The Quiet Christian wrote: 1) Jesus did not supercede the Ten Commandments but summarized them. "Love the God..." summarizes the first half and "Love the neighbor..." summarizes the second half.
2) The Decalog itself is a summary of the Moasic Law...
1) Just a summary like shorthand? Why not call the great commandments the fulfillment of the Decalogue as Paul did?
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Jesus said He came to fulfill the law, yes? If yes, can it be said that this "summary" is actually His finished work? His righteousness? Did Jesus not tell the lawyer when asked about inheriting eternal life under the first covenant economy "Do this (keep the great commandments) and live."? So are not the great commandments life? If yes, why reduce them to a mere "summary"?
2) Wrong. The Decalogue was the first covenant and the Levitical Law was the "tenor" of that covenant. Paul sums up the Levitical as the letter of the law which killeth.
This love affair most Christians have with death and condemnation has always fascinated me. Like moths drawn to the flame.
Normally brother, I quite enjoy your comments but in this case.... not so much.
Blasey had an opportunity to gain the compassion and support in the courtroom of public opinion but she willingly traded that for ulterior political and personal reasons. If the Senate Judiciary Committee actually does their job they must apply the following principles to the upcoming hearing come Thursday:
1) The accused is innocent till proven guilty.
2) The accuser bears the burden of proof.
3) Proof must be beyond a shadow of doubt.
Although the hearing is not a courtroom, any other method of weighing Blasey's accusation will be a mockery of our standard of justice.
When all the rhetoric of the past several days is sifted through, along with her testimony, there is no proof. And it's doubtful Blasey has an ace up her sleeve.
Cora Suither wrote: Lurker, 1) â€ś...mind made upâ€¦â€ť about what?
2) You add to the polarization simply by saying â€śdemsâ€ť and making accusations about them.
I'll keep this brief lest I say something I may regret.
1) 9/20/18 9:44 PM Cora Suither: "White men." I'm a white man. Senator Chuck Grassley is an 85 year old white man. He is also the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and my Senator. I voted for him every time he was up for re-election. I have met him personally. He is a man of the highest integrity and is bending over backwards to see to it this woman is heard by the 20 members, 10 of which are dems and 4 of which are women. Quite frankly, I don't like your blanket insinuations about people you know nothing about.
2) "Dems" bothers you? Really? It's just an abbreviation, not a pejorative. In case you haven't noticed I also refer to the repubs on occasion.
Honestly Cora, I have no idea what your deal is but I'm pretty sure I don't want anything to do with it.
Marty McD wrote: He said, ""Senator" Hirono needs to shut up her office and step up to the stove, the sink and the washing machine and perform the role God intended for her."
In case you missed it, what Doc wrote was based on the format of what Senator Hirono said:
"I just want to say to the men of this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change."
Doc did, in fact, answer this liberal fool biblically and according to her own folly with the exception that he stopped short of telling her or the women of this country to "shut up". Why this caused so much uproar is beyond me.
Cora Suither wrote: Lurker, Forgiving someone doesnâ€™t necessarily set you free. This kind of offense can often make you more vulnerable. Please donâ€™t misunderstand me. I donâ€™t think all men are alike. No broad brushing here. It just seems that there is a group who think only along â€śwhiteâ€ť lines. We see this going on with the confirmation issue. The testimony of a woman against a powerful man is dangerous still. Look at the opposition Doctor Ford is encountering even now. They will vilify her without blushing. This is why the senator said what she did. She knows they are dishonest. I wish they would shut up. I wish they would do their jobs with integrity. Better I wish they would vacate their offices.
Thanks for you reply, Cora.
Again, you have my sympathy for whatever happened long ago. And I can understand that wounds may heal but scar tissue remains.
As for Kavanaugh and his accuser, you seem to have your mind made up so I won't say any more. The situation is very polarizing and I'm disgusted that it's turned out to be a huge political game of brinksmanship. The dems don't really give a hoot about this woman.... they just want to defeat Kavinaugh and this woman is a useful pawn. When it's over, you won't hear any more about her.
Marty McD wrote: Lurker, what does any of that have to do with clear, plain, unambiguous,simple, universal commands for Christians as to how they should speak? Is the Apostle James too unclear? Did Peter stutter? Is Paul unintelligible? Cherry-picking? Welcome to theological liberalism.
I have no bone to pick with you.
Please quote exactly what Doc Tim posted that has caused such an uproar and we can discuss it. Or better yet, you can tell me what is wrong with it from a biblical perspective.
Marty McD wrote: Sorry Lurker, that someone canâ€™t, on a single occasion, correct Christians with the Word of God. Feel free to make room for respectable sins. Letâ€™s just rip out the pages in the Bible that regulate Christian speech. Who needs that, right?
So you and Berean have a lock on the truth? Will you also correct John the Baptist and Jesus for calling the unbelieving Jews a "brood of vipers"? The bible is a huge book and anyone can cherry pick to make a point.
Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
From this text I can make the point that if Tim was unjust in his comment, it is commanded to you to leave him be unjust..... not to try to "fix" him. That is, if I were a cherry picker.
. . .
I'm sorry for what happened to you years ago. But may I respectfully say that you paint with an awfully wide brush.
But what is more troubling; as a professing Christian you still carry this around as an open wound, refusing to let Jesus heal it. Have you been forgiven much when Christ called you unto Himself? Yet you still carry this incident around apparently unforgiven.
This is turning out to be typical of most of the activist movements that have sprung up in the past several years. The pendulum always seems to swing too far to extremes.
Consider the difference between a 36 year old accusation of attempted sexual assault involving two intoxicated minors that can't possibly be proven and Harvey Weinstein's disgusting casting couch escapades that was common knowledge for years amongst all of Hollywood and beyond. According to the liberal left, both deserve the same outcome.
I'm in full support of women having recourse against men who treat them as objects of pleasure and sick perverts like Weinstein should be surgically prevented, in addition to prison, from every repeating what he did.
But to allow the activist movement to be politicized, as is now happening, is to allow it to be made of little or no effect. I would think smart women like Feinstein and the accuser would perceive that but apparently their hatred for anything Trump outweighs the multitudes of women who could be spared sexual assault if the #MeToo movement was actually about protecting women.
Oh, one other thing. Apparently Bill Clinton's accusers can't be grandfathered into the #MeToo movement but a 36 year old toothless accusation can. Political hypocrisy.
Frank wrote: I agree brother! In fact, her initial desire for anonymity was also probably a ruse. All this simply makes her case more believable. Pretty good strategy if I do say so. She is now infamous. Anyone who believes she was simply trying to get the truth out and somehow relieve some of her pain that has persisted over the years is very gullible.
Now she want the FBI to investigate before she will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She's just a willing pawn for the Dems, a means to a greater end, and their feigned concern over her is a joke.
I hope Senator Grassley sticks to his guns and holds the hearing Monday whether she appears or not.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Now, that is a definite possibility, Lurker. But I have read another articles, this woman does not want to have it turned into a sideshow as with the Anita Hill testimony being example.
Let's not be naĂŻve, Jim. If she didn't want it to come out she wouldn't have submitted her accusation to a Democrat politician in the first place.
And what did she possibly hope to gain by submitting it if she didn't want it to become public knowledge at this exact moment in time? Closure? A shoulder to cry on? Come now.... think.
As far as I'm concerned, this woman's credibility is shot. That's not to say her account of what happened 36 years ago is false. Two people know and I actually tend to believe her. But the way her accusation became public knowledge at the last minute smells of political dirty work which I hate. Just another episode of the rotten state of affairs in our extremely polarized two party system. The swamp refuses to be drained.
All this dirty work needs to accomplish is convince a couple Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote no on Cavinaugh's confirmation and it's game over. I suspect it will work just as the cesspool slime planned.
Christopher000 wrote: This thought might be out there, but given the climate, and the "We'll do anything to get our Whitehouse back", has anyone considered a conspiracy here between two liberals to bring down a nominee that all are in fear of over the Roe vs Wade issue?
Your thoughts are appreciated, Chris.
Knowing the extreme polarization that exists between the right and left, I have no doubt that the truth of this matter will never come to light. It'll just be turned into another bitter smear campaign that will hurt both the accused and the accuser.
Who would have thought ten years ago before Obama's "Fundament Change" campaign promise that things could go into the toilet so quickly with no hope it will ever get better but the certainty that it will continue to get worse. Granted, Trump is restoring some conservative objectives but that just serves to fuel the flames of polarization. What a mess.
Benjamin Franklin's qualification was on the mark when asked what he gave us.... "A republic, if you can keep it." It's slipping away and few be there that recognize it.
Thirty six years ago. The accuser was 15 and Kavinaugh was 17.
Even if true, and it may well be, most teens, boys and girls, do stupid things especially after having a few beers and in the absence of adult supervision. That is not to excuse what may have happened but dumb kids do occasionally grow up to be responsible and honorable adults having turned from the misdeeds of their youth.
Problem is, Kavinaugh has denied the accusation so now there is no way forward for him but to continue the denial. Right or wrong, that's just the way it works in politics.
Personally, I believe it would be better if he owned up, assuming he did what he was accused of, apologize to the lady and move forward on his record as an adult. I have a hard time believing his nomination would be defeated for an indiscretion committed at age 17. But then again, the Dems are thirsty for blood and they may just convince enough Repubs to defeat his nomination. Hypocrites.
Jim Lincoln wrote: [ https://tinyurl.com/yaou2u3x ] "Health care is a human right" Now, how long it will take the Romish Church to get this through is anybody's guess...
For a relatively intelligent person, you sure buy into some dumb ideas.
Let's see here.... the RC apologist cites the parable of the Good Samaritan as a precedent for free government healthcare for all; a precedent dating back 2,000 years. So where is the evidence that the RCC lobbied the state governments through the dark ages to provide health care for the poor? Was it when they turned over dissenters to the secular authorities to execute them after torturing them themselves? Maybe it was when they demanded the secular governments to burn at the stake anyone who dared possess a bible in their own language?
And why isn't the RCC lobbying poor third world countries to provide free healthcare? No money, eh? Or maybe it's the west's responsibility to provide free health care for the entire planet. It's the logical conclusion.
And btw, Jim. Define "healthcare". Would that include "women's reproductive health" as defined by Planned Parenthood? Of course it would and you're all for it. Anything to appear magnanimous and compassionate on someone else's dime. Just like the RCC.
Frank wrote: Fellow ember, well said! I just pray that some of our real enemies don't figure out how to use him for their own ends. But, I do support him because he was chosen by our Lord to lead this nation; why I don't know. Personality disorders, such as narcissim are more common that most people imagine. Supposedly their are developed as a child and there is no cure for them? But, being born again from above will do.
I believe you're right about personality disorders being developed in childhood. One thing I did read once about narcissism is it is a disorder that is never treated. The reason? Those who have it believe they are normal and everyone else is messed up.
But, as you rightly said, the new birth is the only sure cure.
MS wrote: Good afternoon bro.Lurker, A hearty Amen to your wise comment. Trust you have been enjoying your family and of course spoiling the grand babies.
Thank you sister,
Yes, we had the two youngest grands visit for a couple days last week. They grow up so fast! But the trip is five hours and they aren't accustomed to such a long ride so it was a little hard on them. A little car sickness I assume from the car seats having to be backwards and they see everything moving away which is contrary to our senses.
My wife and I are looking into getting them a portable DVD player so they can watch movies while on the road. The concept worked well for our own children and we traveled a lot.