John 1English Standard Version (ESV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Just a quick post I made earlier this month:
I have mixed feelings about this. If I give a non partisan answer: The Democrats fumbled the ball. The strategy backfired and galvanize the opposition. They concentrated the generalization based on the grievous nature of sexual assault rather than Kavanaugh’s conduct or proof of guilt. (the premises sexual assault is bad, conclusion Kavanaugh is bad). What is missing in this fallacy is objective evidence. The sad part is the distraction push out so serious questions about Kavanaugh’s jurisprudence, the activist court, excessive power of the courts, or the need of decisive decisions (unlike Kennedy).
I do not care for the Proud Boys is see them as secular version of the Promise Keepers but a little too rough, too easy to resort react back in violence, and have populist views I disagree with. Still I feel twitter was wrong, banning is not the answer. Confronting them in civil debate is the way.
From the Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/16/the-christian-case-for-libertarianism/
It make two point I agree with. First:
“Libertarianism is the natural political ideology for Christians because it promotes individual freedom. 1 Peter 2:16 reads, “As freemen, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God.” Men free from the chains of government can maximize our liberties to help our fellow man through private charity and evangelism.”
A little proof texting on 1 Peter 2:16 I disagree with but the principle remain the same. The problem is Government, for example Christian giving government control of marriage and education.
“Original Sin Implies Limited Government
Traditional Christian theology proffers that man is inherently sinful. Man’s inherent original sin makes no person among us just, pure, or wise enough to govern other men. Too often we have found ourselves disappointed by politicians, kings, and other legal authorities. The rational response, therefore, is not to make more strict laws or to increase legal oversight. Rather, it should be to limit government power.”
The doctrine of totally depravity or Original Sin is why I am a Libertarian. Our sinful nature relates to government in that we in our sin will drift towards abuse of political power and authoritarianism, therefore we must limit political power.