I look at all of this very seriously, and weigh everything out as honestly as I can, always putting God first, to try and get to the bottom of things, the best I can, anyway. When something isn't crystal clear, to me anyway, I have to use biblical common sense, to try and come to any conclusion.
I understand the influence of tradition, but I've always been able to catch myself, and seperate from it, mentally, in order to look at something clearly, and I never have any problem staying separated from it if scripture takes me in a different direction.
I also understand your point about God's sovereignty, and I'm assuming that you're viewing any action on our parts to change an outcome, as a lack of faith(?) For example, this discussion, and attempting to save ones life, or the life of another.
As of right now, for me, it has nothing to do with any lack of faith, but rather, God given common sense. I've posed this example before, but say someone breaks their leg. Instead of doing nothing but praying for it to reset and heal itself, they seek out medical attention to have it reset, and immobilized in a cast so it can heal. The person used their God-given common sense instead of prayer. How would being pro-active to spare a life be any different?
I'll let you all carry on. I hope everyone has a safe, happy, and fruit-filled day.
I was just thinking how neat it is that I can type out words on a screen, that anyone can read and understand, and just the mere fact that I(we) know which ones to type, and how to organize them, on the fly, in order to communicate, is kind of amazing.
I'm probably sounding like a borderline lunatic right now đ Ok, over and out...
Actually, I'll just say one thing about Mark 8:35: I'd like to see it get discussed, and expounded upon, because there's a whole lot of context that gets packed into that one sentence, and it's not a stand-alone verse that I feel can be used to refute common sense, self-protection.
Do I think a church body should be taking up weapons training, and arming themselves in order to defend against a madman, potentially strolling through its door? Hmmm...I've never given it any thought, so I'll be following the conversation. I guess the big question is gonna be: Does arming itself express a lack of faith in God to protect, or is arming itself (onesself) an expression of God-given common sense for self-preservation against the enemy?
Thanks Dr Clark. I know, the UK is a real mess as well, as the plague, or madness, I should say, spreads over the entire planet. Really something to be witnesses to, as the end of days closes in. Amazing how quickly everything we see going on today, came to be, and came to be a normal way of life, in just a few short years.
Mike, the constitutionality of it didn't even occur to me to think about, because it seems that only comes into play when the liberals want to take action on something. Otherwise, it's, "Constitution? What's a constitution?"
"[T]he perpetuation of harm to a child stemming from unconstitutional conduct can not be allowed to stand," the judge wrote."
What a joke. The presiding judge scorned the Gloucester school for harming a child? These people infuriate me, because they have allowed, and enforce the confusion of an entire generation. They are fully responsible for all of the suicides as well, whether they resulted from bullying, utter confusion, or reassignment remorse. Their agendas confuse and kill, yet, they tout themselves as advocates and supreme protectors? What a joke.
"Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals based its ruling in favor of Grimm on a 2015 Obama administration guidance encouraging all public schools to allow transgender students to use facilities consistent with their gender identity."
Thanks again for everything, Mr OBama...a job well done. You certainly have your fan base, like Cora, but you were a wicked little thing, hiding behind a smooth, polished exterior, and a whole lot of lies. Just look at what you've done, and how many children have killed themselves, thanks to your policies. Wicked man with a Hollywood smile, whose reign of terror has sent this country into a new level of darkness.
THBCC Wrote: "MARCHING IN FRONT OF US THERE WAS THEN ALDERMAN--(CLOSET-LESBIAN) TONI PRECKWINKLE--WHO LOST CHICAGO'S 2019 MAYORAL RACE TO OPEN-LESBIAN LORI LIGHTFOOT !"
The recent Chicago mayoral race reminded me of the current 2020 candidates, where I wouldn't have been able to vote for a one of them. Lightfoot ran on the LGBTQ card, and it worked for her. How many Chicagoans voted for her because she's a homosexual, and for no other reason. Even for 2020, it seems the issues are secondary, while se*ual orientation, color, who/what you sympathize with, and how extreme your (false) promises are, is first and foremost for the vote.
Anyway, I grew up at the Outer Drive East building on E Randolph, and family members moved as the Loops dangers began to fan East, and that part of Michigan Ave got worse and worse as you headed toward Roosevelt. One of my Aunts moved to Dearborn Park (phase I) for a safer environment, and still lives there, but the crime and homeless infection is even reaching there now. Point is that the Democrats are killing the city, everyone is killing each other, it's grossly mis-managed, getting progressively worse, and the same holds true for any Democratic controlled city, yet, the people keep them in power. Strange thing.
I don't care for, "once saved, always saved", either, and think the way you've expressed it is much better. I think that all to often, it's used as the go-to phrase for anyone who has fallen away, and living in sin, etc. They remain a brother or sister, no matter what, and forevermore, no matter their fruits, or lack thereof, and will simply not reap any eternal reward, etc., but remain saved. I think it's used as a phrase for false comfort.
While the phrase has truth to it, I think it's mostly used in the wrong way, and gives false comfort.
I've been having a little trouble getting his drift as well, but it seems that Simple might be operating off of once saved, always saved, which is fine when we're talking about those who are truly His. Seems to me though that he's placing Harris and Sampson into the category of the elect, that they've simply fallen away for a season, and that they are deserving of sympathy, and prayers for restoration.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Simple, but if that's the gist of your comments, I, for one, will not pray for the restoration of anyone, who being filled with the knowledge of scripture, and has tasted of the good things, crucifies Christ afresh by publicly calling Him a liar, a hoax, and tells the world that they're walking away from the joke that is, Christianity; saying, "We're outta here, and how wonderful is the newfound freedom that we have, without some false God ordering us around, and not allowing us to do whatever we feel like doing in life. Who does He think He is, anyway...no thanks".
Can they be renewed unto repentance? Seems bleak, but only God knows. The thing that really bugs me is that instead of keeping things private, they tell the world that God is a phoney, and His Word, a joke, basically. How many others did they harm in their wake?
Douglas For Wrote: 'Very true, 'Christopher' about the Dems going nuts. And this is why the country is so polarized today, with the media pounded constantly on President Trump, with all their voices enraged. No one who watches that for any length of time can come away without being impacted. Even their so-called 'conservative' voices they put on the screen are not, and you will never ever see them say, "Now, let's go to Sean Hannity (or Mark Levin, Michael Savage, or Rush Limbaugh)for his view on this issue"'
Hi DF...Polarized, for sure, and perfect choice of words. I've often wondered why people don't balance their news sources, but I was just now thinking that maybe it's because they simply believe the mainstream outlets they listen to, report all the news, as is, as in, fair and balanced, accurate, true, and unbiased. I can't imagine why anyone would ever pay any attention if they knew most of the reporting was mis-information and lies, no matter what party they associate themselves with. I think most are just ignorant and naive, believing all they hear, and the liberals have taken full advantage, and because of that, here we are...
These people have gone mad from the rage within them since they lost their supreme seat of power. They've totally flipped, and whether it was his goal or not, Trump was able to draw out who they really are, in a very public way, and finally expose who they've always been. I just hope the American public sees it, because mainstream media does a great job taking the edge off, and making their madness appear justified; deflecting everything back to Trump.
Now, they threaten to restructure the Supreme Court if they don't start getting their way? I just can't even begin to imagine the state of this nation shortly after they regain power, if/when they do.
"Drag Queen Story Time is based in San Francisco, and it describes its purpose as capturing the âimagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhoodâ, and giving children âunabashedly queer role modelsâ.
Dylan Pontiff, a drag artist who works for the program, admits the events are about ***âthe grooming of the next generationâ."***
Yes, the librarys hold these grooming hours, but I place full blame on the parents who put their kids in the car, and take them to see, and soak in this nonsense. Teaching kids to twerk, confusing them, and indoctrinating them into the LGBTQ ideology...disgusting, and shame on the irresponsible parents, who call it harmless fun, and a wonderful thing. Mama G wanted the kids personal emails, until he was questioned on it, then said, oops, I meant the parents emails. Just another creep.
I still have trouble believing what I see all around me. Men dressing as women, taking estrogen, growing breasts, raising the pitch of their voices, having gender reassignment surgeries, wearing heels, carrying themselves as women, and demanding to be treated and addressed as the opposite gender.
Most disturbing is that it's been normalized within society. Nobody even turn their heads anymore. They celebrate it.
Sampson-ex Hillsong worship leader, after denouncing Christianity:
"like, what bothers me now is nothing... I am so happy now, so at peace with the world...it's crazy..."
I'm sure he does feel a lot lighter and free, if God had been weighing him down. Afterall, he's now been released from the burdon of sin, because he no longer has the responsibility to care, one way or another. What a breath of fresh air it must be for him to no longer be under judgement, anyone's watchful eye, and to now have the freedom to do as he pleases, without any guilt, or fear of eternal repercussions, he apparently now believes.
Too bad. Evil found a crack somewhere, planted a seed, and the seed grew into an invasive weed, and spread, and spread, and spread.
...when the task is completely innocent, and a normal part of a job, in every respect?
I just think his expectations were unreasonable as an employee, and that the department had no responsibility to cator to him while refusing direct orders, based upon a matter of personal conscience that wouldn't have, directly, caused him to be in disobediance; putting man above God.
While I salute him, on a personal level, he was expected to do the job he applied for, was hired for, was being paid to do, and a job where he knew how things worked. He wasn't asked to do anything unusual, out of the ordinary, or wicked. Again, how far does an employer's responsibility go on such subjective matters where what's wrong for one, is right for another, and both are perfectly right?
...Nothing sinister, nothing inappropriate, nothing weird about it, out of the ordinary, or out of whack...just patrolling the streets, responding to calls, and training.
My issue, JaG and Herbal Mama, isn't the deputy rolling with what he thought was right for him. I give him high praises for that, and admire his strength and conviction. I think he's a great example for all, and think his wife is fortunate to have such an honorable husband who clearly loves her, but more importantly, loves The Lord, and strives for obediance. My issue is the fact that he's expecting the department to conform, and change-up the way things are done, according to any matters of personal conscience he happens to have, whenever he happens to have them. He's made demands, and refused orders in the past, based upon his conscience. My question is, what is the department's responsibility to an employee who refuses to take orders, citing that it's a violation of his religious beliefs, but based upon nothing but a matter of his own personal conscience? How long can any employer cator to subjective violations of one's faith, and allow an employee to refuse to perform the responsibilities they're being paid to do, based solely upon how a task might cause a person to feel, or look to another, etc.,
...This man would have been absolutely in the right, as well, and not in disobediance, even though the two men made polar opposite decisions, and that's the conundrum in this case...refusing to perform a task that you're being paid, and ordered to do, when the task isn't violating any clear rules or commands we're expected to adhere to as Christians; when the task doesn't call for us to put man above God; causing clear comprimise or sin.
The deputy made a personal judgement call, for personal reasons. Maybe he didn't want to risk inappropriate thoughts, or cause his wife's mind to wander, who knows. However, we're talking about patrolling the streets in a car, with two people sitting in their own seats, and separated by a wide console. They weren't going to be on long stakeouts, alone together in some apartment. They weren't going to be staying in hotels together, or going on any overnight business trips. They weren't going to be using the same locker room, or expected to behave as husband and wife as their cover while investigating some case. They were going to be riding in a car together, and that's it.
Good morning, JaG and Herbal Mama, okay, since you both asked so nicely, here it is:
In my initial comment, I hesitated to even use the phrase, "matter of conscience", but technically, that's exactly what it is, and Frank was nice enough to post the related scripture up.
While we are to obey God above any man, or manmade law, I consider matters of conscience to be very subjective; unique from person to person, and not clear, scriptural violations; sin. Matters of conscience are things that we, personally, don't feel comfortable with or about, or that we're just not quite certain about, so yes, we should err on the side of caution, doing what we feel is right, as we see it. However, one man's conscience is not anothers, and in both cases, strangely, most often than not, both are right, and neither is wrong, because they're subjective situations.
Now in the deputys case, he was exercising his personal right as he analyzed a situation, and decided that, for him, it was a situation that he needed to avoid, as a matter of obediance. Good for him. Maybe he didn't want to risk any inappropriate thoughts. Now, the next born again man in line may have seen absolutely nothing wrong with alone time in a car, doing the job he was being paid to do, and training a female deputy.
Oops, sorry JaG, and HM, by saying that, I didn't mean I thought that either one of you was looking for an argument. I meant that my own personal perspective shouldn't be turned into a heated debate by anyone at all, because I can see both sides. I just lean a bit stronger one way at the moment.
JaG and Herbal Mama, maybe I'll post up my personal perspective in the AM. I don't consider this topic one to argue over, but maybe I'll post up what all came to mind for me after reading it, just for the different take.