History
- Member for
- 22 weeks 4 days
Get E-Mail Updates
CommLaw
Top Stories This Week
- 10 reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry
by Eugene Cho 04-30-2012 - Unexpected Hope: The Vocation of the Church
by Jim Wallis 05-17-2012 - The 'Field of Panties': Sexual Violence and Immigrant Farmworkers
by Rachel Stone 05-18-2012 - Walter Wink: Remembrance and Reflection
by Bill Wylie-Kellermann 05-16-2012 - Rob Bell: 'Surrender the Outcomes'
by Cathleen Falsani 05-09-2012 - The Gospel According to Lady Gaga
by Richard Beck 01-09-2012 - Paul's Letter to the 1%
by Reta Halteman Finger 06-01-2012 - The Face of Hate
by Joanie Eppinga 06-01-2012
by Reta Halteman Finger 06-01-2012
The apostle's attack on elitism in Corinthian church and society speaks a clear message about inequality today.
by Kimberly Burge 04-01-2012
There are many reasons to abolish the death penalty. Innocents on death row may be the most compelling.
by Joanie Eppinga, Rebecca Barrett-Fox 06-01-2012
An interview by Joanie Eppinga with Rebecca Barrett-Fox, a scholar who finds the appalling, the unexpected, and the human inside Westboro Baptist Church.
by Betsy Shirley 05-01-2012
Gamaliel's Ana Garcia-Ashley is the first woman of color to lead a national community organizing network, faith-based or otherwise. And she's pulling no punches.
Comments
The premise of the article - Last year, players could make $120.375 million dollars per year; this year they can make $120.6 million - is flawed.
This is a salary cap raise, per team. Revenues have increased dramatically so it's a fairly small increase in light of that.
Really? I thought the great people at the White House got to determine who made what?
It came up because your leftist friends at HHS and in the White House forced the issue.
<*crickets*>
That's beside the point.
Or something.
Which is exactly what Franklin Graham did and you chastised him for it.
Did you read this, it says that only some proselytizing is prohibited.
You've once again created a straw man. Not even a strong supporter of Israel such as myself thinks that Israel is always right. Why the last time they elected a leftist like Tzipi Livni, I was very critical of Israel.
So there you go.
And if it matters to you, and you can confirm this if you care to: more Jews have come to faith in Messiah in the last 25 years than in the prior 1900+.
Do you think that is something to be excited about?
Well, at the risk of being called a name, like "Franklin Graham," perhaps Rush is not a Christian. I've listened to him off and on for 20+ years and have never heard him clearly articulate the gospel and found a number of his thoughts to be inconsistent with being a Christian. So, under those circumstances, I'm not sure that the application of Titus 1:15 is correct.
Unless, of course, we are establishing a theocracy, but then I thought that's the accusation often made here against the Christian Right.
I frankly won't be impressed until he stops doing what he's been doing for nearly a quarter-century.
Yes, this is exactly how biblical forgiveness works, isn't it?
What are you talking about? I said up the thread that he was wrong.
So I guess the unwritten sojo rule of "judge not!!" is suspended for Rush?
Great speech by Netanyahu tonight at AIPAC. Superb.
If you know about the sale of the bunker busters, is it really a secret?
And no, I do not consider Rush the spokesman of the right. He is one of them.
The point the conservatives are making is that you'll never see an article at Sojo when Sarah Palin is called a name. It's hyocrisy. True, it does not excuse what Rush did.
I doubt that most people have the time to listen to his entire show. I would think that most listen only for 10-15 minutes. Personally, I listen to Ed Schultz far more than Rush when I have the time at lunch. My Ed tolerance level pretty much evaporates at about 20 minutes, less when socialist Bernie Sanders or Katrina Vanden Heuvel is a guest.
Now Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt? Much better thinkers and interviewers. I podcast them. With the 2x setting on my iPod and the no commercial versions available, you can get their entire shows done in about 90 minutes.
Too bad about Andrew Breitbart. He would have exposed Fluke as a left wing extremist plant before she was done testifying.
My wife and I went through exactly the same thing when I was in law school. She had fertility issues that required her to take birth control pills that were not covered by insurance. As I said, I adjusted my class schedule and got a job. She's a grown-up. She can do the same.
Rush crossed the line. So did Ed Schultz. They've apologized.
However, I also think it is extremely disingenuous for this activist to call this an untenable burden as she did. It's not. You can't afford it? Do what a lot of us did in law school when faced with similar choices: adjust your schedule and go get a job. It will help you grow up.
22044 is correct about Sojo Truth. It's an uninformed statement, at best. Many, many people in the conservative evangelical community categorically reject the teachings of Lance Wallnau, C. Peter Wagner, etc. Categorically reject.
I find this conversation very interesting because while social conservatives are concerned about gay marriage and abortion, it's the left that wants to control virtually every aspect of our lives: health insurance, pipelines, carbon usage, and on and on an on. Yet the left claims the right wants to control all of their lives.
If you start from the place that Franklin Graham is not God (a starting place with which I would agree) then why no criticism of the hosts for even asking and pressing him to opine on the subject. Seems to me that they asked for an opinion and got one they disagreed with.
And, I might add, continually pressed him so they would get a sound bite they wanted. That's the only reason they pressed him on it.
Franklin Graham said that the president was considered a muslim by muslims. He did not say that he agreed with it.
What's sad is that you misrepresented what Franklin Graham said.
But you would agree that changing marriage from man-woman to man-man or woman-woman removes it even further from the biblical ideal, wouldn't you? It's a further deterioration, right?
The tweet said: "The church that approves of homosexual relations has by that act ceased to be a true church."
Piper never said to kick gays out of society or anyting like that. Why do you have to misrepresent things like this? You've made you're point. You don't agree with him.
It's also ENTIRELY inappropriate and out of line for you to create a straw man out of John Piper and suggest he does not think of himself as a sinner saved by God's grace.
Piper was making a point about the church. That's it.
I guarantee you that if adulterers were trying to re-write scripture and change the legal nature of society's fundamental institution, he would tweet about it.
Biblically?