New Posts

Larniavc · 2025-12-03T02:54:19-0600

Adhering to the law in America is the REAL surprise.

Anhelyna · 2025-12-03T02:51:59-0600

Theotokos virgin, hail most blessed Mary, the Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, for you have given birth to the Saviour of our souls.

Dan1988 · 2025-12-03T02:34:16-0600

eleos1954 said:
Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 is cited to support the belief that the dead "know nothing" and have no activity or knowledge in the grave (Sheol).

Psalm 146:4 states that when a person dies, their thoughts perish.

Psalm 115:17 indicates that the dead do not praise the Lord.

Job 14:10-12 describes death as a state of lying down until a future resurrection.

Genesis 3:19, concerning returning to dust, is seen as the punishment for sin, rather than eternal torment.

John 11:11-14, where Jesus describes Lazarus' death as a "sleep," is interpreted as a metaphor for the unconscious state of death before resurrection.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 should be interpreted as Solomons "under the sun" perspective, meaning it describes life and death from a purely earthly, human point of view, without the full revelation of the afterlife found in the New Testament. The passage serves to highlight the vanity and futility of seeking meaning and fulfillment only in worldly accomplishments and pleasures.

The understanding of the afterlife was limited in the Old Testament compared to the clear teachings of Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament (e.g., Jesus' resurrection and the promise of eternal life).

The statement that "the dead know nothing" (Ecclesiastes 9:5) is saying, the dead have no further activity or share in earthly affairs. It does not contradict the New Testament teaching that the soul/spirit lives on and returns to God.

All of the other verses you referred to support the Bible doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment in hell.

MotoToTheMax · 2025-12-03T02:28:24-0600

Nithavela said:
Well, there we have it. Comitting the textbook example of a war crime is "bold and brave". Extreme solutions are needed to save the lives of your people. You just have to be keep being brutal to solve the problem.

This kind of reasoning has been used to rationalise the worst atrocities of mankind. But with an army as strong as yours and the world too fractured to oppose you, perhaps this time you can kill your way to utopia.

According to this post you sound awfully pro-terrorist. Shame!

rjs330 · 2025-12-03T02:25:46-0600

rambot said:
What's different between you and me is that I don't consider a female body "weird looking".

A man cannot have a female body. A man can have surgeries in order to try and look like a female, but they do not have a female body.

Ophiolite · 2025-12-03T02:18:16-0600

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Nothings being hid, because people have repeatedly gone to the North Pole.

You can even go yourself.

And I still do not get your line of argument. Posting screenshots of Google searches is... nothing except posting screenshots of Google searches.

When one has no training in, or seemingly no awareness of, the skill of critical thinking and the application of logic, it very easy to confuse assertions with evidence and beliefs with proof. If one is raised in such an enviroment I imagine it is very difficult to break free from the clutches of mindless nonsense.

lismore said:
When I was in primary school I remember being given a school book about evolution, diagrams of a fish like creature crawling onto land an artist's impression of ape men sitting round a camp fire having a jolly, based on a single tooth. The people who produce such drivel for children were evidently ideologically driven blinkered zealots, but I have even encountered people in the church who would irrationally defend this stuff.

If your exposure to evolutionary theory is based on a book for primary school children it is hardly surprising you have such a distorted understanding. Perhaps if you were to dip into a handful of the thousands of textbooks on evolution, or the millions of research papers, then the scales on your eyes would fall away and you could view the magnificence of the bioshphere and celebrate the means by which your God created the diversity of life on the planet.

Hans Blaster · 2025-12-03T02:03:17-0600

Landon Caeli said:
AI Overview

Morphic resonance is
a theory proposed by biologist Rupert Sheldrake that suggests all natural systems, including organisms and crystals, have a collective memory that influences their form and behavior over time. This proposed mechanism of "formative causation" claims that past forms and behaviors of similar systems create a cumulative, invisible influence that shapes the development and patterns of present systems, rather than being governed by fixed physical laws alone. It implies that nature is habitual and that new behaviors can spread more rapidly through a species because of this shared, non-physical memory.

Key concepts

Collective memory: Each species, from animals to plants, possesses a collective memory that individuals can access and to which they contribute.

Habitual nature: The theory suggests that the regularities of nature are more like habits that have been reinforced by repetition, rather than being immutable laws.

Similarity: The resonance is based on similarity. The more similar an organism or system is to past ones, the greater the influence it will have.

Behavior and form: Morphic resonance is said to influence both the physical form and the behavior of a system. For example, it is proposed to explain instincts and how certain patterns of behavior, like a new trick learned by rats in one location, can be learned more quickly by other rats of the same breed elsewhere.

Individual memory: The resonance of a system with its own past is also suggested as a way to explain individual memory, where memories are not entirely stored in the brain but are accessed through a resonance with the brain's past states.

No. SHeldrake is a fraud.

Hans Blaster · 2025-12-03T01:58:48-0600

Part Ic:

stevevw said:
Political science is related to political philosophy and ideology. These are beliefs which influence behaviour. Primarily behavioural science is mind and psychology. Sociology is the bigger picture of the philosophies and ideologies and sociology of the society.

That's quite the winding thread...

stevevw said:
Especially in that the very ideologies who are now pushing the culture wars are the ones who made the poilitical the personal. Thus bringing in ideological beliefs and morals as the central justification.

I spend an awful lot of time fighting them here, but I will not surrender secular society and government to the dominionists.

stevevw said:
Surely this is subjective and depends on what beliefs and situation. If your beliefs align with the State then you will not experience any conflict. But then tell that to say Christians who may want to implement their beliefs in public and are told they cannot.

I cannot emphasize any more than this: the state does not *CONTROL* your beliefs. That is not possible. That said, it does not mean your beliefs can't be in conflict with the policy of your government. Mine are currently. But, that does not change what those beliefs are.

stevevw said:
So are abortion or marriage laws underpinned by any ethics. Surely it depends on whether the policy or law has some ethical connection.

It's complicated.

stevevw said:
Its not like we are merely dealing with particals or rocks.

Sometimes I am not so certain about this.

stevevw said:
If they decide that abortion is legal they just gave the OK for abortion. They cannot detach themselves from their moral obligation and responsibility.
Ok so it is those who represent the State and fill that void with their political ideologythat brings the morals in. It is the system that allows people to lobby politicians in positions of power that can implement ideological agendas.
How is this not a moral position. The State is more or less making a moral determination that abortion is ok before the cut off time. Thats a moral determination. In fact the very point that there is a cut off time shows we are talking about a moral determination.
Its still a moral determination one way or the other. Even the idea of allowing the freedom of individuals to make their own decisions is a moral issue as to whether the State can over rule people or not.

The problem, Steve, is that there is no general consensus on abortion. Like other "moral issues" there are lots of people who disagree with what is being called here the "Christian position". Some of them even work from the same scriptures and do not conclude that 'abortion is murder'. It falls in with the other things that some people think are immoral and others don't. If you think it is immoral, then don't do it.

stevevw said:
But there are no fists involved. Its a case on one right and moral determination over riding another. The State chose to side with allowing abortions and thus the need for abortion clinics.

The right to practice a belief and to protest is also a right. Why is it the right for one and not the other. Because ultimately when you have a society that tries to be all things to all people and allow conflicting beliefs someone is going to be denied when the beliefs conflict.

The fists are a metaphor, Steve. It only says that your rights don't extend to denying other people of their rights. The law you mention is an anti-harassment law that prohibits harassing patients. It makes no other restrictions. Protest all you like, just don't harass.

stevevw said:
I said "two or more" please read my words.

So you did, but you quickly reduce everything to two positions anyway.

stevevw said:
But evenso that makes it even more complicated and will eventually either cause conflicts or make some bow down to something they disagree with in certain situations.
Abolitionists was a movement coming from Christian ethics that all were equal in Christ. Wilberforce was a great Christian abolitionist.

That's nice.

stevevw said:
I think primarily western nations were more united and had a stronger identity about who they were and what they stood for. Though we had generous immigration programs people primarily integrated into the western life.

I was talking about the 1840s/50s (the ante-bellum period). There were plenty of wars between Western nations (and before and after), so I don't get this "more united" thing. I don't know anyone had an "immigration program". Some countries, like the US, had open immigration, but it wasn't a "program". The mass migration to the US in that period was from Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia. The immigrants blended in to US society so smoothly that there were literal anti-immigration parties that got seats in Congress. (And these were all immigrants from "the West".)

stevevw said:
I don't think its any coincident that the more we have allowed unbridled immigration of ideas and beliefs that are different the more we have destablised society.

Immigration is not "unbridialed" and our society isn't "destabilized".

stevevw said:
Yes as argued above the State cannot divorce itself from the moral responsibility of its social policies.

Sure it can.

stevevw said:
You are creating a strawman. I did not say there were just two. I specified there were "two or more".

True, but when I read your next line...

stevevw said:
But primarily there is for the sake of the core issues only two positions. Either abortion is ok or not and either marriage is biblical or not and the same for most social issues.

How many wives makes a marriage biblical? 3, 6

stevevw said:
It does not matter if pro abortion is because of a number of reasons and moral positions. Its still a binary choice of it being allowed or not. Or is a biblical marriage or not.

And this is why government should be neutral on these matters.

stevevw said:
The insistence on their being more than 2 positions on belief and morals actually makes it worse. Now society has to accommodate many possible conflicting positions. What people forget is part of belief and morals are for people to actually live out and live under their beliefs. Otherwise they being denied that belief.

Oh look, now you are having a problem when I say there are more than 2 positions. SMH.

Short answer, live your morals, leave the rest of us alone.

rjs330 · 2025-12-03T01:55:15-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
The unfortunate reality is that many Cuban Americans who immigrated illegally and benefited from American generosity now strongly oppose immigration reform for others in similar situations.

I dont think its unfortunate at all. Things have changed. People are realizing what its doing to America and the problems it is causing.

Perpetual Student · 2025-12-03T01:44:45-0600

rambot said:
Release Honduran President found guilty of importing millions of dollars of drugs into the country: It doesn't matter. Trump did it so he's keeping us safe.

After the Clean Coal we will have the Healthy Drugs.

prodromos · 2025-12-03T01:31:03-0600

reBoot said:
You'll also notice that there are 33 grid sections covering the plain.

So, is it supposed to somehow link to Christ who was 33 when He was crucified?

Isaac the Recluse · 2025-12-03T01:08:09-0600

I think it important to note, both Luke and Matthew tell us that Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, and according to Luke this was in order to be tempted by the devil (my interpretation: fasting was incidental to the temptation).

I would not attempt to recreate such a fast unless I was very clear that the Holy Spirit was leading me to it, that I was not being deceived by the enemy, and that pride was not inflating my self-importance.

Just my two cents.

Oompa Loompa · 2025-12-03T00:25:00-0600

Paulos23 said:
This. If they are in the water without a ship in the middle of the ocean, they are no longer a threat and therefore no longer a target.

If you want to remove them from the board, you send out a craft and detain them. You don't send another missle their way.

Show me the proof that any of this actually happened.

Servus · 2025-12-03T00:24:34-0600

Belk said:
Please explain how that changes my observation?

It sounded to me like you misinterpreted the term strongman to mean someone who tends to be fair and generous. Terms like strong as in virtuous, and strong willed, and strongman are not synonymous. Therefore it doesn't make any sense to compare the term strong as in virtuous to the term strongman just because they both contain the word "strong". Otherwise one might as well throw strong odor into the mix.

samaus123456789 · 2025-12-03T00:19:06-0600

Isaiah 65 starts off saying how God will reveal himself to the Greco Romans first century but also the Israelite remnant as they are no longer his people first century but he promised to save some of them. Well I think it is double meaning maybe it is just Greco Romans
It is written to the southern kingdom of Judah aka Judeans Jews.

then

15 You will leave your name
for my chosen ones to use in their curses;
the Sovereign Lord will put you to death,
but to his servants he will give another name.

Since 70 AD the word Jew means Christ killer, liar, deceiver, charlatan, dishonest, greedy, slimey etc. a curse word. And ofc God killed them all throughout the OT, and then 70 AD. Gods servants Christians have another name Christians. They were first called Christians at Antioch, and don't be ashamed of the name Christian because God has given you that name.
So does Romans 2 28 29 continue on after 70 AD or was it meant just to highlight the difference between the OT definition of Jew, and NT definition in the transition period from the old covenant to the new covenant 30-70 AD?

partinobodycular · 2025-12-02T23:48:40-0600

Tom D said:
It's likely if this didn't happen before.

I would say that it only started happening when I passed 65. When trying to watch a movie I can't help but feel like I'm wasting time that could be better spent doing something productive. I've tried watching a movie on one monitor while doing something productive on another one, but I inevitably find the movie to be too distracting, and so I have to turn it off. This happens even if I set aside a specific time during the week to watch it. I just can't sit around doing nothing. I have to be actively doing something all the time.

It's like having that voice in your head when you're trying to go sleep...that you just can't get to shut up, only for me it isn't sleeping that it doesn't like, it's sitting still and doing nothing.

RabbiJames · 2025-12-02T23:34:30-0600

HOSEA 12:13-14:9

The prophet condemns Israel for “forsaking the LORD.” Israel was led out of Egypt by the prophet Moses (Moshe) and tended to, provided for by YHVH, yet Israel forsook the LORD, chasing after false gods, going into idolatry. Now the LORD will punish, and his wrath will fall upon his people.

Yet YHVH still loves his people, yet will exact punishment and judgment just like a father, will punish and judge a disobedient son or daughter. Can we expect anything less from Adonai? If we abandon our LORD and live like a lost person, loving the desires of the lost world and the flesh, can we expect anything less than judgment from HIM who set us free from sin?

We always hear "God is Love", "God is kind." "God is good." Yes, yes, all true, but we also need to look at the other side of our creator. He is also a God of wrath and judgment, of discipline. Does this not show how our earthly fathers are? Our fathers showed us love, yet also discipline when we erred. They needed to spank us or punish us to get us on the right path again. Exodus 34 describes God as abundant mercy and long-suffering, slow to anger. The Hebrew idiom, "erech Apaim" (long-suffering or slow to anger) is known as "long nose." We imagine an angry person breathing heavily through their nose, but having a loooooonnnggg nose would mean more patience. But God does have his limits.

Yet there is hope. In Chapter 14, it starts with: “Shuvah Israel ad YHVH Eloheikha” (Return Israel unto the LORD thy God…” There is always hope while we have the breath of life. The words “Ad” or “Ed” have the same Hebrew consonants, “Ayin Dalet,” which can also mean “Witness.”

Adonai witnesses our waywardness as well as our “return” to Him. There is sin, and there is also repentance. This is what he wanted His people to do, this is what He wants US to do, since we are all part of His people. So, don't wait until it is too late. We might feel His chastisement in one way or another in this day and age, yet He still loves us and is calling our attention.

The word "Teshuvah," from which "shuv" is the verb, is "return, turn around, having a change of mind and direction." So the Prophet Hosea calls the attention of wayward Israel to their waywardness. As an example, God told him to marry a prostitute, an unfaithful wife. She found herself on the slave market, yet Hosea bought her back. This is the same way God reaches out to all believers who have gone off the straight path and jumped off the deep end of the pool with cement shoes! He'll break the cement and bring us back if we are willing.

Like Israel, have you gone astray? I think we all have, some more than others. There is hope in Messiah Yeshua (Jesus Christ), who paid it all.

John 1:51

This part of John tells of Nathanael's encounter with Yeshua. Early in Yeshua's ministry, when there we only a few disciples, John, Phillip, and Simon Peter, Yeshua saw Nathanael under a fig tree. We might imagine what he might have been doing, perhaps in prayer or just resting. He got up and followed Phillip, and Yeshua saw him and said, "Here is a true son of Israel, nothing false in him." So, we could say that Yeshua looked deep inside of Nathanael and saw the "inner Nathanael. (meaning "a gift of God) God's gift was faith and sincerity. He told him the following:

"You will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." This echoes the time that Jacob was fleeing from angry Esau and was headed to Haran, about 400 miles away, to seek a wife (or two). He had a dream of a ladder (Sulam), the Hebrew word meaning for "Sulam" is a "ladder with rungs" or a "Staircase." And angels were descending and ascending on the Son of Man. The identity of the "Sulam" is Yeshua himself. Angels are being sent to serve him, and also, angels are called "messengers."

In Hebraic thought and commentary, the ladder or staircase had 22 rungs or steps symbolizing the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Each Hebrew letter has a meaning, so if Yeshua is the ladder, then we get to God the Father through the Son, as in John 14:6. Each step or rung could be part of our relationship with the LORD, "Aleph" being God, "Beit" (B) Household of faith "Gimmel" (G) greatness in our relationship "Dalet' (D) "Yeshua as the "Door" as in John 10:9. Like I said, it is commentary, but don't we all advance in life with the LORD step-by-step, and rung-by-rung?

Now Nathanael was not living at the time of Jacob, but Jacob's name was changed to "Israel," so Nathanael being a "Son of Israel," can mean that "Yes, indeed, he is a descendant of Jacob, and he has the faith of Jacob. But now, Nathanael will see that Heaven has indeed opened and Yeshua has come down from Heaven to minister on Earth, and indeed, the angels will be at his service. Who knows how many times angels have gotten us out of fixes and situations, being instructed by God? We will find out in heaven, and hopefully will meet our guardian angel.

Shalom, have a blessed rest of the week.

Reluctant Theologian · 2025-12-02T23:23:39-0600

com7fy8 said:
First, about porneia > I think this is listed in Colossians 3:5 as a thing to put to death >

"Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry." (Colossians 3:5)

Here, "fornication" is porneia. And we are to put it "to death". So, I see this does not only mean to stop the outward and physical immoral actions, but put to death the spiritual depth of it including feelings and emotions and desires that are spiritual but immoral. So, it is stuff that is keeping a person away from relating right with Jesus as our Groom, and with brothers and sisters in Jesus the right way. It means stuff that keeps us from living in God's love. It gets our attention away.

So it is, then, an anti-love thing which needs to be put to death . . . getting rid of what in my heart would have me being immoral. Kill it so I can be alive in God's way of loving, instead. My experience is that interest in immoral activity has different things operating, and which keep me from loving the way I should >

*Interest in the pleasure*, even if I don't act on it, can keep my attention away from personally submitting to God in His peace . . . all the time > as we are "called in one body" to do >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

God's peace is so better than the feelings of pleasure of sexual stuff. To be intimate with nice feelings is not as great as being intimate with God and one another in His peace ruling us. I have found how I can use a woman for pleasure, but my intimacy is not really with her, but with the feelings I like. So . . . it is anti-love . . . using someone, instead of really loving her. And what contributes to this? >

*beauty discrimination* > I can favor a nicer looking woman, instead of loving every woman the way God wants. And immoral attraction can be brought on by how nice a woman acts and looks; so it is not really getting to know her and share deeply. And look what happened when Jacob discriminated against Leah because she was not beautiful like Rachel >

"When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren" (Genesis 29:31)

Jacob did not want Leah to be his wife; he got tricked into getting her. And he favored Rachel more than Leah, because of what they looked like. And I see how the LORD expected him to love her dearly and completely; and so the LORD enforced this, by not allowing Rachel to have children. And yes I have seen how my way of loving women can be connected with what they look like and how nicely they talk and move.

And a couple of women I have fallen for "the hardest" have turned out to have major personal and character and emotional problems. But they were "extravagant" looking and acting.

But Jesus says >

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

So, it is anti-love if I favor someone only because of how I can use her for pleasure . . . physically, or just to look at her, and/or because of how she can charm me. Yes, God "gives us richly all things to enjoy," we have in 1 Timothy 6:17; however, this does not mean for me to discriminate in how I love each person.

Paul says how to relate >

"not in passion of lust" > in 1 Thessalonians 4:5.

I think this goes even for in Christian marriage. There can be a difference between lust, versus desiring one another in intimate and tender caring for one another . . . in God's love. God's love is so better than just lust for the pleasure and what the companion looks like and the charming voice.

"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)

"All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." > in 1 Corinthians 6:12.

So, even in holy matrimony . . . it seems to me that God wants us to be first about sharing with Him in His love, all the time, and in this intimacy with God we discover how He has us sharing with one another in marriage and our other close relating as brothers and sisters in Jesus.

So, if I am just thinking about using someone, and only using someone to look at . . . this is getting me away from loving her . . . including how instead I need to be blessing and praying for her. And it has me away from staying submissive to God in His peace ruling us in our hearts > Colossians 3:15.

That is all true yet it remains essential to understand there is no Greek word 'lust' in the NT. In the English the word 'lust' is inherently immoral/bad, but the same cannot be said for the underlying Greek word for 'strong desire'. And even strong (physical) desire within marriage should be considered good with the morally 'right' attitude. The LXX even uses the word 'agape' in Song of Songs in an erotic context. Strong physical desire in marriage without the proper holistic love is selfish and probably ends up hurting the other party. But there is a Christian tendency to Asceticism (growing very strong already in the 2nd century AD) that seems to depart from the Jewish perspective, and that views physical desire by definition as sinful, or at best just tolerated for the sake or pro-creation.

eclipsenow · 2025-12-02T23:17:52-0600

keras said:
Isaiah 49:1-26 Listen to Me you peoples far distant,...... But Zion [the Holy Land] said: The Lord has forsaken me, and my Lord has forgotten me…. The children which you will have, after you have lost the former ones, shall say to you: This place is too small for us, give us more space to dwell . Then you will say to yourself: Who has begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am alone and desolate, and where have they come from? Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders, for they shall not be ashamed that have faith in Me.

There's a sense in which this is all fulfilling the oldest of promises and prophecies, before they even ENTERED the land in the first place!
Yes, I'm talking about Deuteronomy, where God promises that he will judge them if Israel rebel and expel them from their land.
But even then he will remember them - and bring them back.

That's exactly what happened.
Israel was expelled by the Babylonians, and returned by the Persians!

keras said:
Hebrews 12:22-24 But you have come unto mount Zion......
We Christians are the latter children of Zion, Spiritually of the twelve tribes, the true Israelites of God, all the faithful Christian peoples from every tribe, race, nation and language. Revelation 5:9-10

Now let's try something a bit different.
Let's try reading it in context - not just plucking it out of context to justify our own little Nicholas Cage movie!

If you look in context - it's full of warnings and encouragements to the Christians reading the letter - not a prophecy about the future - not at this point anyway. The bit you quote is about their current relationship with God. It's a metaphor for how Christians are the current expression of God's kingdom on earth right now as we await his return when heaven and nature meet!

If you strip out Mount Zion to the future - you do irreparable damage to the rest of the passage and make it nonsensical. Because it's all part of the application to the immediate readers!

This is one of the classic verses that illustrates how the apostles saw the "Kingdom of God" in eschatological tension.
The church, representing the kingdom, in the 'now but not yet' nature of our era.
The overlapping outbreak of God's kingdom on earth while earthly rulers still frustrate, and sometimes even persecute us.

They pray, from where-ever they are scattered across the Roman empire, and it's as if they've come to Mount Zion!
It's that simple and beautiful!

Hebrews 12:
14Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. 15See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. 16See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. 17Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done.
18You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.” 21The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.”
22But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
25See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? 26At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” 27The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.
28Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29for our “God is a consuming fire.”

And you want to turn this into a Nicholas Cage movie?

GodDoesListen55 · 2025-12-02T23:00:07-0600

Priscilla.

A2SG · 2025-12-02T22:57:44-0600

The Barbarian said:
Texas Senate passed a bill that forbids public schools from teaching history and current events about race that might upset students.

How dare they try to upset students at a time like this! Don't they know there's a war on? We're at war with Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

-- A2SG, report to room 101, immediately!

A2SG · 2025-12-02T22:40:35-0600

essentialsaltes said:
GOP faces a familiar dilemma: What to do about Obamacare?
Republican leaders have found themselves in a familiar place: pledging to make major changes to the Affordable Care Act, citing rising health care costs and a looming deadline - but far from agreeing on how to do it.

Republicans promised a mid-December vote on how to proceed on the expiring subsidies, in exchange for support from some Democrats for ending the government shutdown in November. Democrats have argued that the simplest and most politically popular option is to extend the subsidies, which were implemented in 2021 and meant to help defray the cost of health coverage during the covid-19 pandemic. But many GOP lawmakers have campaigned for years on pledges to “repeal Obamacare” and say that continuing to fund the subsidies is a nonstarter, calling instead to shift the money to Americans in the form of health-savings accounts.

“The White House has a solution for cost-sharing,” [can we see it? The last one the WH rolled out vanished in less than a day] Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” predicting that “people are going to work this out” by Christmas.

“We don’t want to cause panic for the folks who are worried that they’re going to lose the thing that they have,” Hassett added.

Thirteen House Republicans, mostly from liberal-leaning states, sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) during the shutdown warning that a failure to extend a version of the subsidies would “risk real harm to those we represent.”

However, many Republicans oppose extending the subsidies - arguing that they are a pandemic-era relic - and instead see the debate as an opportunity to revisit health care reforms the party has sought in the past.

The problem lawmakers of both parties face is they don't want to lose the millions of dollars the for-profit health insurance industry funnels into their reelection campaigns. This money is largely why the GOP first promoted the Heritage Foundation plan as it was market-based and relied on private, for-profit health insurance. It's also why Democrats supported it later on, and that's the only reason the GOP now has a problem with it. But, the problem there is, they haven't come up with any idea that actually provides health care coverage AND relies on for-profit health insurance (protecting their own campaign bottom lines). The only idea I've heard floated about is health savings accounts, which seem like a good idea...if you have money. If you don't, it isn't.

Then again, when has the GOP ever really cared about people who don't have money?

-- A2SG, except when they vote Republican, of course....

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-12-02T22:33:47-0600

Aryeh Jay said:
And speaking of politicizing, when is the President going to order the flag lowered for the death of one of our troops?

Too divisive. It's not like she was some important podcaster or Youtube personality known for pushing politics.

New Posts

New Posts

GOP faces a familiar dilemma: What to do about Obamacare?​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

GOP faces a familiar dilemma: What to do about Obamacare?