The Bible (2 Timothy 3) describes the character of latter-day people as follows:
- lovers of their own selves
- covetous
- boasters
- proud
- blasphemers
- disobedient to parents
- unthankful
- unholy
- without natural affection (possibly: parents for their own children?)
- trucebreakers
- false accusers
- incontinent (not restrained, uncontrolled, lacking sexual restraint, unchaste)
- fierce (hostile and violent, extremely powerful or destructive)
- despisers of those that are good
- traitors
- heady (impetuous and rash, domineering, overbearing, swift and violent)
- highminded (proud, arrogant)
- lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God
- having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof (possibly: pretending to be moral, righteous and/or religious?)
- weak women weighed down with sins
- led on by various impulses
- always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (possibly: foolish intellectualism? think: the "experts" who are always wrong?)
- depraved mind
- worthless in regard to the faith
Whether you believe the Bible is a reliable source or not, it's hard not to see so many examples of these types of people today.
This is a very good point. In some studies I read recently, it was found that young women (and men) with children scored lower on happiness indicators than those without, but as they got older and their children became adults, their happiness increased significantly while the childless people’s happiness decreased significantly.
Basically, children are a lot of trouble in the short term but give you much more fulfillment in the long term.
Most of them are, that’s why we need to replace as many with anti-establishments Republicans, or else winning election will be futile. Unfortunately the Libertarian Party is nowhere near capable of providing a reasonable alternative.
That “sex ed in schools” movement started in earnest during the underage sex push of the 80’s and early 90’s, which came before the homosexuality normalization push of the late 90’s and early 00’s. Before that was the sex outside of marriage and female promiscuity push of the 60’s and 70’s.
It’s all about boiling the frog slowly enough that they don’t realize what’s happening.
Community virtue signaling.
“We’re accepting of everyone, just don’t bring your trash immigrants here.” (Yes, NBC News literally called them trash)
Also, I guarantee you they’re not accepting of “all faiths”.
This is correct. For anyone under 45 it was basically the equivalent or less than the flu. Lethality only spiked at age 65 and/or if you had comorbidities. Overall it was worse than the flu primarily because it was a new strain, and new is always worse, but just 3-4 months in most of the damage had been done. There was no excuse for it to last 2 years or result in all the absolutely insane policies that it did. Sweden was the only country that handled it correctly AFAIK.
That’s extremely reductive. There are many characteristics that separate a cult from a religion, including the use of psychological manipulation, social isolation and the power dynamic between the leader and the followers.
Indiana University erected a statue in honor of Alfred C. Kinsey, possibly one of the worst human beings who ever lived.
Here’s the NotTheBee article, I think there was a thread here about it as well.
They are desperate and want to send a message to anyone who might be inclined to support Trump that there will be consequences. It's designed to isolate Trump and eliminate him before he even has the chance to run... if for some reason they can't find a way to eliminate him on a trumped-up legal technicality.
The MAGA "cultists" are mostly just older people who love the good old fashioned US of A. Trump rallies appear more like sporting events than cult gatherings. If MAGA is a cult, it's in the same way that Green Bay Packers fans are a cult.
The Left on the other hand, is a hate cult, completely deranged, with no grip on reality. They're all about subversion, revenge and persecution. There really is no comparison between two.
I was watching a recent video by Aydin Paladin on YouTube called the "Girl Boss Paradox" where she cited a bunch of studies about male and female happiness. The studies showed that women are actually less happy in countries where they have more freedom and equality with men.
I think there's a fair amount of evidence that women are happiest when men are in charge. You can even see this in the type of men that women are naturally attracted to and what type of romantic/sexual fantasies women have. Despite the fact that most women would vehemently deny this, all the evidence says they WANT to be subservient to strong men.
This also aligns with Christian belief:
Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. -- Ephesians 5:22
In the same way, you wives, be subject to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won over without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your pure and respectful behavior. -- 1 Peter 3:1-2
Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. -- Colossians 3:18
I don't really know what to do with this knowledge, but it's interesting. I think at very least it illustrates how self-destructive our society has become despite all of our technological advancements.
They do this because truth doesn't have any meaning to them. Everything they say and do is about manipulating people's perception in the name of obtaining power. Lying is second nature to them.
If you want to understand how the mind of a leftist works, just watch some Vaush clips. The only difference between Vaush and most leftists is he doesn't have a filter so everything he believes just comes spilling out.
Your instincts may be correct. It's coming to light that the situation may not be as cut and dry as initially represented:
EDIT: u/Galean FYI
The child rapist brother wasn't healed. You didn't even say he was repentant.
Fellowship with unrepentant sinners who are still under the bondage and influence of sin is wrong and not biblical (1 Corinthians 5). Whether it's in a home or in a park makes no difference.
If the man were healed AND repentant, then the situation may be different, but only after much prayer and weighing it before the Lord.
That depends on what you mean by "condemn". We don't have a right to condemn a man's soul for his sins against God, but we must certainly have the authority or right to condemn a person for the wrongs they've committed against others, otherwise justice couldn't be served at all in this life.
What would you call it when a man commits murder and is caught and punished by the authorities? Isn't this "condemnation" for committing murder? What about when Paul judges those in Corinth who are engaged in sexual sin? Isn't this condemnation?
I would never have invited that brother into my home. You can go visit them, talk to them, whatever, but you do NOT bring evil into your home, especially in a home with children around, no matter what. It doesn't matter that he's sorry as long as he is the way he is, and it doesn't matter that they put the children in another room or whatever. Acceptance of evil is one of the worst things you can do.
I am a devout Christian. This argument of your wife's is very common but very mistaken belief. There are a ton of scriptures that talk about how we should judge:
You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly. -- Leviticus 19:15
These are the things which you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates. - Zechariah 8:16
Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. -- Matthew 7:2
And why do you not even judge by yourselves what is right? -- Luke 12:51
Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment. - John 7:24
But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. -- 1 Corinthians 11:31
For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. -- 1 Corinthians 5:3
In addition to these, there are a plethora of scriptures about rebuking wicked behavior, discerning right from wrong, executing justice and any number of other things that requires judgement.
Christians who take only this first part of scripture in Matthew 7 and extrapolate it out to mean we shouldn't judge are just young and immature in the faith and haven't spent enough time walking as a Christian or reading the Bible to understand it.
The conservative people -- not to be mistaken for so-called "conservative" Republicans -- opposed all of these things.
Gay marriage was passed by a Democrat-controlled Supreme Court and overrode the laws in many states that banned gay marriage (speaking of being "anti-democratic"). Unfortunately, the so called "conservative" Republicans thought this was a losing electoral issue so they didn't take a strong stand against the ruling. Most Republicans care more about their own elections than anything else, and could care less about conservative principles unless they think it will benefit them in some way.
The sexual revolution was opposed by conservatives at every turn, but young people think sex is exciting and fun and don't understand long-term consequences, so when they're constantly indoctrinated by the culture to engage in sexual hedonism, there's only so much conservatives can do. Even good parents often temporarily lose their kids to the culture once they enter high-school or college.
The problem is there are very few true conservatives in the Republican Party, and this has pretty much always been the case. Most politicians are unprincipled opportunists, and Republicans are no exception.