debate

CBD News: Statement by the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Dr. Cristiana Pasca Palmer, on the Occasion of the General Debate, UNWTO General Assembly, Chengdu, China, 13 September 2017




debate

International scientific conference to debate new lifestyles to mitigate climate change

(Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona) More than 500 researchers from all around the world will gather virtually tomorrow Wednesday May 6 at the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) to discuss and propose how society should adopt more sustainable and low-carbon forms of lifestyle that contribute to mitigating climate change.




debate

China and Russia in R2P debates at the UN Security Council

7 May 2020 , Volume 96, Number 3

Zheng Chen and Hang Yin

While China and Russia's general policies towards the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) are similar, the two reveal nuanced differences in addressing specific emergencies. Both express support for the first two pillars of R2P while resisting coercive intervention under its aegis, as they share anxieties of domestic political security and concerns about their international image. Nonetheless, addressing cases like the Syrian crisis, Russian statements are more assertive and even aggressive while Chinese ones are usually vague and reactive. This article highlights the two states’ different tones through computer-assisted text analyses. It argues that diplomatic styles reflect Russian and Chinese perceptions of their own place in the evolving international order. Experiences in past decades create divergent reference points and status prospects for them, which leads to their different strategies in signalling Great Power status. As Beijing is optimistic about its status-rising prospects, it exercises more self-restraint in order to avoid external containments and is reluctant to act as an independent ‘spoiler’. Meanwhile, Moscow interprets its Great Power status more from a frame of ‘loss’ and therefore is inclined to adopt a sterner approach to signal its status. Although their policies complement each other on many occasions, there is nothing akin to a Sino–Russian ‘bloc’.




debate

China and Russia in R2P debates at the UN Security Council

7 May 2020 , Volume 96, Number 3

Zheng Chen and Hang Yin

While China and Russia's general policies towards the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) are similar, the two reveal nuanced differences in addressing specific emergencies. Both express support for the first two pillars of R2P while resisting coercive intervention under its aegis, as they share anxieties of domestic political security and concerns about their international image. Nonetheless, addressing cases like the Syrian crisis, Russian statements are more assertive and even aggressive while Chinese ones are usually vague and reactive. This article highlights the two states’ different tones through computer-assisted text analyses. It argues that diplomatic styles reflect Russian and Chinese perceptions of their own place in the evolving international order. Experiences in past decades create divergent reference points and status prospects for them, which leads to their different strategies in signalling Great Power status. As Beijing is optimistic about its status-rising prospects, it exercises more self-restraint in order to avoid external containments and is reluctant to act as an independent ‘spoiler’. Meanwhile, Moscow interprets its Great Power status more from a frame of ‘loss’ and therefore is inclined to adopt a sterner approach to signal its status. Although their policies complement each other on many occasions, there is nothing akin to a Sino–Russian ‘bloc’.




debate

Iran Crisis Pushes Foreign Policy to Top of 2020 Election Debate

14 January 2020

Dr Lindsay Newman

Senior Research Fellow, US and the Americas Programme
Democrats would be wise to communicate a clear alternative to Trump’s ‘America First’ policy in the Middle East.

2020-01-14-Trump.jpg

Donald Trump speaks to the media in front of the White House on Monday. Photo: Getty Images.

Conventional wisdom says that foreign policy takes a backseat role in US elections. But last autumn’s Democratic primary debates suggest a potential shift is taking place in the conventional view. While healthcare dominated the discussion (Democrats attribute their 2018 midterm gains to the issue), through November foreign policy followed closely behind in second place in terms of minutes devoted to the discussion.

This trend is consistent with President Donald Trump’s America First approach to foreign policy, in which an eye is always kept on how decisions abroad play for the domestic audience. One former Trump administration official has called this dynamic the ‘recoupling’ of foreign policy with domestic policy.

The US–China trade conflict, which commanded headlines throughout 2019, is perhaps the best example of this recoupling, tying trade imbalances less with the geopolitical than with domestic impact on farmers. Immigration is another policy area in which Trump has linked domestic implications and indeed domestic opinion with foreign policy. It’s in the title: America First.

Now, for better or worse, the targeted killing of Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s response and the subsequent fallout may make US foreign policy towards Iran and the US role in the Middle East a central issue for the 2020 US elections. As it comes just ahead of the Democratic presidential primaries, voters will be looking to the candidates to differentiate their foreign policy experience and proposals for America’s Middle East policy.

To President Donald Trump, Soleimani’s assassination represents a campaign promise kept to confront Iran’s aggression.

The Trump administration initially justified the action by citing intelligence of an imminent threat to US personnel and targets, but after Defense Secretary Mark Esper called this into question, Trump tweeted that ‘it doesn’t really matter because of [Soleimani’s] horrible past’. Ultimately, Trump’s message, on the campaign trail and any general debate stage he agrees to be on, is that he has overseen a new national security strategy for Iran.

Soleimani’s removal from the Iranian calculus is just a part of this broader policy, which also includes neutralizing the Iranian government’s destabilizing influence in the Middle East, denying Iran and especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ access to funding for its malign activities, and rallying the international community against domestic human rights violations and unjust detentions.

To counter Trump, Democrats and democratic presidential candidates would be best-served by offering a simple argument that too links domestic interests and foreign policy: the killing of Soleimani and Trump’s national security strategy for Iran have not made the US or its interests safer.

Iran’s ballistic missile attack on US forces in Iraq, which Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called a ‘slap in the face’ for the US, makes the risks to US assets and personnel abundantly clear. Even if Iran reverts entirely to covert, proxy efforts to counter US interests, the current US–Iran tensions remain unresolved and will likely continue to persist through the 2020 elections in November.

As a matter of the first order, Soleimani was replaced by his deputy Brigadier General Esmail Ghaani within a day of the former’s death, with Khamenei saying that the Quds Force will be ‘unchanged’.

At the second order, Iraq’s parliament voted in favour of a nonbinding resolution to rescind the invitation to US forces, which led Trump to threaten sanctions and demands for reimbursement. Whether US troops will ultimately leave Iraq (following a ‘mistaken’ report that the US was preparing to depart) remains to be seen, but the destabilization of the US military presence in Iraq fulfils a key Iranian objective.

In the interim, the US-led coalition in Iraq and Syria fighting ISIS announced that it would at least temporarily cease its counterterrorism efforts to instead fortify its outposts and prepare for Iranian retaliation, opening a wider door for the resurgence of the terror group.

By arguing that the US, its troops and interest have not been made safer by Trump’s Middle East policy – from withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal to the imposition of a ‘maximum pressure campaign’ to Soleimani’s killing – Democrats will be able to point to every post-Soleimani US injury, death, regional terrorism attack, asset compromise, cyberattack and shipping disruption as evidence.

Democratic presidential candidates also ought to be explicit about how they plan to manage tensions with Iran – strategic, diplomatic and military – particularly their position on the future of the nuclear deal.

Iran has made clear that the path to de-escalation is through sanctions relief. Asserting leverage need not always involve taking away all of your counterparty’s options (‘maximum pressure’). It also involves knowing what your adversary wants (sanctions relief) and showing a willingness to offer it (especially where it means less to you) in exchange for something of greater worth (avoiding war/a non-nuclear Iran).

Clarity around future policy of a potential Democratic president may bring de-escalation forward in a way that Trump’s statement of Iran standing down are unlikely to do.




debate

The health debate - the analysis

The future of health and social care looks certain to be a defining issue in the forthcoming UK general election. Social care has been subject to deep public spending cuts, raising concerns about the sustainability of services in the future. Whoever wins the next election will need to grapple with providing joined up health and social care...




debate

The tone of the debate around assisted dying

Bobbie Farsides is professor of clinical and biomedical ethics at Brighton and Sussex Medical School. She’s been described as one of the few people that is acceptable to “both sides” of the assisted dying debate. This week she joins us to talk about the way in which the debate on euthanasia has played out in the UK - and hear why she thinks it’s...




debate

Talk Evidence covid-19 update - lack of testing transparency, how to give good debate

For the next few months Talk Evidence is going to focus on the new corona virus pandemic. There is an enormous amount of uncertainty about the disease, what the symptoms are, fatality rate, treatment options, things we shouldn't be doing. We're going to try to get away from the headlines and talk about what we need to know - to hopefully give you...




debate

UK General Election 2019: BBC-Chatham House Foreign Policy Debate

Members Event

28 November 2019 - 10:30am to 11:30am

Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

Event participants

Stephen Gethins, Candidate for Fife North East and Shadow Spokesperson for Foreign and Commonwealth Office (2018-19), Scottish National Party (remote)
Dominic Raab, Candidate for Esher & Walton, Foreign Secretary and First Secretary of State (2019), Conservative Party
Emily Thornberry, Candidate for Islington South & Finsbury and Shadow Foreign Secretary (2016-19), Labour Party
Chuka Umunna, Candidate for Cities of London & Westminster and Spokesperson for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2019), Liberal Democrat Party
Chair: Ritula Shah, The World Tonight, BBC Radio 4
 

As the United Kingdom prepares to go to the polls on 12 December 2019, this event, organized in conjunction with the BBC's show, The World Tonight, will give a Chatham House audience the opportunity to put their foreign policy questions to a panel of senior UK politicians.
 
Important Information About the Event
This event is hosted in collaboration with the BBC. It will be recorded and broadcast on BBC Radio 4The World Tonight. Given the BBC’s commitment to due impartiality during the election period, questions will be asked to be pre-submitted via email by audience members the day before the event. The BBC will then select a balanced and diverse range of questions from those submitted. The panellists will not receive the questions in advance of the event.
 
About the Ballot
Due to the expected popularity of this event, this event will be balloted. Please register your interest for the event by 11:59pm on Monday 25 November. Successful registrants – selected at random – will be notified on Tuesday 26 November and then invited to submit their questions. The BBC will contact directly those audience members whose questions they select.
 
As priority will be given to members, we are unable to register members’ guests for this event.

Event attributes

E-ticket event

Members Events Team




debate

Virtual Breakfast: Europe in the Age of COVID-19: Priorities and Debates

Invitation Only Research Event

6 May 2020 - 9:00am to 10:00am

Event participants

Duncan Robinson, Charlemagne Columnist; Brussels Bureau Chief, the Economist
Chair: Pepijn Bergsen, Research Fellow, Europe Programme, Chatham House

The new European Commission had a bold new agenda when it began its work in December 2019, with climate change, digital transformation and strengthening European democracy among its priorities. Less than six months later, the European continent is in the midst of the worst crisis since the second World War and business as usual has been taken over by crisis management.

Has COVID-19 monopolized the agenda in Brussels? What priorities are still on the table and what debates have fallen victim to the coronavirus? Is the current crisis reigniting and exacerbating existing faultlines in the EU or creating new ones?

Reflecting on his first four months as the Economist’s Charlemagne columnist, the speaker will share what decision-making in Brussels looks like during a pandemic and what debates are dominating conversations in the EU capital today.

Event attributes

Chatham House Rule

Alina Lyadova

Europe Programme Coordinator




debate

In Kansas, a Ripe Debate Over Whether K-12 Money Is Getting to the Kids Who Need it Most

Kansas' auditor found that more than $400 million of state aid intended for poor, black, Latino and ELL students was being spent ineffectively, including on items such as food service supplies and an after-prom party.




debate

LGBTQ Issues Roil Florida School-Choice Debate

As lawmakers weigh expansion of the state’s voucher and tax-credit scholarship programs, some renew a push for anti-discrimination protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer students.




debate

Energy-Dependent States Debate Last-Minute Budget Deals

Several states that are heavily dependent on oil revenue had to face the choice of raising taxes, closing tax loop holes or making major cuts to state agencies in order to fill major budget deficits.




debate

El Comité de Basilea finaliza sus principios sobre pruebas de tensión, analiza fórmulas para acabar con prácticas de arbitraje regulatorio, aprueba la lista anual de G-SIB y debate sobre el coeficiente de apalancamiento, los criptoacti

Spanish translation of press release - the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is finalising stress-testing principles, reviews ways to stop regulatory arbitrage behaviour, agrees on annual G-SIB list, discusses leverage ratio, crypto-assets, market risk framework and implementation, 20 September 2018.




debate

N.S. nurses' union wants debate about PPE use settled once and for all

When the province eventually conducts its review on the response to COVID-19, the president of the Nova Scotia Nurses’ Union can think of one thing in particular that needs to be discussed.



  • News/Canada/Nova Scotia

debate

The urban boundary debate is vitally important, so should it happen online?

The upcoming debate about whether to expand the urban boundary is one of the city's big issues this term. But instead of delaying it, the city's testing out a never-before-attempted democratic process. Should they?



  • News/Canada/Ottawa

debate

Solving “The Hook Debate” with a 3D Scanner and SOLIDWORKS Simulation

This case study seeks to find the answer to a common question: Which way should you affix hooks to your fence so they can properly handle the load of a hanging flower basket? Javelin’s Application Engineer; Colin Murphy CSWE, takes

Author information

Javelin Technologies is a provider of technology solutions since 1997. We are experts in 3D design and have helped thousands of companies with solutions for mechanical design, electrical design and 3D printing.

Large or small, we have the skills, experience, and services to propel your organization to new heights so you can aim high.

The post Solving “The Hook Debate” with a 3D Scanner and SOLIDWORKS Simulation appeared first on SOLIDWORKS Tech Blog.




debate

Florida Debates How To Shrink Class Sizes

Gov. Jeb Bush has warned that Florida won't meet class-size limits without taking such steps as expanding private school vouchers, lifting restrictions on the number of charter schools, and moving to year-round schedules.




debate

LGBTQ Issues Roil Florida School-Choice Debate

As lawmakers weigh expansion of the state’s voucher and tax-credit scholarship programs, some renew a push for anti-discrimination protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer students.




debate

Senate Braced for Lengthy Debate on ESEA

The bipartisan proposal to overhaul the Elementary and Secondary Education Act may take up a week or more of the Senate's time.




debate

Special Education Funding Gets Moment in Spotlight at Democratic Debate

Advocates for increased federal funding for special education cheered Thursday when the issue was raised on the Democratic presidential debate stage in Los Angeles.




debate

Fierce Debate as DeVos Weighs Schools' Obligations to Students With Disabilities

Amid coronavirus-related school closures, advocates worry Education Secretary Betsy DeVos may waive requirements of special education law if Congress signs off. Schools say it's difficult to meet some requirements during the pandemic.




debate

Fierce Debate as DeVos Weighs Schools' Obligations to Students With Disabilities

Amid coronavirus-related school closures, advocates worry Education Secretary Betsy DeVos may waive requirements of special education law if Congress signs off. Schools say it's difficult to meet some requirements during the pandemic.




debate

LGBT Student Bullying Protections to Be Included in ESEA Reauthorization Debate

The forthcoming bullying debate will prompt the first votes on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the right to same-sex marriage.




debate

New Magazine Seeks to Bring 'Civil Discourse' to Education Debate

Headed up by former Los Angeles superintendent John E. Deasy, The Line will feature a variety of viewpoints on major K-12 issues.




debate

Debate on govt policy good, India should continue to support it: Australian High Commissioner to India Harinder Sidhu

Australian High Commissioner Harinder Sidhu hopes India will revert decision to reject RCEP, warns against economies turning inwards, believes climate change role in bushfires bears examination, and admits that her Indian origins, especially Bollywood love, helped her




debate

Idea Exchange: We admire the political debate in India; CAA is a domestic issue, says Ambassador of France to India Emmanuel Lenain

Ambassador of France to India Emmanuel Lenain says CAA is a domestic issue, assures Paris is firm over FATF action against Pak, insists Rafale row was linked to Indian politics and that planes are on schedule, and hopes for ‘good news’ on the Jaitapur n-units





debate

Democratic debate 2019 takeaways

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders stuck together, Pete Buttigieg took the middle path, Marianne Williamson took on racism and Beto O’Rourke faded into the background.




debate

Democratic debate 2019 takeaways

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders stuck together, Pete Buttigieg took the middle path, Marianne Williamson took on racism and Beto O’Rourke faded into the background.




debate

Democratic debate 2019 takeaways

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders stuck together, Pete Buttigieg took the middle path, Marianne Williamson took on racism and Beto O’Rourke faded into the background.




debate

Democratic debate 2019 takeaways

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders stuck together, Pete Buttigieg took the middle path, Marianne Williamson took on racism and Beto O’Rourke faded into the background.





debate

Does God Condemn Debate?

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis than Frequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on April 12, 2017. -ed.

Almost twenty years ago, during Moody Bible Institute’s Founder’s Week conference, I heard Jim Cymbala make the following plea for unity:

Think of the division right now in the Body of Christ. We have all these names that don’t exist to God: Baptist, Presbyterian, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Charismatic. God doesn’t have any idea what any of them mean, because He only has one Body. . . . He has one Body—the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ. Evangelical—evangelical doesn’t even exist to God. We’re using words that aren’t in the Bible. We’re thumping the Bible and being unbiblical while we’re thumping it. He only has—there’s one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Body. And He doesn’t like us dividing up His Body. [1] Jim Cymbala, “The Victorious Church,” February 5, 2000.

In the moment, it struck me as nonsense. Of course God knows what our denominational titles mean; of course He understands where the doctrinal lines have been drawn in the sand.

But then again, who is going to argue in favor of division?

The church’s current fascination with the soft ecumenism of identifying and celebrating common ground hinges on a false dichotomy—that all division grieves God. They point to a variety of texts—frequently wrenched out of their original context—to make that point.

Cymbala’s text, for example, was Mark 3:20–26—a passage in which Christ answered the allegations that His power came from Satan. The Lord rightly points out it would be illogical to use Satan’s power to cast out demons—that “a house divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” Cymbala turned that statement into a rebuke to a divided church.

Today another text is frequently floated as a mandate for unity: “Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers” (2 Timothy 2:14). Often, that’s taken to mean we should not debate our doctrinal differences—that we shouldn’t let doctrine divide us at all. If we say we’re Christians, we ought to focus on what we agree on, and set aside anything on which we don’t.

Under certain circumstances, that posture might be acceptable. But, as John MacArthur explains, in a world overrun with false gospels and false christs, we cannot afford to simply brush away every doctrinal line in the sand.

Through the centuries, the steady stream of falsehood has become a deeper, wider, and increasingly more destructive sea of ungodliness. False teaching about God, about Christ, about the Bible, and about spiritual reality is pandemic. The father of lies is working relentlessly to pervert and corrupt the saving and sanctifying truth of God’s written Word, the Bible, and of the living Word, His Son, Jesus Christ.

“Christian” cults abound today as never before, as does every type of false religion. Many Protestant denominations that once championed God’s inerrant Word and the saving gospel of Jesus Christ have turned to human philosophy and secular wisdom. In doing so, they have abandoned the central truths of biblical Christianity—including the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, and salvation by grace alone. In rejecting God’s truth, they have come to condone and embrace countless evils—universalism, hedonism, psychology, self-salvation, fornication and adultery, homosexuality, abortion, and a host of other sins. The effects of ungodly teaching have been devastating and damning, not only for the members of those churches but for a countless number of the unsaved who have been confirmed in their ungodliness by false religion. [2] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 2 Timothy (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 68.

As he writes in his book, The Truth War, today we need to be all the more fervent in our defense of the truth.

Jude’s command “to contend earnestly for the faith” is not merely being neglected in the contemporary church; it is often greeted with outright scorn. These days anyone who calls for biblical discernment or speaks out plainly against a popular perversion of sound doctrine is as likely as the false teachers themselves to incur the disapproval of other Christians. That may even be an understatement. Saboteurs and truth vandals often seem to have an easier time doing their work than the conscientious believer who sincerely tries to exercise biblical discernment.

Practically anyone today can advocate the most outlandish ideas or innovations and still be invited to join the evangelical conversation. But let someone seriously question whether an idea that is gaining currency in the evangelical mainstream is really biblically sound, and the person raising the concern is likely to be shouted down by others as a “heresy hunter” or dismissed out of hand as a pesky whistle-blower. That kind of backlash has occurred with such predictable regularity that clear voices of true biblical discernment have nearly become extinct. Contemporary evangelicals have almost completely abandoned the noble practice of the Bereans, who were commended for carefully scrutinizing even the apostle Paul’s teaching. They “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

But in our generation it sometimes seems as if the more aggressively something is marketed to Christians as the latest, greatest novelty, the less likely most evangelicals are to examine it critically. After all, who wants to be constantly derided as a gatekeeper for orthodoxy in a postmodern culture? Defending the faith is a role very few seem to want anymore. [3] John MacArthur, The Truth War (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 9798.

Far from the modern twist on 2 Timothy 2:14, much of what Paul wrote to his apprentice had to do with defending the church and holding fast to sound doctrine. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul wrote:

As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. . . . This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. (1 Timothy 1:3–4, 18–19)

The same kind of exhortations are littered throughout Paul’s writing. In Acts 20:28–30 he warned the Ephesian church,

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

He further exhorted the Thessalonians, “Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22). Paul was clearly not one to shy away from a doctrinal debate. He was a passionate defender of the gospel, and a tireless guardian of the truth.

So what should we make of his exhortation to Timothy “not to quarrel over words” (2 Timothy 2:14, ESV)? Here’s how John MacArthur explains it.

Paul’s purpose was to motivate and encourage Timothy to keep a firm grasp on that truth himself and to pass it on to others who would do likewise (2 Timothy 2:2). It is only with a thorough knowledge of God’s truth that falsehood and deceit can be recognized, resisted, and opposed. . . .

Logomacheō (wrangle about words) carries the idea of waging a war of words, in this instance with false teachers, who are later described as “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7). Such deceivers use human wisdom and reason to undermine God’s Word, and believers are not to debate with them, especially within the church. [4] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 2 Timothy, 70–72.

He goes on to explain why such a warning is particularly timely for the church today.

The barrage of ungodly ideas and verbiage that today is assaulting society in general, and even the evangelical church, is frightening. More frightening than the false ideas themselves, however, is the indifference to them, and often acceptance of them, by those who name the name of Christ and claim to be born again. Abortion, theistic evolution, homosexuality, no fault divorce, feminism, and many other unbiblical concepts and attitudes have invaded the church at an alarming rate and to an alarming degree. One of the most popular and seductive false teachings is the promotion of high self-esteem as a Christian virtue, when, in reality, it is the very foundation of sin. Such destructive notions are inevitable when Christians listen to the world above the Word, and are more persuaded by men’s wisdom than by God’s. Far too few leaders in the church today can say honestly with Paul that their “exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit” (1 Thessalonians 2:3).

As Christians become less and less familiar with Scripture and sound doctrine on a firsthand, regular basis, they become easy prey for jargon that sounds Christian but strongly mitigates against God’s truth. Such unbiblical and arbitrary ideas as being “slain in the Spirit” and “binding Satan” frequently replace or are valued above the clear teaching of and submission to Scripture. [5] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 2 Timothy, 73.

God’s people should not be combative; we must not walk around with doctrinal chips on our shoulders, looking for a fight. But we must also have a high enough view of God’s Word that we’re willing to stand up in its defense. We should not condemn doctrinal debate or disagreement; we should use them for God’s glory and the good of His church.




debate

Australian government push to tap China market heats up industry debate about over-dependence

Australia’s economy has become too reliant on China as a result of a government push for domestic industry to maximise exports to the world’s second largest economy, industry submissions to a government inquiry say.Business groups also singled out Australian government policies, including management of bilateral relationships with Indonesia and India, as hurting access to alternative markets.While some Australian export industries are not reliant on demand from China, companies like those in…




debate

Grand Slam tally should decide ‘GOAT’ debate, says Lendl

Eight-time Grand Slam winner Ivan Lendl said whoever ends up winning the most majors among the ‘Big Three’ of Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic should be considered the greatest male tennis player of the Open era. The ‘GOAT’ (greatest of all time) debate in men’s tennis has divided...

The post Grand Slam tally should decide ‘GOAT’ debate, says Lendl appeared first on Cyprus Mail.




debate

Why it’s time to call time on the ‘nature vs nurture’ debate

How much of our make-up is predetermined by our genes, and how much by our environment? The truth is that we're asking entirely the wrong question




debate

Grand Slam tally should decide 'GOAT' debate, says Lendl

Eight-time Grand Slam winner Ivan Lendl said whoever ends up winning the most majors among the 'Big Three' of Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic should be considered the greatest male tennis player of the Open era.




debate

Debate on Laser Liposuction to Remove Fat

Title: Debate on Laser Liposuction to Remove Fat
Category: Health News
Created: 4/27/2010 11:47:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 4/27/2010 11:47:09 AM




debate

GTA 6 release date: Rockstar debate splits opinion of gaming's trusted insiders



A public disagreement between a trusted games journalist and the GTA community is showing Rockstar just how eager people are for a GTA 6 announcement




debate

Expansion debate rumbles on amid hush over Britain’s biggest airports

To campaigners’ dismay, the UK’s biggest hubs, Heathrow and Gatwick, are pushing on with plans to increase capacity

Christine Taylor has lived her entire life in the shadow of London’s Heathrow airport, her childhood bedroom affording a view of one of its two runways. She grew up in Sipson, a village that can trace its history back more than 1,000 years, but now sits immediately north of Britain’s busiest airline hub.

Now living a mile to the east in Harlington, Taylor, 62, is experiencing a rare moment of quiet, thanks to the dramatic reduction in air traffic caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

Continue reading...




debate

Piers Morgan slams minister Helen Whately for 'laughing' in heated debate about care home death toll

Follow our live coronavirus updates here Coronavirus: the symptoms




debate

Al Murray on WWII-coronavirus parallels: ‘It was exactly the debate that’s going on now’

We speak to the historian James Holland - and the comedian Al Murray - who together present the weekly World War Two podcast We Have Ways of Making You Talk




debate

Normal People sparks huge debate on Irish radio over 'immoral' sex scenes: 'It's fornication'

BBC series has been widely praised for its depiction of consensual sex between main characters Marianne and Connell




debate

Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo? Wayne Rooney only has one answer in 'GOAT' debate

In the eternal debate over whether Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo is the greatest footballer of all time, Wayne Rooney is not letting friendship get in the way.




debate

Jose Mourinho ranks Brazilian Ronaldo over Cristiano and Lionel Messi in GOAT debate

Jose Mourinho has named Ronaldo as the best player he has seen – just not the one you might expect.




debate

NSW Labor walks out of Parliament during fiery question time debate

A fiery afternoon in NSW Parliament ends with the Speaker warning members not to "threaten" and the entire Labor Opposition walking out after its Leader, Jodi McKay, was thrown out of the chamber for an hour.




debate

New Liberal MP wants 'both sides' of climate change debate taught at schools

School children should hear a diverse range of views in the classroom, including from climate change advocates as well as sceptics, a new Liberal MP says.




debate

NSW emergency services minister criticised for 'stifling' climate change debate

Climate change concerns raised by former fire chiefs during the NSW bushfire crisis were dismissed as "unpalatable" by the responsible minister David Elliott.




debate

NT Government suspends debate as emergency coronavirus legislation rushed through Parliament

Renters in the NT will be protected from eviction for up to four months after more coronavirus emergency legislation passes parliament. But the Opposition and independents say Labor is avoiding scrutiny of its measures, following the suspension of Question Time.