Breaking News wrote: In a bombshell lawsuit that exposes the shocking ways women are treated in the Quiverfull movement ‚ÄĒ the patriarchal program popularized by the Duggar family and its TLC reality show 19 Kids and Counting¬†
Since the girl was in her majority, I have doubts all those counts will hold up in court. As with many broken relationships, it'll probably come down to ‚ÄúHe said, She said.‚Äú
Unless they can find a good mix of anti-Christian & Arminian Fundy jurors. Then maybe they'll have his head.
penny wrote: ‚Ä¶ I've certainly met the homeless, spoken with the downtrodden, prayed with the outsider, many had normal lives, and then suffered a spouse who betrayed them, cataclysmic health event etc,‚Ä¶
Thanks for telling us what a righteous person you are. Be sure to remind God, too (Matt. 7:21ff).
Dunsett wrote: But Neil Christ was an unemployed carpenter wandering around as an itinerant minister in worn out clothes and sandals.
Stop accusing people you know nothing about, for that's a no-brainer sin (9th Commandment); for instance, what makes you think I have a mortgage? Or that I'm a ‚Äúyuppie?‚ÄĚ Paul was also a citizen of a degenerate culture. So what?
And what's so holy about 1st-century attire? And if Jesus was indeed a ‚Äúliberal minister,‚Äú did he therefore deny His own Deity & the inspiration of Scripture? And how do you define ‚Äúrich?‚ÄĚ
penny, that was a thought-provoking post all right: of how foolish guilt-manipulating Episcopalians can be (from their vast, costly church edifices). Everyone here has Internet access, a luxury which must be paid for. Think about this vs. 1st-century (or modern Third World) poverty before you blame anyone for being rich.
Besides being off-topic, this is not ‚ÄĚreal news,‚ÄĚ but Marxist propaganda pretending to be Christian.
2 Thess. 3:10: ‚ÄúFor even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work [e.g. homeless drug addicts], neither should he eat.‚ÄĚ Paul was such a cruel man, how could he write such stuff?
Strat wrote: As if putting on plays that require a choreographer is an important responsibility of a "Christian" university to begin with.
Indeed. Many Puritans (e.g. Richard Baxter) were hostile to stage-plays; perhaps their best reason is that many were bawdy; Shakespeare had a lot of dirty jokes or double-entendres in his works, which becomes more clear once the Elizabethan slang is understood. Sex was a far less risky subject than politics. Also, boys played female roles, making them effectively transvestites. If we dig around, we can probably find some other reasons.
G.F. H√§ndel wrote The Messiah as an oratorio because he learned that the English of his day had hang-ups about opera, perhaps because of the Puritan legacy. Well, opera stars still often have dodgy morals.
Yet now, even Bob Jones University does Shakespeare plays & emphasizes other "fine arts." Got to be well-rounded, old boy.
I think there's a connection between what Mohler calls moralism & the deeply-rooted, widespread claim by many otherwise orthodox teachers & preachers that "mere intellectual assent" is not saving faith. This implies that works need to be added to faith, contrary to Scripture but in line with Roman Catholicism, with its trifold Latin (not NT Greek) division of faith into noticias, assensus, fiducia. The latter two are a tautology.
If one assents to something, one believes it, or else the assent doesn't exist. If you believe someone, you trust him; if you trust someone, you believe what he says; it's as simple as that.
I've noticed a long-standing conceit, among educators & booksellers particularly, that reading anything, no matter how trivial, obscene, or poorly-reasoned, is somehow good for you. It starts with the tripe vended at primary-school book fairs (sponsored by self-interested publishers like Scholastic).
So given the amount of rubbish available at Amazon and B&N, it's probably just as well that these people aren't doing "serious" reading.
Strat wrote: Material support ? does that include pwe are a long way from both Paul's day and attitude.
Exactly: While 1 Tim 5:17-18 allows for full-time remunerated study of the Word (probably scholarship, like writing commentaries or translations), that doesn't imply clergymen can drive a bus through that hole & create little empires for themselves, in the form of popery on one hand, or ‚ÄúProtestant‚ÄĚ personality cults on the other, like Falwell's. The man behind the pulpit should aim to be invisible, leaving ‚ÄĘall‚ÄĘ the glory to God alone.
Perversion of the Biblical pattern gives skeptics ground to claim that Christians can't think for themselves, & are led around by the nose by charismatic demagogues.
Why I think such speculation about the Ark & reconstructions of it are a waste of time: 1) What's a cubit? 1¬Ĺ ft. say some, but who knows for sure? 2) What's gopher wood? No one knows for sure; maybe it was an extinct variety far stronger than anything since; 3) What was its shape? Don't assume it was a box; e.g., it may've been a lozenge with its beam given as an average or maximum figure; 4) What's a zoological specie, & can we safely assume it's the same as the Biblical ‚Äúkind‚ÄĚ?
It is a sign of cultural decline to superstitiously blame immorality on material causes like this: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
Consider KFI, a 640kHz broadcaster in S. Calif., with a transmitter so powerful (50kW), it can be tuned in Down Under. So why can't AM radio be blamed instead?
I'm not saying RF energy *cannot* adversely affect the brain; I'm just saying there's no way to categorically prove it, for there are *many* potential causes in our environment which cannot be exhaustively listed. But hey, if you want to wear a Tinfoil Hat or live in a Faraday Cage, I won't try to stop you.
Note what Mr. Burke does not say: He has no objection to the rest of the welfare-state, which Rome has always endorsed (contrary to what Nat'l Review contributors say). Philosophical arithmetic: Catholic Social Teaching + abortion + birth-control = Progressivism or (in Europe) "Christian" Democracy
rc1974 wrote: Why isn't usury or any other form of interest tied to money illegal? Compounded interest in particular.
Florentine families like the Bardis, Peruzzis, & Medicis figured out how to make money on money despite the Church ban on usury (any percentage). The Vatican was among their biggest depositors! They made handsome profits on currency differentials in bills of exchange, though they also traded commodities. They were perhaps the first multinational corporations, along with the Knights Templar.
These clever Italians invented double-entry bookkeeping. Alas, they came to ruin from loans to princes, who, unlike commoners, can get away with repudiating debt. Italian bank branches in London & Bruges collapsed in the 15th century because their managers made foolish loans to the English Crown & the Duke of Burgundy, respectively. The Medicis banned such loans, but one of their managers (Portinari) refused to heed this. He was fired (not murdered) as punishment.