Author Topic: Christian family - family and home topics  (Read 440059 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline John

  • Awarded Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3016
Re: Christian family - family and home topics
« Reply #144 on: May 05, 2016, 03:13:51 PM »

C-Family @ Faithwall


I'm totaly ignorant about the content of soap operas, but I have a question.
The post talks about a small town full of characters and the mother daughter friendship and boyfriends.
I understand women are involved in relationships but I'm interested in just how fit are the boyfriends to be considered husband material and equaly how fit are the girlfriends to be considered wives/mothers?
Have a look at this blog post and think. Yes think, how do these characters measure up.

Yes I know soaps are entertainment, but do you understand that many women are daft enough to take them seriously and follow there example in forming relationships.

C-Family @ Faithwall



  • Guest
[Cfamily]Bey and Bey's God
« Reply #145 on: May 06, 2016, 07:01:35 AM »
Bey and Bey's God

Beyoncé’ in 'Lemonade'

Beyoncé’ in 'Lemonade'

In “Don’t Hurt Yourself,” the third and angriest track on Beyoncé’s album Lemonade, the singer spits out the phrase “God complex” as an insult at the target of her song—contextually, her husband, the rapper Jay-Z, to whom she has been married since 2008. That little line, and some other bits slipped into the lyrics and visuals, form a sort of a skeleton key to pry open what the project has to do with God.

The story of Lemonade has a lot to do with God, and with idols.

Released without warning a week ago, Lemonade is a “visual album,” meant more to be watched than to be listened to (though you can do that too). It’s an hour-long devastating film, gorgeously shot, rich in imagery. Spliced into the tracks—sometimes in the middle of them—are Warsan Shire’s poems, along with home video and images of Beyoncé’s parents and her own marriage, heartbreaking moments with the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown holding their son’s portraits and staring into the camera, dance, and other familiar faces and voices.

Lemonade also boasts a deep religious sense. Its images of water and fire seem torn from a book of prophecy, a personal apocalypse. It relies on the narrative of baptism and redemption, and yet is a remarkably complex work of art. On release, it inspired a frenzy of writing on a variety of topics, from feminism and womanism to marriage, adultery, American history, its African and Creole sources, and much more. The film also draws on images traditionally associated with fertility, particularly the ankh she wears around her neck in “Don’t Hurt Yourself.” The ankh was a symbol of life in ancient Egypt, and all the Pharoahs and deities were pictured clutching it. (It’s sometimes used by Coptic Christians as well.)

Beyoncé’ in 'Lemonade'

Beyoncé’ in 'Lemonade'

It would be a mistake to interpret any of the tracks in isolation. This is an album best taken in whole, because it tells a story. My colleagues noted last week on CT's “Quick to Listen” podcast that you can read Lemonade as a modern-day book of Psalms, which fan across the spectrum from angry shouting to songs of deliverance. The music and lyrics tell a story: first the singer intuits that something is going on in her marriage, but doesn’t want to believe it; then, when it’s confirmed, she goes through stages of anger and grief, eventually deciding that it’s worth pursuing reconciliation. We’re meant to understand that this is a personal narrative—likely for Beyoncé, but for many other women, and in particular, black women—and it’s laid out in chapters with text on the screen, some of it overtly religious: Intuition, Denial, Anger, Apathy, Emptiness, Accountability, Reformation, Forgiveness, Resurrection, and Redemption.

As in much of her public work in the past few years, in Lemonade Beyoncé is concerned with the ways women suffer and recover and gain agency—particularly black women in America, who Malcolm X proclaims at one point in voiceover are the most disrespected, unprotected, neglected people in America. Lemonade suggests that black women have been let down by two groups of people repeatedly: the men in their lives, particularly fathers and husbands, and their country more broadly. In personal and social history, the very people meant to protect them have taken advantage of them. (In Lemonade she focuses mainly on the personal, but the cultural implications are there as well, sometimes explicitly.)

Source: Bey and Bey's God

C-Family - C-More

Offline John

  • Awarded Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3016
Re: Christian family - family and home topics
« Reply #146 on: May 06, 2016, 12:09:49 PM »
Yes black women are let down by the men in their lives and by the society to which they belong.
Unfortunetly a lot of their problems are brought on by their own actions.
Marriage is declining rapidly among poor blacks, yet the stats show that those who marry are better off financially, their children do better at school and form longer lasting relationships.

How could beyonce help black women, simple by promoting a message, 'If you want sex, you court me and marry me.'


  • Guest
[Cfamily]A Prostitute and a Gallon of Milk
« Reply #147 on: May 07, 2016, 07:03:44 AM »
A Prostitute and a Gallon of Milk

A Prostitute and a Gallon of Milk


Once, in a moment of supreme confidence, I decided to balance a gallon of milk on my head. I was young, and I was trying to make the oh-so-boring task of putting away the groceries a little more interesting. And it did get interesting, as my talents do not include balancing bulky beverage containers on my noggin. A beverage container that quickly made its way to the floor. A beverage that is a lot of work to clean up.

To clean up a lake of milk, you get down on your knees and sop it up, but you know the horrible truth: There are cracks in any kitchen floor where the milk will remain forever—dried lactose, sticky and (for awhile) smelly.

I wonder if some of us, when we consider what it means to “have faith,” think of someone doing a task comparable to cleaning up a gallon of milk. It’s a lot of work, and you’re never sure you got it all. You constantly wonder, Is that it? Have I gotten it? Or is there a little more out there yet?

Odd Woman Out

The author of Hebrews tells us what faith is: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1, NIV). The author goes on to give examples of people who lived by faith: Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph—the list goes on, tracing the faith history of the Hebrew people.

But there’s one name on that list that is seemingly out of place. Of the two women named in Hebrews 11, one is Sarah, wife of the patriarch Abraham. The other, Rahab, is a Gentile. The author of Hebrews records: “ By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient” (verse 31).

Yet when we examine the account of Rahab and the spies, what we uncover about faith may deeply challenge our assumptions. Not only is Rahab a prostitute, but in the account she never verbally proclaims her faith in God. In fact, she calls the spies’ god “your God” in Joshua 2:11. Nevertheless, she’s in the lineup. She joins the patriarchs of Hebrews 11.

Hebrews isn’t the only place Rahab’s faith is heralded in Scripture. In James’s epistle, she is listed alongside Abraham as an example of one whose faith expresses itself through works. Cue the old Sesame Street song, “One of these things is not like the others. . . .”

Rahab’s Anxiety

Imagine with me: Rahab is a prostitute, probably driven to her state in life by poverty. Her family, parents, brothers, and probably children live with her in a location that’s convenient for male travelers.

Source: A Prostitute and a Gallon of Milk

C-Family - C-More

Offline Seeker

  • Testify - God Today
  • **
  • Posts: 902
  • New :
Re: Christian family - family and home topics
« Reply #148 on: May 07, 2016, 10:58:49 AM »
I used to get told not to cry over spilt milk. Not sure if that was literal or some metaphor :huh:


  • Guest
[Cfamily]When It Comes to the Next President, We Need More Than Strength
« Reply #149 on: May 08, 2016, 07:08:50 AM »
When It Comes to the Next President, We Need More Than Strength

My fellow Americans, the state of our union is strong.” So every president over the past several decades has declared in his annual address to Congress. This is a half-truth in the best of times. Because a new president will be inaugurated in January 2017, there will likely be no formal State of the Union speech next year. Just as well, because it is hard to imagine anyone saying with a straight face that our union is strong.

This is not the first time America has faced daunting internal tensions and external threats. But during this year’s presidential primaries, fear, despair, and dissatisfaction have drawn Americans to would-be leaders who promise radical change to restore our country’s strength.

Yet strength is only one part of real health for nations. All truly flourishing communities must also embrace vulnerability. They accept and even seek out meaningful risk for the sake of growth. Great leaders do not just promise strength: they call people to risk as well.

But around the world today we see the rise of leaders who offer various forms of authority without vulnerability—strength without risk. This is the promise of every authoritarian government and every dictator, and it is increasingly the currency of American political campaigns. One candidate promised to build a wall to keep out illegal immigrants from Mexico—and to make Mexico pay for it. Another promised free tuition at public universities—and to make “Wall Street” pay for it.

These promises have several things in common, and not just that they are entirely unfeasible. They promise goods without a price, protection without effort, and benefits without costs—at least to people like us. They depend on extracting the effort and cost from others—others who are treated not as potential partners but as permanent enemies.

We must recover the politically radical dimensions of the claim that “Jesus is Lord.”

We also see a level of bluster in American politics unparalleled since the Jacksonian excesses of the 19th century—proclaiming one’s own power and reveling in others’ weakness. The unrealistic promises have been matched by crude displays of bravado and disdain for “losers.” The same people who flaunt their power complain incessantly, airing their grievances against the powerful forces arrayed against them. Authoritarian leaders flaunt their power, manipulative leaders flaunt their supposed vulnerability—and the most toxic leaders do both at the same time.

Christians, of all people, should be able to resist the temptation to cheer at shallow policy proposals, and for politicians who are shallower still. We must recover the politically radical dimensions of the claim that “Jesus is Lord.” To say Jesus is Lord is to establish a standard against which all human exercises in power can be judged—and, in time, will be judged.

Jesus never flaunted his power. His public miracles were often followed by deliberate withdrawals from sight—as when the crowds, amazed by the miraculous provision of food, sought to make him king. He chose a title, “Son of Man,” that for all its messianic overtones identified him with simple humanity, not godlike invulnerability. He knew that a fatal confrontation was inevitable, but he never stirred up grievance or indulged in self-pity.

No leader, whether religious or political, will always live up to Jesus’ standard of leadership. But for this very reason, we need leaders who avoid stoking the worst in us.

Source: When It Comes to the Next President, We Need More Than Strength

C-Family - C-More


  • Guest
Trump, Clinton, or Neither: How Evangelicals Are Expected to Vote

When Ted Cruz and John Kasich pulled out of the presidential race this week, they left voters one “yuge” step closer to having to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton this fall.

And they left churchgoing Christians, who largely supported Cruz, without a clear candidate to rally behind.

“The Battleground Poll has the Clinton-Trump God gap at under 15 points, with those who say they go to church at least once a week preferring Trump to Clinton by nine points and those attending less frequently preferring Clinton to Trump by less than six,” noted Mark Silk, director of the Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College, on his Religion News Service blog. “That compares to a God gap in 2012 of nearly 40 points.”

In fact, for the first time, a person’s vote is more easily predicted by their gender than their level of religiosity. “Since the God gap became salient in the 1990s, it’s always exceeded the gender gap,” Silk wrote. “Not, evidently, this year.”

The shrinking “God gap” hinges on the oft-debated definition of evangelical. Polls show that support for Trump is much higher among those who don’t attend church regularly than among those who worship weekly.

Without a clear horse in the race, many churchgoing evangelicals might join their fellow Americans in staying home.

Polling just ahead of Cruz’s concession showed that anywhere from 16 percent to 24 percent of voters said that if faced with a Trump vs. Clinton matchup, they would choose to stay home or vote for a third-party candidate.

According to Reuters, 20 percent of self-identified “born again Christians” now say they would abstain from voting, down from a high of 28 percent in early April. And 26 percent of Americans who worship weekly or more now say they would abstain, down from 33 percent in early April.

Among born-again Christians who worship weekly or more, 23 percent say they would abstain from voting for Trump or Clinton, down from 31 percent in early April.

A CNN poll found that only four percent of overall voters would abstain from choosing either candidates, but not because voters were pleased with the choice. More than half (51% of Clinton voters and 57% of Trump voters) said they would cast their vote not to support their candidate, but to oppose the other one.

In fact, Trump is the most unpopular presidential candidate in the history of NBC/Wall Street Journal polling. It found that 65 percent of voters have a negative opinion of him, compared to 56 percent who have a negative opinion of Clinton.

And both candidates scored historically unpopular ratings in CBS/New York Times polling. More than half of voters view both Trump (57%) and Clinton (52%) unfavorably, far more than those who view them favorably (24% for Trump, 31% for Clinton). The closest anyone comes to being this unpopular was Bill Clinton in 1992 (24% approval vs. 41% disapproval rating).

Among evangelicals, Trump has a net favorability rating of -38 percent, according to a recent survey by Barna Group. Clinton’s is -61 percent.

Half of the 81 “evangelical insiders” surveyed by World magazine in March said that if faced with a Clinton/Trump ballot in November, they would vote for a third-party candidate even if that candidate had no chance to win (51%). More than a quarter more said they’d vote for a viable third-party candidate (29%).

While 20 percent said they would vote for Trump, he was the top choice for only 5 percent. Only 1 percent said they would vote for Clinton.

Although most evangelical leaders have not supported Trump’s run (including Max Lucado), he has gained endorsements from Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. and First Baptist Church of Dallas senior pastor Robert Jeffress.

“I believe any Christian who would sit at home and not vote for the Republican nominee … that person is being motivated by pride rather than principle,” Jeffress told the Christian Post.

Trump has at least voiced concern for religious liberty and support for the pro-life movement, said Jeffress.

But Trump’s “evolvingviews on abortion aren't enough for some.

“Christians in the United States are now going to face a very excruciating set of decisions,” said Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in a May 4 podcast. “Many of us are going to be facing the reality that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, we will not be able to vote in good conscience for either.”

Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission president Russell Moore agreed.

“When Christians face two clearly immoral options, we cannot rationalize a vote for immorality or injustice just because we deem the alternative to be worse,” he wrote for CT in March. “The Bible tells us we will be held accountable not only for the evil deeds we do but also when we “give approval to those who practice them” (Rom. 1:32).

“This side of the New Jerusalem, we will never have a perfect candidate. But we cannot vote for evil, even if it’s our only option.”

Baptist Press summarizes the debate. Bruce Ashford, provost at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, argues that Christians now have a chance to speak prophetically to the agendas of both parties.

CT has noted how most pastors aren’t voting Trump, charts on evangelical voting on Super Tuesday, how most Americans still want a religious president, and whether they think Bible reading could clean up the election.

[Donald Trump image courtesy of Gage Skidmore – Flickr]

[Hillary Clinton image courtesy of Gage Skidmore – Flickr]

Source: Trump, Clinton, or Neither: How Evangelicals Are Expected to Vote

C-Family - C-More!poll/TM651Y15_13/filters/LIKELY:1/type/smallest/dates/20160201-20160503/collapsed/true/spotlight/1,Z20:7%7C8%7C9


  • Guest
[Cfamily]The Kasich Conundrum
« Reply #151 on: May 10, 2016, 07:01:10 AM »
The Kasich Conundrum

A knowing, self-aware laughter came over the crowd at the Q Conference in April. Gabe Lyons, the founder of Q, revealed the survey results of conference attendees to show that among the five remaining presidential candidates it was John Kasich who took the plurality of the vote. It was not even close. Among the more than 1,000 evangelical leaders at the event, Kasich received 49 percent of their support. Ted Cruz came a distant second at 18 percent, and Hillary Clinton garnered 16 percent. Donald Trump had the support of only 2 percent of attendees. It is eerie to read these survey results from the Q Conference in light of the recent developments in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. After a resounding victory for Trump in Indiana, Cruz has dropped out of the race, and Kasich suspended his own candidacy yesterday, leaving Trump as the Republicans’ presumptive nominee.

This moment is ironically symbolic of the 2016 GOP presidential race and of Kasich’s campaign in particular. The vast majority of Americans chose not to vote for a politician precisely because of the very characteristics that many evangelicals, like those at Q, like about him.

At a time when incivility is perceived as courage, and a lack of anger equated to a lack of understanding, Kasich is the odd man out.

In this upside-down presidential election, Kasich was the most offensive candidate running.

How so? His faith hurt him more than it helped. Laura Ortberg Turner described this dynamic in an article in Politico, “How Kasich’s Religion is Hurting Him with Conservatives.” Kasich is a member of the Anglican Church of North America, formed following a split with the Episcopal Church over divisions regarding biblical authority and the sacrament of marriage, among other issues. Kasich has belonged to a small group of men that have met every week for more than 20 years, which is the subject of his 2010 book, Every Other Monday. He also contributed a short chapter to a book celebrating the life and ideas of Dallas Willard.

For reasons of disposition or conviction, Kasich’s faith typically comes out as a sort of natural consequence of the circumstances. To my knowledge, he has not delivered a “faith” speech. He has not spoken at Liberty University like Cruz and Trump did. His campaign did not have a staffer dedicated to religious outreach, unlike the campaigns of Cruz, Rubio, Bush, and Carson. As Turner pointed out, Kasich explained to reporters that he thinks it “cheapens God…to go out and try to win a vote by using God.”

Yet, his faith is evident for those paying attention. At the outset of his campaign, Kasich told TheAtlantic’s Molly Ball that he had been contemplating “some things that are extremely personal—what is my purpose in life?” In a visit to an Orthodox Jewish bookstore, he engaged Jewish students in a conversation on Scripture and his views on Abraham, Moses, and the Passover. These expressions seem devoid of any discernable political benefit, and exchanges like the one at the bookstore seem politically counter-productive with his target audience at the time. In an era of micro-managed, micro-targeted campaigns, such excursions are offensive.

Odd Man Out

Kasich claims his faith leads him to positions that fall outside of party doctrine. In a room full of donors convened by the Koch brothers, Kasich was asked by one woman why he agreed to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, extending health insurance to more low-income people. Many conservatives disapproved of the decision because they believe it undermined congressional efforts to repeal Obamacare. Kasich responded, in front of an audience of wealthy, libertarian-leaning donors: “I don’t know about you, lady, but when I get to the pearly gates, I’m going to have an answer for what I’ve done for the poor.” According to Politico, about 20 donors left the room and his fellow panelists, Gov. Nikki Haley and Gov. Bobby Jindal, spoke up to disagree. Kasich has not been invited back to a Koch gathering since.

Source: The Kasich Conundrum

C-Family - C-More

C-Family @ Faithwall



SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal