It make perfect sense that the culture of death approves of things associated with death. It also makes sense that they couch the approvals in certain language.
"measuring bias" "how government legislation can inform individuals' attitudes," "if anti-gay bias was on the rise everywhere" "Bias spiked in states that had not approved same-sex marriage"
The article writers give away their own obviously biased position with their language use. Ask them and they will say they are just reporting the news. The walking dead want the living to be like them.
There are plenty of taxes to go around, limited only by the imaginations of the politicians, and their promises to "invest in infrastructure," etc., and to make gifts to the people of some of what already was taken from them. It is less an issue of who pays what percent, but what is being done with the hundreds of billions or more that is already being collected.
Why is there always search for a geographical reason to make it easier to believe? You have to ask why would it be easier to cross where it is "only" 8 miles wide and the shallow depth is "only" about a hundred feet. Did they bring boats? Wouldn't they still drown without the parting as Scripture has recorded?
There is one thing we can determine. The nations are deceived now, and always have been. It would be quite the feat to prove otherwise. What does this mean? It means the devil therefore has never been bound such that he "should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled..." This holds however the thousand years is understood, whether a literal 1000 years, or an undefined period of time, and is something yet to come.
Jim Lincoln wrote: .. too bad too many pastors don't feel any pressure on not preaching politics.
Preaching the gospel to the choir seems to be a silly way to go. How does that change minds outside the stained glass windows? Speaking on the evils of the day is politics? A self-check on motive could be useful.
"Most of the pastors polled â€” 64 percent â€” said they feel limited by their own church members in their capacity to speak out on social and moral topics. By contrast, 69 percent feel pressured to address those same issues from the pulpit."
John Lee wrote: Just thinking, I thought it may be wise to see what their church actually seeks to do, and calling itself 'continuing' as they do. It transpires that they want to restore the Anglican church back to its roots, which are: The 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles of Religion. So would that be a restoration job, or a reforming job? Several congregations have left Canterbury to do just one or the other. http://cofec.org/welcome/the-church-of-england-continuing/
John, I'm not very familiar with the 1662 Book, nor the 39 articles, but with a quick look I see they still go in for infant baptism, and in doing so claim regeneration for the infant(27th Article) because adults have spoken in its name. Extra-biblical at best. But with such limited input, my non-expert opinion would say the CofE continuing be some of both reformation and restoration. Then comes the question if restoration is to its own roots, while better than the poor Canterbury excuse for what passes for Anglican, is this better than restoration to biblical roots?
John Lee wrote: .. Of course, some have, and begun a new church (continuing); but how much better to start again from scratch and do a proper fine tune on church structure and method, getting rid of the remains of Catholicism or tradition.
It may be that they continue to seek, as in the past, reformation, (fix the structure) instead of restoration. (start fresh, with truth)
"Emanuele Capobianco, head of health and care at the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, cited Congolese health ministry statistics showing 40 new cases over two days this week. He called that rate unprecedented in this outbreak. ..."
Unprecedented for Ebola, maybe. 400,000 deaths, not cases, annually from Malaria gets no coverage at all.
They are coming up with a screen that is approximately the size of drive-in theater screen? Wow. They say you'll be able to stand close to it, and the image won't look blurred. How useful is it to see clearly what's in front of your face, but not know what it is you're looking at, because you can't see what's on the rest of the screen?
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpt from, "Evangelicals are Becoming Politically Progressive" https://tinyurl.com/yxamxnvr ....
No they're not. Excerpt is nonsense, title from which it came is a false statement. Why would conservative evangelicals become wacko leftist wing dings, other than in the imagination and futile hope of wishful thinkers?