Free Republic

I appreciated this comment Right Brother.

There is one supreme judge. One whose opinion is the only one that matters. That supreme judge is that woman herself and all the religions of the world, and all the ideas of the world, including Almighty God Himself must que up before her to be judged one at a time. I wonder if this God guy will be weighed and found wanting.

“And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the books were opened, and the dead were judged...”

Red letter Bibles?
Don’t misunderstand the thinking behind the red-letter editions. The reason is blood. The words spoken by Jesus during His earthly ministry are colored red to remind us of the shedding of His blood.

It is no different than using a highlighter, in yellow, or underlining. I have known a few Christians through the years who would underline everything. That does you absolutely no good. I have known a few believers through the years that opposed marking their Bible in any way whatsoever. I consider this to be superstitious.

I have a 1972 edition of the Thomas Nelson KJV. It has Jesus’ words in Revelation and Acts also in red, and even in Corinthians, “This is my body,” is in a beautiful red. Very nice. I prefer the Cambridge Bible however, which has red letters only in the gospels and on the first page of Acts. My Cambridge Cameo edition has a bright red cover, a bright red ribbon and bright red letters. It is also from the 1970’s.

The letters are NOT red anymore! They are now kind of pinkish gray, not red at all. Rather ugly, and hard to read, you should not bother with them. Red ink is very expensive, and the publishers started diluting the red ink with black in the eighties.

Good song. Excellent sentiment and very nice overall tonal sound. The duet is very beautiful. The weakest part is the drumming. By far. Unimaginative and adds nothing. Did they use a computer for this? Does Pete Best have any descendent they could use? Pete is in his 80’s and I am sure he could do better himself :-)
There is a guitar solo, brief but okay near the end. The tone and style seem out of character with the song. Makes me wonder how Dhani would have handled it. Just a reminder that the other two guys were important to the musical recipe that we call the Beatles.

He did prove that it does not hurt your playing to puff out your cheeks. :-)

I play a Bach Strad M37 with a 1 1/4C mouthpiece. I do not puff my cheeks because I do not press hard against the teeth like he must. I learned low lip pressure playing from Keith Clark, of Houghton College and formerly first chair US Army Band in Wash., D.C. He in turn was a student of Armando Ghitalla who perfected the technique. I studied under him every day for two weeks for each of two summers at the ‘74 and’75 Csehy Summer School of Music, Muncy PA.

Seargeant Clark is famous for cracking a note when he played taps for John F. Kennedy’s funeral. They said in the press that he was emotional and that he was so touched and moved, so that the people in turn took the cracked note as a symbol of our broken hearts. Awwwww...but no. Truth is he told me he had been standing in the cooooolllld for hours and then tried to play with no warmup. In my opinion, this technique is too fragile to be practical for real working trumpeters except for Ghitalla and Voisin maybe.

Dizzy Gillespie has double laryngoceles which is extremely rare. In addition, he has a condition in his cheeks called “glassblowers’ disease”.

The driver felt that the cyclist had a duty to get out of the way and so honked at him. The law gives all legal vehicles an equal right to be on the road. There is no duty to move fast and there is no duty to move out of the way of hurried drivers behind you. Automobile drivers think that the road exists only for cars. Not true, but they stupidly still act that way.

The cyclist stopped to block traffic when he was honked at. Please correct me, blocking traffic in this way is not legal.

The cyclist “ought” not to have survived his wounds. Driver “ought” to have used God’s caliber the 45ACP.

We feel that the world “ought” to be a certain way.
The cyclist feels he “ought” to be able to ride the roads without getting honked at.
The driver thinks that the slow-moving vehicle “ought” to get out of his way.
The road-raging man thinks he “ought” to be able to teach somebody a lesson.
Post #4 thinks you “ought” to be able to handle such things without shooting people.

Rather than act as if the world behaves as it “ought” to, why not pay attention to how it actually works?

For anyone who wishes to consider more I suggest three resources.
A book: “Why They Kill” by Richard Rhodes. This book will show you how and why people become killers and suggest what to do about it.
A website: nononsenseselfdefense.org by Marc MacYoung. You will not like what he says about crime, violence and self-defense, but you better read it if you want to AVOID things.
A YouTube Channel: armedattorneys by Walker Taylor Law. Their tubes about road rage are very well done.

I appreciate your perspective.
The unintended consequences follow whichever way you go. Fewer executions means fewer unjust executions but more death on the streets. That is where we are now.

As to the four examples you cited, I see them in another way, which may point the way to reasonable reform.
1) The Bloodworth case illustrates the fallacy of eyewitness testimony. Much work has been done on this issue, but almost always by the abolitionists. A reasonable reform would be to require judges to warn juries who deliberate on the punishment phase, or to abolish jury involvement in the punishment phase altogether.
2,3) Krone and Willingham illustrate the problems associated with pseudoscience in the courtroom. I have read some on errors in arson investigations. The situation is much improved in the current science. Bitemark evidence was discredited long ago. (Please correct me.)
4) Woods illustrates the very issues before us today as a society. Getting tough on crime means more no-knock warrants and more felony murder executions. But when more innocents are killed by the police, now we must defund the police department with predictable results.

I do not agree with the sentiment behind the idea behind your warnig about “granting the government power.” When the tyrants take power they will not allow some precedent or law stop them. The stupid Republicans thought this way about the filibuster issue in the Senate.

Freegards!
BrianD

EPeople are missing the point!
Whatever it is that the kids are doing on their phones is making them really stupid. We see it here in our Daycare Center especially with what we call the “Covid Babies”.

We are working to reverse it, but...

The science that is coming out about this problem is very disturbing. What we know about early brain development suggests that these kids as a whole will always be significantly dumber than any generation before. The teachers are saying they have never seen anything like it before. I cannot predict the societal impact, but I must say that those who are commenting against this law cannot show that they are aware of this problem. The entire legislate morality argument shows that they do not even realize what we are talking about. The children are being crippled intelectually.

The behavioral problems have gotten so much worse that the teachers I know are quitting or are tempted to quit and you cannot blame them. These kids can NOT able to control themselves.
Perhaps we can debate whether DeSantis’ law will help or not, but suggest a more effective way to deal with this ver real and very serious problem.

Three issues:
Teenager’s mental illness!
Preteens, ages 10-14 social development!
Early childhood brain development!

PLEASE LOOK IT UP

Since we now know that so many women want a bad boy, it is likely that she was turned on by the very notion he was a drug dealer

I think you are correct that there is an element of schadenfreude implicit in the post and certain reactions.

Libertarian66 was reasonable though unnecessarily triggered by your terminology. Permit me to suggest that you use accurate terms when discussing this issue. It may help also to not exaggerate these men’s emotions unless it is your intention to express negative judgement of them, in which case you would deserve to receive back in kind.

I thought your response to him was reasonable but could have been more understanding, for after all, his mistake of your term “men’s rights” is no more to be denigrated than your admitted naive ignorance of American divorce law, feminism and its effect on men in American society. You said that you feel that you now have all that you want, and you can give over caring what happens to other people. This is not to be admired. You say, “Maybe they have cause...” but there is no doubt when you trivialize their position by calling it a “party line”.

“Angry,” you say? “All the time,” you say? Their actual emotion is disgust, and it is certainly not all the time as they are happily enjoying other things. Here is a video, “What Happened to Marriage?” by @hoe-math if you want to understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDhde8MSwBA

I am sorry if I am mistaking you, I don’t mean to scold. I only say these things because I had an impression that you would listen, and I don’t think you realized how you came across, FormerFRLurker.

Kind Regards,
BrianD

My mother taught me that some people have to have the last word, and I am guessing you are one of those people, so this will be my last on the subject.

On citing Scripture, you did seem to get my point as in this response you do elaborate on one how you are reading the passages.

On the Gospel, it is very clear that you mean the works-based Gospel of MacArthur and other Calvinists.

On resolving these issues, it is very clear that you unlearner have resolved any and all issues by making the works necessary for salvation real and making your concept of faith synonymous with doing those works.

On definitions, you used the word spurious. I don’t think that word means what you think it means, but never mind, you are adding works to salvation under your definition of repentance. You have in your mind definitions of the word faith, gospel, confession, etc. which are all dependent upon your theology, a theology which you equate with the teaching of the Bible. You also have a definition in your mind of the word theology that prevents you from understanding what I mean by the word.

A Calvinist seminary professor I knew well, who is now with the Lord, refused to allow himself to be called Calvinist, he insisted on being called a Biblicist. The churches of the IFCA, of which MacArthur’s is a part and of which my church was a part when I was saved and discipled, are styled “Bible Churches”. I served my formal internship at the Bible Believer’s Church of Greenville SC which was so named because the founders felt like theirs was the only church which sincerely and fully believed the Bible. They later recognized and admitted the attitude of their hearts and changed the name to Heritage Bible Church. By the word heritage they meant their version of reformed theology.

At first John MacArthur resisted the term Lordship Salvation but has begrudgingly come to accept it. He as you do, incorporates works into the Gospel under the word Lord. However, he believes that the works are done through you by the same miracle power that caused you to pray the sinner’s prayer. The impression you have that you actually believed is an illusion and unreal. You also must form not only an intention to stop sinning but carry through on that intention by stopping certain sins and doing other positive actions. I do not recall MacArthur’s position on Romans 10:9 but many of his LS devotees believe that the irresistible power must force you to actually use the word Lord when you pray the sinner’s prayer with the full understanding that you are going to stop sinning and do certain other good deeds. That is why their Bible translation, the ESV, reads as it does in that verse. Many also insist that one must be continuing to do those good works at the end of one’s life or else one was never saved to begin with.

So, I leave it all with you. I bet I know exactly what you are going to say, I have been doing this for a very long time, but I will be very interested even delighted if you can surprise me in any way. If anyone else is interested in more along these lines, I recommend a site and a Youtube channel soteriology101.com. Dr. Leighton Flowers does a much, much better job than I do of defending traditional southern Baptist theology which is now being called Provisionism.

You were polite and Christlike. Thanks for that!
Maranatha!
BrianD

Thank you for your response.
Unlearner, you should think about the fact that merely citing the scripture you are misinterpreting does not prove your interpretation. I can comment further, but you did admit that you have not studied MacArthur’s brand or any form of TULIP Calvinism. Your answers here do sound to me like your presuppositions, especially definitions have been influenced by Calvinism. Of course, I can see much truth in your words, but I am speaking to the very heart of MacArthur’s point, that he grieves knowing that she left him STILL in her sins, because she did not perform what he considers to be the required work of salvation for her.

Because of my personal history and my theological training, I am also reading MacArthur’s words with full understanding of his doctrine of “Lordship Salvation”. Faith Presses ON, you are writing about certain true principles and I appreciate your perspective, especially about accepting verbal accounts and not knowing everything needed to judge a situation. In my counseling ministry I first had to learn to really listen. Then I had to learn to ask and ask and ask. The best lesson I ever learned was this: by the time I had in my mind a clear idea of the problem, I required myself to ask ten more questions before getting to any advice or solutions.

However, your perspective. FPO, presumes that there is the possibility that this woman left her session with MacArthur as a saved person. This is inconceivable under his theology, Lordship Salvation. There are forms of Calvinism that might allow for it, but not usually, and certainly not his.

The perspective of Samurai_Jack on this thread is the correct one under my theology. Here is a blog which I find helps people understand what I mean.
https://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/
If you read on the blog let me know your reaction. (I have no connection to them.)

Thank you for your reply.

“...Find fault with MacArthur’s expectation that...”
If as MacArthur does, you believe in total inability, and irresistible grace, two of the essential points of 5-point Calvinism, you must conclude that if she continues to sin, then she is not elect.
The Pharisees are totally unable to produce fruits of repentance unless they are caused to do so by the miracle power.
The rich young ruler goes away sorrowful, not because he had great possessions, but because he was not elect. He appears to be resisting the irresistible grace of God, as does this woman of the streets who came to see MacArthur.
The adulteress goes her way and stops sinning only because she is elect. Jesus says to her, “Go, and become an elect person who sins no more.”

“...as a devotional...”
I leave that up to the mods or to metmom herself, but as a Baptist pastor for over 45 years I would ask them to understand that the Calvinist interpretation is not absolute. I think the religion moderator would permit a Calvinist Caucus. I understand why metmom posts such as this and I support her efforts.

My comment goes to the very heart of what the devotional is saying. The woman here prayed the sinner’s prayer and trusted the blood of the cross, but that does not count for anything. Only burning her contact book will count, because that is how she pays the price. MacArthur feels badly for her and all such as she, while believing that she is utterly unable to do otherwise unless unconditionally elected to do so. My comment followed upon and was in response to Samurai_Jack, who should be allowed to do so.
“Salvation is a free gift that costs you everything.”
Well...it ain’t free then, is it?

“Anyone who thinks...”
Some Calvinists believe that anyone who does not hold to the Calvinist doctrine is lost. The same miracle power that causes you to believe and causes you to stop sinning would also cause you to eventually come to believe their version of “grace”. This idea is called “Doctrinal Regeneration” because it closely mirrors the logic behind “Baptismal Regeneration”. The same logic is used by Jack Hyles in his KJV only teaching known as “Incorruptible Seed”.

Maranatha brother!
BrianD

Thanks for your reply.
I left the IFCA in 1976, but I have followed his ministry ever since. I defended him during his controversy regarding his saying the blood of Christ does not save. He apologized acknowledging his honest mistake and learned from it.

My statement comes from my understanding of theology, as a Baptist pastor since 1978, and from my understanding of language and communication. MacArthur teaches that simple childlike faith in Christ is works unless you are caused to have it by a miraculous power. The same power, irresistible grace, which forces you to “believe” also forces you to stop sinning. MacArthur’s 5-point Calvinism is standard and unremarkable.

This story is simple to understand when you acknowledge that MacArthur believes in salvation by works. It is difficult at first to see through the Calvinist doublespeak, but their is a chain of logic to it.
If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.
Salvation is by grace through “faith”. Faith without works is not faith. The “grace” force which causes you to go through the belief theater, also forces you to do good works. Therefore, salvation is by works; you just pretend that God is the One doing them. If you do not do the works you go to Hell.

Under his form of Calvinism, generally known as “Lordship Salvation”, it is pointless to feel anything about this woman because under that doctrine she is totally unable to give up her book of contacts until irresistible “grace” makes her do so. Your comment Samurai, presumes that believing is something real that the woman is actually doing.

I can only assume what is meant when b4me says this.
Some Pentecostals think they must be in an emotional state to receive continual specific revelation about each daily decision.
Some Calvinists think they must put themselves in a state of willingness to accept and conform to their predetermined fate.
Either one will say he needs “wisdom from God”.
God gives wisdom to those who put the work into their Bible.
God gives wisdom to those who pray for it. James 1:5.

Thanks BT.
I don’t want to register to read it, but if I may, I do have a comment.
I would like folks to understand that the aggression we took in Boston that day was against our neighbors who had already paid the tax. The same principle applies to a union going on strike. The violence is against the scabs who are cooperating with management not against management itself. This is very unpleasant for our side and contributes to the fatal hesitation that historically has weakened the efforts of the good and the godly to resist tyranny.

Here I list the three other factors which only hinder our side and not our enemies:
1. Legitimacy. We only work within and through legitimate government structures. The Civil War was carried out by elected government officials, on either side, as was the Revolution of 1776. Our enemies however will steal elections and break store windows whatever is necessary.
2. Last Resort. Our government sent an Olive Branch Petition to the King in July of 1775. It was terribly naive, but that is how we are. South Carolina seceded too late. While the various compromises were implemented postponing not averting the conflict, the North continued to build ships and railroads until it was impossible for them to lose. Our conservative women are especially bad about this. They don’t want to fight until it is absolutely necessary, until they are frightened enough, but by then it is too late.
3. Leadership. Conservatism works off principles not personalities. Therefore, without leadership, we cannot galvanize, cooperate and coordinate efforts, and most importantly we cannot prioritize threats. Ronald Reagan did this in the 198o’s when he set aside the balanced budget fight in order to defeat Russian Communism.

Because of these four principles, I do not believe our side and win without God’s help. We had that in 1776 and again in 1863, but today?
Praying for revival.
God’s will be done.

Thank you for that. You made my day. It is God in Heaven Who laughs. (Psalms 2:4) Certainly whatever you do, in this case his mocking Ford for a simple trip up in 1975, comes back to mock you in return. Galatians 6:7

The judge followed the law.

Even though she could see into the future and knew exactly what he was going to do, that he would murder them, she went ahead and ordered the same bail that anyone else gets in such cases.

We all know that Bellini and Harvin and the dog would all be alive today if the bail had been set at $15,000 instead of $5000. Preposterous!

I did not understand your statement about anti-cop people being idiots. I suppose you are referring to something specific. Would you elaborate? My position is that the “pro-cop” sentiment here on FR and on the right in general is naive.

The anti-cop sentiment on the left is exactly like all their other emotionalized issues as they feel so intensely about what wrongs they see but have no understanding of the unintended consequences of their alternative.

I don’t know anything about anti-cop sentiment here on FR, pardon my ignorance, and would appreciate any specific information.

Generalizations are necessary in any discussion of any sub-category of sociology, including criminal justice and public safety. We can say, “The cops are the good guys (if that is true), or “There are a few bad apples,” and also discuss why Arvada Colorado police officer, Gordon Beesley, killed the concealed carry hero John Hurley, or why Texas Trooper Crimson Elizondo waited outside the Robb Elementary School while 19 children were being murdered. “If my son had been in there, I would not have been outside. I promise you that,” she said. She was on scene 2 minutes after the gunman entered the school.

12-year-old Le’den Boykins was killed on Sept. 10, 2021 when the Georgia Highway Patrol used a PIT maneuver to wreck the car he was in. They knew there were 2 children in the car. Every commenter on the YouTube video justified the GHP and blamed the driver who was charged and sentenced to 15 years.

I am not an attorney. If by justified, you mean in the informal sense among people such as you and your peers, perhaps, but certainly not in any legal sense. He will be convicted on the first shot alone. He will also be convicted on the second shot. The coup de grace will establish his premeditation and therefore felony murder. NY abolished the death penalty in 2004.

The reference to the killing being "in cold blood" seems off to me. This is a hot-blooded killing. Please correct me anyone!