fauxlaw

I am much more intrigued by the choice of VP by either Democrat contender for the nomination. Both Bernie and Biden have issues: both are old, white men, conditions which, I'd wager, the Party absolutely wanted to prevent. Bernie is lacking a healthy heart; Biden, a mind of any description. Both suggest the possibility of serving a full term. The VP choice for both becomes critical for obvious reasons. My contention is that neither will successfully overcome Trump's wide popularity for a variety of reasons: the economy, trade deals and their effect on reversing the negative export trade ratio, and boosting the GDP, foreign policy, jobs and unemployment across all demographics, and continued, increasing energy independence.

   

Is it time, yet, for us to wrestle control of education from the Democrats? If the above is the best that NYT & MessNBC can muster, I think it's time to admit that education truly is what you pay for it. Free is obviously a low-ball figure.

Allah, Buddha, Elohim, and Jesus were a foursome the other day on the back nine. Buddha mentioned, "The American legislature is up in arms, again, over us."
"Us?" Jesus replied?
"Well, you and Allah, anyway, and pounding Elohim while they’re at it."
"Ya," replied Elohim, "I’ve heard every war oath for blood in the name of every one of us, as if we’re the cause of their misery. But you seem immune to it. How do you do it?"
Allah interrupted: "I'd declare a fatwa and wish a thousand fleas on each of their eyes."
"I tried an eye for an eye. Didn't do so well," Elohim interjected.
Buddha replied, "I think it works this way; I asked a hot dog vendor the other day to make me one with everything. He thought I meant the whole world, and what do you know, he made it happen. I just wanted a dog with deli mustard and diced onion."

No, I said I was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I did not say I was a Mormon. The designation was deliberate. I do not answer to "Mormon." Get used to it. It's not my name.

As for the Book of Mormon [that's a man's name, not the name of the organization], I suggest that it be read, cover to cover. I wonder how many who espouse the Bible have read it, cover to cover. Not many, I'll wager. So, imagine your favorite book. If you have not read it completely, word-for-word, how valid is your praise of it, let alone your criticism of any other book you criticize, having not read it completely?

I will not respond to the ridicule of what I consider sacred. It merely acknowledges your scorn. Not my wheelhouse, my friend.

Does Matthew argue against his own declaration in 6:8 by what follows in 9-13? Those verses are a string of six asks. I still suggest the better course is expressing more gratitude, and less attitude.

I entirely agree with your #209. Sorry, I did not read your #190 and will do so. I believe God allows hardship, and even innocent suffering because the worst that can happen to those who innocently suffer is their death, which is not an end, but a door. Meanwhile, our agency is left intact.

Relative to your post #199, there is no reason why prayer cannot be 100% effective, but there are conditions. First, study and contemplation must precede prayer in oder to have greater understanding of God's will. Hence, the offer Christ made in Gethsemane [Matt.26: 42] "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Second, having faith in Christ must precede prayer as it is through him that prayer is acknowledged and answered. If we pray something might happen by our supplication, something might be done about it. Third, we should spend more prayer time in gratitude than in supplication. Fourth, we must proceed by acting on what is received by prayer. When advice is taken, and acted upon, the Giver is more likely to respond in kind again.

Insidious? Gobbledygook? Insult the Christ? And assume that the only purpose of prayer is supplication, and demonstrate it by quoting Matthew? Is this how you always preface a question? Thanks for encouraging an answer!

As it happens, clearly, my statement encourages humility in prayer, not skeptic insidiocy. It was plain English, not jabberwocky. Jesus Christ is the living Son of God. Have a care to be respectful, even if you do not agree. And Matthew is merely saying that God is already aware of our needs, but is still respectful of a child-like request, acknowledging that we know what we need. My preference, however, is not to always ask, but spend more time and effort in gratitude to Him. "If" is the most useless word in any language because it begins by acknowledging that which is currently not true. Some beginning of a logical argument. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Regardless of what happens in March, July is the tale of the tape, and brokered is the inevitable end of both Biden and Bernie. Happened in 1952 to Estes Kefauver, who had a deciding primary season victory and the nomination sewn up. Who was Estes Kefauver? I rest my case.

There are sufficient issues to resolve by man's intellect and faith in himself to achieve great things, with God's help, to worry about whether God invented Himself, or was born as we are, or if creation was a bang, or an organized assembly, to worry about issues that may or may not contain, restrain, or abstain from us while energy and matter struggle for dominance. Let's solve problems that have us in perplexity here and now. Like pennies managed properly, the dollars will follow in their good time.

If practiced properly, with a sincere and humble heart, having real intent with a desire to know the truth, with faith in Christ, avoiding doubt, fence-sitting, and cynicism, yes, prayer is effective by the working of faith that God can reveal, and heal, comfort, and clarify, redeem and restore, worlds without end.

Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum is my favorite all-around novel. [Original Italian, but I also own an English edition]

I am a wordsmith by profession, in English and French. English is the most verbose in its lexicon of any modern language, and in my experience in over 30 countries, those native-speakers find English to be beautifully spoken and delightful to hear. To me, Portuguese has those distinctions. English, for all its lexicon, sometimes is limited to single words for for things, and is a tough nut to crack for foreigners, mainly because, compared to French, for example, breaks most of its grammatical and spelling rules at the drop of hats.