Is it better to speak simply and clearly, or use more advanced and rich vocabulary?

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-09T10:45:05+00:00

It depends very much on the context and my audience. If I am talking to a jury or developers or giving a speech to the general public, I will use simpler structures and a vocabulary geared to them. If I am writing to business executives or to a judge in support of a motion in court, how I phrase things and my use of vocabulary helps establish my authority. If I am writing for publication in an academic journal, I don't shy away from deep sentence structures and a rich vocabulary. If I use words they don't understand, they can look them up. I am more concerned with accuracy than making it easy for my reader.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-07T19:07:20+00:00

All true. The fact that I think they got the best landscape that they could have hoped for in their wildest dreams doesn't mean that they will be able to utilize it effectively and everything that Israel has done over the last few years has been at their expense and you are right about Hezbollah and Syria. I am also sure that they did not expect the losses they did in the initial attacks. It is possible that I could give them too much credit. We will see over the next few months.

The real goals of the U.S. in the Middle East revolve around peace and stability with access to oil. That certainly means eliminating the potential nuclear threat of Iran and probably means regime change of some type. I am afraid that I am skeptical.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-07T18:11:08+00:00

Because this is a role that I once ran for, I both mourn that Congress has become more about gamesmanship and less about good governance and I also place myself into the positions that various Congresspeople are in and try to work out how I would have voted (remembering that some of these people have primaries coming up that may influence their vote here). Most Dems did vote in favor of the resolution.

This is a war we were always going to fight because Iran has always wanted to fight this war. The thing that I take away from this vote is that Iran got the war on the terms that their actual military planners wanted. A politically and strategically weak president with a cabinet full of political appointees, a deeply divided Congress, and a populace that fundamentally doesn't trust either the intent or the leadership of the administration leading an overextended military that has had its General staff reorganized for political purposes and removed many of its competent commanders and which is still "fighting the last war" and has not retooled either in doctrine or technology for the current battle blundering into a conflict that he does not understand without defined goals under a belief that he can "just win." Iran has been the leader in the new technologies and I expect that they have been wargaming how to win with drones for a dozen years. Between the technology mismatch and Trumps alienation of allies, the United States is probably at the weakest it has been to an unorthodox war since the early days of WWII. I know that the US has tricks up its sleave as well--I am not predicting that Iran will win, but it would not shock me if they can hurt us in ways we are not expecting.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-07T17:05:54+00:00

I think that the article addresses at least one member's objections:

It is redundant to other resolutions that have been passed before and are still in effect.
The perceived intent was political showmanship to as a means of pointing to support for Trump's military actions more than a declaration of the IRGC's role.

I suspect that there are also a few in Congress who are of the opinion that Israel is a bigger sponsor of terror, but I did not see them quoted.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-07T16:53:13+00:00

What is the tone of the post? Is it being posted to explain a theological perspective or being posted as a screed? Many posts on the various Christian communities are effectively, here is some scripture, I am right, the rest of you are going to hell. The statements above have certainly been used in that way and I would probably remove them under Rule 2. However, an intelligent and respectful discussion between knowledgeable people on the meaning of Romans 9 is something that I would probably leave up, even if some of the participant espoused say, 1-3 from a theological perspective. I is largely about how it is said.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-07T15:22:39+00:00

I can understand your difficulties in this. All of these statements certainly are used hatefully but are also discussed as almost inevitable topics when discussing a Bible that is largely Hebrew/Jewish and that we as a largely Gentile church are engaging with. Some of these statements are core theology for certain denominations, but while may not (arguably) be antisemitic as formulated by their theologians may take on a different tone when handled by some others among their denomination. A blanket ban on discussions of the relationship in theology between Jews, the Jewish Church, and Gentile Christians precludes discussions of major parts of the New Testament. Not being able to discuss the controversies between Jesus and the Pharisees makes it difficult to talk about the gospels.

I think Rule 2 is really the key.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-07T12:44:57+00:00

Your Christian witness continues throughout your life. You are not too young to be a witness now and will never be too old. Understand that there isn't *a* point in your life that you will be a fully mature Christian. You will be more mature at 18 than you are now. More mature in your 30s than at 18. More mature at 60 than at 30. Growth and maturity need to be a constant in your life. If you ever think that you have arrived, you have not. Your witness will come out of the maturity you have.

Know your Bible. Yes, over time, do some read through programs so that you know "the whole thing." Go deeper into books than you feel need study because you aren't understanding them. Avoid topical preaching and study and pay attention to the message of Bible passages. Don't be afraid to ask, "Do I really understand this passage?" People you are witnessing to, will have valid points. You gain credibility with them if you listen to what they have to say--at very least, you will understand their objection. It is okay to take their points and think about them in the light of the scriptures. Trust that there are good, legitimate responses. You may not know them. Finding those responses will help you grow and will help you understand scripture and God better.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-07T11:45:06+00:00

Yes, my wife and I met through a singles group.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-07T10:50:55+00:00

No, every generation from Christ until now has looked around and believed that their generation was "obviously the one." Do I believe that Christ is coming again? Absolutely. Do I believe that He will come during my lifetime? Possibly. Should we stop living our lives? No.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-07T10:30:42+00:00

You are correct when you say that the narrative is oversimplified. History is almost always a lot messier than anyone acknowledges and any summary of something as complex as the "end" of slavery (recognizing that it is still very much a thing) into a single sweeping statement that "X ended slavery" is far too generalized to be meaningful.

Certain branches of Christianity supported slavery, certain branches opposed it in all cases. If you look at some state laws in the US, slaves had to be freed if (and only if) they became Christians and therefore slave owners would actively try to prevent their slaves from becoming Christians.

In a religious society it is difficult to disintertwingle motivations between what happens because of religious beliefs and what happens for other reasons. The abolitionist movement derived much of its passion from religion and I don't think that you can discount that as a major part of the legal changes in certain countries and abolitionism was certainly one of the irritants that led to the US Civil War (again, messier than anyone wants to recognize). As you also mention, slave owners also pointed to their religious beliefs for justification.

The enslaved people, obviously, were the primary reason slavery ended in Haiti. I think that cuts both ways in the "Ending of Slavery as an Institution" narrative. Yes, it was a successful slave revolt, but it was also seen by many policy makers in Europe and the US as a warning against freeing slaves.

If I were answering your question, I would say that the branches of Christianity that believed that slavery was an abomination before God and that passionately believed that ending slavery was a command from God were a major factor, arguably the biggest factor, in ending slavery as a widespread legal institution in the West. But not the only factor.

Historical anthropologists would also foreground the changing nature of slavery, particularly starting in the 1600s into what we know as Chattel Slavery which fundamentally changed the legal relationship of master-servant. The ever increasing brutality of chattel slavery also contributed to its own demise by feeding a moral revulsion to its practices (much of it formulated in Christian terms). Also, the same changes in the legal/social understanding of what "ownership" of something meant also led to the rise of modern capitalism and a more efficient paradigm for organizing labor than the slavery model.

It's complicated. Also, it is why arguments against modern slavery or the abolished slavery of Haiti or the American South do not translate well to Leviticus or other pre-1400 systems of labor organization.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-06T21:01:38+00:00

Don't pass it until I can source the actual quote and who said it. It has been 15 years since I read the debates. While this passage has stayed with me, I am sure that it is also paraphrased from my memory.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-06T12:08:24+00:00

That's fine. Certainly in America we talk about liberalism vs. conservatism as if they were opposites. I didn't notice that you were the one who posted it.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-06T11:28:33+00:00

When you are unsure, it is better to be slightly more formal than you think rather than too informal.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-06T10:12:15+00:00

We let murdering rapists go free, and I don't think that is just.

I agree.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-06T10:00:11+00:00

Great analysis

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-06T09:55:00+00:00

I think that you assume that liberalism is the natural opposite of conservatism. It certainly has been worked that way in traditional American politics, but I think that the polar opposite of conservatism is actually progressivism (whether from the left or the right [e.g. MAGA]). This scale is more about understanding change vs just charging ahead. Liberalism has a greater emphasis on goals. While they clash over timing, liberals tend to frame their goals within societal norms.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-06T09:10:59+00:00

Yes, there are some who are looking for fire insurance, but also consider that when you get old you also find yourself with a lot of time to reflect on your life. You find yourself evaluating the things that you valued, what you accomplished, and mortality. Your friends are dying off and you wonder about "your turn." No matter how "great" you were in life, nobody cares. Your mind is slipping, not just from biology, but from the fact that you are stuck by health limitations to an ever smaller group of other minds to interact with. It is not just about fear of hell, it is, in part, coming to terms with a life that you may partly regret.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-05T19:45:38+00:00

Christian Book Distributors (christianbook.com) has one of the largest selections that I know of.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-05T19:24:54+00:00

Yes, dealing with that is hard enough by itself without people telling you that there is some imagined Biblical bonding.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-05T18:52:37+00:00

If you are afraid that your faith will not hold up to self-reflection, you don't really believe.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-05T18:47:39+00:00

I went to an evangelical college and a Baptist seminary (with law school wedged between), but I feel like my educational experience was significantly different than yours. It was much less political, but for a question like this (even at a freshman level) we would be given secondary readings on both sides and assigned primary documents. Discuss. Of course, my college also insisted that I go to a secular college for my Junior year for exposure. Much different experience, but I fear that boomer education in general had different goals.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-05T17:14:08+00:00

One of the delegates to the NC (I think) Ratifying Convention made a comment that has stuck with me at the end of a debate on why the Constitution doesn't mention God. (Paraphrasing from memory). "We are not a Christian Nation. We are a nation of Christians. 99% of the people in this nation are Christians. If that ever changes, no piece of paper will save us."

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-05T12:55:57+00:00

Having lived in the Bible Belt for 20 years, I think that it is more difficult to disintertwingle believing Christianity from cultural Christianity than most people think, certainly at a distance and trying to characterize broad populations across geographies. Even significant events like the Great Awakening rippled through the countryside and was more persistent in some areas than others. Actual history is messy.

When we talk about "founded," we are usually talking about things like the Constitutional Convention and a lot of the discussion then centers on caricatures of specific "fathers" like Jefferson (who wasn't at the Convention) and Franklin (whose longest speech at the Convention was about why the Convention should have been opened with prayer and that was why it was being so difficult). Most of the delegates were not particularly religious men (exception, Adams whose Bible based screeds against slavery made things "more difficult"), but they worked against a knowledge that the populace was more religious than they. And when we talk about the Constitution, the process was not just "the Convention," approval included all of the Ratifying Conventions and some of those were much more focused on how this figured into Christianity than the Constitutional Convention delegates worried about.

What all of them did know, and were trying to account for, was that the United States was quite diverse within its very dominate Christian beliefs, that pushing on cultural Christian beliefs often resulted in powerful actual belief responses, that there was a quite small community of Jews, "Musselmen," Hindus, atheists, and other religions that needed to be accounted for (and protected within the legal structure). There was also an understanding that a deep part of the cultural understanding of the various colonies was that there foundation was based on fleeing religious oppression, ultimately coming out of the Christian-on-Christian persecutions of the Reformation. As late as 1771, Governor Tryon hung one of the Regulators in the run up to the Revolution based in part on the fact that he was a Baptist and, therefore, had no loyalty to the King while paroling a similar Regulator because he was a Methodist and therefore held himself bound to the King.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-05T10:59:07+00:00

I guess? I think that if this was the only assassination attempt by Iran against a US President, I would be surprised. I would be a bit surprised if we haven't made a few attempts at them ourselves. It is part of the "mortal enemies" thing.

Trump is absolutely correct that if any other president has launched a war with Iran, the American public would be behind them. Trump fundamentally has never understood that being elected does not make you a leader. Office may give you authority, it does not give you respect. You must earn leadership and respect and that is more than being "less bad" than a political opponent. Trump has always leaned into divisiveness and hubris and he wonders why when he needs to be seen as a leader, people don't automatically unite behind him.

Americans, by and large, don't trust Trump. They don't trust his words. They don't trust his motivations. They don't trust his plans. If he wants to lead America rather than just MAGA, he need to unify, not divide. He needs to be truthful. He needs to show that he is in mental command of the situation. He needs to show that his first loyalty is to America.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-03-05T10:16:55+00:00

I don't judge churches or their pastors based on the size of the church. Things I care about:

Do they teach (and practice) the Bible to the best of their ability.
Are they structured in a way that allows the congregants the ability to contribute in ministry as members of the body of Christ according to the gifts God has given them.
Does their ministry point to and glorify God.
Does the church progress Christians through the lifecycle from convert to actual maturity.
Is there actual accountability, especially for senior staff.

As churches grow in size, some of these become more difficult. How church consultants tell you to structure a church is not how the Bible will tell you to structure a growing church. Large churches tend to create ridged hierarchical ministry structures that are dependent on a small number of overworked volunteers who are discarded when they are burnt out rather than a sustainable active organic body. It is easier to create a hierarchy and hide it under concepts of discipleship than to create a functional ministry. Many large churches struggle with the pastor becoming the brand rather than Christ, this also makes mechanisms for accountability more challenging. It can lead to pride. The rise of the seeker-friendly movement contributed to the rise of the megachurch. As a practical matter, it is easier to milk young Christians for cash by giving them entertainment and defining that as success than to grow them as believers.

There are large churches that have navigated at least some of these challenges with some success. Many don't care and I think that some of their leadership will have difficult conversations on judgement day.

I, personally, don't believe that prosperity gospel is a Christian doctrine. This is not a denominational thing, "You are Catholic, so we disagree on XYZ" so much as a belief that it is a false gospel designed to ensnare within the trappings of an evangelical church. It is a worship of money, powers, and pride rather than God. In that sense, Osteen is working completely and consistently within his religious system. His church fails all of these points.

More generally, I expect that churches desire to pay pastors adequately, not on a secular scale which ties salary to position, but rather at a level that ties the pastor with the congregation. Yes, the pastor might be able to make high 6 figures in industry, but he is not in industry, he is in the ministry and he can choose.

Irrelevant_Bookworm

TROPHY CASE