The End of Prophecy - by David Vaughn Elliott

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------------

Our desire to find some coherent commentary regarding the cessationist position has moved from idle curiosity to a genuine quest. Did the supernatural gifts of the Spirit really cease with the death of the last apostle? What is the Scriptural basis for this position?

We located the below commentary, and have posted it here in the hope that this author will make a Scriptural case for cessationism.
-----------------------------

Why do all Bibles end with the book of Revelation? Although some sects consider more recent writings to be inspired, yet nobody has dared to add such writings to the Bible. Why not? It must be that deep down, they know that the apostolic writings are in a class by themselves. And they are. The Holy Spirit exhorts us to "contend for the faith which was once delivered" (Jude 3). From the start of the church, they "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42). Why? Because Jesus had promised the apostles that "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).

All truth. Therefore, when all the apostles were dead, there was no more truth to be revealed, no more books worthy of being considered Scripture. (Like every cessationist we have read, the author connects the revelatory to Scripture, as if all revelation must be included in the canon. This of course is without justification. John concludes his Gospel with this: 

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. [Jn. 21:25] 

So it is quite clear that even many miracles of Jesus were not deemed by the Holy Spirit to be worthy of inclusion in the Holy Writ.

Further, the author seems to imply that the "all truth" was for the apostles only. It's a little difficult to tell, because he glosses over the point with little precision. We pause to address the issue, because the implications speak to the cessationist position. 

As we all know, reading in context is important. Sometimes the context is more than a couple of surrounding verses. John 16:13 comes nearly at the end of a long monologue beginning at John 14:1, right after Judas took the bread. As we read from there we discover that Jesus makes several universal promises, that is, promises that are beyond the Apostles. 

For example, Jn. 14:12: 

I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Jn. 14:21, 23: 

Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him. If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

We read further and find some of the greatest and most precious passages of Scripture, culminating in the promise given in John 16:13 that He will send the Holy Spirit. We must conclude that, absent contextual information to the contrary, that these promises and statements and encouragements belong to all of us, not just the Apostles. Otherwise, we would have to explain away words like "anyone" and "whoever."

Let's examine John 16:13 itself. 

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

Does it really say anywhere that this is promise to the Apostles only, or that when all the apostles were dead, there was no more truth to be revealed? Or does it say that the Holy Spirit will be given, and He will impart truth? Does it speak to cessation of the revelatory God in favor of a silent god? A God that fills the heavens and earth with revelations of Himself, or a god that cuts us loose to fend for ourselves?

One last significant point. The author stopped his quotation half way through verse 13. Here's the rest of it, which drives the final nail into his faulty conclusion:

He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

You see, if "all truth" means no more revelation, then the Holy Spirit would not say what is to come.)

US Appeals Court Blocks Mississippi Abortion Law

Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------

By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS Associated Press

Mississippi's governor and attorney general will have to decide whether to challenge a federal appeals court ruling that is keeping the state's only abortion clinic in business.

A panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 Tuesday to block a 2012 Mississippi law that requires abortion doctors to obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. (So the law makes a reasonable requirement that doctors performing abortions have medical standing, that is, they're of a reputation and skill that a local hospital would work with them by admitting their clients.)

When Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed the law, he said he hoped it would end abortion in the state. In defending the law, state attorneys said women with unwanted pregnancies could always travel to other states. But the appellate judges ruled that every state must guarantee constitutional rights, including abortion. (So the court doesn't address the professional status of abortion doctors, it addresses access to abortion. The court said that is is more important to get an abortion than it is to have a highly skilled doctor performing it.

But worse than that is the court's flawed reasoning: Guaranteeing a constitutional right to abortion is the same thing as having the ability to get an abortion without having to go out of state. This is truly tortured logic. This places the state in the position of not only safeguarding the exercise of rights, but ensuring the means exists to exercise them, i.e., removing obstacles from the operation of a business enterprise that provides abortion services.

Let's see how this flies with rights that are actually enumerated in the Constitution. There are no churches in a particular region, so the court rules that building codes must be suspended so that a church facility can be built. The last gun shop in the state is about to close because of onerous gun regulations. The court therefore nullifies all gun control laws.

Can you see how screwy the ruling is?)

Bryant, in a statement late Tuesday, said he was disappointed by the court's ruling.

"This measure is designed to protect the health and safety of women who undergo this potentially dangerous procedure, and physicians who provide abortions should be held to the same standards as physicians who perform other outpatient procedures," Bryant said.

Ten states have adopted similar laws, forcing a growing number of clinics to close. Many hospitals ignore or reject abortion doctors' applications, and won't grant privileges to out-of-state physicians. Both obstacles were encountered by the traveling doctors who staff Mississippi's last open clinic, the Jackson Women's Health Organization. (So actually it is the fault of the hospitals for having high standards for doctors to have admitting privileges. The court should have simply forced hospitals to grant admitting privileges, I guess.)

The ruling from the conservative 5th Circuit was narrowly crafted to address the situation in Mississippi, but it could have implications for the other states with similar laws and dwindling access to abortion, such as Wisconsin and Alabama, whose officials have said women could cross state lines if clinics close, said the center's litigation director, Julie Rikelman.

Attorneys for Mississippi argued that if the state's last clinic closed, women could still get abortions in other states. But the judges said the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established a constitutional right to abortion for all citizens — and that Mississippi may not shift its obligations to other states. (How can a constitutional right be "established?" It isn't possible. A "constitutional right" is simply a right that was enumerated by the Constitution as it defined the limits of government. Rights are endowed by the Creator as a fact of existence, which makes them unalienable.

The right to abortion is a legal right, not a constitutional right. A future court could easily reverse Roe v. Wade. However, an unalienable right can only be violated, not reversed.)

"Pre-viability, a woman has the constitutional right to end her pregnancy by abortion," wrote judges E. Grady Jolly of Mississippi and Stephen A. Higginson of Louisiana. The law signed by Bryant "effectively extinguishes that right within Mississippi's borders," they said. (Truly astonishing. A right that depends on a business operating in certain geographical borders is not a right at all, it is an operation of commerce by private parties. This makes no sense at all.)

Supporters of admitting-privileges laws say they protect women's health by ensuring that a physician who performs an abortion in a clinic would also be able to treat the patient in a hospital in case of complications.

Opponents say the requirement is unnecessary, since patients in distress are automatically treated in emergency rooms, and that it gives religious-affiliated hospitals veto power over who can work in an abortion clinic and, by extension, whether a clinic can stay open.

"Today's ruling ensures women who have decided to end a pregnancy will continue, for now, to have access to safe, legal care in their home state," Center for Reproductive Rights president Nancy Northup said Tuesday.

A different panel of the 5th Circuit, which handles cases from Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, upheld a 2013 Texas law requiring physicians to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. In that March ruling, the judges said traveling fewer than 150 miles to obtain an abortion is "not an undue burden."

Even now, women from Iuka, Mississippi, in the state's northeast corner, need to drive 280 miles to reach Jackson.

The clinic remains open, using out-of-state physicians who travel to Mississippi to do abortions several times a month. For years, the clinic has had an agreement with a local physician who will meet a patient at a Jackson hospital in case of complications. Clinic owner Diane Derzis has said such complications are rare. (We know this to be false. There were 1.4 million abortions in North America in 2012, and 6% of them are considered unsafe, as reported by the Guttmacher Institute, which is the data gathering arm of Planned Parenthood. That's 84,000 unsafe abortions EACH YEAR. And 2220 women had abortions in Mississippi in 2011, so 133 were unsafe. That is not "rare" by any measure. 

As an aside, 25% of those abortions are done on Hispanic women, yet they only represent 2.5% of the population. Hmm.)  

The Full Employment Route to Poverty Reduction - by Dean Baker

This post originally appeared at TalkPoverty.org. Posted here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------

Efforts to alleviate poverty are often seen as being separate from the debate on overall economic policy, with the former involving a distinct set of issues that only marginally overlap with the latter. This is unfortunate, since the health of the economy and specifically the level of unemployment, has an enormous impact on the prospects of the poor. In fact, there are few policies that are likely to have as much effect on improving the plight of the poor or near poor as a genuine commitment to full employment economic policies. (Commitment by whom? You will discover the governo-centric perspective is all that will be considered by the writer. Like most Leftists, the writer believes solutions to society's problems all come from government programs.)

There are three separate channels through which a reduction in the unemployment rate is likely to benefit low-income people. The first is simply by increasing their probability of finding jobs. Unemployment is not evenly distributed throughout the workforce; the less-educated and disadvantaged see the sharpest rises in unemployment when the economy goes into a downturn. (Because they are the least qualified and least productive. More highly trained and experienced workers, though they lose their jobs, are more likely to be able to find a replacement job, even at a lower wage, whereas the lowest skilled workers have nowhere to go.)

In the year prior to the beginning of the recession, the unemployment rate for workers without a high school degree averaged just over 7.0 percent. Its average for 2010 was 14.8 percent, an increase of 7.8 percentage points.

In the year prior to the beginning of the recession, the unemployment rate for workers without a high school degree averaged just over 7.0 percent. Its average for 2010 was 14.8 percent, an increase of 7.8 percentage points. For workers with high school degrees the unemployment rate went from 4.3 percent to 10.3 percent, a rise of 6.0 percentage points. By contrast, the unemployment rate for college grads rose by just 2.7 percentage points, from 2.0 percent to 4.7 percent. While everyone got hit by the downturn, clearly those with less education saw the greatest increase in their risk of being unemployed.

There is a similar story about race. The unemployment rate for whites rose from 4.1 percent in the years before the downturn to 8.7 percent in 2010, a rise of 4.6 percentage points. The unemployment rate for African-Americans rose from 8.2 percent to 16.0 percent in 2010, a rise of 7.8 percentage points. The unemployment rate for Hispanics went from 5.6 percent before the downturn to 12.5 percent, an increase of 6.9 percentage points. (I wonder if the writer is able to make the connection that President Obama has presided over this unfortunate situation?)

There are various explanations as to why less educated and African American and Hispanic workers see the sharpest rise in unemployment during downturns, but there is little debate about this outcome. Also, there is no evidence of any change in this pattern as the economy has recovered, despite the claims of some analysts.

For the first five months of 2014 the unemployment rate for workers without high school degrees averaged 9.5 percent, a drop of 5.3 percentage points from 2010 levels. The unemployment rate for college grads averaged 3.3 percent, a decline of 1.4 percentage points from recession peaks. This means the least educated workers have actually made more progress in getting back to pre-recession unemployment rates than the most educated workers. If the unemployment rate were to return to pre-recession levels for the population as a whole, it would almost certainly fall back to pre-recession levels for the less educated and minorities as well. (Here we have a conclusion based on the idea that there is a recovery, and that this recovery has manifested in returning to the former levels and kinds of employment. I suppose that because of the unabashed cheerleading in the media about the wonderful results of Obama's economic policies, the writer actually believes there is a recovery. However, the great majority of jobs added are service jobs, which means that low-skill workers aren't going to get those jobs. As stated above, higher skill workers who lost their jobs have taken them.)

In addition to the unemployment channel, workers at the bottom of the income ladder are also likely to benefit from low unemployment as a result of having the opportunity to work more hours. In my book with Jared Bernstein, Getting Back to Full Employment (free download available), we show that the late 1990s boom was associated with an increase of 17 percent in the total number of hours worked for households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution. By contrast, the increase in hours worked for households in the top two income quintiles was just 1.0 percent. There are many low-income people who would like to be able to put in more hours on the job. The low unemployment of the late 1990s, which bottomed out at 4.0 percent as a year-round average in 2000, provided this opportunity.

If full employment of the sort that we saw at the end of the 1990s could be sustained for a long period of time, it would almost certainly lead to a substantial reduction in poverty rates and a large improvement in living standards for low-income people. (Duh. So people being able to work lowers poverty? Who da thunk?)

Finally, low unemployment provides workers at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution with the bargaining power they need to get a share of the economy’s growth. Hourly wages have been largely stagnant for these workers for most of the last three decades. (All the way up through the upper middle class, in fact. The writer seems incurious why that might be.) However, in the years from 1996-2000, workers at the middle and bottom saw substantial wage gains. According to our analysis, a sustained 1.0 percentage point drop in the unemployment rate translates to a 9.8 percent increase in the wages of a worker at the 20th percentile of the wage distribution. It would lead to a wage gain for a worker in the middle of the wage distribution of 4.2 percent. It has little effect on the wages of workers at the top of the income distribution. (Does the writer have any idea why that period was good for employment?)

For these reasons, a full employment policy is an effective way to increase the opportunities and income of people at the bottom. If full employment of the sort that we saw at the end of the 1990s could be sustained for a long period of time, it would almost certainly lead to a substantial reduction in poverty rates and a large improvement in living standards for low-income people.

When the unemployment rate was falling to thirty-year lows in the late 1990s the press had accounts of suburban hotels and restaurants chartering busses to pick workers up in the inner cities and drive them to their jobs in the suburbs. There were stories of employers providing day care facilities and even making arrangements to accommodate elder care for workers caring for aging parents. Some firms actively sought out workers with disabilities. In a tight labor market, firms will make extraordinary efforts to recruit employees whom at other times they would likely not hire.

Full employment is also a desirable policy because it goes directly against the “makers versus takers” line that many conservatives push. (This passing remark, taking a shot at conservatives, constructs a straw man left dangling without context.) Full employment is about giving people at the bottom the opportunity to work. In this same context, not pursuing full employment is effectively a policy of not offering people an opportunity to work. (So far the buzz phrase "full employment" has been tossed about several times, but never has the writer broached the subject of how this functions in the economy. The next sentence, however, contains an astounding explanation of how this will happen.)

This is a crucial point. We can talk about a policy to promote full employment — by investing in infrastructure, spending on retrofitting buildings or solar paneling to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or subsidizing pre-K education; (Were you able to catch your breath after that? I'm still reeling a bit. Notice that everything in this list is make-work government programs and leftist cause de jours. Nothing here about businesses needing workers because demand has increased [a real indicator of economic recovery]. Nothing about there being a need to hire because businesses are expanding. No mention of legislative environment, tax policy, regulatory changes, or anything that might indicate the writer's understanding about why businesses hire. No, instead the writer wants government programs.) but accepting a higher level of unemployment is also a policy decision. We know that we can get more growth and lower rates of unemployment with more government spending. There is enough research on this topic that it should no longer be a debatable point. (No, we do NOT know this. This is total nonsense. Government money first belonged to the taxpayer. Government must take it from someone before it can spend it. This is simply a reallocation of existing money, where government spends it where it wants rather than the private person choosing his own spending habits. It is the profligate spending of government that has kept a damper on any sort of recovery. 

On the contrary, it is government spending that has kept a large number of people destitute and unemployed. We are entering our 6th year of anemic economic growth. Most downturns last 18-24 months, unless government steps in an meddles with its solutions. Then they last years.

Back in the late 90's government was starting to get its deficit spending under control. There was substantial welfare reform. As the writer noted above, unemployment was lower. There were no infrastructure initiatives or government make-work programs to speak of. The economy itself was responding to the very real idea that government was making an effort to get out of the way.
Business values stability, the ability to anticipate whether or not the legal, legislative, and economic policy environment is going to be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. Business wants to be able to plan and make projections. It doesn't want to be surprised by obamacare-like programs that turn the economic world upside down. Nothing in the current environment inspires the confidence of business. Quite the contrary, business is very careful about risking anything. The situation, the "recovery," simply doesn't warrant taking the risk.)

We can also get lower rates of unemployment by reducing the size of the trade deficit. If we can increase our exports and replace imports with domestically produced goods and services, it will increase output and lead to more jobs. If we were to eliminate the trade deficit altogether and have balanced trade, it would create almost 6 million jobs. The trade deficit is also the result of policy decisions, most importantly ones pertaining to the value of the dollar. A dollar that costs less in foreign currencies makes our goods cheaper for the rest of the world to purchase, and makes imports more expensive. We could make deals with foreign countries to raise the value of their currency against the dollar as President Reagan did with the Plaza Accord in 1985, but our trade policy has taken a different direction. (Sigh. WHY is there a trade deficit? If it costs more to make a product domestically than to buy it from China, isn't in natural for purchasing to shift to China? If because of heavy regulation, complex and stifling taxation, and a whole assortment of other economic factors, businesses shift their purchasing to get the most bang for the buck, why would they make their products here?)

There may be reasons why people want smaller budget deficits, but pushing for deficit reduction in the current economic environment is ultimately a policy of denying people jobs. (No, no, no, no. First, as far as the Left is concerned, there is NEVER good time to reduce deficits. Second, reducing the deficit is not the same as lowering the national debt. Third, government doesn't create jobs. As we noted above, government money is sourced from the private sector. There is no net gain when government employs people. 

Fourth, what is the "current economic environment?" Is this a tacit admission that all is not as rosy as we thought? And why is the writer afraid of government getting its economic house in order? Will that be an admission that the economy does much better without the government coming in to "rescue" us?  In the same vein, supporting a high dollar, and therefore a large trade deficit, is also a policy of denying people jobs. And, since higher unemployment reduces the bargaining power of workers and leads to lower wages, a high unemployment policy is a policy that provides employers with low-cost labor, exacerbating economic inequality. (The writer doesn't seem to make the connection that if no one is buying, there is no need to make things, and no need to hire people. therefore, an unemployed worker has no bargaining power. If the labor pool is large for the number of potential jobs, the worker either chooses to work at the wage offered, or remains unemployed. The worker should have no power when the economy is faltering.)

In short, a full employment policy is a tremendously effective way to increase the income and opportunities available to the poor and near poor. But the high unemployment policy we currently have in place is one that redistributes income upward and denies people the jobs they need to escape poverty.


Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. His blog, Beat the Press, features commentary on economic reporting. (Whew. Apparently this man is educated. Unfortunately, he seems more maleducated, or perhaps he is unable to separate his leftist politics from his economic understandings. In any event, it just goes to show you that a long list of credentials is no indicator of trustworthiness or competence.)

Time for authoritative men to stop dictating to women - letter by Carol Stahl

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------

Ms. Stahl makes the most egregiously fascist (I don't mean political fascism) statements I have ever read from a Leftist. Amazingly, she comes out and directly says what every Leftist secretly believes but will violently deny when confronted. 

If you can contain your astonishment, read the entirety of her letter below.
------------------------ 

Women and girls are persons. “Persons cannot rightly be forced to make their bodies available as incubators to unwanted nonpersons for nine months, especially considering the physical dangers, emotional trauma, and drastic life-changes pregnancy entails” teaches bioethics professor Andrew Johnson of Missouri State U. (The first step towards fascism is to deny personhood, that is, to establish distinctions between the value of certain kinds of human life. Personhood is a legal status, not an ethical one. 

Here we have a "bioethics professor" inventing a hierarchy of values favoring the mother over her unborn child, a framework which raises the mother's interests and diminish the child's.

Implicit in this denial of personhood is that one party is enabled to make decisions detrimental to the other without consideration of that party's interests. Interestingly, the "bioethics professor" essentially argues against pregnancy itself as dangerous and detrimental, rather than in favor of abortion.)  

Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not persons. (As soon as one can define away someone's personhood, they become property which can be disposed of at will, which is what happened to black slaves and the Jews in Germany.) 

Montana’s only congressman Daines pushes an immoral, unethical lie by introducing “personhood legislation” that equates zygotes, embryos and fetuses with women. (Notice the use of terms like "immoral" and "unethical." Ms. Stahl is happy to pass judgment on Daines by imposing her morality on him. On what basis should her morality prevail is left unexplained.)

Not all humans are persons. (A tacit admission that fetuses are human.) Braindead people sustained by life support are a tragic example. (Which means that anyone not conforming to Ms. Stahl's definition of personhood can be killed without reservation or moral problem. The emotional well being of others takes priority. 

The interests of the State most certainly can weigh in on its interests as well. "Non persons" are expensive and do not generate revenue.) 

Intelligence, autonomy, self-awareness, emotion, future-regarding intentions and moral responsibility are characteristics of persons. These characteristics are not present in human zygotes, embryos or fetuses. (We can on this basis speculate regarding who else might be deemed non-persons. Those affected with Downs Syndrome or autism. An infant or child up to the age of perhaps 3 years. Any individual with an I.Q. of less than, say, 80. A person deemed stupid because of political persuasion or religious belief. The elderly if they require substantial assistance because they lack "autonomy." 

Ms. Stahl would have to explain to use why her rules for personhood would be excepted in any of these cases, and also, who gets to decide their personhood.)   

Women’s reproductive health has been a subject fascinating to authoritarian men since the beginning of time. The bizarre theories men propose are contrary to women’s experience and intelligence. Daines’s insulting “personhood legislation” is as much a waste as was his vote to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to shut down our government. (The legislation says this: "The terms 'human person' and 'human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being." There is nothing particularly noteworthy here, certainly nothing insulting to women. It simply changes the definition of personhood to conform with medical knowledge about when life begins. It rejects the notion that human beings must be capable of a a particular level of cognitive or physical ability in order to be considered persons.)

It’s time authoritarian men give up attempting to dictate women’s reproductive choices. If men got pregnant, birth control would be marketed as relentlessly as Viagra.

Carol Stahl



Bozeman

My 'Naked' Truth - Robin Korth

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------

A FB friend I deeply respect posted this, expressing her admiration for its poignancy and power. The thing is, my friend is a Christian, a discerning one at that, but seemed to miss the fact that the author of the article was a divorcee bedding men she had just met online. 

I have included the FB conversation below the article. Read on:
------------------------------

Naked, I stood at the closet doors with the lights on and made myself ready. I took a deep breath and positioned the mirrors so I could see all of me. I consciously worked to remove my self-believed inner image. I opened my eyes and looked very carefully at my body. And my heart lurched at the truth: I am not a young woman anymore. I am a woman well-lived. My body tells of all the years she has carried my spirit through life.

I am a 59-year-old woman in great health and in good physical shape. I stand five-feet, nine-inches tall and weigh 135 pounds. I wear a size six in both jeans and panties, and my breasts are nowhere near my navel. In fact, they still struggle to make it full-up in a B-cup bra. My thighs are no longer velvet and my buttocks have dimples. My upper arms wobble a bit and my skin shows the marks of the sun. There is a softness around my waist that is no longer perfectly taut, and the pout of my abdomen attests to a c-section that took its bikini flatness -- but gave me a son.

Why this brutal scrutiny of myself? It was time to counter the damage of my culture, my own soft-held fear and to pour warm love on my own soul. It was time to claim every mark and not-perfect inch of my own body -- a body that had been called "too wrinkled" by a man who was fetched by my energy and my mind, but did not like the bare truth of me. His name was Dave and he was 55 years old.

We met on a dating site. Dave was interesting, gentlemanly and bright. He held my hand and toured with me on long bicycle rides. He drove many miles to come to my door. He made meals for us both and ruffled my dog's happy head. I was enticed and longed for the full knowing of this man. And so, we planned a weekend together. That's when things got confusing, unspoken and just-not-quite there. We went to bed in a couple's way -- unclothed and touching -- all parts near. Kisses were shared and sleep came in hugs. I attempted more intimacy throughout the weekend and was deterred each time.

On Monday evening over the phone, I asked this man who had shared my bed for three nights running why we had not made love. "Your body is too wrinkly," he said without a pause. "I have spoiled myself over the years with young woman. I just can't get excited with you. I love your energy and your laughter. I like your head and your heart. But, I just can't deal with your body."

I was stunned. The hurt would come later. I asked him slowly and carefully if he found my body hard to look at. He said yes. "So, this means seeing me naked was troublesome to you?" I asked. He told me he had just looked away. And when the lights were out, he pretended my body was younger -- that I was younger. My breath came deep and full as I processed this information. My face blazed as I felt embarrassed and shamed by memories of my easy nakedness with him in days just passed.

We talked for some time more, my head reeling at the content of the conversation. He spoke of special stockings and clothing that would "hide" my years. He blithely told me he loved "little black dresses" and strappy shoes. He said my hair was not long and flowing as he preferred, but that was okay because it was "cool looking." I felt like a Barbie Doll on acid as I listened to this man. He was totally oblivious to the viciousness of his words. He had turned me into an object to be dressed and positioned to provide satisfaction for his ideas of what female sexual perfection should be.

He explained that now that I knew what was required, we could have a great time in the bedroom. I told him no. I would not hide from my own body. I would not wear outfits to make my body more "tolerable." I would not undress in the dark or shower with the bathroom door closed. I would not diminish myself for him -- or for anyone. My body is beautiful and it goes along with my mind and my heart.

When I told Dave that I never wanted to see or hear from him again, he was confused and complained that I was making a big deal out of nothing. He whined that I had taken a small part of our relationship and made it a major event. I didn't even want to try to explain the hurt and the horror that he had inflicted upon me. I actually felt sickly sorry for this man as I hung up the phone. It was after this call that I went to the bedroom and gently stripped off my clothes.

As I looked in the mirror -- clear-eyed and brave -- I claimed every inch of my body with love, honor and deep care. This body is me. She has held my soul and carried my heart for all of my days. Each wrinkle and imperfection is a badge of my living and of my giving of life. With tears in my eyes, I hugged myself close. I said thank you to God for the gift of my body and my life. And I said thank you to a sad man named Dave for reminding me of how precious it all is.
----------------------

F.B. conversation:

Me: Permit me to respectfully disagree. If she had stayed with the husband of her youth, they would have grown old together and this would probably not be an issue. The fallout from her divorce is now she sleeps around with shallow guys, and is surprised to learn that men tend to be extremely visual. I don't mean to be offensive or to minimize her hurt.

B.S.: [female] Wow, Rich. That is a leap. There is no mention of how she came to be single in the article. Perhaps she was a widow.

Me: Read her profile. She's divorced with two children.

B.R.: Rich, still, you don't know the circumstances...Perhaps he left her for a younger woman...Perhaps he beat her...who knows how people end up in places of devastation in their lives. I think it it's presumptuous to assume less than the best about anyone. The point of the article was to say that she was wrestling and coming to grips with her own body as it aged. That could have been her own husband's response to her. All I'm saying is that it a sensitive look at life.

Me: As I said, I don't want to offend. I'll bow out.

K.I.: [female] Wow this is really beautiful. Sad that the man was such a jerk. But I love that she was able to see herself as beautiful beyond what he said and still love herself. I hope all women see themselves that way. Young or old.

J.Y.: [male] Wow, just wow. I don't know whether to be disgusted or enlightened. No one deserves to die alone but we each make our choices in life (you make your bed, now sleep in it). On a humorous note: this old dude still hasn't learned the #1 rule. Never share your opinions with a naked women lest you want to eat breakfast alone.

B.S.: Ah, J.Y., such a wise one....

Prophecy and the Closed Canon - John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

We previously discussed Dr. MacArthur's perspective here.
-----------------------------

The cessationist point of view, here represented by Dr. MacArthur, is that the miraculous has ceased, that the death of the last Apostle meant the end of what are known as the "supernatural" gifts.

Dr. MacArthur presents his reasons for being a cessationist below. Unfortunately, he does not provide good ones.
------------------------

There is no fresher or more intimate revelation than Scripture. God doesn't need to give us private revelation to help us in our walk with Him. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16 - 17). Scripture is sufficient. It offers all we need for every good work. (Dr. MacArthur twists the meaning of the text. Notice that the text makes the point that all Scripture is inspired and profitable, but Dr. MacArthur changes this to Scripture is "all we need." This is dishonest, since the text does not tell us this. And it is false, since we also have the brethren to assist us, authors and preachers like Dr. MacArthur, and of course, the Holy Spirit. 

We also note the irony of Dr. MacArthur's claim that Scripture is all we need, while he himself is providing an extra-biblical resource by writing his article.

Dr. MacArthur therefore appeals to this passage to establish an idea that is foreign to the text.)

Worship, a Manifesto - repost

Note: My comments specifically address musical worship. That is not the only form that worship takes, but it is my particular passion. This is directed to those who want to be worshipers, in a church that wants to be a worshiping church.

1) The High Calling

As we walk through our Christian life we probably have a number of spiritual priorities. Things like love, obedience, service, giving, and holiness, among other things. All of these are noble and worthy of pursuit. I would not diminish any of them, but I believe they all descend from one single, primary thing.

Jesus tells us the greatest commandment in Matt 22:37: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” As far as I can tell, Jesus identifies only one thing the Father is looking for. Only one. In John 4:23, He tells the Samaritan woman at the well: "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." My conclusion is that there is nothing more important to God than for us to be true worshipers.

This understanding is foundational; here is our high calling. We are created to be worshipers, first and foremost! Our calling is to possess a heart and soul and mind fully occupied with celebrating the glories of God. Psalm 71:8: “My mouth is filled with your praise, declaring your splendor all day long.” I believe that this is our duty, our privilege, our pleasure.

As I read through Scripture I take note of all the mentions of singers, dancers, worshipers, musicians. I see all the pivotal moments where worship was present and powerful. I read about how the musicians were noted specially by name in Scripture. David, Israel’s singer of songs. Jubal, the father of all who play the harp and flute. The musicians Heman, Asaph and Ethan, who were cymbal players. Zechariah, Aziel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Unni, Eliab, Maaseiah and Benaiah, who played lyres. Mattithiah, Eliphelehu, Mikneiah, Obed-Edom, Jeiel and Azaziah on the harps. Kenaniah the head Levite, who was in charge of the singing; that was his responsibility because he was skillful at it. The Bible takes great pains to enumerate the worshipers and musicians. Clearly God regards musical worship as important.

So, I wonder if we are underestimating or misunderstanding the role that musical worship plays in the Kingdom of God. We seem to have a way of doing things in the church that is more based on what we have always done. But shouldn’t we be doing what God wants? If we choose anything other than God’s purpose we violate Scripture, our purpose, and the heart of God. I know these are harsh words, but permit me to make my case in the following pages. Let me also say that none of these remarks are directed at any particular person or group.

2) Worship and Relationship

God is all about relationship. After all, Christ died on the cross in order to establish relationship between God and fallen man. But salvation is not the end, it is the beginning, the beginning of a lifetime of relationship with God via His Holy Spirit. And that developing relationship with God occurs in an environment of worship.

In His presence we discover His heart. We are transformed, enabled, and instructed. We draw near to the Father in the Most Holy Place. There is no way we can be in the presence of God without being changed. The world is washed from us and our weakness fades away. Our spirits become tender to receive from Him. Christ-likeness springs from relationship with Him. We learn what to do and how to live from being with Him. We become what we are called to, because we know Him and spend time with Him and listen to Him and attend to Him.

Our relationship with the Father translates into what our human relationships ought to be. So, as we become the worshipers the Father is looking for, we become the church the Father is looking for. As we nurture our relationship with God we grow together as body. The result is we begin to see the purposes of God made known in our midst. Relationship, first with God and then with each other, will manifest in a church when worship becomes important to the church.

This suggests that worship needs to rise up in importance in our lives.

Real Business Leaders Want to Save Capitalism - by Robert Reich

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
-------------------------------
Robert Reich is a lawyer and professor, who served as Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton. He was a Rhodes scholar, and apparently is a pretty smart guy. So we would do well to realize that even smart people aren't the brightest when it comes to their inability to see things outside their world view. Read on:
-------------------------------

A few weeks ago I was visited in my office by the chairman of one of the country’s biggest high-tech firms who wanted to talk about the causes and consequences of widening inequality and the shrinking middle class, and what to do about it. (As is typical for the Left, the identified problem always has to do with some people not getting what they deserve while others get more than their fair share.)

I asked him why he was concerned. “Because the American middle class is the core of our customer base,” he said. “If they can’t afford our products in the years ahead, we’re in deep trouble.” (This is true, but the problem exists apart from income inequality. Mr. Reich will want to make a necessary connection between the two, but he never takes the time to demonstrate it.)

Elizabeth Prata and the silence of God

Ms. Prata is commenting on her own article about Beth Moore, found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------------

We critiqued Ms. Prata's article here. As we noted, absent from that article was any direct scriptural explanation of what she found offensive or heretical about Beth Moore. 

In the below comment she tries to explain. And she will barely quote Scripture.

We should note that we are not defending Beth Moore, we are simply critiquing Ms. Prata.
-----------------------------

I dismiss the “way God speaks to her” utterly and completely. The still small voice is something that God did once for Elijah to make a point. (This is an unsupported assertion. She cannot know this regarding Elijah, and she cannot know how the prophets of old heard the voice of God.) 

The church today, and especially undiscerning women, have incorrectly adopted the still small voice method as a normal means God speaks. However, God does not speak to people today outside of scripture. (Let's see if she is able to back up this assertion.) 

Moore often claims extra-biblical revelation and teaches from that basis and not from the bible. Here are 2 links to help you understand this critical fact. http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs... http://www.gty.org/resources/q... (Neither link is particularly helpful. We find some additional links when we go to the second one for John MacArthur, but the problems we see with his presentation are too much to go into on this post. We shall devote a future post to analyze his presentation.)

In addition, I strive to use scripture as the basis for the points I am making. It is important to always use the word as the basis because that is absolute truth. You should strive to use the word to make your point and not personal exhortations and dream revelation, also. (Ironic that Ms. Prata takes an entire paragraph to "exhort" her interlocutor without referencing any Scripture...)

As for your dream, yes God “chooses” how He will speak to us. In former times He chose to speak directly, through prophets, dreams, signs, miracles, a cloud, a pillar of fire, earthquake, thunder, a still small voice, a donkey, the Law, and His incarnated son. (Has Ms. Prata ever read Ac. 2:17-18? 

“In the last days,' God says, 'I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy." 

Not "former times," but "in the last days." Are we not in the last days?)

Now He said He will speak through the word.

“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son “(Hebrews 1:1-2). (Waaait. Ms. Prata appears confused. She previously said that "He will speak through the word." Now she quotes the actual verse and it says "He has spoken to us in His Son." Further, the very next verse says, "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." If Jesus is silent, how can He be "sustaining all things?" Is His Word no longer sustaining things? 

We also need to note that Bible is not synonymous with "the word." The word ῥῆμα means a thing spoken, (a) a word or saying of any kind, as command, report, promise, (b) a thing, matter, business. That is, Jesus is "breathing out" his word and "sustaining all things." 

It is also a title given to Jesus, as He is, among other things, the voice of God communicating his excellent word to mankind. The Bible is the transcription of that. Jesus stands above his word even as an author stands above his writings. The two are not the same.

Is Jesus really not speaking in his Church in this day? He. 4:12: 

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." 

Ms. Prata's muddled theology requires the silence of the Living God.)  

The canon is closed (Rev 22:18-19). (It seems that cessationists have a real reluctance to actually quote the Bible. That passage says, 

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. 

So where does it talk about the canon? Well, it doesn't. The passage speaks warning to those who would add or subtract anything to the prophecy of this book, That is, the prophecy of Revelation. It says nothing about the N.T. gift of prophecy.

Further, the closed canon is completely irrelevant to the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the prophetic.)

(...)

Yes Beth More’s teaching “makes me uncomfortable” because it is outside the bounds of the orthodoxy Jesus died to deliver once for all to the saints.(Jude 1:3). (Um, "the faith," not Scripture.)

I just wish you were more uncomfortable with it.

As for the still small voice and the dream experience, He will not go back on His word in Hebrews and Jude to then personally deliver new teachings to Moore (Thousands of new sermons are preached every Sunday. When did it become heretical to preach a new teaching? And don't cessationists believe the Holy Spirit enlightens the scriptures? So how is it that God doesn't "personally deliver" revelation?) 

with instructions to pass them on(!) or give dreams to you. Dreams were some of the former “many ways” but no longer can be trusted because God closed the canon and speaks through His word now. (Repeats her assertion but hasn't demonstrated it.) 

The Bible must be the final and only authority on all matters of faith -what we believe- and practice. (No Christian would disagree.)

Peter of all people said that he had reason to speak through His testimony, having seen the glorified Christ, but he said the word is better. (2 Peter 1:19). (Once again we are left without actual scriptures quoted. we'll let you try to figure out how can be construed to say what the author asserts: 

And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Paul said the same. (2 Cor 12:2). (Sigh. Same challenge. How does this say what she says it says: 

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know — God knows. 

 Why you say different?

Time to start over with a new judicial system - letter by John Shellenberger

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

---------------------------

The Left loves democracy. Except when they don't like the results. Then, the Left loves the courts. Except when they don't like the results. Then, they love executive power. Except when they don't like the results. 

The Left are functional totalitarians. They will insist on their agenda and worldview by any means possible. They will force people to conform via law, court order, executive order, protest, blockade, boycott, violence, or shame, as needed to advance their agenda. Astonishingly, even when they are in the minority they assert that majority is obstructionist!  

So here we have a letter from a Leftist who doesn't like some recent Supreme court rulings. His solution? A decidedly undemocratic call to impeach the justices. Read on:

-----------------------------------

The Supreme Court has to go! Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened to add more justices when the court was usurping political power and this president would be justified in doing the same. (Because it's all about the agenda. Rather than a system of checks and balances, the author wants power tilted toward the presidency because, again, of the AGENDA. Anything is justified in the name of the agenda.

The author appeals to Roosevelt, but it was Roosevelt who was overstepping his constitutional restraints by rejecting the court's decisions. The court repeatedly struck down Roosevelt's unconstitutional actions, which the author characterizes as the court usuring power! Ironic.)

The Citizens United ruling was based on the absurd notion that corporations are persons. (It was not. This is the persistent narrative of the Left, repeated ad absurdum until is becomes unassailable "fact." But the Citizens decision did no such thing. The questions presented to the Supreme court were:

1. Whether challenges to the disclosure requirements imposed on "electioneering communications" by McCain-Feingold were resolved by the court challenge to McCain-Feingold (McConnell v. FEC).
2. Whether McCain-Feingold's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering communications, because such communications are protected "political speech" and not regulable “campaign speech” per Buckley v. Valeo.
3. Whether the law requires a clear plea for action to vote for or against a candidate.4. Whether a broadcast feature-length documentary movie that is sold on DVD, shown in theaters, and accompanied by a compendium book is to be treated as an advertisement, or whether the movie is not subject to regulation as an electioneering communication.

So, the actual issue boils down to whether or not a film that was critical of a political candidate, but did not advocate a particular candidate, amounts to a political contribution. The court ruled that it did not.) 

The recent Boston abortion clinic ruling was religiously motivated and failed to protect the safety and rights of needy patrons of these clinics. (The author simply asserts something he cannot know.)

Now, the Hobby Lobby ruling fails to consider the rights of women who may need medical coverage to protect their health and their lives. (Here's another issue which is rapidly developing a folklore. As is usual, none of the hysterical flame-throwing rhetoric is true. Here's a good analysis.)

This last ruling opens the door to all kinds of mischief. What of the corporate family who rejects vaccinations on religious grounds? (Irrelevant, because Hobby Lobby was narrowly decided.) 

What of the Christian Science owners who refuse to provide medical coverage in its entirety because they allege it is contrary to the tenets of their religion? (Irrelevant, because Hobby Lobby was narrowly decided.)

What if corporate owners who contend that the world will end shortly and thus refuse to provide retirement coverage for their employees? (Irrelevant, because Hobby Lobby was narrowly decided.

But let's press the issue. The crucial, and under-discussed issue is, do businesses serve the purposes of the owners, or are they an extension of the government's social agenda? On what basis should private enterprise be forced to do anything as they pursue their private, lawful self-interest?)

What of the owners who refuse to pay minimum wage because Jesus admonishes people to live a life of poverty? (This is astoundingly ignorant. I can't even begin to address the many levels of idiocy contained in this statement.) 

What of those who maintain they can retain people as slaves since the concubine of Abraham was a slave? (Exodus 21:16: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.”) 

The list goes on of reasons for almost anything that can be held to have a religious basis. In the final analysis, religion trumps everything, no matter how egregious the tenets are held to be. (So here we have it. Because people must first serve government and its interests, those who have religious convictions apparently must pass judicial review to ascertain the legitimacy of their religion. And because there are extreme examples of misuse of religion [as if there were no examples of extreme misuse of any other philosophies.], we must now worry about any sort of obscure or reprehensible practice manifesting. 

Rather than guard against the overreach of power by government in telling private entities what is acceptable religion, the author worries that people might possibly choose to express their religion in ways that offend him. Truly odd.)  

These justices of the Supreme Court should be impeached for letting their political and religious views dominate their regard for the Constitution (Which has never happened until now...)

– they should be defrocked and run out of town. (I'd sure like to know what part of the Constitution the author is referring to.) 

Let’s start over with a new set of justices, people who will be judicious and fair in their rulings (That is, people who agree with the author.) 

— and will not be writing new constitutional law. (Which has never happened until now...)

John Shellenberger Bozeman

Hobby Lobby is hypocritical and limiting freedom - FB conversation

FB friend D.G. posted this:

As Yglesias notes, most liberals oppose 'conscience clauses' that allow individual pharmacists to opt out of providing contraception; and favor laws that prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, even when religiously motivated.

Conversely, if a kosher or halal meat-packing business sued for an exemption to health or animal protection laws that interfered with ritual requirements, I think at least a substantial number of liberals would be sympathetic.

Hobby Lobby was wrongly decided; but I think it would have been equally wrong if the employers were sole proprietors. And I'm not convinced that corporations don't have religious freedom rights.


5 mistakes liberals make about corporate personhood and Hobby Lobby
VOX.COM

S.H.: I agree with you about sole props. Requiring by law, for instance, a sole prop cake designer to make a cake for a gay wedding, disregards that the legal entity of the business is the person who owns and runs it. That individual pays business taxes as a private citizen, assumes risk as a private citizen, in fact as a sole prop is regarded in every way of law both profit and liability, as a private citizen. Hell, you pay your taxes with your SSN as a sole prop. Whether or not they aren't also a complete worthless piece of shite is a completely different legal argument.

However I disagree with arguments that suggest that incorporated for-profit organizations should be allowed to exercise the right of the individual, as the corporate entity exists partly for the purpose of shielding the individual from the decisions of the business AS WELL AS shielding the business from the decisions of the individual.

Although I think it would be a good solution to just say Sure! You can opt out and/or discriminate all you want. But if your choice to opt out costs the state or federal government anything, you will be receiving a bill.

Yeah I know, crazy. Can't be done. Wish it could. I wish that every Walmart or fast food joint that put money into blocking minimum wage raise legislation would get a bill for every f/t employee who needs food stamps or housing assistance. Like an actual bill. Yes, those are your taxes, you DO still have topay those, and here's your bill, Net 30, cashiers check only, thank you!

S.H.:  There's some reasoning on the idea of corporate religious freedom floating around in my head, but it will have to gel a bit more I'm afraid. I think I know what you're getting at, and I think my response has something to do with the direction the religious restriction flows.

J.C.: There are so many holes in this article it makes me want to write the Vox editors just to complain.

Me: The key component frequently not addressed is, do corporations serve the purposes of the owners, or are they an extension of the government's social agenda?

N.N.: Hobby Lobby offers 16 different types of birth control.and a full time minimum wage of 14 $ an hour.with a part time minimum wage of 9 $ an hour. They were fighting for the right to not have to puchsse abortificants. I find it amazing , that's such a huge deal is made out of this. This company takes care of its employees. And has been since its founding a religious company. Liberty does not only apply to the individual . I can understand if they carried no birth control. I don't understand what the hubbub is all about.

T.C.: Yes, a "religious company". except when it's not convinient: http://www.forbes.com/.../hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to.../

Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious...www.forbes.com
In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones...

N.N.: Even God is corrupt thats why i an an atheist. But again thats Liberty. I have Read the Constitution. the Federalist Papers. The Bill of Rights. And nowhere anywhere have I seen the right to force someone to do something but they don't want to do. Not talking about criminal activity or purposely harming people. Or destroying the environment. The government does not have the right to force anyone to buy anything.

Me: Hypocrisy can only be claimed when it is intentional. "AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary..." Who the hell would know every activity of every subsidiary of everything the 401k invested in?

T.C.: I guess it's a matter of how important their so-called religious ethics are to them.

Me: They get to decide their ethics, not you.

T.C.: And if they want to be inconsistent about them, I suppose that's their prerogative.

T.C.: And the rest of us can draw our own conclusions.

N.N.: Yes exactly. Freedom can be a bitch sometimes. It doesn't only protect the freedoms we like.

T.C.: And another valid point regarding their hypocrisy,...http://www.usnews.com/.../03/26/hobby-lobbys-china-hypocrisy



Me: Let's see. A "Christian" company is apparently only allowed to buy its products from approved countries that aren't evil, invest its 401k money in approved investments that aren't evil, make moral claims only when they agree with the political left... Hmmm. There's no possible way for it to transact business.

T.C.: No one said what they were or were not allowed to do. I am only making a judgement on their claim that they are a "Christian company" that operates under the guidelines of their religious faith. It seems like they only do so when convenient. Again, that is their prerogative.. It is also our prerogative to draw our own conclusions.

Me: My point is that it is not possible to run a business and isolate it from everything they, or you, or anyone else considers to be immoral. Nor does a business have an obligation to do so, your moral judgments notwithstanding.

N.N.: And you do not have to shop there.

Me: Exactly, N.N.. Freedom, baby.

T.C.: I have no reason to.

T.C.: Quite simply, one can't deny that their claim to be operating in accordance with their religious convictions is shaky at best.

T.L.: I see the term "abortifacient" being thrown around pretty liberally, without qualification. Medical science does not classify Plan B (which delays ovulation), Ella (also delays ovulation), or IUD's (prevents insemination and fertilization) as abortifacients, because they are not. And yet, this ruling allows for religious ignorance of scientific facts to trump sound medical science, personal autonomy, and the doctor/patient relationship.

Besides the discriminatory nature of this ruling against a particular gender alone, as it is limited only to female reproduction, it is religiously discriminatory. As Justice Ginsburg said, it is also violating the Establishment Clause "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be perceived as favoring one religion over another, the very risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

Has everyone hear read Ginsburg's dissent? I could go on for days, but I'd love to discuss this from that angle. Does anyone disagree with her dissent?

Me: Why do you insist on judging how well they conform to their own moral convictions? Who made you their judge? How do you even know such a thing?

T.C.: I need to justify having my own opinions?

T.C.: I think it's pretty obvious that they talk the talk and fail to walk the walk.

T.L.: Rich, part of the ruling states that their beliefs must be ascertained to some degree. "The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects“an honest conviction" So, hypocrisy matters when part of the ruling requires ascertaining those religious beliefs.

N.N.: Your opinions are just that your opinions just like their opinions are their opinions. They don't have the right to enforce their opinions on you and you don't have the right to force your opinions on them.

Me: Exactly right, N.N.. Freedom, baby.

T.C.: I don't know where you got the idea that I am trying to force my opinions on them. I am just calling out what is obvious.

Me: I think N.N. is simply applying the standard to you that is typically leveled against Christians... your know, the whole "judge not" thing.

T.C.: So I shouldn't have an opinion? Because,... why, exactly?

Me: T.L., the whole premise of the Supreme court judging aspects of religious belief is repugnant.

T.L.: I don't know why I'm bothering to keep writing when you're all more interested in a pissing contest, but does the irony escape you all that Hobby Lobby is limiting the freedom of their employees based on their opinion that these medications are abortifacients? Because it's not based on fact.

T.C.: Or are you saying that I can have an opinion but I should keep it to myself?

N.N.: There's nothing wrong with having an opinion First Amendment says we can have an opinion. And its not mine to say whether your opinion is correct or incorrect. So we have to remember that our opinion may be correct in our eyes and those of like-minded individuals. But in the end it's just our opinion that does not mean it's correct for someone else.

Me: T.C.:, welcome to the rhetorical results of the Left. Actually, I welcome your spirited defense of your moral perspective. I'm just hoping you will understand and remember how the shoe fits the other foot when a religious person makes their own moral judgments.

T.C.: Where the opinion lies is if they ought to be judged for their hypocrisy or if their hypocrisy can be justified. It's simply a statement of fact to say that they do not consistently live up to the religious standards they claim.

Me: T.L., perhaps you can explain how someone's freedom is being limited?

T.L.: The right to swing one's arm ends at my nose, Rich. Intervening in how one's compensation can be spent is limiting the freedom of the person who earned said compensation to use it as they see fit. How would you feel if your employer decided how you could spend your paycheck?

Me: T.L., the ACA created an imposition upon employers to provide certain benefits according to the government's social agenda. Businesses are not extensions of government, and should be completely free to pursue their own interests.

T.L.: @Rich: However, businesses are governed by the laws of our nation, and do not operate in a vacuum. Your argument is about the ACA, an entirely different topic than the Hobby Lobby ruling. If you'd like, we can have a whole other discussion on that topic at a later date.

T.C.: "According to the government's social agenda"???

Me: T.L.:, the ACA is what specifically created the mandate for employers to provide birth control. So it is not only relevant but central to the issue.

D.G.: T.L.--good question; I don't fully agree with Ginsburg's opinion. Will write more later.

Question: "What is the significance of a city gate in the Bible?"

Found this here. An excellent explanation of the importance of city gates.

--------------------------------

Question: "What is the significance of a city gate in the Bible?"

Answer: Besides being part of a city’s protection against invaders, city gates were places of central activity in biblical times. It was at the city gates that important business transactions were made, court was convened, and public announcements were heralded. Accordingly, it is natural that the Bible frequently speaks of “sitting in the gate” or of the activities that took place at the gate. InProverbs 1, wisdom is personified: “At the head of the noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech” (verse 21). To spread her words to the maximum number of people, Wisdom took to the gates.

The first mention of a city gate is found inGenesis 19:1. It was at the gate of Sodom that Abraham’s nephew, Lot, greeted the angelic visitors to his city. Lot was there with other leading men of the city, either discussing the day’s issues or engaging in important civic business.

In the Law of Moses, parents of a rebellious son were told to bring him to the city gate, where the elders would examine the evidence and pass judgment (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). This affirms that the city gate was central to community action.

Another important example is found in the book of Ruth. InRuth 4:1-11, Boaz officially claimed the position ofkinsman-redeemerby meeting with the city elders at the gate of Bethlehem. There, the legal matters related to his marriage to Ruth were settled.

As Israel combatted the Philistines, the priest Eli waited at the city gate for news regarding the ark and to hear how his sons fared in the battle (1 Samuel 4:18).

When King David ruled Israel, he stood before his troops to give instructions from the city gate (2 Samuel 18:1-5). After his son Absalom died, David mourned but eventually returned to the city gate along with his people (2 Samuel 19:1-8). The king’s appearance at the gate signaled that the mourning was over, and the king was once again attending to the business of governing.

The city gate was important in other ancient cultures, as well.Esther 2:5-8records that some of the king’s servants plotted at the king’s gate to murder him. Mordecai, a leading Jew in Persia, heard the plot and reported it to Esther, who gave the news to the king (Esther 2:19-23). The Persian court officials were identified as being “at the king’s gate” (3:3).

To control the gates of one’s enemies was to conquer their city. Part of Abraham’s blessing from the Lord was the promise that “your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies” (Genesis 22:17).

When Jesus promised to build His Church, He said, “The gates of Hades will not overcome it” (Matthew 16:18). An understanding of the biblical implications of “gates” helps us interpret Jesus’ words. Since a gate was a place where rulers met and counsel was given, Jesus was saying that all the evil plans of Satan himself would never defeat the Church.