I noted the final paragraph:- "Just as the appearance of cheap, well-engineered Japanese cars disrupted Western car markets, so the rise of frugal technology could transform the market for medical devices. Western politicians need to encourage this to happen. By turning their governments into better purchasers and by eliminating the barriers that discourage the sale of cheap technology in the rich world, they could bring down the cost of health care. That should earn them the gratitude of patients, taxpayers and workersâ€”in other words, voters."
I think they are overoptimistic about voters in US, I can hear the chorus of rabid disapproval for buying overseas products coming already. Consider the clamour for the buy American provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Michael Hranek wrote: But a white man has no right whatsoever to come into a black lady's house and demand she cook him some fine Southern Alabama cooking. Unless of course he is married to her then he ought to ask very politely and respectfully.
Dusty wrote: Does that mean if there is a problem with a pew they must get a suitably aged tree to cut for use and repair, eg 16th century tree??
It probably depends on whether it was moveable or not but I don't really know. English Heritage have helped preserve some outstanding examples of non-conformist chapels including the interior woodwork, boxed pews, wineglass pulpits etc.
If you wish to know more, English Heritage would be a good place to start research.
Dusty wrote: Whilst Christians are required per Rom 13, to obey the governing authority, - This is not to the detriment of Holy Law and doctrine. Therefore man's laws cannot be allowed to overrule God's law in our Christian witness. At that point we should and always trust in God.
Yes. That is my position also. Again, I advocate obedience to the law of Christ.
Therefore, I have no idea why you posted and now repeated the question below.
Dusty wrote: My original question is "Are you saying that man's law overrules God's law? And that is the way we should debate this?"
Dusty wrote: "In many cases, churches have replaced their roofs only to be targeted again, in one case 14 times" Why don't these churches use alternative materials to lead, such as Ubiflex or other plastic materials for roofing?
As per above "Many of the Church of England's 16,000 churches are "listed," which provides planning protection for buildings of historical value, and date back hundreds of years".
Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant and thereby signifies new birth.
There are profound difference between the thirty-nine articles and the anglican liturgy on this matter. Posting the thirty-nine articles is irrelevant. It is the liturgy alone that posits baptismal regneration and that liturgy needs changing.
Dusty wrote: This is a Christian website Guinness. Are you saying that man's law overrules God's law? And that is the way we should debate this?
I am advocating obedience to the law of Christ. What do you advocate?
Please take the time and effort to read my post better than you read the other article you posted on. The answer to your question there is also included in the both the original text and the extract published by sermonaudio.
Presby wrote: Now Jim. Just because you guys invented a different mode of "verbal authorised dunking" from 1521 onwards, doesn't mean we all have to change the way the Bible teaches it. [URL=http://www.covenantofgrace.com/owen_infant_baptism.htm]]]Infant Baptism. By John Owen.[/URL]
Regardless of credo- or paedo-baptism the old Anglican baptismal liturgy should be rightly immersed in six foot deep soil and for ever buried for expressing the evil false doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
Neil wrote: Should Christians sue if an atheist or Islamic B&B owner decided he didn't want any of our sort under his roof?
Yes, it is permissible to appeal to caesar and sue. Not sure of the wisdom of the matter, and it might be righteous to turn the other cheek.
Neil wrote: If we truly believe a businessman has freedom to choose whom he does business with (as I do)
I truly don't believe that. The law rightly made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race and biological gender in day to day transactions. For example black ladies now have the right to sit anywhere they like on the bus in Alabama.
Now, I am sure that you would agree that for you personally to deny any given seat to a black lady would be a violation of your Christian duty to love our neighbour. Your quibble would presumably be over the government's right to legislate over private proprietors. A true conservative would argue that there is a compelling public interest case to regulate the provision of public services and trade. Your view seems more libertarian, and advocates the rights of proprietors to sin (and also violate the law) in a publically unrestrained manner as a matter of public policy. Do I understand you correctly?
jpw wrote: Ironic, that fellow Christians flee for their lives during US Occupation of Iraq while US Christians discuss in their churches how good it is we are fighting for the rights of Christians in Iraq?
True ironies are rarely predictable.
The persecution of Iraqi Christians was predicted prior to the Blair-Bush invasion and their Islamic state "nation building". They invaded anyway.
Rejoice and be thankful every time you pass a bookshop this Christmas that they have both moved on to flogging their memoirs.
Neil wrote: $14K per annum? Even the Calif. State Colleges, with minimal relative prestige, cost more than this, probably because our college costs have risen faster than inflation (IMHO, due to Federal-sponsored student loans).
Are you sure it is not because of all that obsession with college sports over there? That must cost a pretty penny.
Neil wrote: Guinness, perhaps the globalization is actually working in reverse: our leadership class has internalized the FYIV (roughly, "Fooey on You, I'm Vested") attitude found in nations with more deeply rooted official corruption.
I think I agree, but am not familiar with the fooey phrase.
I had in mind an unspoken distinction about endemic corruption when I restricted my cancer spreading observation to just the "western world" - much of the rest of the world already having a superabundance of this cancer.
Yes, my wording was imprecise, there are many "western" countries, particularly some of those around the Mediterranean, that also have a long history of official corruption.
For some reason I am reminded of an American global executive who many years ago told his global team that he had previously had to FIRE two people for integrity violations. Whilst this was no doubt the right thing to do, for some reason he lacked a sense of authority. It is, after all, much easier to pay the price of ethics if someone else is doing the paying.
It would perhaps have been more persuasive if his testimony had been that he had once had to RESIGN a job due to being unable to go a long with the endemic ethics.