Waching daily Oct 10 2018

Om Shanti !

Today's Murli Date Is 11th October 2018

Essence: Sweet children, remember the unlimited Father.

All three - knowledge, devotion and disinterest - are included in this. This is a new study.

Question: How is it that, at the confluence age, devotion continues at the same time as knowledge and yoga?

Answer: In fact, yoga can also be called devotion because you children stay in unadulterated remembrance.

Your remembrance includes knowledge and this is why it is called yoga.

From the copper age onwards, they have simply been performing devotion; there has not been knowledge

This is why that devotion is not called yoga.

There is no aim or objective in that.

You now receive knowledge, you have yoga and you also have no interest in the unlimited world.

Song: Someone made me belong to Him and taught me how to smile.

Essence for dharna: 1. Whilst living at home with your family, you have to become a conqueror of attachment.

At the same time you also have to fulfil your responsibilities to everyone and live like a lotus flower.

2. In order to imbibe knowledge, you definitely have to donate the wealth of knowledge.

Accumulate your income with knowledge and yoga, but don't have any desires for going into trance or having visions.

Blessing: May you claim a right to an elevated status and increase your account of accumulation with the power of silence.

Just as the power of science has a great impact at the present time and enables you to have temporary attainment,

in the same way, you have to increase your account of accumulation with the power of silence.

Accumulate power in yourself with the Father's divine drishti and you will then be able to give others at a time of need what you have accumulated.

Those who accumulate the power of silence knowing the importance of drishti become those who claim a right to an elevated status.

The spiritual sparkle of happiness is visible on their faces.

Slogan: Let there be natural attention and there won't then be any type of tension.

To the sweetest, beloved, long-lost and now-found children, love, remembrance and good morning from the Mother, the Father, BapDada.

The spiritual Father says namaste to the spiritual children

We spiritual children convey to spiritual Baapdada, our love our remembrance, our good morning & our namaste namaste

Om Shanti !

For more infomation >> Essence Of Murli 11-10-18 - Duration: 6:26.

-------------------------------------------

Dead Wrong® with Johan Norberg - China Creates U.S. Jobs - Duration: 1:43.

China...China...China, China, China, China, China, China.

Here I go again about China...and it's Dead Wrong.

The Chinese didn't eat our jobs for lunch.

Sure, there are studies that have shown

that Chinese imports reduces jobs in the

particular sector affected by that competition.

But they only looked at direct head-on

competition from China.

So, one refrigerator bought from a Chinese factory

results in one not bought from an American company.

But that's just one aspect of trade.

Lots of trade is in intermediate goods,

supplies and inputs that companies need to

make their own product.

So, sometimes we do buy a refrigerator

from China, but more often, the America

refrigerator company buys cables and light

bulbs from Chinese factories, so that they

can produce a better and cheaper

refrigerator themselves.

And here's the thing: this expands

production and employment in the U.S. as well.

A new study shows that if we account for

this whole supply chain perspective as

well, the net effect of trade with China

is more American jobs.

The average U.S. region

sees a net job increase of 1.3 percent a year

relative to a hypothetical American

region with no trade with China.

75 percent of U.S. workers experience

real wage growth as a result of this.

So, a trade war with China is a war on American workers.

For more infomation >> Dead Wrong® with Johan Norberg - China Creates U.S. Jobs - Duration: 1:43.

-------------------------------------------

How to crochet Granite Stitch (Moss Stitch) - Duration: 7:51.

Hello, I'm Regina Stein from Ateliê MariaRê. And today we'll learn

a very pretty crochet's stitch called moss stitch or granite stitch.

To make this sample, we'll use Bella's thread, from Pingouin, with a 2.5mm-long needle,

but you can use any thread that you prefer

with the needle's size indicated in its label.

To make the base of this stitch, we'll need an even number

of chains, plus four. So, in our sample,

we'll use 24 chains, plus four, in a total of 28.

We'll make the first of these chains a little bit looser;

we'll let this initial chain opened like this.

In the end, we'll adjust it because, like this, it won't form that

tip at the beginning of the work, but it'll be part of the chains' counting.

We've finished the 28 chains; now we'll make a single stitch

in the fourth chain starting from the needle. So, one, two, three, four.

Let's insert the needle in the fourth chain

and make a single crochet.

Then, we'll make a chain;

we'll skip a chain of the base, insert the needle in the next one

and make another single crochet.

Once more. A chain,

we'll skip a chain of the base, insert the needle in the next one

and make a single crochet.

Once more. A chain,

we'll skip a chain of the base, a chain of the base, insert the needle

in the next chain and make a single crochet. We'll keep repeating

this sequence until the end of the chains,

so, always making a chain, skipping a chain of the base

and making a single crochet, until the end.

Reaching the end, we'll make one more chain;

we'll skip one chain of the base and insert the needle in this last chain here,

that one that was the first of our chains

and that we left it looser. So, let's insert the needle here,

make a single crochet.

Now, we'll grab this stitch with a shorter thread,

and we'll adjust it.

It's done, the work looks right, without that initial tip.

Now, let's make the next row, the second row.

We'll make two chains,

we'll turn our work around,

and we'll make a single crochet here inside this chain's space.

Here is the single crochet,

here is the chain's space, we'll insert the needle here in this space

and make a single crochet.

A chain,

here is the stitch, in the next chain's space we'll insert

the needle

and make a single crochet.

Once more. A chain, we'll insert the needle in the chains' space,

of a chain, right, because it's just one, and let's make a single crochet.

A chain,

a single crochet in the space of the previous chain.

Once more. A chain,

a single crochet. Let's keep doing this until the end of the row.

We've reached the end of the row, let's make a chain

and here are the initial chains, those chains that we've used to start

this underneath row. So, we'll make a chain, insert the needle

in the last one of these initial chains,

make a single crochet.

Now, let's make the next row. Two chains,

we'll turn our work around, and we'll insert the needle in the chain's space

and make a single crochet.

Once more. A chain,

we'll insert the needle here in the chains' space, and make a single crochet.

A chain,

a single crochet in the chain's space.

A chain, a single crochet in the chain's space.

Let's keep going on like this until the end of the row.

We've reached the end, let's make a chain.

Here are the initial chains, we'll insert the needle

in the last one of these and make a single crochet.

Two chains,

we'll turn our work around,

insert the needle in the chain's space and make a single crochet.

We'll keep making this sequence until the desired size,

in our sample, we'll make ten rows.

We've reached the end of the tenth row, we've made a single crochet

in the chain's space, and we'll make a chain,

a single crochet in this row's initial chains.

Now our thread is already cut, we'll tie up the work.

Let's grab the thread, pass it through the handle and pull it.

Now, let's pass this thread by a darning needle

and let's hide this tip on the back of our work.

Let's turn our work around

and pass the thread underneath some stitches.

Let's go back a little bit more

so that the thread gets pretty firm and let's cut it.

Our sample of granite stitch is done.

Did you like it? So, like the video, subscribe to the channel.

If you want more amigurumi options, access our website:

www.ateliemariare.com.br See you, next class!

For more infomation >> How to crochet Granite Stitch (Moss Stitch) - Duration: 7:51.

-------------------------------------------

NakJoon (Bernard Park) "Still (Feat. LUNA)" M/V - Duration: 3:52.

Did you get home safe last night

I'm worried because you cried a lot

Your way back home alone

Could feel so strange for you

I stay still because I'm worried

I blank stare you walking away

Like a complete fool

I just worry about you

You're saying we should break up

You're saying that you've got a new man

All just feels like my fault

I don't hate you for that at all

I just keep looking back

I must be an idiot

You are still beautiful

You're not the same I know you've changed

Just like I liked you a lot

I don't know if I can hate you a lot

I am still,

I can't hate you

I am still missing you

Did you get home safe last night

I'm worried about your forced smile

Your way back home alone

Was I too cruel to you

Should I turn back and say goodbye for the last time

Or should I just let you hate me

I hate myself for thinking too much

(You hurt me so much)

You are still beautiful

I'm not the same I know I've changed

Just like I liked you a lot

I don't know if I can hate you a lot

I am still,

I can't hate you

I am still missing you

Are you happy now

Are you satisfied

I wanted to ask you

I wanted to see it

(don't know why) You seem unhappy as I am

(don't know why) Is it just how I feel

(don't know why) Or is it just my foolish imagination

You are still beautiful

I'm not the same I know I've changed

Just like I liked you a lot

I don't know if I can hate you a lot

I am still,

I can't hate you

I am still missing you

For more infomation >> NakJoon (Bernard Park) "Still (Feat. LUNA)" M/V - Duration: 3:52.

-------------------------------------------

Nadia Zerlinda - Sakkarepmu [Official Music Video] - Duration: 3:28.

For more infomation >> Nadia Zerlinda - Sakkarepmu [Official Music Video] - Duration: 3:28.

-------------------------------------------

[추천영상][막달렌] 너희가 믿는 TERF의 미신은 틀렸다 - Duration: 34:18.

Here I'm gonna be responding to a recent publication entitled "Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist"

from a YouTuber who pretends to be a man in her daily life, but then comes out as a female-to-transexual

person under the anonymous online pseudonym Yorick.

For those who are still getting their heads around Tumblrite terminologies

surrounding the concentious debate about gender

which is war inbetween feminists and trans activists

Most of whom are claiming to be feminists themselves.

Women, especially lesbians,

tend to get branded as "TERFs" when we "misgender" self-identifying trans or nonbinary people

or when we acknowledge that male/female reproductive sex differences exist.

Transexuals who have asribed to Yorick's views

- that only transexuals can be transgender -

tend to be branded as #TRUSCUM.

Although these terms, TERF and TRUSCUM

are both just thinly-guised prejudicial slurs prominently used to misrepresent lesbians like myself,

or transexuals like Yorick being exclusionary heretics.

Third wave liberal feminists and queer and trans activists

fully embrace their usage within the alphabet soup community.

As well as many main stream liberal feminist publications including "Everyday Feminism"

"The Trans Advocate", "The Guardian", tons of them.

But for the purposes of this response video,

it's important to make a special note

that only the term "TERF", but not the term "TRUSCUM"

has been adopted in anti-feminist circles which is where Yorick kinda rolls.

I except by at the end of my response

to Yorick, it'll be pretty obvious to all just why that is.

Yorick: Today I wanna talk to you about TERFs.

That is, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.

Magdalen: It's really not necessary to know what radical feminism is

or even to be a feminist

to get branded with this slur.

Milo Yiannopoulos [prominent alt-right activist and antifeminist]: I mean, this is the problem with the trans project.

It's profoundly sexist, and homphobic by the way -

I'm convinced of this -

the trans project is profoundly homophobic.

A woman who has expressed Milo's view would be branded a TERF.

Yorick: For those of you who don't know,

this is a subgroup of radical feminism

characterized by the belief that transwomen aren't real women

and that there are only 2 genders.

Magdalen: Many women, including myself,

learn about radical feminism after being branded with this slur.

Yorick: Right off the bat, they don't seem too bad, I mean.

Transwomen technically aren't real women since they aren't biologically female

and there are indeed only 2 genders, so -

Magdalen: Pretty much any female who refuses to pretend men are women

especially unapologetic lesbians,

is gonna get branded with this slur.

Yorick: What is my problem with this group?

Magdalen: If you want to see common examples to show that is really

is used as a slur, check out Terf is a Slur [link in description] or just look at the hashtag TERF

you'll see that it's used in a highly derogatory way.

Yorick: To start off, we're gonna need to go back at little bit

because you see, TERFs played an important role

in the withdrawl of healthcare access for trans people.

Magdalen: This is a really disingenuous claim.

I'm gonna go into why in a minute.

Just to make that clear now.

Yorick: And it starts with a women named Dr. Janis Raymond.

(sound effect of thunder and an evil witch cackling)

Raymond is an American author and TERF, known for her work against the violence and sexual exploitation of women.

Magdalen: I don't think this is how Raymond identifies herself.

"Author and TERF."

Do you? That's a very leading statement.

Yorick: Also for her strong opposition to transgender people.

Magdalen: Really?

Yorick: In 1979, Raymond published a book called "The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male."

Magdalen: Worth reading this book, actually.

I mean, obviously, the language has changed.

We're not allowed to use the term "transsexual" anymore, we have to use "transgender"

to be more inclusive of people who identify as being a member of the opposite sex

and have no intention of undergoing any kind of surgery. I think it's quite interesting

that that book was written so long ago.

It seems to have been re-issued with a new introduction of "transgender."

Yorick: And it examines the role of transsexualism in reinforcing traditional gender stereotypes.

Magdalen: Well, it [transsexualism] doesn't exactly challenge sterotypes. For a man to say that he's living as a woman

just because he's wearing a dress and makeup, does it?

Yorick: It argues that transgenderism stems from the patriarchy.

Magdalen: I'm going to assume that you don't believe that there is any such thing as a patriarchy,

and so I'm just gonna give you the definition here.

Patriarchy: "A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it."

So that's the definition.

So obviously, if we look at the Abrahamic faiths,

Judaism, Christianity and Islam, without question [they reinforce patriarchy].

So let's look at government.

As you can see from this map, the vast majority of countries,

including America, are predominantly governed by men.

Given that the trend for gender self-declaration is emerging in nations

where over 30% of women are represented and gender self-declaration has the potential

to scew data on parity between the sexes

A closer look at the handful of nations where over 40%

of women are represented, may well end up with less female representation.

Law is another area where there's great amount of influence

if you take a case to the highest court of the land,

which in the US is the Supreme Court and in the UK

is judicial review, depending on how the case goes,

that can set up legal precedents so it matters who's taking the decisions in those cases.

Women make up just 34% of the US legal profession.

This fraction goes down the higher up the professional ladder you go,

with just 27.1% of women occupying federal and state judgeships.

Now, you can count how many women are supreme court judges

and tell me if you think that's fair.

So let's look at STEM.

This graph shows that a fraction of women are underrepresented in undergraduate STEM studies

in the US and shows that women are greatly underrepresented in my field, which is physics.

As well as engineering. Women are also fractionally overrepresented in biology

but note that all fields show a downward trend over the past decade.

Now I don't know why there is this downward decline

that's what it's showing, so..

That's interesting in itself.

And according to the National Science Foundation, women comprise of just 28% of all

workers in science and engineering occupations in 2010.

That, of course, includes social sciences.

Which, you know, some might debate aren't sciences.

They're certaintly not as well paid.

And that's the only STEM area where women are slightly overrepresented

that's gonna skew the data, that we're given a little bit.

So in light on the facts, no rational person can reasonably deny

men being given a majority in these institutions hold power in them,

especially if we take a global behavorial model of society.

Arguably, it's possible to contend the question

of whether women choose to be ruled by men,

but either way the fact remains that women are excluded.

And this means that we live under patriarchy.

Whether you want to accept this reality or not.

We live under patriarchy.

Yorick: She says that this is done in order to "colonize feminist identification, culture, politics, and sexuality."

Magdalen: I'm not quite sure how you don't recognize that what she's described all those decades ago

is actually happening now.

Yorick: She even goes as far as to say that, quote: "All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropiating this body for themselves."

Magdalen: Obviously the term "rape" is quite triggering for antifeminists.

So, the reason why Yorick has chosen this quote is to strike up

emotive support for her position.

Although it's obvious to me and anyone with an ounce of common sense that

the term "rape" is not being used in the literal or legal sense in this sentence.

Personally, I wouldn't use the term "rape" in that sentence,

for that aformentioned reason that it's triggering to antifeminists and they sort of shut down and stop listening when they hear it.

I also wouldn't make a generalization by saying "all" anything.

Because when you say "all x to y", you're essentially making a prediction with absolute certainty

and that is not possible in science.

But that's just a bit of pedantry, I mean, what does quoting this achieve for Yorick?

It just seems obvious that she's trying to strike up anger towards

this person, and therefore everyone who's associated with this person

by going for the "feminists say all men are rapists" trope.

Yorick: They nearly cut off the most obvious means of "invading women"

so it may seem noninvasive.

Magdalen: What she's saying in this second part, which Yorick hasn't quoted -

"Rape, although it is usually done by force, can also be accomplished by deception."

In UK law, if someone [a trans person] has sex with a person without telling them [of their trans status] that'd be a rape or a sexual assault.

Depending on how it was done.

At the moment, trans activists are pushing to change to change that legislation

to loosen and relax the laws on rape.

Cause when you talk about rape culture you're talking about practices that make rape more likely.

Yorick: "Because transsexuals have lost their physical 'members' does not mean that they have lost their ability to penetrate women -"

"women's mind, women's space, women's sexuality."

Magdalen: I really don't get why you're being sarcastic.

Have you actually heard the crap that liberal feminists are coming out with?

What she's predicted in 1979 is unfolding now.

Yorick: Basically, she hates trans women.

Magdalen: So you're claiming that she hates trans women because she recognizes they are not actually women

And therefore, doesn't want them to be in women's space?

That's what your argument is, which is exactly the same as liberal feminists.

And it's nonsense, because there's plenty of situations where you wouldn't want

to be around a member of the opposite sex.

Yorick: Most TERFs completely ignore the existence of trans men, but we'll come back to that.

Magdalen: I can't wait.

Yorick: She hates trans women.

Magdalen: A bit of repetition in there, just in case you weren't convinced.

Yorick: Because she thinks all men are rapists, and thus trans women are all rapists who are

pretending to be female in order to up their chances at decieving some poor lassy into bed.

Magdalen: I can't speak for Raymond, I have no idea what she thinks.

But those quotes did not say that.

So you just get to paraphrase people and put intent into their words

that isn't actually there.

Yorick: As fucking hilarious and delusional as Raymond and her book are,

Magdalen: This coming from someone who believes that they've become a man.

Radio host: They want to be a man.

Milo: But they're not a man!

Radio host: But they want to be one.

Milo: Tough. You're not a man!

Yorick: That's not why she's a cunt, you see.

Magdalen: Terming women as "cunt" kinda betrays your attitude.

Yorick: The National Center for Heath Care Technology used to inform the US government

on what was and was not medically effective.

And they asked this prominent TERF, Dr. Raymond.

Magdalen: "Prominent TERF."

(thunder and witch cackling)

Yorick: to write up her position of the effectiveness of trans medical care.

And Raymond called her paper "The Technology on the Social and Ethical Aspects of Transsexual Surgery."

Magdalen: A bunch of people and organizations were commisioned to

submit peer-reviewed research for the NCHCT report.

I don't think they were relying soley on Janice Raymond's opinion.

Yorick: This paper asserted that trans medical care was unethical and uneffective.

And declared that legislation should be put in place to completely block trans medical care.

Magdalen: Where's your source?

Because the paper that Janice Raymond submitted was not published.

The only quote published was the following:

"Some have held that it would be preferable to modify society's sex role expectations of men and women than to modify either the body or the mind of individuals to fit these expectations."

That was the only quote by Janice Raymond that was used.

Yorick: And instead suggested that trans people seek out counseling therapy.

Magdalen: What you're referring to now are the findings of the NCHCT's published report on a comphrensive

consultation they performed.

It's academically dishonest for you to be presenting that report as Raymond's work when it's not Raymond's work.

Yorick: The US government had acknowledged medical care for trans people.

Magdalen: You're trying to imply that trans people were denied something which the rest of the American population was able to access.

Yorick: -as necessary prior to Raymond's paper.

Magdalen: Where is the evidence to support this claim?

The science at that time could not reliably and reproducively

show that sex-reassignment surgery was beneficial.

Which, by the way, is still the case today.

Yorick: Thanks to the paper, the government reversed this position in 1981.

Magdalen: Your attribution to Raymond for this decision is false.

The NCHCT evaluated the evidence available to them

and presented their conclusions to the US government, who responded accordingly.

The NCHCT concluded that transsexual surgery should be considered experimental.

What this means is that there was not sufficient evidence at that time to demonstrate that the benefits

of providing sex-reassignment surgery out weighed the health risks.

Yorick: Trans people in America had their access to medically-necessary health care completely removed.

Magdalen: In your opinion it's medically necessary.

The NCHCT did not agree with your opinion.

And even today, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that there is not sufficient evidence to

justify coverage for gender reassignment surgery.

They have chosen not to issue national coverage determination.

So you can try to blame Janice Raymond, but it hasn't changed.

Radical feminists simply do not have the level of influence within science and government that you're crediting them with.

Yorick: According to Dr. Raymond in her book,

"Transgenderism should be morally mandated out of existence."

Magdalen: Now I'm not gonna speak for Janice Raymond, she's written an explanation on her webpage

of what this says herself, so I'm just gonna quote her on that:

"What this means is that I want to eliminate the medical and social systems that support transsexualism and the reasons why in a gender-defined society,"

"persons find it necessary to change their bodies. Nowhere do I say 'transsexuals should be eradicated on moral grounds.'"

"And the words of those who echo this falsehood, has overtones of ethnic cleansing,"

"and make it sound like I want to eliminate transgenered persons from the face of the earth."

She's not talking about the individual people, she's talking about the phenomenon of transsexualism itself.

So that people don't have to feel like they need to have surgery, which, to me,

doesn't sound like hate. It actually sounds like she cares about those people and wants them to actually be supported.

Yorick: Other TERF writers have gone on to say things like transgender reassignment surgery is a "savage mutilation"

and if it were taking place in any other culture outside of our own, we would see it as such.

We would see it as a harmful cultural practice.

Magdalen: So now you're trying to pass of a quote from former Tory MP, Lord Normand Tebbit, as being a quote from a radical feminist?

When he's male and a conservative, I suppose that must mean you expect

us to believe that he hates trans women because he hates men as well, then?

Or maybe if you say it often enough, people might start to believe Milo's a man-hating radical feminist.

Milo: I very firmly believe that we will look back at this period in time

like we do now on Victorian electroshock therapy

and wonder how we could ever been so monstorously callous.

Just to allow these people who have mental illnesses to mutilate their bodies.

Yorick: Or refer to trans people as "Frankenstein."

Magdalen: Well, at least Mary Daly is a radical feminist, even if you are relying on a dodgy secondary source you probably haven't cited.

Yorick: Saying that "transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring."

Magdalen: Given that your claims so far has shown to be completely fabricated or simply gross distortions of the facts,

I'll be taking this one with a pinch of salt, if you don't mind.

What I'm more interested to know is why you're okay with antifeminist men openly mocking trans women.

(radio host making unitelligable noises) Milo: Stop it.

Radio host: It's like they're struggling with their face to try to make sounds with his mouth.

Or her mouth, whatever, look at this.

(Milo laughing in the background)

Milo: He looks quite good in the dress, frankly, but -

Radio host: What is that?

Milo: This is an insane person.

This is a person whose mind, he may need therapy and -

Magdalen: And yet you're so fixated on something a bit mean sounding

that a women may not have said several decades ago.

Cause that's not very reasonable.

Yorick: "...which seeks to invade the female world with substitutes."

Magdalen: You're just going off on one now, mate.

Yorick: [She] cannot think of a world without making females the center of it.

Magdalen: Feminists are interested in women's issues.

Yorick: They can't seem the idea that people will do things that wouldn't necessarily lead to rape.

Magdalen: Show me your case against women knowing that men are men and women are women.

Yorick: What's clear is that TERFs, like any other branch of third-wave radical feminism,

Magdalen: Radical feminism was a 2nd-wave movement.

Which is why 3rd-wave feminists no-platform radical feminists and censor them.

Yorick: Simply hate men.

Magdalen: I hear a lot of hate in your voice.

Yorick: They fucking hate them!

Magdalen: See that, there's more of it.

Yorick: And the only real difference between TERFs and tumblr feminists

Magdalen: You just sound angry.

Yorick: - is that TERFs specifically target trans women.

Magdalen: The only difference between you and a tumblr feminist is that they would call you "truscum."

But pretty much everything else you've got in common with them..

You both hate the same group of feminists.

Yorick: -while conveniently ignoring trans men for some reason.

Magdalen: I think they just see trans men are female.

So, it's like saying they ignore women... they obviously don't.

Yorick: Maybe because the existence of trans men completely debunks the idea that people only transition to sneak into women's bathrooms

and locker rooms with the intent to rape you.

Magdalen: If anything, the fact that your less noisy and demanding voice in a trans activist movement

only further proves that trans women are benefiting from male socialization.

Female trans men are centering the concerns of male trans women.

We're not seeing trans men accusing gay men of transphobia for not sleeping with them.

Why do you think we are seeing trans women doing that to lesbians?

Yorick: TERFs also like to piss on about the patriarchy, of course they do.

While dismissing any and all evidence that contradicts their assertions.

Magdalen: This big red feminist, this liberal feminist [depicted in Yorick's picture] uses terms like "cis" which I reject.

This is the sort of person that would call me a TERF, so I think it's really really dishonest

to use that popular meme, Big Red, to try to further your hateful cause.

Yorick: They conveniently ignore the facts, like -

Magdalen: What facts?

Yorick: The US Interagency on Homelessness estimates that of the chronically homeless 75% are male.

Magdalen: When feminists don't talk about men's issues

it's not because they're "ignoring the facts."

It's because they're interested in women's issues.

The clue is in the name.

Yorick: One third of those are veterans. And 97% of homeless vets are male.

Magdalen: Can you show me any evidence to suggest that men are more prone to poverty than women are?

Cause the obvious explanation for why there are more homeless men than there are homeless women

is that homeless women get picked up and pimped up and put in brothels.

Which is why feminists tend to focus on solving the issue of prostitution.

It's not because they don't care about homeless men,

it's an important issue. But it's not a feminist one.

Yorick: Or the fact that there a more women in education than men.

Magdalen: Are there really? Where? How come two thirds of the 774 million illiterate are female, then?

Yorick: So for the first time since the Census Bureau began collecting data from higher education attainment

Magdalen: Why are you making an generalization about education when you're referring to higher education in a specific country?

Which you haven't actually named.

What country are you even talking about?

Yorick: "Women are more likely to have a bachelor's degree than men."

Magdalen: So what? Assuming you're talking about the UK,

and if the US is anything like the UK,

anybody can get a degree in any old nonsense these days.

I'm just wondering what you think you're showing about women's place in wider society here.

In the US, women who are [college] graduates, earn nearly HALF of what men earn.

There might be more women graduates there, but it's still not being reflected in their salaries.

Yorick: Or what about all the studies that show that men are a grave risk in the workplace?

Magdalen: Again, men's issues. Nobody's denying this fact.

Why aren't men focusing on these issues?

Yorick: According to an analysis of official HSE data, between the years 2009 and 2014,

male worker within the UK had over 20 times higher fatality rates compared to females.

Magdalen: Where are the men? Why is it on the women to prioritize these issues for them?

Yorick: And this comes despite the fact the workplace ratio between men and women is relatively equal, with 47% of the UK workforce made up of women.

Magdalen: It's almost like you just don't know what feminism is.

Yorick: Or how about the fact that while women are far more likely to be sexually assaulted -

Magdalen: Yeah, they are!

Yorick: Men are far more likely to be MURDERED.

Magdalen: By who? Other men!

It's really not that feminists don't recognize that men are victims of male violence too,

it's that male violence against men is not a feminist issue.

It's a men's issue, since men are the victims as well as the perpetrators in those cases.

Men being violent to women is a women's issue.

Which is why feminists focus on that.

This is really not something that should need to be explained.

This whole argument that you're making is a complete straw men

cause it relies on the assumption that women are responsible for male violence.

Women are more likely to get murdered by a male sexual partner or ex-partner

than in any other scenario.

That's why solving the problem of domestic violence against women

is a big area of focus for feminists.

Given that men are significantly more likely to be murdered by other men,

and significantly less likely to be murdered by a female sexual partner or ex-partner,

you'd think that the men's right movement would focus on the former issue, wouldn't you?

Why not criticise the people who are actually responsible for ignoring male violence against men?

The men's rights movement. Instead of blaming feminists,

for being more concerned about the impact of male violence has on women.

Yorick: Or the large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution, averaging over 60%.

"Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges entirely."

"And are twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted."

Magdalen: There seems to be only one study which supports the claim that you're making.

And it was a study done on the justice system in the US, which holds 25% of the world's prison population.

Where 93.3% of those inmates are male.

Assuming the results of that study are reliable and reproducible,

let's consider the key difference the US and the rest of the west.

That is, the majority of American states permit the contracting of prison labor by private corporations.

Which obviously incentivises the incarceration of young, physically healthy males, especially given that men are

already significantly more to be caught breaking the law than women from the outset.

Yorick: Men are far more likely to go to prison than women for the same crimes.

Magdalen: Women are in a much weaker position to challenge the capitalist class system

under patriarchy, and feminists, being feminists,

are already busy trying to change that.

So if you do truly want to solve this problem for men in the US,

I'd advise you to take the issue up with other men who are profiting from their exploitation

at the expense of tax payer subsidies.

This really is not a feminist issue.

I can't emphasise that enough.

Yorick: If we are living in a patriarchy,

we're doing a really shite job at it, aren't we?

Magdalen: I think this might just be the first honest and true statement you have made in your entire presentation.

We are doing a shite job at it.

In case you haven't noticed, we're constantly at war.

How about actually listening to feminists instead of trying to brand them "TERFS", "witches",

and "man-haters"?

Yorick: So it's pretty obvious at this point that radical feminists like ignoring facts.

Magdalen: The only thing that's obvious here is you like twisting facts,

setting up straw men arguments, and smearing people who disagree with you.

By people, I mean women.

Because the slur "TERF" refers to women. Men who express a similar opinion do not, on the whole, tend to get branded with this slur.

Milo: She's had all the surgery, all the hormones, living as a women, can almost "pass"

....Nobody. Believes. It's. A. Women.

Magdalen: And Milo's right. But the difference is that Milo gets to say that stuff, and women don't.

Yorick: And their trans-exclusionary counterparts are no different.

They claim that trans women are just men in drag who are trying to infiltrate female spaces to assault and rape real women, right?

Magdalen: What women are saying is that men are not women.

Stop trying to twist reality.

Yorick: Well, I find to try and find evidence for this.

For this video. I couldn't find a single story

of a trans women who, after going through medical transition,

went on to raping.

Magdalen: Nowadays, most crimes which are perpetrated by trans women

whether it's pre or post operative, are reported as if they are crimes done by women.

The idea that you would be able to easily research this by googling is just another way of manipulating things to suit your narrative.

The fact is, whilst there's some evidence to show that castration might decrease the likelihood a sexual offender will reoffend,

this is still a widely contencious question with a lot of variables.

And the fact is, that in the UK, a gender recognition certificate can be obtained without having undergone bottom surgery.

Moreover, trans activists are lobbying across the western world

for a legislative model which has already been adopted in Argentina

and that model permits gender self-declaration, without medical consultation.

Thus allowing men, whether or not they have undergone surgery,

and whether or not they are taking hormones,

to declare themselves to be women and enter female sex-segregated spaces.

Such as prisons, changing rooms, and even support groups of male sexual violence.

Dr. James Barrett, president of the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists,

submitted a response to a recent consultation by the UK government on legislation concerning transgender people.

He had this to say about transgender prison inmates:

"The converse is the ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences."

"These vastly outnumber the number of prisoners incarcerated for more ordinary, non-sexual offences."

"It has been rather naively suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in prison if this were not actually the case."

"There are, to those of us who actually interview the prisoners, in fact very many reasons why people might pretend this."

Yorick: Do you know what I did find?

"Transgender woman raped in Orleans Parish jail with guard absent for over an hour."

Magdalen: Who raped him? Was it another man?

Yeah, it was another man.

Yorick: "Trans women raped and burned to death in Turkey."

Magdalen: Who raped him and burnt him to death?

Was it a man?

Yorick: "Transgender woman 'raped 2,000 times in all-male prison".

Magdalen: Men do get raped in prison by other men.

This does happen. Men raped this trans women.

Yorick: "Transgender Woman Raped in Stonewall Inn Bathroom."

Magdalen: A man raped that trans women.

Yorick: "Two transwomen raped".

Magdalen: Men raped them.

Yorick: Transwoman raped -

Magdalen: By a man!

Yorick: Trans women raped -

Magdalen: Men will continue to rape other men until something is done to address the fact that men rape.

Which is something, by the way, that feminists are trying to resolve.

How are these so-called "TERFs" responsible for these rapes?

Yorick: - but hate.Trans women are all just deevy predators, right?

Magdalen: No. But they are male.

And the fact is that male people are significantly more likely

to commit a sexual offence than female people.

Facts don't care about your feelings, mate.

And that is the fact.

Yorick: So, TERFs, keep doing your thing.

Exclude trans women all you want from your little cult or community or whatever you want to call it.

Magdalen: I'd call it "the women's movement."

Women's spaces.

And lesbianism.

None of those things are cults.

So, just, you know, calm down.

It's not unreasonable for women to want space away from men.

Yorick: Because the truth is, any self-respecting trans women would never want to join you in the first place.

Magdalen: There are some male trans women, unfortunately in the minority,

who do have respect for the fact that women need space.

And so in that sense, yeah, self-respecting trans women wouldn't want to intrude.

Yorick: But, funnily enough,

I don't agree with a lot of the abuse that TERFs get.

Magdalen: Oh, isn't that big of you?

Yorick: For example, Germaine Greer, like all of us, has a right to her opinions and as most people by this point already know,

after voicing her opinion that trans women are not real women,

she has subject to an apalling of abuse. Ironically, mostly from other feminists who accused her of being a transphobe.

Magdalen: I've seen the conversations in the NUS LGBT Facebook group

before I got banned from it, being branded a "TERF."

The no-platform campaign to censor Germaine Greer

was started by a few gay men and trans women.

And then passed on to the women's officer of Bristol University

who just did what she was told.

Like the figurehead that she was.

And Germaine Greer herself has made very plain that

the rape and death threats came from trans activists, not feminists.

So, this is another distortion of the truth.

Yorick: I was one of the people who felt a need to defend Greer.

Not because I agree with or support her views,

but because I support and will defend her right to freedom of speech.

Magdalen: When you use this term [TERF], you side with people

who silence women, so stop pretending to be on the side of free speech.

Yorick: And I extend the exact same courtesy to all radical feminists, including TERFs, as long as they don't attempt

to take from trans people their right to transition.

Magdalen: Firstly, freedom of speech doesn't have conditions like that in it.

You either support it or you don't.

Secondly, you've got one example of someone supposedly trying to do that,

and it's fabricated.

And there's no evidence to support your claim otherwise.

Thirdly, most feminists are too busy trying to defend women's rights

from this assualt that the trans activists launching,

and children's rights too.

What you're claiming is a straw man. It's not happening.

Nobody is campaigning to stop adults from transitioning.

Really, your whole straw man is just a way of justifying your desire

to silence this group of people

Yorick: I don't, however, approve of feminists who attack theirr own and send death threats to people.

Magdalen: I've received death threats.

Yorick: For example, like Erin Pizzey, because she had the audacity

to say that men can be victims of domestic violence as well.

Magdalen: Uh, a fine example issue with men calling themselves feminists.

They do stupid things like this. Every rule has an exception, but I can almost guarantee that

those death threats came from men.

Yorick: Because when you strip away all the bullshit,

third-wave radical feminists -

Magdalen: Radical feminism is a form of feminism from the second wave.

Yorick: Whether they exclude or support trans people,

are really just a bunch of angry, hateful people who cling onto their imaginary victimhood like a fucking lifeline.

Magdalen: I really think you're projecting here, because you are angry, and you are clinging onto your imaginary victimhood.

Yorick: So go ahead, TERFs.

Prove to me that the patriarchy exists.

Magdalen: I think you should prove to me that it doesn't,

because you just sound like a conspiracy theorist, to be honest.

Yorick: Show me the evidence that trans women are all just deviant threats that want to rape you.

Magdalen: No. Because I haven't made that claim.

Yorick: Tell me that your trans-exclusionary movement has the best of intentions in mind,

because from where I'm sitting,

you just look like a man-hating, trans women-hating, fact-twisting cult.

Magdalen: From where I'm sitting,

you just look like a liar who doesn't care who the trans lobby hurts

as long as your precious identity gets validated.

Can't respect that. I hope that you don't go anywhere near research,

cause you're a disgrace. Stop lying.

Put your identity aside,

and wake up to what the trans lobby are doing and what it has the potential to mean for the future.

When you've got legislation that is protecting someone' subjective sense of their identity,

you pretty much can brand anything hate speech.

What happens when having money becomes a protected characteristic?

And it becomes hate speech to criticise the rich?

[Subscribe.]

For more infomation >> [추천영상][막달렌] 너희가 믿는 TERF의 미신은 틀렸다 - Duration: 34:18.

-------------------------------------------

How to Talk to a Recruiter (or Headhunter) to Find a New Job - Duration: 10:18.

Hey Ambitious Professionals! It's Linda Rayner of lindaraynier.com guiding you

to a career and life you'll truly enjoy and in today's video I'm going to teach

you six tips on how you can successfully work with a recruiter or headhunter in

order to land your next job offer

as a career strategist I've had the honour of being able to help numerous

professionals land their dream job offers and so if this is something that

you're interested in working with me one on one to stand out and get hired I can

give you details about that at the end of this video as a former recruiter or

headhunter myself I know firsthand that there are many professionals out there

who have had fairly good experiences or even amazing experiences working with

recruiters and HUD headhunters to land their job opportunities whereas others

may not have had such a great experience the difference in your experience comes

down to a combination of things and those are things that you can control

and so today I'm going to teach you six tips on how you can successfully work

with an executive recruiter or headhunter in order to land your next

job now before we get into it let's just first clarify what exactly are

headhunters or executive recruiters so executive recruiters and headhunters are

individuals who work for agencies or recruitment firms and they're separate

from the companies that have open job positions so essentially these companies

or organizations the companies that you actually may be interested in applying

to are outsourcing their recruiting duties to a recruitment firm and they're

getting these recruiters are headhunters to find job candidates that are suitable

for the roles that they have open so that means these headhunters or

recruiters have access to a multitude of roles of open opportunities that

different companies have come to them to help them find job candidates for and

one more important point to remember about recruiters and headhunters is a

lot of them tend to work on what's called a contingency basis contingency

meaning that they'll only get paid by the company if they're able to find the

successful candidate and that is one that is going to be hired by the

organization so they get a commission let's say for being able to find the

successful job candidate so you can imagine that recruiters and headhunters

have to really search and scope the entire market to

find that one diamond that one perfect fit for that organization and so they're

dealing with a lot of people at a time but at the same time even though they're

dealing with a lot of people they can still be very helpful to you

specifically in your job search because you might be that diamond that they're

looking for so let's talk about how can executive recruiters and headhunters be

helpful and useful to you recruiters and headhunters are

especially helpful to you if you know how to find them and how to work with

them so let's dive into the six tips on how to successfully work with recruiters

and headhunters to land your next job offer tip number one proactively reach

out to recruiters or headhunters via LinkedIn who recruit in the field you're

looking to get into don't be afraid to reach out to external recruiters and

headhunters because they need to know that you exist so email them LinkedIn

message them call them send them your resume and let them know that you're

interested in the open opportunities that they have available tip number two

know what you're looking for when you get the opportunity to meet with a

recruiter or headhunter don't go into that meeting saying that you are open to

any jobs they have available the worst type of job candidate for headhunters

and recruiters are ones that are open to just any job they have no clear idea of

what it is they want you want any job you'll get no job so know what you want

and make sure that it reasonably lines up with your experience your abilities

your qualifications and be mindful of the job title that you want the salary

the location and the industry make sure that you articulate all of those items

to the recruiter and headhunter so that they have a clear idea of what it is

that they need to find for you tip number three perfect your tell me about

spiel all headhunters or recruiters really want to know is a brief

explanation of your background your skills and what you're able to do and

what type of job fits you next as I said earlier some recruiters aren't

technically specialized in the line of work that you come from so don't get

into the nitty gritty details and start explaining acronyms and things that they

probably won't understand be very concise and

to the point when you're explaining your background to the recruiter and for more

tips on this see my other video called tell me about yourself how to answer

this question tip number four to successfully working with recruiters is

to make sure that your resume and LinkedIn are top-notch you want to give

really good reasons for the headhunter to want to call you back by having a

really attractive and compelling resume and LinkedIn profile as I always say

headhunters recruiters employers they only take 5 to 10 seconds to review your

resume and if they don't see what they're looking for in those first 5 to

10 seconds then you're getting shoved aside so you really want to make sure

that your profile your LinkedIn profile and your resume are top-notch are

attractive and are compelling and if you need help in that department then a good

way to start is to download my 10 ultimate resume hacks to lend you more

interviews and job offers which is located in the link below or you can

review any other resume related videos or LinkedIn profile videos on my channel

and if you've reviewed all of those and you still need help then definitely

check out my course top-notch resume the link is in the description box below tip

number five be open and flexible to both talking and not talking working with a

headhunter means that sometimes they're gonna call you during work hours to tell

you that they got you an interview or that there's an open opportunity

available and they want to ask you about it so if you're still working at a

company while you're searching for a new one you have to be open and flexible to

taking those calls now of course you have to set some guidelines and let the

recruiter know when you're not and you are available but be willing to run off

discreetly to take those phone calls because you never know those

opportunities that they're talking to you about might be the next one for you

now when it comes to not talking if you're finding that the recruiter isn't

calling you back don't take it personally I can tell you from firsthand

experience that there have been times where as a recruiter in the past where I

did not respond to people but that's just simply because I had so many people

reaching out to me and so many profiles to look through so many resumes to look

through that I had to prioritize so if I felt that somebody was not the right

fit for an opportunity they likely didn't hear from me until there was an

opportunity that was the right fit for them so if you're finding you're in that

stage where you're not hearing back from these recruiters well move on to

somebody else or just let it be don't put too much

weight on a recruiter or a headhunter to really help you to find a next position

it's gonna be a matter of luck and timing and if they happen to have

something that is the perfect right fit for you and you've done everything in

your power to sell yourself to them and make sure that they see that you're the

right fit then you'll have a good chance I know

that it's really easy to get upset and blame a recruiter for why you still

don't have a job but you have to remember that their priority is finding

the right fit for the company the company that is going to be paying their

commission and so their priority is to find the person who's the right match

and so if you're not hearing back from them it's likely because you're not the

right match so then you have to be really honest with yourself and you have

to ask yourself what is it about me that is not the right match for what they're

looking for if it's a technical thing they really wanted a certain type of

technical experience then leave it at that okay it just so happens I don't

have that experience or if it's that you've gone on interviews for that

opportunity and you didn't get the job you have to ask yourself deeper

questions as to I think I was the right fit for the position but maybe there was

something else maybe it was my communication maybe it was something in

the way I presented myself in the interview and you have to be willing to

make adjustments within yourself and in order to successfully get the next job

the next time that something comes around and this ties in to tip number

six which is to be honest if you are seriously looking for a new position let

the recruiter know but if you're not that serious and you just want to hear

what opportunities are available also let the recruiter know you're only doing

a disservice for yourself and the recruiter when you're wasting each

other's time by looking at opportunities that you'll never consider anyways being

dishonest will cause you to lose credibility with anyone and that

includes recruiters so you really want to be careful of that so there you have

it my six tips on how to work with the recruiter

so that you can land your next job opportunity now if you've been in this

situation where you've been working with recruiters you've been searching on your

own you've been going on interviews and nothing has been successful and you're

ready to make a career change then feel free to reach out to me head on over to

my website lindaraynier.com/standoutgethired read through the page if

you feel that you're ready for one-on-one professional help then I can

definitely help you you just have to fill out the application form and from

there one of my team members will review it if it seems that we're a potential

match then we'll reach out to you directly if you like this video then

please give it a thumbs up subscribe share it with your friends thank you so

much for watching and I see you in the next video

For more infomation >> How to Talk to a Recruiter (or Headhunter) to Find a New Job - Duration: 10:18.

-------------------------------------------

Pros and Cons of a Macrobiotic Diet - Duration: 5:00.

For more infomation >> Pros and Cons of a Macrobiotic Diet - Duration: 5:00.

-------------------------------------------

How did we get the Bible? - Duration: 12:45.

(music)

- We talk about a canon

you're talking about the list of books

that Christians, here the Christian canon,

that Christians view as uniquely authoritative.

Okay, a fundamental question when we talk about the canon

is are we looking at an authorized collection of writings

or a collection of authoritative writings.

Now that may sound almost the same, but listen to that.

An authorized collection of writings.

There's some external force

or authority that's declared these writings

are authoritative and the basis of their authority

is on this external force.

Or is this a collection of authoritative writings

and that is the writings have an inherent authority

that is recognized, but whether you recognize it or not

they still have the authority.

As an evangelical protestant I have the second view,

right, more of a Catholic view is the first view,

that the church has invested this authority

and it's the authority of the church.

I believe that the Scriptures have an inherent authority.

Sort of a trick question I say well when was

the New Testament canon completed?

Well the New Testament canon was completed

when the last book of the New Testament was written,

around A.D. 90, that's when it was completed,

but there's a process of that being universally recognized

in the widespread and diverse early church.

When was the Old Testament canon completed?

Well 430 B.C. with the book of Malachi,

when the last book of the Old Testament was written

it was completed, but then there's some process

in the early Jews coming to recognize

a closure to that Hebrew language canon,

the Old Testament canon,

and then the way they spoke about that.

Let's talk about it in succession.

Let's talk about the Old Testament canon

and then let's talk about the New Testament canon.

The Old Testament was written from roughly 1400 to 430 B.C.

and you can see within the documents themselves

God giving guidelines for whether prophetic words

were true or really from Him.

For example in Deuteronomy 18

and it seems there's this progressive recognition

through time of the prophets truly speaking for God

and their writings being preserved.

It's clear when you get to the time of the New Testament

the way that Jesus and the apostles

referred to the Old Testament,

the way it's quoted, the way those quotes are introduced,

there's a recognition that these writings are closed.

This Old Testament prophetic canon

is not continuing to be written

and these things are authoritative.

As Jesus says in John 10 the Scripture

cannot be broken, right.

Josephus who wrote in the first century, a Jewish historian,

he said the Jewish canon had been completed and closed

since the time of the Persian King Artaxerxes,

which was you know in the 400s.

So it's pretty easy for Christians

to affirm the Old Testament canon.

We say we believe the Old Testament canon

that Jesus and the apostles believed, very simplistically.

So if Jesus and the apostles affirm

this collection of writings, that's sufficient for me.

And in fact if you go to a Jewish synagogue today

the Hebrew Scriptures that you find there

are exactly the same books that we have

in our 39 book Old Testament Protestant canon.

Now they're arranged in slightly different order,

they're grouped differently, but it's the same content

in the Hebrew canon in a Jewish synagogue

and in the protestant evangelical

39 book Old Testament canon.

Let's talk about the New Testament canon.

Okay, the New Testament.

So the New Testament was written

from roughly the 40s to roughly A.D. 90,

so a much smaller period of time over which it was written.

And even within those writings themselves

we see this recognition of their inherent authority,

right, Jesus told his disciples

that they would be his witnesses,

that the Spirit would remind them

of what he had taught them and teach them further things.

So there's this interlocking

of the old and New Testament in a really unique way

in that the New Testament was quoting

from the Old Testament, recognizing it as authoritative,

but here's this final and definitive word

on God's revelation that's now come in Christ.

And so even within those writings themselves,

for example in Second Peter 3:16

Peter refers to Paul's writings

and he calls them Scripture.

Or in Colossians 4 Paul talks about

copying the letter and sending the letter

to another church and them sending the letter,

there's a recognition these writings

are more than just specific occasional writings

for a particular congregation,

they have a universal authority.

So we find that within the writings themselves.

Then we go to the next stage of church history,

the post-apostolic period, what's called

the early church fathers, the apostolic fathers

and what we find there, remember Christians

are often having to hide so they're not killed,

right, they're separated by hundreds of miles,

there's no internet, there are no

Together for the Gospel conferences

where they're getting together

and chatting about these things,

this is just an organic thing.

I go there you have the book of Romans,

you have the Gospel of Mark.

We copy those, I bring them back to my location.

It's kind of this, it just keeps multiplying out like that.

And so in this period there is an implicit recognition

of the unique authority of the 27 book New Testament.

What do I mean by that?

I mean by the way that the Ignatius, Irenaeus,

the way that these guys are quoting

the books of the New Testament,

the way they're introducing those quotes,

there's an implicit recognition,

a functional canon that forms rather quickly.

Now to be fair there are also some other books

that are circulating in this time period

that did not make it into the New Testament canon.

And again you can see how this is pretty easy to happen

with geographic distances widespread,

with you know someone says well here's the Gospel of Peter.

You know oh wow we only have the Gospel of Mark,

I'd love to read the Gospel of Peter too,

but then as you read and study it

and it's read to your congregation

and someone else comes in like

we've never heard of this before

and Peter was in our church.

You know we have no, Peter preached in our church,

we have no, and so there's a time of discerning.

It takes time for this to happen.

Eusebius, early church historian

who wrote in the early 300s, he said in his time

there were those books that were

universally confessed as true,

there were those that were debated

and then there were those that were rejected as spurious.

So it was a very honest, forthright conversation

and as they were talking about these things

they wanted to know, this is a work

that really went back to apostolic authority.

This wasn't something someone had a great idea,

I wish Paul had said this to the Corinthians,

someone did this, and they wrote Third Corinthians

you know and it was orthodox even,

but it wasn't written by Paul

and so this person was removed

from their ecclesiastical office

and the writing was condemned.

And so this again took time and then

we know that in the early 300s

as Christianity became able to flourish publicly

and to be even the religion sanctioned officially

by the Roman empire, then came time

where public communication and discussion could flourish.

It was not internet, there were no T4G conferences,

but there were councils and conferences

that could now meet and very quickly

we see coalescing in these discussions

this 27 book canon that we have.

Now the first time we have it in a enumerated list

that exactly matches our 27 books is in 367 A.D.

in a letter from Athanasius, his Easter letter,

his festal letter where he lists

the 27 book New Testament canon.

But sometimes people will hear that out of context

and they'll be like oh wow the canon was just wide open,

crazy for 400, no, as I said,

right after the time of the New Testament

you see this functional authority

that is uniquely given to the New Testament writings

with this discussion and with some of these outlier texts

which later are rejected.

Now Athenasus was not a council, he was an individual,

a prominent church leader.

But soon after that in the councils of Hippo Regius

and Carthage in the late 300s

the 27 book New Testament canon that we have

was formally, I would say formally recognized.

The status was not given, but the status was recognized

by the Christian leaders of that time.

The early Christian community

was extremely careful and extremely interested

to make sure that they only gave

reverence and final authority

to books that were apostolic, inspired.

There was not a loosey goosey

well just bring your own book

and maybe we'll add that in too.

There's a very, these discussions so

they're very, very concerned to not have any corruption

and when you read through those words

of the early father's there's no recognition

that pseudonymity works falsely written

in the name of someone else could ever be accepted,

but only what is truly apostolic

and goes back to John, Matthew

or a follower of an apostle who wrote their words like Mark.

One scholar has pointed out that even if we lost

all our New Testament Greek manuscripts

we could construct the entire Greek New Testament

on the basis of the quotations in the early church fathers

because they so extensively quoted the New Testament

and looked to it as uniquely authoritative

alongside the prior written Scripture of the Old Testament.

So sometimes Christians could hear something on the news,

pick up, their coworkers say something

that could really make them question

hey when were these books written

or when were they recognized as Scripture?

But I really think we shouldn't have anything

to be afraid of looking at the actual process.

God is a loving heavenly Father

who's not trying to hide things from us or deceive us

and we recognize the process He chose in history

of having His word written and then having it recognized,

having us recognize the inherent authority

of those documents.

For the Old Testament Jesus and the apostles

so clearly affirm that authority.

How could we deny it when our Lord

and his inspired apostles affirm it?

For the writings of the New Testament

even within the writings themselves

there's this inherent recognition of Peter for Paul

or Paul for his own writings,

but then we see immediately we see

the post-apostolic period, recognizing this authority,

affirming it, affirming the apostolic authorship

uniquely commissioned by Jesus,

affirming the consistency of the teaching

across these documents,

affirming the universal recognition

and where there outliers, where there are small communities

or manuscripts that did not make it in,

that just shows that the process itself

did what it was supposed to do,

it weeded out the false writings,

the non-apostolic writings, the later writings

and the ones that were true and reliable

came to be universally recognized

and revered and rightly by Christians around the world.

(music)

- [Narrator] Thanks for watching Honest Answers.

Don't forget to subscribe.

For more infomation >> How did we get the Bible? - Duration: 12:45.

-------------------------------------------

SP MUSSA STRONG DUO PRO | goalkeeperglove test & review | SHERLOCK GLOVES - Duration: 2:40.

hello to everyone today we will test and review the glove mussa strong 2 pro of the sp

but how will it behave in the field? follow me and you will find out

the latex is the connect grip with technology duo inside it is a layer of

internal latex which should increase the stability between hand and glove in

the grip phase

the cut is a hybrid roll flat, combines roll finger on index and little finger

and cut with external stitching on the two central fingers

the back is a combination of latex and injected gel that gives a great deal

hand support both during the phase of grip that during the fist repulses

the cuff is long and neoprene with a lycra insert that should facilitate

the fit, the strap is very traditional in latex with velcro closure

concluding the moussa strong is a glove very massive with great capacity

of cushioning of the ball thanks to the duo system that give an excellent

hand support, the latex connect grip is excellent in all conditions

atmospheric but it is also very delicate so i recommend it for use on grass or

synthetic in good condition if you are interested in buying visit the

site of futbol emotion that you we leave below in description, we

see you soon in a next video eee a I greet hello to the friends of the Sherlock gloves

For more infomation >> SP MUSSA STRONG DUO PRO | goalkeeperglove test & review | SHERLOCK GLOVES - Duration: 2:40.

-------------------------------------------

Corona di Trecce di Sissi (variante inglese) - Le Trecce - Duration: 4:16.

For more infomation >> Corona di Trecce di Sissi (variante inglese) - Le Trecce - Duration: 4:16.

-------------------------------------------

Видео для L'Oréal professionnel (Видеограф в Крыму) - Duration: 0:33.

For more infomation >> Видео для L'Oréal professionnel (Видеограф в Крыму) - Duration: 0:33.

-------------------------------------------

Модульная стенка в зал Асти. Стенка в гостиную в современном стиле . - Duration: 1:43.

For more infomation >> Модульная стенка в зал Асти. Стенка в гостиную в современном стиле . - Duration: 1:43.

-------------------------------------------

Yasak Elma 18. Bölüm 2. Fragman - Duration: 1:01.

For more infomation >> Yasak Elma 18. Bölüm 2. Fragman - Duration: 1:01.

-------------------------------------------

Makeup transformations into beautiful women in their twenties around the world 4K | AmaterasuEVE - Duration: 4:26.

For more infomation >> Makeup transformations into beautiful women in their twenties around the world 4K | AmaterasuEVE - Duration: 4:26.

-------------------------------------------

NAIK HARBOUR BRIDGE SYDNEY | RANDOM Q&A STUDENT VISA - Duration: 9:15.

For more infomation >> NAIK HARBOUR BRIDGE SYDNEY | RANDOM Q&A STUDENT VISA - Duration: 9:15.

-------------------------------------------

Perché devi essere egoista - Duration: 2:21.

For more infomation >> Perché devi essere egoista - Duration: 2:21.

-------------------------------------------

GUESS THAT SONG CHALLENGE (SO FUNNY) w/ Mireine Beaini - Duration: 6:44.

hey guys!

welcome to my channel!

today we're doing, "guess that song challenge"

with Mireine Beaini

if you're new to the channel, subscribe with notifications on

and like

and let's get started

shape of you

oh we started? haha

i kept saying it last year haha

thanks for watching

bye

subscribe and like!

For more infomation >> GUESS THAT SONG CHALLENGE (SO FUNNY) w/ Mireine Beaini - Duration: 6:44.

-------------------------------------------

EN LIVE AVEC MES ABONNES SUR FORTNITE : BATTLE ROYALE | NINTENDO SWITCH - Duration: 1:53:39.

For more infomation >> EN LIVE AVEC MES ABONNES SUR FORTNITE : BATTLE ROYALE | NINTENDO SWITCH - Duration: 1:53:39.

-------------------------------------------

Millennial Baby Names Parents Will Regret In 10 Years - Duration: 4:05.

Millennials are a living bridge between the 20th and 21st centuries.

And they carry that legacy with them everywhere, thanks to their increasingly old fashioned

names.

While these names were standard for centuries, with the dawn of a new millennium, new ideas

are in and old ideas are fading away.

Here's a look at some classic baby names that new parents may regret in 10 years.

Tiffany

The name Tiffany exudes timeless class elegance, thanks in part to the jewelry store Tiffany

& Co, not to mention its association with iconic actress Audrey Hepburn who starred

in the 1961 classic Breakfast at Tiffany's.

It got so popular, that when Tiffani Thiessen starred on Saved by the Bell, it was the 26th

ranked baby name for millennial girls.

But by 2017, Tiffany had dropped all the way to 580.

Barring the rise of a new Tiffany-centric zeitgeist, this is one name that may be decidedly

passe ten years from now.

"Gracious!"

Amanda

One of the hottest names of the millennial generation was Amanda, with actresses Amanda

Bynes and Amanda Seyfried among the most famous examples.

The name was the third most popular name for millennial girls, but quickly fell out of

favor.

By 2006, Amanda was out of the top 100 baby names for girls and has remained off the list

since.

Fans of the name have some hope though, as over in France, the variant Amandine has cracked

the top 100, making it the new, trendy choice.

Cody

Older millennials born in the 1980s and early 1990s might not be familiar with The Suite

Life of Zack and Cody, but for those born towards the end of the generation this Disney

show was must-watch programming.

Sadly, the name isn't living up to its millennial era popularity.

Though it was ranked 40th among millennials, Cody hasn't been in the top 100 names for

boys since 2005.

Given its steady downward trajectory, it's safe to say that this name is going to be

out of style for the foreseeable future.

Christina

Vocal powerhouse Christina Aguilera, whose music many millennials grew up on, is still

making waves, but we can't say the same for the name Christina.

Variations of the name were exceptionally popular among the millennial generation: Christina

was the 30th most popular name for millennial girls, with Kristen at 56, Christine following

at 81, and Kristin coming in at 88.

All of these names are now well off the list of the top 100 baby names for little divas,

though there's no word on where this spelling variation ranks.

Jennifer

This millennial favorite is the fifth most common name among girls born in that generation,

but fewer and fewer babies are named Jennifer each year, and the name is now out of the

top 100.

Give it another ten years and the name will likely have fallen even further down the charts,

but fortunately it already has a replacement lined up: Genevieve, which has been slowly

gaining steam and seems poised to crack the Top 100 soon.

Steven

Two forms of this name were frequently given to baby millennial boys: Steven came in at

number 31, while Stephen ranked 49.

Both versions of the name have seen a downward spiral, though, and have been far less frequently

used for babies born after the millennial generation.

That could still change, though, as hit shows like The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and

Steven Universe have brought a new hip cache to these old chestnuts.

Stephanie

Like its male variations, Steven and Stephen, Stephanie was a name commonly given to millennial

babies.

Millennial Jodie Sweetin played Stephanie Tanner on one of the most iconic shows of

the millennial generation: Full House.

Stephanie was ranked number nine for millennial girls, but hasn't been in the top 100 names

for years, even after Fuller House brought the name back into the headlines.

"How rude!"

Eric

Ariel might have thought twice about giving up her voice to woo Prince Eric if she knew

that his name would one day be just another thingamabob.

The name Eric has cycled in and out of fashion over the years, and is currently seeing a

dip in popularity, at least in the United States.

Ranked 28th among millennials, it's now out of the top 100 for American babies.

For a more modern twist on the name that you won't regret in ten years, go with Maverick,

which has now entered the top 100 list, making it an unexpectedly safe pick.