Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
News Feeder

Wife of World War II Medal Of Honor Recipient Reveals Their Love Story

Recommended Posts

Staff

sweet story

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Nation Shocked To Learn Story On BuzzFeed May Not Have Been 100% Factual

      U.S.—The nation was shocked to learn over the weekend that a story published by the BuzzFeed news organization may not have been entirely factual. The post Nation Shocked To Learn Story On BuzzFeed May Not Have Been 100% Factual appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

    • BuzzFeed Doubles Down On Trump Story, But Won’t Discuss Documents Or Sources |

      By Chuck Ross - BuzzFeed is doubling down on its report that Michael Cohen has told the special counsel that President Trump instructed him to lie to Congress about his dealings in Russia Special Counsel Robert Mueller issued a rare statement rebutting BuzzFeed’s story, but BuzzFeed reporter Anthony Cormier said on CNN on Sunday that he has “further confirmation” that his report is accurate But Cormier also acknowledged on CNN that he is still in the dark about specifically what Cohen told the special counsel, and what precisely Trump allegedly told Cohen BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith and reporter Anthony Cormier doubled down Sunday on their bombshell report that President Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about his efforts to build a Trump Tower in Russia. “I have further confirmation that this is right. We are being told to stand our ground. Our reporting is going to be borne out to be accurate, and we’re 100 percent behind it,” Cormier told CNN’s Brian Stelter during an interview about their report, which has been directly disputed by the special counsel’s office. “The same sources that we used in the story are standing behind it, and so are we.” But while Smith and Cormier expressed unwavering confidence in their story, the pair declined to discuss the specifics about how their report came together. Cormier dodged Stelter’s questions about documents that his colleague, Jason Leopold, claims to have seen as part of the reporting process. Cormier also acknowledged that he is not certain what Cohen specifically told the special counsel or what Trump allegedly told Cohen. Cormier and Leopold reported Thursday night that Cohen told the special counsel’s office that Trump directed him to lie to Congress in 2017 about his efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign. Citing two unnamed law enforcement officials, the reporters claimed that documents and other witness testimony would corroborate Cohen’s version of events. Democrats jumped on the story, calling for investigations into whether Trump suborned perjury or obstructed justice. Nearly 24 hours after the story appeared, a spokesman for Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered a devastating rebuttal to the report. “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” spokesman Peter Carr said in a statement. The New York Times and Washington Post have since reported that the statement was intended to be a full-throated rebuttal to the claim that Cohen told Mueller’s office that he was told to lie by Trump. But Smith and Cormier remained confident in the face of the Mueller pushback. “What if the sources are just wrong?” Stelter asked Cormier, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2016. “They’re not. They’re not. I’m confident,” Cormier replied. But while BuzzFeed is refusing to back off of their story, numerous questions remain about what sources and documents were used for the report. In an interview on Friday morning, prior to the Mueller statement, BuzzFeed’s Leopold told MSNBC that he had seen documents referred to in the report. Cormier said in a separate interview with CNN that he had not seen documents. Cormier avoided Stelter’s question about that apparent discrepancy. “Can’t really get into, like, the details there,” Cormier said. “Really at this point because of the calls for a leak investigation and the sort of sensitivity around that matter, we really can’t go any further at all in order to not jeopardize our sources,” he added, noting that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani had called for an investigation into who leaked information for the BuzzFeed report. BuzzFeed’s spokesman, Matt Mittenthal, issued a similar statement on Saturday, even before Giuliani had called for a leak probe. “In the interest of protecting … sources, we aren’t going to speak further on the details of who saw what and when, beyond what’s in the reporting,” Mittenthal told The Daily Caller News Foundation. Cormier also suggested that BuzzFeed is not quite certain exactly what Cohen may have told the special counsel and what he and Trump may have discussed regarding the former Trump lawyer’s congressional testimony. “We’re trying to figure out how to parse the statement from the Mueller team, and what’s happening now only behind the scenes at DOJ and the special counsel, but we’re trying to get deeper inside the room where this happened,” Cormier said. When asked by Stelter what is known about Trump’s remarks to Cohen, Cormier replied: “We’ll get there eventually, Brian.” When Stelter suggested that perhaps Trump offered something less than a full-throated order to lie to Congress, Cormier said, “we don’t know.” “We’re trying to get the exact language that was used in this conversation, and we’ll get there one day,” he added. “We continue to report like mad, as we always do. But what we reported, that the President of the United States directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress is accurate. That is fundamentally accurate. We’re going to get inside the room where it happened and bear it out. We’ve taken this to ground here; we’re going to go even further to get inside that room.” In another exchange, Stelter pressed Smith over Leopold’s efforts to request comment from the special counsel prior to running the story. Leopold contacted Peter Carr, the Mueller spokesman, hours before the story ran to say that BuzzFeed was planning to report that Cohen claimed that Trump instructed him to lie to Congress. The request did not say that Cohen made the claim during interactions with the special counsel. Carr, who rarely offers comment to reporters, declined comment. But according to The Washington Post, Carr has since claimed that if he had known precisely what BuzzFeed was planning to report, he would have pushed back harder on the allegation. Stelter blasted Smith and BuzzFeed for what he called a “shockingly casual way to ask for comment for such a serious story” and a “dereliction of duty.” Smith attempted to shift blame to the special counsel, saying that “it has not been our experience that the special counsel has been forthcoming with information.” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] BuzzFeed Doubles Down On Trump Story, But Won’t Discuss Documents Or Sources | is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • BuzzFeed Won’t Say Which Documents Its Reporter Saw For Story That’s Been Disputed By Mueller

      By Chuck Ross - The office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller disputed a BuzzFeed report claiming that Michael Cohen told prosecutors that President Trump instructed him to lie to Congress about Russia One of BuzzFeed’s reporters claimed to have seen documents corroborating its bombshell report BuzzFeed is declining to comment on ‘who saw what and when’ BuzzFeed News is declining comment on what documents its reporters may have reviewed for a now-disputed report that Michael Cohen claimed he was instructed by President Trump to lie to Congress about Russia. “In the interest of protecting…sources, we aren’t going to speak further on the details of who saw what and when, beyond what’s in the reporting,” BuzzFeed spokesman Matt Mittenthal told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Saturday. Mittenthal was responding to questions about BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold’s claims Friday to have seen documents that support the outlet’s bombshell reporting about Cohen’s interactions with the special counsel. “We have seen documents. We have been briefed on documents. We are very confident in our reporting,” Leopold said in an interview on MSNBC to discuss a report he and co-author Anthony Cormier published Thursday night. According to Leopold and his co-author Anthony Cormier, two law enforcement officials claimed that Cohen told the special counsel that Trump instructed him to lie to Congress in 2017 about his efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign. Leopold and Cormier reported that documents, including emails, and witness testimony corroborated Cohen’s alleged comments to the special counsel. The report generated significant buzz on Friday, with numerous Democrats calling for an investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice or suborned perjury from Cohen. The report was viewed with skepticism by others who noted that BuzzFeed did not provide dates, quotes or other specifics about Cohen’s testimony or his interactions with Trump. The story suffered a devastating blow on Friday night, when a spokesman for Special Counsel Robert Mueller issued a rare on-the-record statement that undercut the core claims in the report. “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” spokesman Peter Carr said in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation. BuzzFeed responded Friday night by saying that it was standing by the story. A source directly familiar with BuzzFeed’s reporting told TheDCNF on Saturday that the outlet expects the original story to be vindicated. That source declined to speak on the record about BuzzFeed expects the story to be verified or why the special counsel would dispute the story if it was accurate. Editor Ben Smith also called on Mueller to specify which parts of the report are in dispute. But The New York Times and Washington Post poured more cold water on BuzzFeed’s scoop Friday night by citing knowledgable sources who claimed that the Mueller statement was a full-throated rebuttal to BuzzFeed’s core assertions. Leopold’s comments raise numerous questions about BuzzFeed’s reporting. What did the documents say? Does he still have them? Were they forgeries? When were they created? When did he see them? Did he actually see them? A spokesman for BuzzFeed said that the outlet is “continuing to report and hopefully will have something more we can say soon.” “Anthony and Jason have been reporting this story with the help of a group of colleagues for two years, and have reviewed a huge volume of documents and talked to dozens of sources across that period, as their reporting has indicated,” Matt Mittenthal told TheDCNF. Carr, the special counsel’s spokesman, declined to provide additional insight into Friday’s statement. In a separate interview on Friday, BuzzFeed’s Cormier said that he had not seen the documents referred to in BuzzFeed’s story. “I’ve not seen it personally, but the folks that we’ve talked to, the two officials we’ve spoken to, are fully, 100 percent read in to that aspect of the special counsel’s investigation,” Cormier told CNN. Cormier did not say that Leopold had seen the documents. Cormier said that his two sources had access to “a number of different documents,” including notes from FBI interviews. He also asserted that his sources had provided “rock-solid information” and that what the report alleged “100 percent happened.” Asked by Mediaite about Cormier’s comments, Leopold said: “Anthony said HE had not personally seen the documents.” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] BuzzFeed Won’t Say Which Documents Its Reporter Saw For Story That’s Been Disputed By Mueller is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • How to Form a Christian Mind in a Digital World

      Many have rightly warned that evangelicals are losing “a Christian mind” by neglecting the Bible and indiscriminately consuming secular materials informed by non-Christian ideas. But what if it’s not just the content we consume but also the medium in which we read it that poses a danger to our minds? In Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World, Maryanne Wolf makes a compelling case that our use of digital devices is changing the way we read, which in turn is profoundly altering the way we think—a chilling prospect for Christians, who believe that through his written Word, God renews our minds, enabling us to think in sanctified ways. Digital Challenges Although Wolf—a Tufts University professor who has studied the neurological processes involved in the act of reading—has no such spiritual concerns, she believes the stakes in our transition from a print to a digital culture are incredibly high. Again and again she confronts her readers with sobering questions: “Will new readers develop the more time-demanding cognitive processes nurtured by print-based mediums as they absorb and acquire new cognitive capacities emphasized by digital media?” “Will our youth develop such a passive response to knowledge that eventually the store of what they know and their ability to connect it through analogy and inference will be depleted?” “Will the combination of reading on digital formats and daily immersion in a variety of digital experiences . . . impede the formation of the slower cognitive processes such as critical thinking, personal reflection, imagination, and empathy that are part of deep reading?” “Will the quality of our attention change as we read on mediums that advantage immediacy, dart-quick task switching, and continuous monitoring of distraction . . . ?” Wolf obviously sees a strong possibility that the answers to these questions might be yes. The reason? In her early research, she studied what happens within the brain when we read. Eventually she became concerned about “how the circuitry of the reading brain would be altered by the unique characteristics of the digital medium, particularly in the young.” Her conclusion is that since the advent of the digital age, “we have already begun to change how we read—with all of its many implications for how we think.” Reading Brain On the opening page of the book, Wolf declares provocatively that “human beings were never born to read,” by which she means that reading isn’t something our brains are hardwired to do, such as seeing or communicating. Rather, reading is “an unnatural cultural invention” that we must learn. This we’re able to do since our brain cells can make myriad connections, leading to the formation in each emerging reader of a “reading circuit” that links centers of the brain concerned with such crucial tasks as vision, language, cognition, motor functions, and affective functions. However, she warns that digital devices pose a threat to the development of this mental circuitry—not because digital reading is fundamentally different from print reading, but because the digital medium deluges us with information in byte-sized chunks, promoting information overload and distraction. As evidence, Wolf notes that students today are demonstrating “diminishing familiarity with conceptually demanding prose.” Wolf sees numerous dangers here: shrinking attention spans that preclude “deep reading” (her term for focused, thoughtful reading), which in turn leads to failure to gain the empathy for others that reading engenders and the kind of personal store of knowledge that enables inference, deduction, and analogical thinking. Christians might perceive an overarching danger: a reduction in our ability to grasp God’s truth through deep reading of his Word. Clearly God created us with the capacity to learn the complex process of reading so that we might benefit from his written revelation, the Bible. But the Word of God is a challenging book, a prime example of “conceptually demanding prose” that requires attentive, reflective reading. Are we willing to let our digital pottage make us poorer students of this treasure? Reader Recommendations What is to be done? Wolf’s recommendation isn’t simply that young readers be denied exposure to digital devices—indeed, she is surprisingly open to their use—but that such exposure be meted out in careful doses. She urges parents of children up to age 5 to read to them often, giving them little access to digital devices. “Human interaction and physical interaction with books and print are the best entry into the world of oral and written language and internalized knowledge, the building blocks of the later reading circuit,” she writes. As for children 5 to 10 years of age, Wolf wants them develop a “biliterate brain” by learning in both print and digital mediums. Physical books are her preferred tool for reading instruction, while digital devices might be used to teach coding, programming, and creative skills such as graphic arts and musical composition. In other words, she envisions a two-track learning approach, with the understanding that students can safely combine print and digital media only when their mental reading circuits are firmly established around fourth grade. Thereafter, the goal is to prevent those circuits from atrophying. Digital Wisdom Whether many schools would agree to adopt such an approach, there is wisdom here for Christian parents, who must always be their children’s prime educators. If you’re a parent, read the Bible to your children from an early age, along with age-appropriate Bible storybooks and well-written (and well-illustrated) children’s books. As they grow, introduce them to classic literary works. Let them hear both biblical truth and also beautiful language. Through the exhausting early years of child-rearing, fight the terrible temptation to let a smartphone or tablet serve as a babysitter, much as parents a generation ago had to resist the siren song of TV. Keep books in your home for this purpose, whether owned or borrowed from the local library. Don’t let down your guard as your children acquire the ability to read for themselves. Help them find books that appeal to their expanding interests. When the time is right, these might include eBooks, but as much as possible help them use digital devices as tools for specific purposes, not as toys for relieving boredom. Hopefully by these means, we can raise up children who will be able to read and appreciate challenging texts, especially the Scriptures, which unfold the gospel of salvation through Christ. Meanwhile, we adults will do well to guard our own minds from the degenerative effects of the digital world. If Wolf is right—and her research seems sound and well-attested—such digital discipline is crucial for Christians who want to grow in their knowledge of God and his truth. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • New Book Refutes Official Story About Thai Cave Rescue. The Truth Is More Disturbing

      By Chris White - The story behind the effort to rescue children stuck in Thai cave in 2018 is more disturbing than the tale government officials told the parents of the kids, according to a new book discussing the mission. Members of the Wild Boars soccer team were not trained to dive and swim in a buddy system out of the cave, ABC Australia Southeast Asia reporter Liam Cochrane claims in his new book, “The Cave.” Instead, they were drugged, handcuffed, and carried out of the winding tunnel. “To calm nerves, the parents were told the boys were being taught how to dive and the media reported that each of them would be tethered to an air hose and then swim out with one rescue diver in front and another behind,” Cochrane writes in his book. “This was untrue.” Media shared images demonstrating how the 12 boys dressed in wetsuits and flippers would swim through the labyrinth tethered to expert divers. But the divers responsible for rescuing the children knew that such a plan would not work given the level of expertise required for the trip. “Those who’d been inside the flooded tunnels knew there was no way a child who had never dived before could make it through the muddy and treacherous obstacle course,” Cochrane writes. “The only hope was to sedate them, put oxygen-fed masks with silicone seals over their faces and let the expert cave divers carry them out.” One boy Cochrane called Note was one of the first members of the soccer team to be extracted. He was given a sedative, then injected in each leg with ketamine, an anesthesia, by Australian cave diver, Dr. Richard Harris, until the 14-year-old boy fell into unconsciousness. Note was then put into a diving suit, had an air tank strapped to his chest, and a small full-face mask fitted. He began breathing normally within a half a minute, after which the divers handcuffed the boy to prevent him from ripping at his mask. The boys were later treated for dehydration, malnutrition, oxygen deprivation and other conditions. Doctors at the hospital in Chiang Rai, where the boys were treated, monitored the kids for symptoms of diseases caused by animals and fungi in the cave. The cave rescue itself became a source of controversy after tech entrepreneur Elon Musk called British diver Vernon Unsworth, who assisted in the rescue, a pedophile. Musk was upset after the veteran diver called a submarine Silicon Valley billionaire’s team developed a “PR stunt.” Musk tweeted on July 6 that he was sending engineers from his companies SpaceX and The Boring Co. to assist in the rescue in any way that they could. The Tesla CEO later apologized. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] New Book Refutes Official Story About Thai Cave Rescue. The Truth Is More Disturbing is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.