prisonchaplain

I remember Replublicans thinking this was funny at the time. Now, almost 40 years later, with allegations of election-interfering, perhaps the Democrats can make this their new funny meme:

I'm not a lawyer, and the law may well be on the side of the big-3 platforms to keep section 230. On the other hand, the calls to have it removed come from consumers who feel a "bait and switch" has happened. These hugely influential platforms began as nearly unmoderated sites, allowing the free exchange of idea. They become behemoths, and rightly gained the section 230 protections, since the sites were bastions of unfettered customer-provided content. THEN, all three flipped, and said the felt obligated to moderate/restrict/censor content they found dangerous, wrong, or beneath their standards. Conservatives continue to believe that these restrictions are levied heavily against their candidates and causes. So, it's an open question as to whether they should continue to receive legal shelter given their out-size influence and alleged biased moderating.

Could be, but Rush was referred to in a positive sense. We all know what rock bands really are . . .

You win. Give it another go. :-)

Social media sites, primarily Face Book, Twitter, and YouTube, all claimed that they were open forums, and that most of their content was user-supplied. They must not be held to account for what is on the site, because, by its nature, these sites are uncensored public domain. As a result, they got the following protection: Most fundamentally, Section 230 provides immunity to social media companies like Facebook and Twitter TWTR +0.4% against being sued over the content on their site. This allows them to operate and flourish without needing to moderate content. Of course, now they want to protect the public from dangerous content, based upon the site-owner's subjective, and usually left-leaning, perceptions. Moderates and liberals often see these as reasonable restrictions. They proclaim that private companies should be allowed to censor however they wish. OK. However, if so, then the owners are no longer disinterested providers of a user-driven content platform. They are now publishers. They are deciding what gets produced and what does not. I oppose censorship and uphold the right of social media companies to control their platform content. Of course, Section 230 must be taken away. RIGHT???

I'm confused. Rush Limbaugh was born/raised in Cape Girardeau, MO. He even attended Southeast Missouri State University, in the same city. He's not from Canada, is he?

Then it has to be #2, because #3 seems almost boringly true...

Speaking of politics, someone mentioned to me that POTUS Trump may fire AG Barr. I suggested that POTUS would be engaging in a vindictive, senseless act. The other person looked at me with seeming confusion, so I said, "Firing the AG, not the entire last four years."

"My fellow Americans, I have solved the Red threat forever. We begin bombing in five minutes …" -- President Ronald Reagan The media offered frothing commentary, saying the hot-mic comment representing his real heart--his actual thinking. The USSR ambassador demanded an official apology. @pam found his response, and used it in a similarly appropriate manner.

What do you call a Christmas tree that knows karate?

Whenever someone tells me they are tired I respond, "Now you know how my jokes mannequin feels."

Whenever someone tells me they are tired I respond, "Now you know how my jokes feel."

I've noticed that many anti-LDS and anti-JW (at least on Youtube) are motivated by atheism and a supposed logic. Frankly, I don't get why nonbelievers care what people believe, There's not much I can do for or about them. However, the old school Evangelicals who oppose your church, as well as other groups, would do well to take your words above to heart. What good is it to de-convert someone, only to have them embrace atheism or agnosticism? The temptation is obvious--if I was fooled once by spirituality I'll not be fooled twice. There is counsel that I used to give our Christian volunteers at the jail. "Don't bother criticizing or opposing other religions--just lift up the beauty of your faith and what you have to offer." Jesus said that if He is lifted up then all will be drawn to Him. I still believe what I believe and disagree with perspectives counter to my own, but I have yet to meet a soul that has been converted via argumentation or by losing a debate.

Context is everything! Generically, sure I own my feelings and can usually choose to be offended, upset or not. However, "I feel scared when you raise your voice and take a swing at me," deserves a little more support than, "... create the outcome you want instead of becoming resentful." Having said all that, I imagine that this print resource is meant to be generic, and that the group facilitator would be relied on to interpret context and adjust counsel.

Where would I belong in the new LDS.net Town...aka Thirdhourville? "Just build my mansion next door to Jesus / and tell the angels I'm a comin' on home . . . "

@MrShorty I suspect that if the church is true, then Heavenly Father's invitation is, "Whosoever will may come." Likewise, if exaltation is true, the invitation is for all who will embrace its blessings and covenants. So, if I am a member, I would desire to encourage as many as possible into the church and on to a life journey that leads to exaltation. My understanding is that Joseph Smith absolutely rejected the doctrine of predestination (as do I). Now, as an AoG member and pastor, I do believe I am called to my role. God drew me to it. Further, I have studied and prayed, and do believe that the Assemblies of God, while not the one true church, is a denomination that is faithful to the Holy Spirit's direction, and to the Word of God (Bible). Nevertheless, God did not force or coerce me towards it. Rather, he used faithful church workers to get an invitation to my 10-year old self. I accepted the initial invite, and then the spiritual drawings to conversion, baptism, Spirit-infilling, service, and then called ministry. Free agency is huge in these matters. As a final example, the Worldwide Church of God (Armstrong) become much more God-pleasing when it abandoned most of its distinctive teachings, imho.

I may be more open to the question because, like most Protestants, I know that we already left one church because, though it taught much that was true and gave us our scriptures, I ultimately did not believe the tradition of it was as inspired as scripture itself. So, if I were to find that the Assemblies of God was seriously wrong on a doctrine, I could leave it for another church, without feeling I had seriously failed my Savior. Similarly, if I were in a community that had no Assemblies of God church, I could attend a different church and still grow in the Lord. Perhaps the largest group-example of this is the Worldwide Church of God (Herbert W. Armstrong). When Armstrong died the main branch of the church abandoned his distinctive doctrines and became a traditional evangelical movement. Ironically, one or two of the small splinter groups kept his teachings.

I'm tempted to repost this as a new string. However, it relates, so I'll simply see if more will comment on this. I heard it growing up. "Don't tell me if they find out Jesus isn't true, because I love the Christian life . . . " Personally, I get it. Part of me resonates with the love of clean living, the strong sense of community, etc. Then again, I've heard that a small percentage of North Korean refugees end up wanting to return. Even though they were half-starved, and their leaders were fabricating lies that imprisoned their nation, there was just something special about being part of a community that passionately believed in something. No. I can't go there. It has to be true. I love my church and the spiritual practice of my faith community. However, I want to live truth. I believe it's Jesus, but if I ever discover otherwise, I guess I'd rather be free than happy. Don't misunderstand the above as a criticism of the church. Rather, in the spirit of "what's the difference?" I ask, "Isn't one of those key differences the conclusion that this church is the true one, and that the Latter-day prophets really do tell God's words?" If that wasn't true I suspect many/most would leave.

Christmas Eve we usually gather with the greater fam...then Christmas Day Evening we head out for a family trip. This schedule allows me to offer Christmas services on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, at the jail. It's bitter sweet that this will be the last year in which I tell the inmates, who continuously tell me to go home and be with my family, that. "I am one of the very few Christian pastors that has the privilege of being inside the jail to share the Christmas Good News with them. My family understands and they are praying for us right now." This is precious work, and one tradition I am going to miss.

Thank you, @dahlia. Your post helps a lot. When I consider that the early disciples were killed or severely persecuted, I realize that something must have drawn them to become so committed to Jesus and his people, that they would make such sacrifices. It is easy to join a new group. It's quite another to stay, when the going gets tough. So, there has to be an initial attraction. Then the capital-T Truth of it becomes clear. Then total commitment becomes the only option.

"Thus sayeth the Lord, the piano playing is too loud." That actually happened. I believe the pastor spoke with the individual afterwards, and indicated that she was 'in the flesh,' with that last word she gave. He did not discount that God had used her in the past, nor deny that she had spiritual gifts. This one was of personal opinion, rather than the Spirit, though. And...if he (the pastor telling her this) is wrong, then he will bare that responsibility before God. Okay...it's not an LDS example, but there are many similarities. Leaderships discerns a matter, and truly believes it has God's answer. Most of the time their spot on. God has spoken. Once in awhile errors are made. So...either the young man in the OP has many built up grievances, and this was the final one, or he's being rather judgy--something that particular generation loves to accuse us mature ones of. He may be right, but sometimes we can be so much so that we're still wrong.

One of the jobs I put in for gave me the "another direction" line. I felt total peace about it. It was a worthy position, but there were several concerns, and I found the turn down to be more of a confirmation than a disappointment. God's No is better than humanity's Yes.

I concur. Even the MK9 does not seem big enough for significant-sized crowds.

If we are allowed family gathering, then the fare will be traditional: ham, turkey, pie, mashed potatoes. Our contribution will likely be japche (clear noodles, beef, and vegetables stir fried). No booze, though plenty of black liquid gold, to go with desert.

I remember buying and reading The State Against Blacks, by Walter Williams, back in the 1980s. A true icon, under-recognized because Grievance Inc. will not acknowledge POC who do not toe the ideological line.