and murdered. SermonAudio gives us the opportunity to discuss election frequently. I don't see the point in talking about it over this sweet child's corpse.
There's nothing wrong with just ripping your clothes and weeping in ashes once in a while. There's a time for everything, including mourning.
Gary Becker created a helpful equation in predicting crime. It takes into account the value of the crime (and probability of success) and balances it against the risk aversion of the individual times the chance of getting catch and the likely punishment. Obviously, it's not flawless, because people are irrational at times.
In the modern world, children are made to be an expense, not an asset. Additionally, taking care of a child carries a lot of non-monetary costs (e.g. lost of leisure time).
Plugging that into the equation, I can understand why abortion laws are unhelpful. Why shouldn't fallen people pursue abortions? The punishments are usually nominal.
Abortion providers rake in the cash, and at what risk? If you want to successfully reduce abortions, the punishments must be likely and severe. Granted, some people will be irrational and/or risk-tolerant. Some will over-value the benefit of an abortion or undervalue the punishment and the chance of getting caught. I don't expect to see a complete end to abortions in our country. That's not realistic at all. I'd like to see a serious drop ( 95%).
Neil wrote: Even *if* the South had the right to secede, which stands upon a disputable matter of vocabulary in the Articles of Confederation & the Constitution Preamble, they still had no good reason to secede before Lincoln even took office.
The Constitution does talk about a more perfect union, for sure, but interpreting that to mean that someone doesn't need to expressly volunteer away their ability to leave the Union would be a very, very liberal construction. I, for one, wouldn't want to stand on that foundation. The AOC do talk about a "perpetual Union," but I think the proper rendering of that clause would mean that the AOC don't need to be renewed. This is just my personal observation, but, in all other areas of contract (corporate or individual), substantive rights are not surrendered without clear intent.
Otherwise, I take no issue with anything else you wrote thereafter.
Edited Addition: I might add, corporations are perpetual too, but that doesn't lock owners into the corporation for life.
Neil wrote: Rubbish; Alan Guelzo, a prominent Lincoln scholar, refutes that nonsense: www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/abraham-lincoln-was-not-the-father-of-big-government Mike, Lincoln was right: âPlainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy.â
Neil, I'll listen to Alan Guelzo in the next few days. I'm not against having my mind changed.
I don't like the Lincoln quote you put up. He probably didn't want to be associated with the decreased size of the U.S. Contracts are contracts, and words are words. It doesn't matter how people "feel" about secession. Sophistry isn't an adequate alternative for contract formation. If an entity voluntarily enters into a larger entity, and never gives up the right to leave, well... tough luck. I know people don't appreciate the idea, but let's not get liberal with our handling of law. This isn't just an important mindset for the laws of men, but also with respect to how we handle the Law of God. Giving up an important right requires some kind of clear intent, that's universally true for all human contracts.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Well, Mike of NY., I suggest that you read some of the articles that my URLs point to, as I would also point out the one I just put up in the thread, "GOP Establishment Blames Tea Party for Election Failures" The Mad Hatter Tea Party group will no doubt lead to the election of another Democratic President, with the title Madame President. President Obama doesn't have to give a hoot if he is toxic to a fraction of the Republicans, Samâs Club Republicans Vs. the Tea Party, the Mad Hatter's Tea Party is toxic to the rest of us. Republicans are going to have to make up their minds are they going after social issues (though note: The Inadequacy of Moralism ) or economic issues, they might be able to win on one platform or the other, but I really doubt both, that is just too much for the electorate to swallow.
Oh Jim, shall we make victims out of the entire nation?
Jim Lincoln wrote: A Hispanic Canadian? What's this he finally found an area nutty enough to accept his crackpot ideas? Actually, Nebraska has imported carpet-baggers to be politicians, I'm not sure why Republicans had to import one from New Orleans to be my Congressional delegate. He is certainly a loyal son of the Romish Church (Oh, by the way I'm thoroughly against the Romish Church, remember, The Perils of Popery. So, any rabid supporter of the Romish Church, is guaranteed a vote against him from me--Hispanic or not.
"33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
34The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!"
More importantly, Mr. "Street-Preacher," God (i.e. Jesus) gave the Jews the law, the same law he lived under and obeyed:
"24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: 25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose : 26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after , for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth : and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice , thou, and thine household" Deu 14:24-26
Now, was the LORD telling the Israelites to sin? Would he have them sin before His FACE?!
Mark 7:13: "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do
Caps Lock is not a substitute for Bible verses. Frankly, you couldn't prove that Christ (who was without sin), never drank wine. Newsflash people, they didn't have refrigeration back then. Welchs grape juice isn't a realistic beverage option in the 1st century A.D. Plus, no one has bothered to refute Oliver's excellent 10:37 A.M. post.