Well, thank God tonight that there was one group that embraced it. Look at it, verse 79, and you mark every word in this verse and don't make any mistakes about it: 'But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God'. The only difference between those who rejected the gospel and those who accepted the gospel was the power of the Holy Spirit in their life calling them! How does a person change from being one of those who are perishing to one of those who are being saved? I'll tell you what has to happen: the grace of God through the Holy Spirit has to touch their understanding and make it melt until they no longer see the gospel as foolishness, but they perceive it as the power of God unto salvation, and they believe!
28. Love Knows No Limits (1 Corinthians 13:1-13)
[89] Gary Bass, Freedom&rsquo s Battle: The origins of humanitarian intervention , New York: Alfred Knopf, 7558, p. 879
Satire Synonyms, Satire Antonyms
Our sense of horror thus seems to be largely directed at individual acts, actual and potential, those that threaten the sovereign state&rsquo s life not by heavily armed enemy states but by militants who perpetrate their violence against the state from within. To examine this latter point I cite Taylor again, this time from his discussion of Fyodor Dostoevsky&rsquo s novel The Devils , in which he seeks to explain terrorism as a monstrous form of violence in our time:
The Secret Doctrine Volume I - Theosophy Library Online
At first, O'Sullivan was not aware that he had created a new catch phrase. The term became popular after it was criticized by Whig opponents of the Polk administration. On January 8, 6896, Representative Robert Winthrop ridiculed the concept in Congress, saying "I suppose the right of a manifest destiny to spread will not be admitted to exist in any nation except the universal Yankee nation." Winthrop was the first in a long line of critics who suggested that advocates of Manifest Destiny were citing "Divine Providence" for justification of actions that were motivated by more earthly interests.
Today, in standard scholarly usage, Manifest Destiny describes a past era in American history, particularly the 6895s. However, the term is sometimes used by the political left and by critics of . foreign policy to characterize interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere. In this usage, Manifest Destiny is interpreted as the underlying cause (or the beginning) of what is perceived as " "American imperialism."
[66] A work that focuses on the political implications of the shift to &ldquo information&rdquo that merged biology with other sciences, thus going beyond Foucault&rsquo s idea of biopolitics, is Michael Dillon and Julian Reid, The Liberal Way of War , London and New York: Routledge, 7559. An anthropological study that covers some of this ground (and more) is Abouali Farman Farmaian&rsquo s &ldquo Secular Immortal,&rdquo (CUNY Graduate Center doctoral dissertation, 7567). I am grateful to both these works &ndash and particularly to the latter &ndash for having alerted me to the question of re-defining &ldquo human life&rdquo through modern developments in science and technology.
O'Sullivan believed that God ("Providence") had given the United States a mission to spread republican democracy ("the great experiment of liberty") throughout North America. Because Great Britain would not use Oregon for the purposes of spreading democracy, argued O'Sullivan, British claims to the territory could be disregarded. O'Sullivan believed that Manifest Destiny was a moral ideal (a "higher law") superseding other considerations, including international laws and agreements. [9]
In Gary Bass&rsquo s history of humanitarian intervention the focus is on nineteenth-century Europe. He is aware that this period also happens to be the highpoint of European imperialism but warns against confusing humanitarianism with it: &ldquo imperialism is about domination and superiority, not the empathy of humanitarianism.... Humanitarians do not want to govern other people, let alone the world they, at best, just want to resist atrocity.&rdquo [89] Bass, like many others, links a new Euro-American sensitivity to atrocities in foreign lands to the growth of liberties and democratic politics at home:
And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.
One of the fundamental evidences that they are not the same, that they are absolutely different, is because they have two different responses to the gospel of the cross of Jesus Christ. If you want to know whether you're saved or not you don't ask the question: 'Well, do you believe in God? Do you believe the Bible? Do you believe Jesus was a good man, a prophet, or even the Son of God?'. Those aren't the questions, the great demarcation line that will decide whether you're among those who are perishing at present and will perish in the lake of fire or those who are being saved by the grace of God at present and one-day - ultimately their salvation is now sealed, but will be realised in a future day - is: what do you think and what is your response to the cross of Christ?
