David L

[David L @DSeeAdollar]

I’m not crying, you’re crying.

[Alex @ajak1033]

The Spurs know how to TAKE the lead, they just don't know how to HOLD the lead. And that's really the most important part of the lead: the holding

[MrMenno 🇳🇱🏳️‍🌈🎶 @MrMennoTweets]

Hope for the future 😆

[TraderJill (Leigh) @RealTraderJill]

Dear @McJuggerNuggets,

You just asked the world for empathy and sympathy because you aborted your unborn baby because you found out he had Downs Syndrome.

I'm not sure if this is some sick humiliation ritual, or you and your wife are simply dead inside, but I'd like to show you what you just ended for the sake of convenience:

[Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker @BiblicalBeauty]

Steven Bartlett, host of the podcast, The Diary of a CEO, released an interview with Christian apologist, John Lennox, this week, and his closing comments to him were fascinating:

"One of the most compelling arguments for God that you've presented (and your way of seeing the world and being) is not actually necessarily anything you've written in your books or not not necessarily anything you've said. It is actually you.

You have a certain peace and contentment that I rarely see in people that I interview, but I often see, and I've almost always seen, in the Christians that I've interviewed, and this is a interesting phenomenon for me...it seems to be a trend that a lot of the Christian apologists that I've interviewed have that anchoring that so many of us are looking for."

What a great witness.

Link to interview below

[Lu for Alaska @luinalaska]

This seems like the perfect time to bring up the great Shane Gillis for a word in chat.

[Lila Rose @LilaGraceRose]

My inbox has been flooded with messages from parents who say their doctors told them their baby would have a disability and recommended abortion.

They refused and delivered baby.

Baby was born with no disability.

Of course not every case, but thousands and thousands.

[LifeNews.com @LifeNewsHQ]

An article in the Harvard Law Journal concludes unborn babies have a Constitutional right to life.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, declares that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

A debate that has been raging in courtrooms for years is whether the “life” part includes unborn persons.

Harvard Law school graduate Joshua Craddock did some constitutional soul searching to answer that question in a report for the Harvard Law Journal.

He concludes that unborn babies do fall under the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections.

"One might look to dictionaries of legal and common usage, the context of the English common law tradition, and cases that attempted to construe the meaning of the text in a manner consistent with original meaning. Using this methodology, it is reasonable to construe the Fourteenth Amendment to include prenatal life."

"The structure of the argument is simple: The Fourteenth Amendment’s use of the word “person” guarantees due process and equal protection to all members of the human species. The preborn are members of the human species from the moment of fertilization. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment protects the preborn. If one concedes the minor premise (that preborn humans are members of the human species), all that must be demonstrated is that the term “person,” in its original public meaning at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption, applied to all members of the human species."

In addition to using language to prove his point, Craddock puts his conclusions in context, noting that at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was written, several states called the unborn person a “child” in their anti-abortion laws. Moreover, The Stream notes, in 1859, the American Medical Association mandated that the government must protect the “independent and actual existence of the child before birth.”

Using this logic, Craddock notes, the Supreme Court justices were flawed in their 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which granted the right to abortion. When he wrote the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun failed to properly assess the word “person” as it was applied in 1868, Craddock argues.

[Tony Jacob | FindaClip.com @tonjkb]

Modern history frames the American Founders' hypocrisy on slavery as the ultimate proof that their ideals were a lie. But Coleman Hughes argues the exact opposite. Writing "all men are created equal" while owning slaves wasn't America's fatal flaw.

To be a hypocrite, you first have to state a moral standard.

Most historical empires avoided this problem entirely. Hughes notes that Ottoman sultans could simply point to texts legalizing slavery. No clash of values meant no internal pressure to change.

America put itself in a moral corner. By putting equality on paper, the Founders gave abolitionists a weapon. They created a cognitive dissonance that eventually forced a resolution.

This defines the current debate over American history.

The 1619 Project looks at the founding hypocrisy and declares the system structurally condemned.

Martin Luther King Jr. looked at the exact same hypocrisy and saw a promissory note waiting to be cashed.

You cannot hold a society accountable to a standard that does not exist. The founding ideals did not excuse the system. They gave future generations the exact leverage needed to break it.

Source: @JTLonsdale @coldxman

[Shahriq Khan @RealShahriqKhan]

When I was Muslim, I used to ask Christians:

“If Jesus was really God, why did He eat, sleep, and bleed like us?”

And honestly, I used to ask it with pride like it was some unbeatable argument.

But later I realized something:

That question was not exposing Christianity.

It was exposing my misunderstanding of what kind of God Jesus claimed to be.

Because the real question is not:

“Why would God become weak?”

The real question is:

“What kind of God would willingly step into human suffering at all?”

Islam taught me about a God who was distant and untouchable.

But Christianity introduced me to a God who stepped into hunger, exhaustion, grief, pain, betrayal, blood, and suffering with us.

And suddenly His humanity stopped feeling like weakness to me.

It became proof of love.

If Jesus ate, it means He came close enough to experience hunger beside us.

If He slept, it means He embraced the exhaustion we carry.

If He bled, it means He did not stand above suffering watching us from a distance.

He entered it Himself.

Philippians 2 says Christ emptied Himself and took on flesh.

Not because He stopped being God, but because He wanted humanity to finally see what God is actually like.

And it turns out God is willing to suffer for the people He loves.

That changed everything for me.

Because every other religion demanded sacrifice from humanity.

Jesus became the sacrifice Himself.

And no prophet in history ever claimed that.

[David L @DSeeAdollar]

@deadtosin610 What’s the name of this comedian, @grok

[Dead to Sin ✞ @deadtosin610]

This comedian hilariously explains why atheism makes no sense.

[Matthew LaBosco @matthew_labosco]

High cortisol is the real reason you wake up at 3-4 AM.

It also shaves 5 years off your life — tanks testosterone, locks belly fat, literally shrinks your brain.

If I wanted to fix it without medication, here are 8 things I'd do every day:

1. No food 3 hours before bed.

[nicole ruiz @nwilliams030]

" Every single day of my childhood, my parents asked the same question at dinner. Not “What did you learn?” but “Who did you serve?” "

Excellent piece by Alex Sasse, @BenSasse 's eldest daughter, one what she learned from her father

[Lila Rose @LilaGraceRose]

Your greatest legacy will be your children.

Not your career, not your work, not your accomplishments.

Pour your heart into what matters most.

[Denny Burk @DennyBurk]

I cannot stress enough the importance of what Andrew writes here. Dr. Mohler has been explaining this in his various appearances. Andrew has done so now. And I want to add my voice as well.

People are raising concerns that some future overzealous credentials committee would use this amendment to "kick out churches with a female children's minister." That concern is misplaced, and here's why.

The credentials committee already has the power to remove such a church now. There is nothing preventing such a church from being referred to the credentials committee. Messengers could remove such a church now if they wanted without this amendment. This amendment doesn't change any of that.

The fact is that our credentials committees have not been overzealously pursuing churches. That simply has not been the posture of these committees. Indeed, you may remember that the committee initially declined to take action on Saddleback. It was only when the messengers expressed their displeasure on the floor in Anaheim that things went in a different direction.

Because the committee has at times appeared reluctant, this amendment would help them to see that the convention really does want them to take action on churches with female pastors and women who preach to the gathered assembly. Heretofore, some of the committees have been slow to apply our doctrinal standard to those churches. This amendment would give them clarity.

But let us underline this point. We could vote out churches with female children's ministers now. We don't do that because none of us wants to do that. The mechanism is already there for that, and this amendment wouldn’t add or take away messenger rights or CC rights to deal with churches how they please.

Our credentials committees have not been overzealous, and I don’t believe they will become overzealous in the future. But for the sake of argument, let’s imagine that they do become overzealous. Let’s imagine a group takes over the committee and starts trying to remove churches with female children’s ministers.

Do you know what would happen should that church come to the floor for a vote? The messengers would override the credentials committee and reinstate that church, and it wouldn’t be a close vote. Why? Because Southern Baptists overwhelmingly support women in ministry in a variety of roles, and that’s one of them.

Again, the bottom line is this. The Truthy and Unity Amendment does not give or take away any powers from the credentials committee that they don’t already have. Neither does it give or take away any powers to messengers that they don’t already have.

It simply provides clarity on where Southern Baptists already stand on this issue, and that clarity will be useful for the credentials committee when they do their work. They will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Southern Baptists don’t want to cooperate with churches that have female pastors or women who preach to the gathered congregation. That’s why I am supporting this amendment, and I hope you will too.

[Andrew Wilson @AJWTheology]

Christmas: Christ with us.
Good Friday: Christ for us.
Easter: Christ before us.
Ascension: Christ over us.
Pentecost: Christ in us.

Happy Pentecost Sunday!

[Derek Rishmawy @DZRishmawy]

Incidentally, when a pastor talks about the Sabbath v youth sports, they are up against a whole encroaching industry.

[Prof. Dr. Kaan Yılancıoğlu @drkaanyl]

Şu egzersiz lenfatik drenajı, tüm vücutta kan akımını arttıran, neredeyse tüm vücudu çalıştıran belki de dünyanın en iyi egzersizi ... 👇