The Kingdom Come

With all the talk about the president of the United States coming out in favor of same-sex or "gay" marriage I thought I'd address this topic from a few perspectives.

THE LOVE AND PRIVACY ARGUMENT

It used to be that when America reluctantly but finally became involved in a conflict or a war, the oppressed welcomed our involvement. Our involvement usually meant that the end result was a more stabilized nation that would give more opportunity to more people.

So, why wouldn't Muslims want America's involvement in overthrowing the dictatorial regimes controlling most of the Islamic world?

May is busy around my house. My daughter will walk the aisle to mark the end of her High School days. Her mother and I are so proud of her. She even graduated a semester earlier but had to wait until now to walk. In fact she will be done with her college education by January.

On the topic of education; public primary education is almost pointless after the sixth grade. Most of the remaining six years are spent rehashing the same thing learned in the prior six years. I think our cookie-cutter education system needs a reformation; starting with moving most of it to privatization. America has become too socialistic in thinking everyone is the same. We're all different to some degree and we'd be more powerful and productive as a united country if we stopped wasting time teaching our children things they will never use.

As a guy, a man married to the same woman for 22 years, and the father of an 18 year old daughter whom has dated a few guys -- I want to offer this "guide to guys".

Girls seem to think guys are difficult to understand, but really, most guys are fairly simple. Most guys are driven by a few things but not necessarily in this order:

(1) Food
(2) Play (games, sports, whatever)
(3) Sleep (mainly naps)
(4) Um...Sex

After that, guys can be broken down into types (mix and match too):

The Bible says "But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;" -- 1 Cor 1:27

Many well-meaning Christians think this means we ought to be in a perpetual state of self imposed impotency when it comes to expressing our faith. They want to revel in a form of pity. But is that what the Bible is saying to do?

First, by "Post-Christian" I simply mean that much of Western civilization is becoming increasingly secularized, moving away from daily expression and adherence to Christian principles. So, in understanding that meaning, when I address the topic of women in a post-Christian world I want to contrast that with the roles, attitudes, and behavior of women in this post-Christian world. I will address both Christian and non-Christian women.

Let's establish the roles, attitudes and behavior of women when most of Western civilization was still Christianized. We'll consider this the period from roughly the 4th century to the early 1800s. This encompasses both the decline of the pagan empire of Rome and the conversion to Christianity of the last of Europe; England itself.

Um, before I go any further; let me say I have been happily married for 22 years to the same woman. She is a confident woman. She has worked outside the home during our entire marriage. We have also raised an intelligent and assertive daughter. My point is, no one should attempt to claim I'm chauvinistic or misogynistic. My wife and I have been partners in life. I am not her dictator.

Arguments aren't simply disagreements, but propositions. An argument is any point that is being made. It need not be a negative or hostile point.

I recently re-read a little book by Anthony Weston called, A Rulebook for Arguments. It appears he published the first edition in 1986. I have the third edition published in 2000.

Sick of your local news channel or local newspaper ignoring the REAL news or only sloppily reporting it?

Check out TKC's NEWSFEED
http://thekingdomcome.com/aggregator

HEADLINES

You might have clicked on a link on PreteristBlog and it brought you to this site. Perhaps it was supposed to be a link to a wav file from 2006 or something. The problem is, Dee Dee Warren from PreteristBlog is attempting to SMEAR me. She knows FULL WELL I haven't been a hyper/full preterist since 2007 but she wants to try to SMEAR me so she digs up some old article she wrote that no longer has verifiable links -- since I have no desire to promote hyper/full preterismⁱ. It is like a person who attempts to SMEAR an ex-communist by digging up old news about when they were a communist. But reader, keep in mind; I am in NO WAY trying to hide I was a hyper/full preterist. You can read all about that here: http://unpreterist.blogspot.com

So, why is Dee Dee Warren (not her real name by the way) doing this??? Well, because I recently caught her LYING about me and I very detailed documented her lies here: http://unpreterist.blogspot.com/2012/04/dee-dee-warrens-fantasy-world.html

Many young people get their idea about how to do relationships, either from their friends, who equally don't have long term experience, or from a magazine (typically written by people who have little successful experience), or from examples of not very successful family members (such as parents that don't really get along).

Well, I'm not trying to claim I'm the expert, but I have been happily married for over 22 years and with the same person since I was age 16. So, here's some advice. First to young women.

As I get older I'm beginning to think the things older adults need to think about. Adults, 50 and older typically join AARP -- American Association of Retired Persons never realizing its background. AARP tries to pretend it is a non-partisan organization yet just peruse the AARP website and it becomes obvious of its liberal slant. For example, its section on politics had an article about trying to scare older Americans that they aren't going to be able to vote. Why? Because of the laws requiring some form of identification. (see here) This is a typical liberal scare issue. Liberals don't like the laws requiring identification because without an identification; liberal politicians can help people commit voter fraud; as they have been for years. I mean, who doesn't have some form of identification now-a-days? Even so, the laws typically have provisions that will provide an identification for free to any eligible voter.

When I speak of religionists I usually get support from folks who think our faith should be less "institutional" but I'm not really talking about that. Christianity is of course a religion. James 1:26-27 speaks of Christianity as a religion.

However a "religionist" makes his religion his religion. Or plainly, the practice of a person's religion becomes his religion. How he performs. How he worships. How he speaks. It really doesn't matter what religion it is. It could be Christianity, Islam, or some other religion. Everything becomes about the religion. There is nothing else but it. Now, perhaps some should take me to task that devotion to one's faith demands it unless the person be a mediocre or nominal believer. But again, I'm not talking about whether a person is very devoted or not. I'm talking about whether a person can even see anything else but the practice of his religion. Whether we like it or not, historically the world has not been about a specific religion. Sure, we have had large periods of history where a religion dominated ever aspect of life, however even then people's concern was living day-to-day despite that dominance.

Altruism is often defined as Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; – opposed to egoism or selfishness.

With this as the definition, who wouldn't want to implement an altruistic lifestyle, and especially if the person is a Christian? I mean, isn't that the point of Jesus' message? Be nice to people.

As I become less and less enthusiastic about discussing theology, due to the blantant hypocrisy among men I PREVIOUSLY respected, I am branching off. TKC will remain my theological website, however it may or may not be as active depending on what's going on.

My two new websites are HISTORICALREALISM.COM and RODERICKE.COM

The Bible is Thematic, meaning despite any verses that may SEEM to contradict each other, the over all theme of the Bible must be considered. The question is; what is the theme of Bible? Does it just have one theme?

This issue is most important when it comes to interpretation. For centuries, one sect of Bible readers has accused another sect of "not following the Bible". Notice I say, sect of Bible readers, rather than Christians. I mean to include the entire spectrum of people who read and rely upon the Bible as a main source for their beliefs; be it Roman Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Mormons, and so on. Who gets to say what the Bible is saying? This is the reason many people approach the Bible as a hodge-podge of anything goes, since there are so many interpretations and we are often told we must allow for or tolerate that any of the interpretation might be the correct one. In that case, why even try. Most people want to know exactly what something means. If the Bible is merely a hodge-podge of gray; then why mess with it.

This riveting portrayal of a true story of the stoning of an innocent woman in Iran will move even the most heartless person. The sense you will come away with is not simply that stoning people is barbaric; since of course our own Bible has commanded it at times; rather the blatant injustice and the plotting by evil men will make you want to expose every liar and hypocrite for who they are...no matter how "noble" and "holy" they attempt to depict themselves.

Molotov Mitchell, the man behind the fabulous yet provocative video segments; "For the Record" has made a feature length film called Gates of Hell.

The plot of the film is set in the year 2016 where a black group called the Zulu 9 decides to take on the abortionists whom target the black community (this is historically accurate -- see Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood).

Perhaps the best free software I've found for helping to manage or organize your ebooks is an open source program called Calibre. Calibre was created by Kovid Goyal in 2006 and has ever-since been developed by a team of open source enthusiasts.

Although Calibre is a combination of the word libre, meaning freedom, thus indicating its free open-source nature, Goyal suggests it be pronounced Cali-ber.

The usual claim is that doctrines like the Trinityⁱ or forensic Justificationⁱ by faith alone are "new" doctrines. That is, that these doctrines didn't exist at the time of the apostles or within the early Church. Depending on the honesty of the individual, the claim will be that these and other doctrines are completely new doctrines or that they are "developed" doctrines. By developed, they usually mean that the doctrines were there all along in the Bible but had to be better developed or understood by subsequent generations of Bible readers.

As I have engaged in "discussions" about the Bible, I want to be careful how I present this article. I am not advocating avoiding vigorous stances on key doctrinal issues. But lately, as I watch some supposed "experts" argue with what they label as "folk theologians" I've noticed how pointless their arguments are. They are arguing over whether Paul actually saw the same physical Jesus as the other apostles did. See Acts 9:1-9, Acts 9:27, Acts 22:6-11, Acts 26:12-18, and 1 Cor 15:7-8.

With the debate in the United States over whether religious organizations; especially the Roman Catholic Church should be forced by the government to pay for its employees birth control there is need to address this issue.

First, the entire issue is often poorly framed. Those on the side of forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control often claim it is a matter of woman's health. In response, I've heard non-religious pundits talk about the possible unhealthy effects of birth control pills. But that debate misses some very important points:

If by religious it is meant that this site advocates and promotes some specific ideology or world-view; then yes, this site and most all sites are "religious". But perhaps the difference in this site and some other sites that also promote ideas and world-views; this site is clear and open about it. For example, a liberal, left-wing site is also a "religious" site except that the religion it is promoting is liberalism, and often without openly admitting to it.

However, all ideas strongly held or promoted are of a type of devotion that could be called "religious".

How would it affect your faith if the existence of aliens was proven without a doubt? Sure, this is a highly speculative question but so have been questions that Christians in the past had to face.

How did Christianity handle the idea that there was more to the world than Europe, Asia, and Africa? How did Christianity handle it when flight was finally possible? How did Christianity handle it when we finally left earth's orbit?

Although I'm using the past-tense, "was" here, it is possible that a case could be made that heretics should still be killed but I'm not the one making that case. I guess we first must ask; What makes a person a heretic? Typically you will hear that heresy is simply going against the predominant view, in this case against whatever expression of Christianity is dominant. This is where a person may claim that everyone is a heretic to someone else over some issue or another; thus making relativistic the entire idea. This is especially true of how the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestants have interacted. To this day, there are many Roman Catholics and many Protestants that do not consider the other group to even be Christians. But, I'm not trying to be ecumenical here.

HERETIC DEFINED

So, let us try to define heresy a little tighter. Romans 16:17-18 is perhaps the clearest biblical expression of what it means to be a heretic.