Palestinia, as designated by Emperor Hadrian;- 135 AD, was part of the Holy Land. Genesis 15:18
Today, it is just a figment of some peoples imagination.

Thank you

SabbathBlessings said:

Paul did not redefine what God stated

Click to expand...

Right? Who does he think he is, Ellen G. White?

I regret that I have but one lol to give.

RDKirk said:

The bar for the military is "manifestly illegal." If Trump's orders were "manifestly illegal" these matters would not be in appellate court. The courts are still trying to figure out if they are "manifestly illegal."


And which the military would have, if any had been illegal orders.

Again, an "illegal order" (not to mention a "manifestly illegal order") is an order to break an existing law.

What is the existing law that the military has been ordered to break?

Click to expand...

Quoted For Truth

Maria Billingsley said:

The question is ..... what would Jesus Christ of Nazareth do?

Here is helpful hint:

"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

Click to expand...

John 3:16-21

John 3:32-36

Jipsah said:

It reflects a decline in parenting.

Click to expand...

No, it reflects errors on both sides.

Parents did not call for teachers to teach "sight reading" instead of phonics, for instance. We could have had the most well-behaved children, but being taught sight reading, there would still be a downtrend in literacy.

Yarddog said:

In your opinion.

Click to expand...

The bar for the military is "manifestly illegal." If Trump's orders were "manifestly illegal" these matters would not be in appellate court. The courts are still trying to figure out if they are "manifestly illegal."

Yarddog said:

Nope. Not in the slightest. They didn't tell them to disobey lawful orders. They correctly told them to disobey unlawful orders, which the military also does.

Click to expand...

And which the military would have, if any had been illegal orders.

Again, an "illegal order" (not to mention a "manifestly illegal order") is an order to break an existing law.

What is the existing law that the military has been ordered to break?

The absolute fact is that there is only ONE people of God. Who are His faithful Christian peoples by natural and Spiritual descent. John 17:20-23, +

Natural; by the fact of everyone living today, has some of Abrahams genes.
Spiritual; By accepting the Salvation offered by Jesus.

The truth of ‘born again’ Christians being the only People of God is summed up in a single sentence: Christ called a people together made up of Jews and Gentiles which would be one, not according to the flesh, but in the Spirit, and they would be the people of God.

Jesus Christ has made his followers into the whole People of God. The ministry of Jesus was to bring into existence a renewed people, in continuity with the Israel of old. Paul calls this new community ‘the Israel of God’. Galatians 6:16
Jesus symbolized his intention to do this by choosing the Twelve, Matthew 10:1-8, as representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel and as the foundation members of a renewed and mission minded community.

Christ called a people together made up from people of every tribe, race, nation and language, Revelation 5:9-10, who would be one, not according to the flesh, but in the Spirit, and they are now the Christian people of God. Seen by John in Revelation 7:9
This expanded People of God are bonded together by the sacrifice of the life of Jesus and the gift of his Spirit in their hearts, re-creating, directing, activating and motivating them from within. Paul’s letter to Titus speaks clearly of the influence of the Holy Spirit given at the rite of baptism, the first sacrament of Christian initiation:

Titus 3:5-7 From the goodness and loving kindness of God; our Saviour appeared and He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy, through rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, having been justified by his grace, we would become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The clearest expression of the identity of the People of God of the New Covenant is found in 1 Peter 2:9-10 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Romans 9:24-26 We [Christians] are the recipients of God’s mercy, whom He has called from among the Jews and Gentiles, for as Hosea says: Those who were not My people, I will call My people…..sons of the Living God.

durangodawood said:

Yeah thats why I said the principle doenst include it.

There are situations where a person would be reasonably capable of judging an order illegal - even if theres also other tricky edge cases.

Click to expand...

An order is not illegal unless it defies an existing law. That's what the troops are taught "illegal order" means.

wing2000 said:

White House lawyers? Surely you jest.

In any case, a "manifestly illegal order" is an order that is obviously illegal to anyone. Examples would include:

- harming civilians
- falsifying officlal documents
- assault, robery or other such crimes

Click to expand...

You guys keep creating hypotheticals which are already prohibited by law. So, yeah, something that is already prohibited by law is "obviously illegal."

But a deployment of troops to Chicago or a declaration of war on Venezuela is not already prohibited by law. If you want it to be an "illegal order," it must be against an existing law.

For that matter, "harming civilians" is also not prohibited by law. If civilians were to open fire on military that had been deployed to Chicago, returning fire is not prohibited by law.

Oompa Loompa said:

Sure. Mandami has called Trump a fascist, but he would never dare say it to his face. Especially when he is groveling at his feet. How else do you explain why Mandami entered the office as some leftist hero that is going to stick it to Trump, only to come out like a battered housewife trying to keep a positive public image?

Click to expand...

Neither one of them appeared to be groveling. They were grinning in each other's face like they both just found their new best friend.

I deeply regret choosing “applied statistics” when I returned to college.

At that time, I believed the IT industry was too fast-moving for me, so I turned to statistics. Only now do I realize that belief was misguided—the IT industry actually suits me. Studying applied statistics was almost entirely a waste of time. And money.

I regret not seeking more guidance in prayer before making that choice (that was during the period when I stopped praying the Rosary, which would have saved me from regret). I should have studied something else.

Today, I find myself loving what I once detested, and detest what I once loved.

essentialsaltes said:

Not exactly.

No, but the reporter in the OP was.

At one point, when Mamdani was asked for the second time about having called Trump a “fascist,” the president gave him cover.

“That’s OK, you can just say yes,” Trump said after Mamdani began to respond. “It’s easier than explaining it.”

Click to expand...

Sure. Mandami has called Trump a fascist, but he would never dare say it to his face. Especially when he is groveling at his feet. How else do you explain why Mandami entered the office as some leftist hero that is going to stick it to Trump, only to come out like a battered housewife trying to keep a positive public image?

Casper and the Angels

There are 3 levels of possibility that we must consider, with the highest implying the level below it.

First is inerrancy, but we must define what kinds of errors are "tolerable" to maintain such a thing in any sense of the word without playing ostrich regarding critical scholarship. At best, the autographs were inerrant but that is of no real consequence since we don't have them and its questionable that there even were genuine autograaphs of several books.

The next is infallibility, which is the idea that anything the Bible endeavors to teach it is unquestionably authoritative. This view doesn't require inerrancy, only impeccbility on every teaching present in the text no matter what it is being taught.

Finally, there is indefeasibility. Which simply says that within its sphere of authority nothing the Bible teaches can be overturned. This view differs from infallibility because it recognizes that there is a scope of topics that underlie the Biblical works and that there are certain aspects where things mentioned or "taught" are not within the intended domain. Under this view, we might say that the sole interest of the Bible is theological content and things pertaining to salvation.

My view is somewhere between infallibility and indefeasibility, though primarily indefeasibility.

Reluctant Theologian said:

What a

I don't know the USA education system - but what are you thoughts on this downtrend in literacy?

Click to expand...

It reflects a decline in parenting.

The cheap health insurance promoted by Trump officials has this catch



The loophole for short-term plans


Short-term plans, which were previously limited to a duration of four months, were vastly expanded in 2018 by the Trump administration, which saw them as an alternative to ACA plans, which they opposed. To make the short-term plans more accessible, the Trump administration ruled that a short-term policy could last as long as three years.

“President Trump is bringing more affordable insurance options back to the market,” Health Secretary Alex Azar said at the time. “These plans aren’t for everyone, but they can provide a much more affordable option for millions of the forgotten men and women left out by the current system.”

Even some insurance companies wondered whether this relaxation of regulations was a good idea. Cigna executives raised objections to the proposed rule, worrying that consumers would end up with a cheaper short-term plan but “find themselves in need of certain benefits or protections.” Aetna suggested adding more consumer protections to the short-term plans. The largest health insurance company, UnitedHealth Group, however, recommended approval of the proposed rule “as quickly as possible.”

In the year after the rule was loosened in 2018, another 600,000 consumers turned to the policies, according to a 2020 study by congressional Democrats. While solid estimates of the total number of annual enrollees are hard to come by, they put the figure at 3 million.

Problems quickly emerged, their study said. Incentivized by larger sales bonuses, brokers were using deceptive marketing materials to sell short-term policies, the report said. It “is unclear what kind of value consumers are getting for their premium dollars,” it said, “other than a false sense of security.”

Last year, debate erupted again when the Biden administration reversed the Trump rule and restored the four-month limit on the policies. This year, though, the Trump administration announced it was again coming up with its own definition of “short-term” and would not prioritize enforcement of the Biden-era rule.

In comments for this article, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said in a statement that the short-term plans can play “a crucial role in offering stopgap coverage solutions ... and can be significantly cheaper than ACA coverage.” The agency also noted that the administration has sought to expand access to “catastrophic” health plans, a form of ACA coverage with high deductibles but lower premiums that had been limited by age and income. In 2025, 54,000 people enrolled in them, according to researchers.

In a statement for this article, UnitedHealthcare said, “Short-term plans are designed to meet consumer demand for more flexible, low-cost options, but they are not for everyone. We encourage people to make informed decisions about their health insurance coverage and compare different types of plans.”

Guojing said:

True Israel comprised of descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

You are not Jacob's descendant, even though you may have descended from Abraham.

Click to expand...

Show me where True Israel is described as being comprised of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Do you see Paul saying that in Romans 9:6-8 where he contrasts national Israel with true Israel? I believe your claim blatantly contradicts what Paul said about true Israel in Romans 9:6-8. He said it is comprised of the children of God who are the children of the promise and counted as Abraham's seed? Who are the children of God who also are the children of the promise and counted as Abraham's seed? I'll give you a hint. The answer is in Galatians 3:26-29.

camille70 said:

That doesn't make sense unless your friend had a plan that was grandfathered, one of the short term plans that didn't have to meet requirements or had a waiver. One of the issues the ACA addressed were junk plans that didn't cover care when you needed it. They either wouldn't cover things or had a max cap they would pay before they cancelled your insurance.

The ACA has a minimum set of standards all plans had to meet but there were some loop holes that Biden attempted to address.

Biden-Harris Administration Protects Consumers from Low-Quality Coverage by Limiting “Junk” Health Plans | CMS

These actions build on the Biden-Harris Administration’s effort to eliminate hidden fees and consumer traps in every sector of the economy.

www.cms.gov

Click to expand...

Fact sheet for the above:

_______


Apparently Trump decided not to enforce the rules.


_______

The cheap health insurance promoted by Trump officials has this catch

Some states have banned “short-term” insurance plans with limited coverage, and consumer advocates have warned of the drawbacks.



__________

Avoiding junk plans: