I think Jim was speaking in a humanist/socialist worldview perspective. Of course, those with common sense realize that it is right and proper to get the money you work for; in this worldview, since he's not on welfare, or an actor/sports figure/musician... He makes too much money. He's that evil UMC that is likely footing the bill for the 47+% on welfare, and since he had the money to take the trip, it wasn't going into Uncle Obama's treasure trove to find new Obamaphones... At least, that's what I think he was saying.
"...meaning activities that require awareness of the position of different body parts ..." Would to God that Christians would spend more time being aware of where they were and what they were doing... For His sake, and not just their memory.
Interesting post; I've seen similar points over the years, and they tend to ignore a few salient facts; like founding father'S. There were many individuals with differing beliefs, and all played a part. Both deists, atheists and Christians. Second to that is this, even if they weren't "Christian," that does not mean there was no Biblical influence. Even their personal beliefs wouldn't completely negate or eradicate the effect of the prevailing worldview on how they looked at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Wow. And here I thought that a parent who smokes while telling his child not to was fairly dense. Telling people to watch who you socialize with, while cavorting with rappers? To be fair, I did not read the whole article... Maybe he doesn't really...
At the end of the day, the greater point is this: as our Supreme Court has so nicely pointed out to those of us Bible believers, we do not live in a theocracyâ€¦ We live in a democratic republic, and our nations laws were put in place to protect the citizenryâ€¦ Christian or not. If some bleeding heart liberal from across the pond wants to whine about our gun laws, and misrepresent the Bible to mean that we should never defend ourselves, then that's their choice. They will answer for that, not me. However I will stand firm by my rights as a United States citizen to not only carry a gun, but also to protect me and my family, and anyone else who happens to be around me if some whack job attempts a criminal act, AND when I do so, I feel justified by biblical context that I am doing the right thing.
Do people die of gun violence in America? Sure. In 2013, I believe there were something around 7000 people shot in the U.S. (Including criminals by police and law abiding citizens protecting themselves, but who cares, they were shot... Right?) that same year there were over 2000 killed with knives, another 1000 or so killed with blunt objects, 10,000 people killed by drunk drivers, and over 30,000 killed in automobile accidents. (And don't get me started on medical malpractice.) The fact is, people die all the time, guns are demonized why? They are the only thing standing between us and the criminal. Us and a hostile government that wants to completely take all of our rights. You guys in the other countries that can't understand why we want guns? We want guns BECAUSE of things like Sandy Hook and the theatre in Colorado. Places where an armed criminal went in to shoot unarmed people. Criminals will always break the law, citizens should be allowed to defend themselves.
The fact is, people tend to be symbol driven; Christians are no exception. It is an attempt to have an outward sign of allegiance, something they may point to and say, 'this is what I stand for.' Every Church I have been in for the past 23 years has had the Christian flag; not to be outdone, there was a pastor up in Michigan who came up with a 'Baptist' flag a few years ago. But it is no different than having an American flag... It is, in reality, a meaningless symbol. (I mean, seriously... Obama has an American flag... It does not mean he is a Patriot.) We shouldn't need a symbol for people to look at to prove our allegiance to Christ. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35)
To be honest, it was earlier than that. We lost our morality in the Universities, the institutes of higher learning that trained the next generation of leaders. Look back into the 1930's when Alfred Kinsey started his immoral surveys; those surveys would go on to affect the morality of multiple generations in several ways. The point is, the universities not only trained and allowed him to conduct his perverseness under the guise of education, but it also trained the generations of politicians that allowed it to have the effect it did. By the time Kinsey's books reached the masses, Politicians already were planning to remove constraints on morality and censorship.
People act like we don't already have polygamy. I worked with a man who had 14 children... From 9 different "Baby Mama's" (his term, not mine) He was married to none of them, but went back and forth as he willed... You would have to say his relationship WAS state sponsored, since all of the women drew welfare. No, unfortunately that is typical in many poor urban areas, and will continue to be, because I don't see it changing.
I would have to look, but I remember the president of the NAACP several years ago going on record with that exact comment. (Homosexuality is NOT the same as race.) As I recall, he was pretty offended by the suggestion that they were similar. I don't remember what happened afterwards, other than a bunch of sodomites getting mad.
That's why there was a big push several years ago about the "genetic predisposition" of homosexuality. You don't choose your color, but you choose behavior. The sodomite movement wants to portray their lifestyle choices as a biological imperative; an innate set of behavioral patterns that cannot be changed without damaging the individual. The interesting (if we can find any interest in this sad situation,) conundrum they found theirselves in, was when they realized that if there is a genetic "reason" for homosexuality, there would be many parents that would demand genetic testing in vitro, to see if their baby would be "born gay." (And then of course abort that baby.) it was at that point that many of the more vocal sodomite movements backed away quickly from the genetic component. It's still out there, but they don't push it as much as they used to, because they're worried about too many "Gay babies" being aborted.
Grieved from In Sorrow... I have no doubt that the Lord will take care of His own... The question is, which Churches are His? If it is about money, it's not His. If it's about prestige, it's not His. If it's about power, for the sake of power, it's not His. His Church will be about the furtherance of the Gospel, and reaching the lost for Christ. Now, there are some of His Churches that will struggle, not because He cannot supply their needs, but because of a lack of a discernment between needs and wants. We are crippled by a luxurious lifestyle in this country, and some of what we spend the Lord's money on is frivolous nonsense. But that is a comment for another day.
The sad fact is, most Churches would go broke if they lose their 501c3, because most Christians don't tithe for the Lord, they give money for a tax deduction. If they won't get it from the Church, they'll give it to goodwill or a food bank: it's not about BEING right, it's about money.