Absolutely heartless commentary
So many habbenings NCSWIC what a proof!
This isn’t stickied. But some good theories are
Still nothing
Per usual, it's nothing.
Just like 3/11 (11.3) and the ides of March (3/15)?
Just like the 3/11 (11.3) booms?
Is this a joke?
I took around 0.4mg per kg of body weight. I weigh 150lb/68kg which came out to roughly 27mg. On my horse paste, a single click was 50mg so half a click is what I did.
I don't have any direction on specific resources. I also am not sure what type of violence you're referring to (i.e. war, self-defense, etc.). I'm more just sharing my personal thoughts on the matter.
The need/justification of violence in certain scenarios will not be neatly found in a proof-text / verse in the Bible. Unfortunately, the idealistic non-violence views are likely coming from doing just that: proof-texting / cherry-picking things that Jesus said (i.e. in the Sermon on the Mount). These views are shallow and simplistic.
What will afford one the right handle on such a topic is a robust theological framework/understanding, such as Reformed theology. One that speaks to the nature of God, of man, of human affairs--as inferred by the totality of Scripture and the gospel message it conveys.
For another example, consider the notion of charging interest when lending money. Some will often use a proof-text from the Levitical law to declare interest immoral (typically by referring to it as usury). However, a fully-orbed and properly-deep understanding of Scripture will show you that usury is not merely the charging of interest, but rather the exploitation of the poor by charging exorbitant interest (in other words, predatory lending). A proper understanding of Scripture would allow someone to consider interest as not evil in and of itself, and a fair risk-mitigation provided the rate is proportional to the risk.
I would see violence in much the same way. Nuance and discernment is required as to when there might be a proper usage of it. As an example: is the violence vindictive? It's wrong. Is it a defensive measure in response to an immediate attack on the weak? It's right. In terms of war, I would guess much of the thinking behind "just war" is rooted in similar ideas.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts! Little if any aspect of our human lives is categorically evil. Typically, Christians misuse the Scripture and condemn things categorically because it's easy to not have to discern between right and wrong, but rather be told from a list of rules. But the person who trusts Christ is given the freedom to discern right and wrong and grow in that discernment through trial and error (see Hebrews 5:14)--this is because the good news that we aren't saved by our works!
Actually, the title of your post portrays a misunderstanding of the gospel. The gospel agrees that fear of death is enslaving and comes from evil (see Hebrews 2:14-15). The gospel agrees that religion/worship purely out of fear of death (and the slavery said fear brings) is false and evil.
In fact, the gospel opposes the same organized religion you oppose.
Jesus didn't come to demand you to be his slave; He came, died, and rose to set you free from the fear of death. He did it to set you free from fear.
And He doesn't compel you to come to Him by fear, but by explanation of these simple truths.
God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5). Jesus is the propitiation (guilt-absolving sacrifice) for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Fear has to do with punishment (1 John 4:18), but Christ came so that anybody who would believe Him could rest in the assurance that "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ" (Romans 8:1). Christ came so that we could be adopted as children of the light, and receive for ourselves not a spirit of slavery that keeps us in fear, but a spirit of adoption by which we know God as our Father (Romans 8:15).
Jesus invites you to trust that He is everything you need.
16+ shares bought around $120. Really hoping we go to the moon!
I think it's more nuanced than this, and two things are being conflated here. One aspect is a cultural message (whether the root causes you mention or the "demand"ing young girls don't kill their babies). The other aspect on abortion, however, is the legality of abortion. You're right on the cultural message; however, that doesn't negate the absolute necessity of, as a state or nation, outlawing abortion as murder. Both avenues are needed.
tysm fren. was hoping (well, not really) it would tie back to an alphabet soup org instead of just Planned Parenthood.
Shocking. What's the source of this document? Want to read in it in further detail.
I'm new to investing, but I'm liking holding an S&P 500 ETF such as VOO. Diversifies you across all the big companies and has a great historical average.
I also have roughly 1 GME share via DRS, and about 14 DWAC shares.
I don’t think it’s wrong per se; I just think that if you genuinely hold to a Christian view of marriage then you are unlikely to want a prenup. Most people with a Christian view of marriage see it as the “two becoming one” and something that man should not separate.
A prenup seems to convey a mutual (albeit seemingly benign) level of distrust in the other—at which point I ask: “Why make the marriage vow in the first place?” If your relationship is such that neither of you can fully trust the other to stay until death do you part, then why vow to do so?
If your mutual view of marriage finds one leaving the other as a possible outcome, then marriage is not what you are looking for; rather, you’re looking for some aspects of marriage (sex, cohabitation, procreation, some level of mutual commitment), but not the full scope. In essence, you’re looking to be long term boyfriend and girlfriend.
I just don’t think it’s that deep 🤷♂️
Trump definitely said that loud and clear.