Mama Bear Apologetics talks about the manipulative move of "linguistic theft," which is taking a word people agree is good and then redefining it to smuggle in an entire agenda.
I just happened to have finished Mao's Little Red Book about an hour ago... "In order to have a real grasp of Marxism, one must learn it not only from books, but mainly through class struggle, through practical work and close contact with the masses... When in addition to reading some Marxist books our intellectuals have gained some understanding through close contact with the masses of workers and peasants and through their own practical work, we will all be speaking the same language, not only the common language of patriotism and the common language of the socialist system, but probably even the common language of the communist world overlook. If that happens, all of us will certainly work much better." (Chapter 33: "Study": "Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work" (March 17, 1957), 1st pocket ed., pp. 7-8. [p 104 of my copy])
Hi Mr. Samples. Have you grown more confident in your faith, over the years, in regard to the categories of Truth, Beauty, Goodness? Do you think you have any fruits of the Spirit that demonstrate growth and increased awareness, sensitivity, and practices in any category of Christian doctrines and practices, over your time with Reasons To Believe? Have you modified your thinking to be any closer to the view of "moderate concordance" of the Gospel message presence in God's Creation of our cosmos as well as its presence in Scripture? If so, what changes have you made? Do you agree that by virtue of definition of any of the several versions of Christian doctrines that are used to form legally sanctioned ventures, that the practical measures and standards for seeking truth and justice and resolving disputes with such Christian organizations, or with members of staff or management of such organizations, ought to be more Truthful, Beautiful, and Good, than secular commercial organizations, and perhaps even more so than secular government organizations? Please explain. Have you resolved all such disputes, occurring during your time at Reasons To Believe, in a standard demonstrating such virtues as you note, from secular philosophy, or in accord with the presumably higher standards established by God throughout Scripture and God's Creation? What evidence have you evaluated? What is your reasoning?
I just watched it for first time today, within last few hours. Try clearing your browser memory cache and make a new search for the video - the one with Kent Hovind and Dr. Rana, correct? (I need to listen to it again, since I was not clear of Hovind was joking about holding several earned doctorates, or attempting some form of humor.)
Mama Bear Apologetics talks about the manipulative move of "linguistic theft," which is taking a word people agree is good and then redefining it to smuggle in an entire agenda.
I just happened to have finished Mao's Little Red Book about an hour ago...
"In order to have a real grasp of Marxism, one must learn it not only from books, but mainly through class struggle, through practical work and close contact with the masses... When in addition to reading some Marxist books our intellectuals have gained some understanding through close contact with the masses of workers and peasants and through their own practical work, we will all be speaking the same language, not only the common language of patriotism and the common language of the socialist system, but probably even the common language of the communist world overlook. If that happens, all of us will certainly work much better." (Chapter 33: "Study": "Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work" (March 17, 1957), 1st pocket ed., pp. 7-8. [p 104 of my copy])
Hi Mr. Samples. Have you grown more confident in your faith, over the years, in regard to the categories of Truth, Beauty, Goodness?
Do you think you have any fruits of the Spirit that demonstrate growth and increased awareness, sensitivity, and practices in any category of Christian doctrines and practices, over your time with Reasons To Believe?
Have you modified your thinking to be any closer to the view of "moderate concordance" of the Gospel message presence in God's Creation of our cosmos as well as its presence in Scripture? If so, what changes have you made?
Do you agree that by virtue of definition of any of the several versions of Christian doctrines that are used to form legally sanctioned ventures, that the practical measures and standards for seeking truth and justice and resolving disputes with such Christian organizations, or with members of staff or management of such organizations, ought to be more Truthful, Beautiful, and Good, than secular commercial organizations, and perhaps even more so than secular government organizations? Please explain.
Have you resolved all such disputes, occurring during your time at Reasons To Believe, in a standard demonstrating such virtues as you note, from secular philosophy, or in accord with the presumably higher standards established by God throughout Scripture and God's Creation? What evidence have you evaluated? What is your reasoning?
Why even bother to have another Old Earth vs Young Earth debate when you take down the video not a day later. Makes you wonder why they did that.
I just watched it for first time today, within last few hours. Try clearing your browser memory cache and make a new search for the video - the one with Kent Hovind and Dr. Rana, correct?
(I need to listen to it again, since I was not clear of Hovind was joking about holding several earned doctorates, or attempting some form of humor.)