Why did this have to be Christ Church?? If the press discovers Doug Wilson's views on slavery and Theonomy, the narrative will "go south" quickly (pun intended).
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpt from, " Exposing Hidden Anti-Semitism in the Church"
This mirrors the toxic, phony deduction used by Progressives: "If you dissent from my doctrines, you're a racist."
And that indirect quote is irrelevant; Jewish restoration wasn't denied by some of the Puritan commentators I'm aware of. Even Oliver Cromwell was sold on it.
Jim Lincoln wrote: They were certainly going to collapse
- pure hindsight
Sometimes your posts are so riddled with errors, it's like playing Whack-A-Mole identifying them all. Perhaps you like provoking people to get attention, which is a sin.
Jim Lincoln wrote: What's even more interesting, Neil, is how these two groups turned into Unitarians
Well that was over a century later! A lot can change in that time frame, e.g., Scofield Dispensationalism converting "conservative" American churches into a shrill Zionist lobby.
Back when American schoolchildren were taught this with commendation, no one told me what the Mayflower people believed that was at variance with the English church. This letter from John Robinson clarifies a bit:
"Touching ye[the] Ecclesiasticall ministrie, &c. as in ye former, we agree in all things with the French reformed churches, according to their publick confession of faith; though some small differences be to be found in our practises, not at all in ye substance of the things, but only in some accidentall circumstances."
I have noticed downsizing in retail product packaging. What can this be but a way of disguising inflation to consumers who otherwise might balk at a higher price for the same quantity?
Products which can't be cheapened or shrunk easily are definitely more expensive than before, unless they're made in China.
Please excuse my condescending haughtiness here; I'm only trying to pass on anecdotal observations.
Dr. Tim wrote: ...You are blessed indeed if haughtiness is the only one you have.
You attacked my character ("haughty", "condescending") just for making some observations. And whom did I insult? Since you didn't try to refute them, I'll assume it's because I posted something you don't want to hear.
Usually it's Progressives who use this dirty debating trick, but there are exceptions.
Dr. Tim wrote: ... Others, believe it or not, are as well-read as you are. Or more so.
Doesn't sound like a complaint I would expect from someone using the honorific "Doctor."
Folk proverb: "Don't get angry with someone who knows more than you do. It isn't their fault."
IFBs are an American reaction to late Victorian Baptist Convention modernism. They have no historical continuity with the early Church, which is nothing to be ashamed of.
Frank wrote: ... No politician at any level can be elected if they “don’t support” satan’s church.
And anecdotally, I have found that many "evangelicals" have no problem with Catholicism either, so it costs conservative politicians little to pursue Catholic votes.
Even Libertarian hero Ron Paul, if I recall, spoke approvingly of the pope. Catholicism has been dominant in America for over a century; "Paleo" Protestants like me are considered cranks or worse; I have even heard Fundy Baptists disown the label "Protestant." And Reformed/Presby churches are well on their way to Rome too, as Trinity Foundation tells us.
Pre-Victorian churches would be shocked at how backslidden modern evangelicals are, both doctrinally and morally.
As the article says, the black community, thanks to genetic entropy, tends to have more of certain diseases, so I don't think it's unreasonable to have such a preference.
Plus there's this: "...she has been talked down to, misdiagnosed or dismissed by doctors." We can empathize: male doctors (white or otherwise) tend to assume women patients are hypochondriac flakes who report phony symptoms to get attention. So I don't blame my wife for preferring women doctors.
It's getting hard to count the number of Christian celebrities over the years, including those I have admired, who have "fallen" doctrinally or morally. It seems only a matter of time. Lesson: We should stop relying on these people and their works to motivate us; the Bible, with the Spirit, is sufficient.
Churches enable this pattern by pushing this or that shallow Sunday School book on their members (as the one I attend does now). Seems like a publishing racket.
Frank wrote: .. There used to be a joke when I was young that if you don’t like something science says today, just wait and they will change it.
Especially when the "research" is funded by interested parties, be it the gov't, corporations, NGOs, or foundations. If Conflict of Interest is a good reason to discredit a witness in court, then it's an equally good reason to dismiss scientific claims outright.
Science had more integrity when it was a hobby of gentlemen, who of course were still capable of falling prey to bias and poor reasoning (e.g. Darwin's Descent with Modification, an inductive fallacy).
Looters can take comfort that long before Karl Mark, the RCC rationalized theft in Aquinas's "Summa Theologica," the definitive text for anti-capitalist Catholic Social Teaching:
"It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need."
The qualification "extreme" is conveniently vague. Naturally, leftists have all sorts of extreme needs, such as eliminating capitalists.
IMHO, the decline in fear of God and along with it, shame. Even my unbelieving parents (b. before WW2) were shocked when one of their longtime friends divorced because of adultery. Since that generation, the shame of divorce has evaporated.
I say "fear of God" to include those who, while they may not be believers, still have a general fear of eternal consequences.
The rise of the Welfare State, which financially enables irresponsibility. hasn't helped either.
9/26/2020 8:35 PM
