From the news: "Income inequality between husbands and wives has decreased, suggesting some success in women's empowerment but also highlighting the cultural changes to which society has yet to adapt."
Why is decrease in income inequality seen as success? It assumes a falsehood, that income inequality automatically means an unfair situation. If you want equality with someone, based on the nothing of the "it's not fair" whine, rather than equal opportunity for betterment based on your application of effort, get yourself arrested, and be equal in your imprisonment. Socialist thinking is stupid and disgusting.
John UK wrote: Here is today's puzzle for the old timers to keep their brain from addling. 1 John 3:21-24 KJV (21)¬† Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. (22)¬† And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. (23)¬† And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. (24)¬† And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. Why is the same greek word translated 'commandments' in v22, 'commandment' in v23, and 'commandments' in v24?
Without looking into it further, I'll put forth this, John. Context . Commandments of v22 and v24 speak of general commandments. In other words, anything he might say we should do. V23 speaks specifically. Do this. Yet notice there are 2 commands in v23 even though they are joined in the singular "commandment". "Do this" can include more than one thing to do. Of course I cannot claim infallibility on this, just that it's what the words would seem to be saying.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Why, Timothy, just sycophants all over the place‚ĚóūüĎé Mike Pence and Barr are two good examples for Trump. Apparently, these sycophants have been reading the old writings of Lahaye and Falwell ---
From the news:‚ÄúI feel today religion is being driven out of the marketplace of ideas and there‚Äôs a organized militant secular effort to drive religion out of our lives,‚ÄĚ Barr told Dolan
Jim, which part of Barr's statement do you feel is untrue, and why?
Jim Lincoln wrote: Now, the very way that Rush presented ihs slanted ideas were a turn off to me. In the past he has presented himself as an Entertainer - who didn't entertain me. I hope he does consider the more serious things in life, now. So, I hope he'll get his mind off of money which this illness should do, and think about the more serious things in life https://tinyurl.com/qs7bn3c (Christ is All and in All (Colossians 3:11))
Jim Lincoln wrote: Mr. Barr is not without his critics, QC. excerpt from,"Opinions | Eric Holder: William Barr is unfit to be attorney general" https://tinyurl.com/wp287bp The above was stated by Democrat
Quoting Eric Holder? Now there is a trustworthy sourceūüė°
B. McCausland wrote: You seem to have a problem because you understand the word social in a different way. The term social here has to do with the ills a society experiences as a result of the fall. ---
Norman Thomas, 6 time Socialist Party presidential candidate and what he said about the Democratic Party in 1944.
‚ÄúThe American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‚Äėliberalism,‚Äô they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened‚Ä¶. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."
Socialist Democrat Party is what the wacko left should be calling themselves today. They ain't your granddaddy's Democratic Party any more.
The Quiet Christian wrote: It's a tough call, Mike, and not ridculous. I think you have a valid point, but if someone who is unredeemed stumbles across the truth, does that person's status make that truth less true? What if that person acts on that truth? From the Lord's standpoint, without Christ, that person is still wrong and I get that. But can we not encourage the unredeemed to do rightly, apart from Christ, while encouraging them to come to Christ in saving faith?
Sure can. And when an unredeemed sees and acts on truth, it is still the right thing to do, and is no less truth, though his positional standing has not changed. What is true cannot be made untrue, for what is true is determined by God, not man, right positional standing or not.
No, QC, if a couple oriental Buddhists are doing honorable work, and you work beside them, you mustn't do the same honorable work lest you be unequally yoked. You must quit and come out from among them.
If this sounds ridiculous, there's a reason for it.
Lurker wrote: --- I am proud of my children and grandchildren. To inflate and abuse the biblical definition of proud/pride to suggest that this is an affront to God is just plain ignorance and arrogance as children are an heritage unto the Lord."" ---
Adriel wrote: Left against Right again. The Democrat Liberalist socialist movement, predominantly on the Left, today is growing in hostility because it cannot get all the voters they would like. But this is becoming something more than politics whether in state or religion. Domination over all hearts and minds is their primary aim. ---
Fortunately, noisy gibberish doesn't convert into votes. Media cooperation with noise also doesn't convert into votes. Look how noisy Jim/Lincoln is capable of being. How many here has he converted to the left?
James Thomas wrote: --- Thank you Mike for sharing your thoughts and stirring my grey matter up a bit.
Thank you for all your work, James. Hope you enjoyed your grandparent duties! Sorry for the lack of/late response, but life often gets in the way of our plans. In any case, I know we approach Scripture differently, so I won't say much. They are secondary issues in reality, not worth long struggling with brothers or sisters over.
A short story: I admit to reading literally unless it can be clearly, simply shown to be otherwise. It's how I was brought to leave the RCC after spending my first 29 years with it. I just could not make sense of what I spent my life believing, when the Bible clearly said said that which was contradictory to my upbringing. The Lord saw fit to let me find a 200 year old Bible in the attic of a house we bought, led me to read some of it, and led me to believe what it said. No coincidence. Where was truth? I could believe what it said, or I could believe what was taught by the RCC. Choosing the Scripture had no alternative, or more correctly, the Lord made it obvious by leading me to those chapters and verses which I needed to see truth. I looked for no hidden meanings. And here I am, warts and all.