Author Topic: Christian family - family and home topics  (Read 10833 times)

Description: Collecting regular extracts for the Christian Family

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline homebird159

Re: Christian family - family and home topics
« Reply #72 on: March 19, 2016, 08:02:31 AM »

C-Family @ Faithwall

C-FAMILY ~ C MORE @ Faithwall.co.uk


I brought my kids up to be themselves - to do their best yes, but always with the belief, shown in practise, that no matter how they "performed", they were equally loved and cherished and of great worth and stature.  Never in our home did they feel "pressured" to achieve.  They knew they should do their homework, yes, and that if they wanted to play music, they had to practise, or they wouldn't get any better at it, but there was never *pressure* or condemnation if they didn't reach someone else's mark for them.

However...

I was constantly fighting against the school system which, from day one, instilled on them the need to pass their tests, Ace their exams, have a solid plan for the future, and work way too hard in achieving what the school thought they should achieve.

Now I am all for pushing kids forward a little, challenging them, etc.   It's how they grow.  And, my youngest was blessed with an almost photographic memory which means he is very, very smart!  But even I, who encouraged them and accepted them totally, could see the stress they were under.  Now, when my youngest is in University, I still see it on his face and in how little free time that lad has to himself.  It's not healthy, and although he is achieving much, I am dismayed at how much of a "victim of the system" our children have become.

Even now, my biggest job with them is to tell them to slow down, for their health's sake, and to constantly remind them that whether the pass or fail, they are still just as valuable and able to make some contribution to the world we live in, if they so wish.

Bottom line is, there is *too much* pressure on kids today - they forget how to simply "be".

C-Family @ Faithwall

C-FAMILY ~ C MORE @ Faithwall.co.uk


CFamily

  • Guest
Actually, Most Evangelicals Don’t Vote Trump
« Reply #73 on: March 20, 2016, 01:01:32 AM »
Actually, Most Evangelicals Don’t Vote Trump

The dominant media narrative is that Donald Trump continues to win the evangelical vote, and this storyline persists despite strong evidence to the contrary. Perhaps the intense media focus on evangelical leaders who support Trump, such as Jerry Falwell Jr., helps sustain this misleading account in spite of the fact that more mainstream evangelical leaders, such as Russell Moore and Max Lucado, have denounced Donald Trump. Regardless of the stance of evangelical leaders, what are “rank and file” evangelicals actually doing once they enter the voting booth?


In the March 1 “Super Tuesday” races, Trump failed to win a majority of evangelicals in any southern state and lost more than half of evangelicals, on average, overall. A look at the second Super Tuesday from March 15 reveals similar results with a couple of surprises. The bottom line is that a majority of evangelicals are still backing candidates other than Trump. In Missouri, the most religiously active voters are supporting non-Trump alternatives with numbers as high as 70 percent.


A majority of evangelicals are still backing candidates other than Trump

March 15 did see Trump carry an impressive 49 percent plurality of evangelicals in Florida, but that was the only state where he was able to perform that feat. Even those results seem tempered when, by comparison, Trump carried 50 percent of the Catholic vote there as well.


Still, even in Florida, Trump only garnered 19 percent of votes from those who chose their candidate based on “shared values.” This includes both Catholics and evangelicals. This hardly supports a conclusion that “values voters” are in Trump’s back pocket. In contrast, Cruz carried pluralities of evangelicals in Missouri (46 percent), North Carolina (43 percent), and Illinois (37 percent) while Kasich carried a plurality of evangelicals in Ohio (43 percent). It seems misleading to continually push a narrative that evangelicals are en masse supporting Trump when his win-loss record (in terms of pluralities) was a paltry 1-5. A win-loss record like that wouldn’t even earn him a spot on the Miami Marlins starting pitching rotation.


The alternative evangelical narrative


One plausible alternative narrative coming out of the March 15 primaries is that evangelicals actually slowed Trump’s advance in Missouri and Illinois and helped defeat him in Ohio. This conclusion is based on the fact that Trump performed worse among evangelicals than non-evangelicals in all three of those states. In addition, Kasich and Cruz each beat Trump among evangelicals by the same margin of eight points in both Ohio and Missouri, respectively.


Across all the states, the March 15 elections showed that, on average, a super-majority of 60 percent of evangelicals voted for someone other than Trump. Furthermore, there continues to be strong evidence that the more religious a voter is, the less likely they are to support Donald Trump. For example, in Missouri exit polls, which tracked church attendance, Trump performed much worse than Ted Cruz. Of those who attend religious services “more than once a week,” Cruz garnered 56 percent of the vote, outpacing Trump by a full 26 percentage points. Among those who attend religious services once a week, Cruz earned 50 percent of the vote, which was a full 17 points above Trump.


In contrast, with those who only attend services “a few” times a year, Trump won 48 percent of the vote to Cruz’s 29 percent. If Missouri’s numbers are indicative of voters in other states, then Trump does much worse among those who actually take their faith seriously enough to attend religious services consistently. There is some recent research by The Barna Group reported on by Vox, which suggests these numbers are indeed consistent with a broader pattern among evangelical voters nationally.



Source: Actually, Most Evangelicals Don’t Vote Trump

C-Family - C-More








http://www.faithwall.co.uk/index.php/15-christian-family/10405-actually-most-evangelicals-don-t-vote-trump
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/january/jerry-falwell-jr-donald-trump-evangelicals-liberty-universi.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/opinion/have-evangelicals-who-support-trump-lost-their-values.html?_r=0
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/february-web-only/why-max-lucado-broke-his-political-silence-for-trump.html
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/03/the-myth-of-the-evangelical-trump-voters
https://www.barna.org/research/culture-media/research-release/americas-faith-segments-divided-presidential-race#.Vuwax_krKM9
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/7/11174064/do-christians-really-favor-trump
http://www.1faith.co.uk/family-home-forum/?action=post

CFamily

  • Guest
How John Piper Knows the Bible Is True
« Reply #74 on: March 21, 2016, 01:18:30 AM »
How John Piper Knows the Bible Is True

When I was teaching at Wheaton College in the early 2000s, all the smart theology students seemed to want an internship at John Piper’s church. Since then, his influence has only grown. Piper has started his own in-house college and seminary, a model for how local churches can supplant universities in providing theological education. If secular media want to know the beating heart and zealous mind of the movement, they should look to Minneapolis.


So it’s no small matter that Piper has written a major new book on a signature subject, one he has dwelt on for more than seven decades: the glory of God as revealed in Scripture. His argument in A Peculiar Glory: How the Christian Scriptures Reveal Their Complete Truthfulness (Crossway) is straightforward: that God’s glory, attested to in Scripture, is self-authenticating. That is, it requires no external, extrabiblical validation. The Scriptures’ glory is that they reveal Jesus to us. And the peculiarity of that glory is a majesty revealed in meekness.


In other words, Piper is using Scripture to defend the reliability of Scripture, with supplementary glances at John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards. But as he admits, he cannot prove it conclusively. Only the Holy Spirit’s inner witness can show the fulsome glory of God in the Bible.


We Can Trust


It’s not any one understanding of biblical truth that Piper seizes upon and defends so much as the beauty of Scripture itself. There are, however, ideas he aims to set aside as unreliable. Piper worries about views of Scripture based on Pascal’s wager—the notion of believing in God because there is much to gain if the Bible is true and little to lose if it isn’t. He also worries about Kierkegaard’s language of a “leap” into belief, because it leaves the leaper far too ill-informed. For Piper, knowing God is more like the knowledge of a spouse than the knowledge of a book or doctrine, much less a bet on something one can’t know for sure.


In fact, Piper argues, Scripture gives us quite a lot of knowledge about God. We can trust it. And not only we scholars. Piper alludes often to his parents and his upbringing in their Bible-believing home—they knew enough to trust. So did Billy Graham, who persevered through a mid-career crisis of faith in the Bible at a time when his colleague, Charles Templeton, was starting down the road to agnosticism. Graham’s and Piper’s parents could trust enough to glimpse God’s glory in Scripture and obey. Piper wants his readers to have the same confidence.


The book has many delightful detours. One revealing anecdote concerns Piper’s time as a New Testament doctoral student in Germany in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At the time, he was sure his professor would insist on using scholarly methods to verify the accuracy of a passage before venturing to interpret it. Actually, the professor answered, we can assume the Bible has been reliably passed down to us.



Source: How John Piper Knows the Bible Is True

C-Family - C-More








http://www.faithwall.co.uk/index.php/15-christian-family/10409-how-john-piper-knows-the-bible-is-true
http://www.1faith.co.uk/family-home-forum/?action=post

Offline Seeker

Re: Christian family - family and home topics
« Reply #75 on: March 21, 2016, 04:27:30 PM »
Ahh it's me ranting    :D

I like a good rant now and again - it's good to question things too  :D

Although here's a question for you - is it ever right, or good to question God's authority? and do we do so without realising?

Offline Seeker

Re: Christian family - family and home topics
« Reply #76 on: March 21, 2016, 05:49:29 PM »
Well yes that is one aspect of parenting.

On the other hand the young adult can rebel against good parenting.

It really depend which age group you are talking about here

I've realised it's pointless thinking of 'what ifs', but that hasn't stopped me doing so :embarrassed:.

Offline Seeker

Re: Christian family - family and home topics
« Reply #77 on: March 21, 2016, 05:54:44 PM »

Bottom line is, there is *too much* pressure on kids today - they forget how to simply "be".

I think there is often too much pressure in this world full stop and also I think many of us - including myself forget how to simply 'be'.

Hhmmmmm I'm meant to be a human 'being', not a human 'doing', but so often I am doing, doing, doing and rarely just 'being'. Who am I trying to live up to? whose expectations? I don't always know the answer, but often I want to just run away from this world.

CFamily

  • Guest
Why We Still Need Kierkegaard
« Reply #78 on: March 22, 2016, 01:07:23 AM »
Why We Still Need Kierkegaard

Years ago, Christianity Today ran a cartoon depicting Francis Schaeffer at the Pearly Gates. Looking through the Book of Life, Peter says, “Let’s see . . . Schaeffer, Dr. Francis. I think Thomas Aquinas would like to have a word with you.”


The medieval Catholic theologian wasn’t the only Christian luminary to find himself repeatedly in Schaeffer’s crosshairs. Søren Kierkegaard was another popular target. Who can forget Schaeffer’s charge that the melancholy Dane’s notion of the “leap of faith” accelerated Western civilization’s “escape from reason” and plunged us into the “line of despair”? Due to this and similar caricatures, evangelicals have often viewed Kierkegaard with suspicion.


Fortunately, Mark Tietjen’s Kierkegaard: A Christian Missionary to Christians (IVP Academic) should help set the record straight, not least on what Kierkegaard meant by the concept of “leap.” Many Christian scholars have lauded Kierkegaard as an orthodox ally. But Tietjen, chaplain at the Stony Brook School in New York, goes further. Writing for those who don’t know philosophical and theological jargon, he shows how Kierkegaard’s body of work bears witness to the fact that nominal Christianity is no Christianity at all.


To clear away the debris, Tietjen first gives an overview of Kierkegaard’s life and thought. Tucked away in this defense of Kierkegaard’s theological credentials is a fine explanation of why Christians shouldn’t be suspicious of philosophy. The resulting picture is that of a rigorous Christian thinker faithfully working in the Reformed Lutheran tradition: a rightful heir to Luther at his best, and a forerunner of later heroes like Bonhoeffer. In particular, Kierkegaard paved the way for analyzing how the church becomes party to the “cheapening of Christianity.”


Tietjen helpfully explains that Kierkegaard’s mission was to make Christianity more “difficult” for Christians. In 19th-century Denmark, he notes, “the claims of Christianity deteriorated into little more than the rote doctrine that one must memorize to be confirmed. Rather than marveling at the great paradox that God became a human to save us from our sins, Christianity as a cultural institution merely assumed that belief, finding it trivial and easy to believe.” But Kierkegaard warned that Christianity cannot be “as simple as pulling on one’s socks.” In all his writings, Kierkegaard sought to show that faith in Jesus demands absolute passion and dedication, not mere assent to a “Christian worldview.”


The rest of the book takes stock of how Kierkegaard sought to disturb nominal Christians long enough for them to consider the gospel. As Tietjen’s subtitle suggests, Kierkegaard understood himself as a missionary to cultural Christianity. The book provides ample commentary on Kierkegaard’s high view of Christ, his relatively low view of human nature, his unique perspective on Christian witness, and his conviction that faith is more than receiving a litany of doctrines.



Source: Why We Still Need Kierkegaard

C-Family - C-More








http://www.faithwall.co.uk/index.php/15-christian-family/10407-why-we-still-need-kierkegaard
http://www.1faith.co.uk/family-home-forum/?action=post

CFamily

  • Guest
Interview: Why We Shouldn’t Remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance
« Reply #79 on: March 23, 2016, 01:11:27 AM »
Interview: Why We Shouldn’t Remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance

When Americans pledge allegiance to “one nation, under God,” non-Christians often see an unwelcome imposition of Christian faith. For Kevin Seamus Hasson, founder of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, it’s a mistake to view “under God” as a divisive theological statement. In Believers, Thinkers, and Founders: How We Became One Nation Under God (Image), Hasson suggests an alternative reading of the pledge based on the concept of the “Philosophers’ God.” CT associate editor Matt Reynolds spoke with Hasson about how this God can serve to unite a religiously diverse people.


How is the Philosophers’ God distinct from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?


The Philosophers’ God and the biblical God are not different beings. The distinction is between faith and reason. Ever since Aristotle, philosophers have held that there is a limited amount we can know about God through reason alone—that he exists, that he is one, that he is good, that he is just. By contrast, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob reveals himself in a much fuller way.


What’s at stake in affirming that America is “under” this Philosophers’ God?


When government acknowledges that it is “under God,” it acknowledges that it is not the source of our rights and therefore cannot deny them to us. Our rights come from a source higher than and prior to the government—from the Creator himself. A government that declares this is humbler and safer than one that imagines itself to be the source of all our freedoms.


To edit “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance, or the Creator from the Declaration of Independence, would change far more than the wording of two famous utterances. It would shift our entire understanding of where our rights come from.


What difference has belief in the Philosophers’ God made in American history?


Strictly speaking, no one believes in the Philosophers’ God. There is no church of the Philosophers’ God. No ministers, no hymnals, and thankfully, no collection plates. Nevertheless, since the founding, a great many leading Americans have been prepared to agree that God exists, even as they disagreed profoundly on who he is.


The Founders are a great example. Some were Christians, some were deists, and some were in-between. But Christians and deists formed a coalition of theists who could agree that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights,” and that literally changed the world. Similar alliances of theists opposed slavery and fought for civil rights.


Why not say that the “God” invoked in the pledge really is the biblical God (while leaving atheists and other dissenters free to disagree)?


It all depends on who’s saying it. The important thing is not that individuals affirm a Creator as the source of our rights. It’s that the government does this. Now, we don’t want the government telling us who God is. These are, after all, the same people who brought us the IRS and the DMV. What are the odds they are going to get theology right?


The solution to this conundrum is the distinction between faith and reason. The government can’t and won’t tell us who God is; that is in the domain of faith. But the government can and most certainly should affirm what is in the domain of reason—that there is a good and just God who endows the people with rights that the government must respect.



Source: Interview: Why We Shouldn’t Remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance

C-Family - C-More








http://www.faithwall.co.uk/index.php/15-christian-family/10410-interview-why-we-shouldn-t-remove-god-from-the-pledge-of-allegiance
http://www.1faith.co.uk/family-home-forum/?action=post

C-Family @ Faithwall

C-FAMILY ~ C MORE @ Faithwall.co.uk