Leaderboard

Clear eyed, well stated... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-for-president/2016/10/12/665f9698-8caf-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?utm_term=.c889ef3956f6

For almost 40 years Evangelical Christians, under the guise of the Religious Right, courted political power specifically through the Republican Party. As a political group, they have accomplished little of what they desired. The post Evangelicals' witness suffers due to political maneuvering appeared first on ReligiousLiberty.TV - Celebrating Liberty of Conscience. View the full article

Still raining like the dickens here, but the winds have calmed down. Unfortunately, there's a lot of debris that has plugged up the street drains, so quite a bit of flooding. I've not gone down to the river, but I imagine it's at flood stage. (I'm on the highest part of the neighborhood, so no chance of flooding up to my house.)

And it did not materialise here as was warned. I hope there is not too much clean-up where you are, Pam!

I NEVER said that! This is what I did say about the phrase "not under the law". God (and His Law) me - (dead) standing in His presence. OR INSTEAD God Christ (between) me - not dead To stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator - THAT is what it means to be "under the Law". With Christ I am NOT directly "under the Law (God)". I am "under grace" because I am "under Christ". OF course I believe it is important to learn what God wants (concerning our behavior). Of course it is important to "try" to keep His law. Our efforts unlock the power pathway for the spirit, which then enables our success. It's like our efforts throw a switch, allowing the power to flow thru us, so long as we remain constantly AWARE that we can claim no credit for our success. As Paul said, "Christ in me - the hope of glory." The moment we take our eyes off Him, our faith will falter and we begin to sink (just like Peter).

Why do you have to always twist everything like that!?!?! Do you even read anything before you blast away? If you even read just my simple sentence and stopped to think about what it clearly was referring to, you might have actually been slightly restrained from automatically and mistakenly taking it personally and assuming it was about you or even addressed to you, as you seem so adept at doing much of the time. If you don't want to read it, just skip the thread and refrain from commenting. You do not have to weigh in on every topic. And really, why would anything I post be any more intent on insisting anyone think and decide as I do any more than whatever you post is deciding that everyone must take your POV? Especially with what little POV of mine is even expressed by me above? Here, let me try to explain it to you... "When read in conjunction..." There are just two posts preceding mine, both unambiguously referring to only one thing. The linked endorsement by the Washington Post. I didn't write it. I just posted it for others to read and consider, just as Gregory apparently did. My only comment was, that I found it to be clear eyed, meaning it was not blind to Clinton's faults and shortcomings, tending to show some objectivity often lacking in much of the political discourse here and in the media. The other simple point was that I found it to be well stated, in other words, well written. It was not really stating my own POV about Hillary. (Because, remember I didn't write it.) That was just how I read it. That is why I thought it good to post a well written and clear eyed assessment of her for others to read and consider. "...in conjunction with their [the Washington Post editors, reporters and contributors... not me] closing argument about Trump..." If you had just taken a few minutes to read before you blasted away with you ill-founded bitter snarkiness, you would have immediately recognized that reference as being about the clearly linked (twice in fact) extended summary of the Post's assessment of Donald Trump. It is very thorough. "...the choice is unequivocal." What choice? What is this topic about? Just read the title. Open the link and read that title. It is about the choice of the Washington Post to endorse Hillary Clinton. It is not about my choice. Or yours. It is about their endorsement of Hillary. While the linked article is about her, it makes reference obviously to Trump, but mostly points the reader to their closing argument about him for the details about their conclusion about him. So let me clarify this for you. Reading the endorsement alone, it is clear regarding their choice to endorse Hillary. But include reading their closing argument about Trump leaves no doubt about their choice between the two. No equivocation. It is abundantly clear how and why the editors of the Washington post made their choice to endorse Hillary. You don't have to agree. Nor make a similar choice. But do so with the most complete information from reliable sources. That is why I posted it.