Christopher000 wrote: Mike, thanks for the prayers (trying to steer clear of other thread).
Don't blame you, Chris.
If you or anyone has a mind to, we too need prayers in my family, as serious issues have come to light. Please pray for God's direct intervention in it, and that I and others may have Godly wisdom. Someone precious is on a bad path.
Christopher000 wrote: --- I don't believe they should, and I never quite understand why personal disagreements and/or corrections, at times, cause such bitterness and vindictiveness. I'm not even necessarily talking about matters of doctrine either. I could be perfectly fine with someone, but bring something to their attention or disagree on something, and you get treated like you're no longer a brother or something. That's some kind of response that I dont understand coming from Christians. I'll correct you, but don't you even think about correcting me or were gonna have a problem. I can use my wife as a great example...she can bee I tee see h and criticize all the live long day, but the moment I bring her name into the equation, I can't even get a single sentence out...she just won't listen to anything negative with her name attached. Compliments, sure thing, but constructive criticism...how dare you.
Insights born of pain, and willingness to learn, Chris. Commendable.
As to how to deal with conflict you see here, look for the fruit of the Spirit being displayed-love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, etc. Also, look for anger, projection, hostility, rejection. Bible says by their fruits ye shall know them.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- ( Roy Mooreâs wife: President Trump âowes us a thank youâ for diverting attention from Russia probe) ) Roy as usual is just looking out for himself. IE, you mean David Brooks is a Pharisee or zealot like the so-called "Christian" supporters of such people like Moore? Unfortunately, David is only slightly better than those types, because I believe he's an atheist--at least he isn't a hypocrite. ---
Oh, but he is at minimum a hypocrite, because being one who promotes immorality in what he believes, and lives out by leaving his long-time wife for a new young thing, all the while saying supporters of Moore are heretics. Really? I suppose to the religion of liberalism they are. How twisted can Brooks be when he says:
"And if youâre putting politics above personal morality, above the way we treat each other, above the nature of your own soul, youâre just â youâre making an idol out of it."
"A progressive evangelical pastor whose 2015 pro-gay marriage announcement led to a steep decline in his church's membership now says that he believes he should have given his church more input on the announcement than he did"
What is progressive about a pastor taking a church back centuries to Sodom?
Jim Lincoln wrote: "David Brooks wrote: "...defenders of Roy Moore... --- "Theyâre saying politics is higher than morality. And no honest person can possibly believe that. And if youâre putting politics above personal morality, above the way we treat each other, above the nature of your own soul, youâre just â youâre making an idol out of it
(Shields and Brooks on sexual misconduct in politics,...)
Same old, new direction. Now defenders of the need for evidence are heretics. Nothing like mixing religion with politics, right Jim?
I have to wonder why Brooks thinks it's moral to convict an accused in the media, and without trial? Maybe he thinks he's judge and jury. Un-American as it gets. But liberals, especially the ones pretending to be moderates, fit that description.
This "moral" man wink wink divorced his wife of 27 years, and married his much younger former research assistant.
He wrote a piece back when, for the NY Times recommending Obama run for president. BO's sharp pantleg crease impressed him, it seems.
He supported "gay marriage" long before it became legal.
He supported Clinton as opposed to Trump.
Yes, Jim, keep posting your thoughts through Brooks.
From the news: "Evangelical leaders, including Russell Moore, Kay Warren, and Beth Moore, have criticized Christians who continue to defend Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore despite allegations that he sexually assaulted teenage girls while in his early 30s."
"...criticized Christians who continue to defend.... despite allegations..."
Good for Christians who need a bit more evidence than conveniently timed accusations. Bad for Russell Moore and Rick Warren's wife who have fingers in the air to see which way the wind might be blowing.
Too bad he joined with all the other ignorants who moan about greenhouse gas emission. Greenhouses are full of plants, plants emit oxygen. Why is that a bad thing? Pope guy needs to get out more, get some fresh greenhouse gas. It helps to clear the mind.
In your link is mention of Big Jim Folsom and George Wallace as evidence of the bad old politics of Alabama. Not sure how those two Democrats are evidence of Bad old Moore's "rise to power." Guilt by association? Association being Alabama? It is an interesting tack you, other Democrats, loser Repubs and the Mainstream Medusas are taking. If you can't get Moore, blame Alabama. How small the big guys really are.
Jim Lincoln wrote: It's great to be reminded how pagan Relic worship is. It should bring us back to our favorite false religion Catholicism. (The Bone Collectors---It's time to bring relics back to the Catholic Church.).
The question is raised, with some verses, who does Christ say he died for, all or many? Though we are to avoid cherry picking verses, which would seem to include even favorable verses, nonetheless there is this use of "many":
Romans 5:15 "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."
So who is left out of the effects of Adam's sin, if it is "many," but not "all"? None, of course. ALL have sinned...
In light of this and as well the "much MORE the grace of God...," and the use of "many" in v19, what can we say? Only this-"many" can sometimes mean "all."
It's a bit difficult to digest, when we make Adam's sin, in its effect, greater than Jesus' propitiation, in its effect. Yet it is put forth often as though it somehow brings glory to God.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- One should realize that even if Moore does get elected, his anti-abortion stance will not get him seated. One can seriously doubt, especially since he is anti-homosexual, đ (Catholics are not happy about thatâ), but he is an alleged pedophile, đand a lawbreaker being removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for not enforcing the laws. He should have resigned, if he didn't want to obey the law - - how ever wrong those laws may be.
The law he refused to enforce was illegal. I know that doesn't even make sense to you. But it is one reason the royal class doesn't like him.
Christopher000 wrote: Hmmmm. I just heard it reported that Moore was banned from his local, hometown mall at the time for "bothering" young girls, whatever that amounts to. The Hannity show just reoorted it, but will have to check the source which wasn't mentioned. What a mess.
Sure is. Amazing the memory recall and/or allegations that show up just before elections or appointments. Moore isn't alone in this. Clarence Thomas comes to mind. Herman Cain. Donald Trump. Others. And when the success or failure of the office seeker is had, we never hear another word from those same accusers. It tells us more about them than they might think. Trial by media bribery is illegal, or so I thought.