Clare73 said:

Note the "IF", not "when."

Click to expand...

No, we get too technical translating these words at times, and we also then fail to see why Paul's IF if it was not some other word that did not quite mean if, is then overridden by Pau in vs. 25 where he says emphatically that ALL Israel (he means all 12 tribes will be represented in this repentance not ever Jew, of course, Zech. 13:8-9 tells us that only 1/3 repent, but since there are 8 Billion Gentiles and only 1/8 of us make it to heaven, yest I know there are now 2 billion Christians, but 5 of the 10 virgin brides do not make the wedding call or rapture. So, 33% is a lot higher than 12-13%.

Clare73 said:

And the rest of the story. . .(Gal 3:29)

Click to expand...

I have taught on Gal chapter 3 many times sister, its not what you think it is, as a matter of fact its just the opposite. I can go into detail, but I will just give a brief understanding for now.

During the whole chapter Paul is rebuking the Galatians for moving away from the faith, and unto the Law of Moses. So, some converted Jews no doubt came along and said BUT....you still have to keep Moses' Law. That is why Paul juxtaposed FAITH (Spirit) vs. FLESH (Law) over and over in Gal. 3. Then at the end to bring it home, he's saying STOP TRYING TO BE Jewish in order to make it to heaven, we all make it the same way, Jew, Greek, Male & Female BY FAITH ALONE. You and others wrongly surmise this means Paul is saying the Church are all one, if that is what he mean, that Jews and Males are now all ONE, why did he use Males and Females because we are not ALL ONE are we? Males are males and females still are the only gender that can have babies in this world. So, males and females are all one in what manner? How we come unto Christ Jesus by.....................FAITH ALONE....Not by keeping Moses' Law. Likewise, the same thing was meant about Jews and Greeks (Gentiles) all being ONE. Both Jew and Gentile must come unto God by FAITH ALONE. This is why Israel can not repent until after the Pre Trib. Rapture, because God has turned the mantle of taking the Gospel unto all the world over to the [mostly] Gentile Church(Time of the Gentiles [SERVICE unto God]. Only after we are Raptured will Gd call Israel, as a nation, unto repentance, as a matter of fact, its our Rapture (which is 1 Billion people dying at the same time) of our Spirit Man, which starts the ball rolling for a lot of the Jews, ALL THOSE WHO DIED were Christians. Then Elijah and Moses shows up to finish the job.

Never let one chapter or verse send you down a wrong path sister.

seeking.IAM said:

A long time ago a colleague once told me, "Some people are just malcontents." (colorful adjective omitted). Others are just determined to have their own way. Communication to navigate differences assumes both parties are at least semi-reasonable. Not everyone is.

Click to expand...

That is true (that not everyone is at least semi-reasonable). But my question then becomes, being a malcontent, or determined to have one's own way, are surely not signs of Christian maturity? How then do we address such immaturity in our communities?

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

You make a good point—although employer-sponsored insurance has benefits, it also has drawbacks like job loss and high co-pays. That's why a single-payer system seems sensible.

However, the key question remains: how much must each individual contribute in taxation to achieve universal health care?

Click to expand...

Reasonable, data based estimates have been shown to you over and over. How can you say that question remains?

BCP1928 said:

You can advocate for them all you like., but your morals are no more normative on the rest of us than those of any other faith groups. The other thing to remember is that the laws of a secular state like the US are not moral statements. They can be and usually are informed by the moral sentiments of "we, the people," but the laws in themselves are not morals, just a set of rules we agree to live by, whatever our morals may be.

Click to expand...

Sure, but that's not really here nor there. It's rather ironic that so many "secularists" seem to think that their values should be normative on everyone else, while objecting to Christians expecting their values to be normative.

BCP1928 said:

Why should any teacher of any faith be allowed to lead her students in a sectarian prayer which may be offensive to some of them?

Click to expand...

Did you miss the qualifier "voluntary"? Do you believe in the heckler's veto in general, or just in the case of expressions of faith?

Say it aint so said:

Judge appears skeptical of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim US attorney​

At a James Comey / Leticia Jame motion hearing at federal court today, the Judge in anticipating of receiving the Grand Jury transcript that Lindsey Halligan neglected to provide the first time it was requested, came up at today's motion. The Judge noted despite the second request the transcript is still not there. In response the DOJ with Halilgan at the helm responded, one doesn't exist. And the reason why it didn't exist was because there was no court reporter there. I kid you not. In their motion defense the DOJ lawyer argued that DOJ Pam Bondi had reviewed the transcript in a signed statement.

""Justice Department attorney Henry Whitaker urged Currie to treat questions about Halligan’s appointment as, at most, a “paperwork error” and emphasized that Bondi had reviewed the grand jury materials and agreed to retroactively “ratify” Halligan’s actions, even if her initial appointment is deemed invalid.​

​

But Currie said the missing component of the grand jury transcript called into question the sufficiency of Bondi’s review.​

​

“It became obvious to me that the attorney general could not have reviewed those portions of the transcript presented by Ms. Halligan,” Currie said. The judge also questioned why Bondi signed a statement saying she had reviewed Halligan’s actions before the grand jury when transcripts of some of that presentation “did not exist.”​

​

“She couldn’t have,” Currie said.""​

I mean either someone or all of them are lying to the judge. Under any other presidency or congress these folks would have been hauled into congress to answer questions of incompetancy and/or fired. But this is the Trump admin where competence takes a back seat to loyalty.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's reason to believe they were lying to the judge. As noted here:

I assume the AG was not trying to mislead the court. She had no doubt reviewed the portion of the proceeding that had been transcribed earlier — the testimony of the sole witness presented. What was missing was the colloquy between the prosecutor and the grand jury, including legal instructions. Those are often not transcribed. The witness testimony is routinely transcribed because it is often turned over to the defense under discovery rules; the prosecutor’s interaction with the grand jury is recorded but often not transcribed — it’s not discoverable unless there is some colorable allegation of impropriety in the grand jury proceeding.

and

I am not implying that Halligan did something nefarious; I think she’s just inexperienced in the practice of criminal law. As I’ve explained, grand jury proceedings can get chaotic. That’s why most U.S. attorneys’ offices require new prosecutors to observe a few grand jury presentations, then do a few presentations of seemingly simple cases under the watchful eye of an experienced supervisor, before flying solo.

All of this seems to be more likely Halligan having never done a grand jury presentation before (or having prosecuted a case) and messing things up due to the inexperience than anyone actually trying to lie.

Fisherking said:

The word Covenant in Hebrew simply means Agreement. The Agreement will be with the AC and in Dan. 7 we see the 10 horns and Rev. 13 we see it has 7 Heads and 10 Horns.

Click to expand...

No, not that simple as meaning Agreement. In Daniel 9:4, Daniel referred to the Mt. Sinai covenant.

4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

So the covenant in Daniel 9:27 is referring to the Mt. Sinai covenant. Required to be confirmed on a 7 years cycle in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

I do agree with you though, that once the person become the beast, his kingdom will be that of the EU. Our main difference is that I am saying the person must go through the stages to get to that point. One of those stages being as the Antichrist - King of Israel, false messiah. For a while, about 3 years.

Once the person becomes the beast, in Revelation 17:17, the ten EU leaders will give their kingdom over to the beast to essentially be dictator of the EU.

17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Akita Suggagaki said:

I. Of course, did. What do you believe I am missing?

Click to expand...

So then you understand that the article literally explains why the GIRM does not call for it? I merely quoted the article continuing its argument, "With respect to such customs, the above norms of the GIRM say nothing either for or against..." You responded by saying that this is false.

JSRG said:

Absent the presidential pardon power, this check is available: As far as I understand, Congress can just pass in both houses and have signed by the President an act pardoning any specific individuals or groups of individuals. It's right there. Eliminating the presidential pardon would simply require the President to get two houses of Congress to agree to pardon someone in order for the President to sign it and make it effective. This would ensure that any pardons would be for clear problems that both Congress and the President agree with, and also make it so Congress has to take the first act.

It'd also stop those annoying pardons that are literally issued on the very last day of their presidency, because a President would need congress to pass it first before they sign it.

Click to expand...

I think there's a very solid case for preventing the "lame duck pardons" as you mentioned...

Mainly, because once that layer of accountability of "I need to get re-elected, or at the very least, avoid impeachment" is removed, that's when those "time to let my buddies off the hook" pardons start flying fast & furious.

I've considered the congressional aspect you mentioned, but I don't think it solves the problem (at least in terms of a replacement), and I'll tell you why...


1) It's still going to be employed in a partisan fashion. No Democratic partisan congress is going to make a motion to pardon a well known Republican figure, and no Republican controlled congress is ever going to make a motion to pardon a well known Democratic figure.

2) If it's a collaborative solution (where a president has to do it with the approval of congress), it's going to be viewed as obstructionist when the congress is not on the same team as the Pres, and viewed as a farcical formality ("rubber stamp") when congress is on the same side as the Pres.


So all of the same challenges and perceptions of partisan bias will still be in full swing (just with extra steps)



Now, I have heard an option that I've heard described that I've liked (though I don't know how practical it is) that still has a multi-branch collaboration element.

There's a pardon board (similar to a parole board) comprised of 7 members.
3 appointed by the Senate Majority leader
3 appointed by the Senate Minority leader
1 appointed by the Senate Parliamentarian

(and each of those positions has to be confirmed through the same process as cabinet appointments)

The president has the power to send pardon referrals to that panel, but it needs a 4-3 vote in favor to "pass".



Ultimately, this is a sticky wicket because of the fact that the founders (despite having many awesome ideas about checks and balances), didn't have a great solution or remediation element to the fact that the judicial branch has an outsized amount of power compared to the other 2.

And the judicial branch is the only one for which there's no rigid tangible standard by which to "un-do" what they do. (outside the branch itself)

Plus, the branch is unique in that the "Supremacy Clause" doesn't fully apply.

A state level judge technically has the power to say "I deem this federal law to be unconstitutional, so this state won't be enforcing it for the time being"

No such dynamic exists in the other two branches.

Bradskii said:

Then show us what sort of figures we're talking about. Don't treat us like morons, making claims and expecting us to accept them. Back them up. Who is getting health care that you think shouldn't? How much does that cost as a percentage of overall costs? How much will healthcare drop, if at all, for an individual?

I know you won't do any of this because all you have is a fact free claim. I'm only asking the questions to show that you cannot answer.

Click to expand...

It's logic. Just like if you put repeat criminals in jail there will be less crimes committed than if they were out on the streets. Many illegals go to emergency rooms, and many emergency rooms do not inquire as to legal status. So there are no good numbers. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act prevents hospitals that participate in the Medicare program from denying care to patients that have an unstable condition. They are not there to check a person's legal status.

Delvianna said:

That's not scriptural at all. John 3:16, John 3:36, John 6:29, 1 John 3:23. Be careful to add anything into your beliefs that aren't bible backed. You're altering salvation. Telling anyone that they'll be saved even if they disregard Jesus, isn't going to save them.

Also, search scripture to make sure people are correct in their stance of scripture. Quoting Albert Barnes, John Gill or literally anyone for that matter doesn't make them correct.

Albert Barns - Technically he's right but it's not just "worship" they broke the agreement they signed up for. They worshiped other gods and set up idols. An example of worship is prayer. How they prayed wasn't necessarily wrong, just who they prayed to. So it's not a 100% correct statement.

John Gill - There's instances in the bible of gentile nations following Jewish tradition. Jonah is a great example of that. What did the gentile nation do when they were given the warning? They repented. But not just repented... they clothed themselves in sackcloth and fasted which is a Jewish ordinance. So she's wrong in saying the gentile nations were "ignorant". God chose the Jews to teach the world about his ways and when they continually failed, God changed it to the gentiles to make them "jealous". I don't think she understands how salvation flowed from OT to NT.

Click to expand...

Hi Delvianna!

I almost didn’t “recognize” you with your new photo. A girl after my own heart, flowers and cats.

Maria Billingsley said:

Of course.

Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

BrotherJJ said:

Gen 26:
1And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And """Isaac""" went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.

2And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:

3Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;

4And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

5Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

6And """Isaac""" dwelt in Gerar:

Click to expand...

It still doesn’t say the commandments of God are the promises to Issac. God’s owns His commandments, He defines them, He wrote them, He claimed them as His Deut4:13 Exo20:6 Exo31:18 They are under His mercy seat. It’s not something defined by man, because we are not God. We are just to be His servant, like His faithful prophets and apostles. Like Abraham He obeyed by faith, what righteousness by faith is all about. Doing what is right, obeying God, because we have faith that what He asks is because its for our own good, even if we don’t understand it.

I've lost 40 pounds now, still have a long way to go

I know this is from a while ago but thank you to all of you for praying and supporting me in this. While there may be a few people that may look at everything through the lens of race and skin color, there are many that don't, and God sees me as a human being made in His Image, and not as a "race" or skin tone.

Also I shouldn't brag, but having multiple heritages is actually a cool thing to have, and I should embrace the identity God gave me and definitely not throw pity parties about envying people with blond hair and blue eyes or whatever. (Also I don't complain about my skin color when I don't get sunburns lol)

But the most important thing is that I am Christ's son and that I was made in the image of God. While the world might discriminate or do something contrary to God's Word, God loves me and protects me.

- ProsopoMillion

rambot said:

That doesn't matter whatsoever, does it?

Click to expand...

In a way, yes...

Because there are multiple channels by which "influence leveraging" can be carried out.

I know this to be the case because people were understandably suspicious when Don Jr. was using his dad's name to carve out some nice deals for himself.

One could argue that "letting it happen, because there may be a little something in it for me later" is corruption-by-proxy, wouldn't you agree?


As history would have it, Hunter Biden's entire adult life was holding outsized positions that were way out of his league and expertise. His Dad being a long time senator, then a VP, then a P, certainly isn't coincidental.

He got a high ranking position (Executive Vice President) within MBNA (a bank holding company in Delaware) while his Dad was a senator there... for those who remember, Joe used to be referred to as "The Senator from MBNA".

His Dad was taking him on Air Force 2 to close business deals in China.

Hunter ended up getting appointed to the Department of Commerce by his dad's buddy Bill Clinton. Joe had nothing to do with that?

And then of course there was the Burisma fiasco, where he was put on the board of an industry in which he had zero experience, in a country whose language he didn't speak.

His dad (and his dad's position) had nothing to do with that? People with severe substance abuse problems just "luck into" 8 figure board positions in overseas energy companies with zero experience in the sector all the time, right?

His dad was clearly "hooking up" him up?


There's only two options:
1) Joe was using his positions over the years to help his family make some money.
2) Hunter is the most over-achieving, luckiest cocaine addict in the history of the United States.

There's only 2 kinds of people who can make that kind of money while being mediocre and having a substance problem. Kids of "connected" people who pull some strings, and members of Fleetwood Mac.

Merchant Taylor

Always in His Presence said:

Does that mean you can't back up your grand claim?

Click to expand...

No, it means that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re attempting to shoot more blindly partisan barbs, but are so uninformed about the subject that all you’ve succeeded in doing is make yourself look foolish.

Many of us have given you examples of goals that were realized. Why not take that as a jumping off point from which to educate yourself?

Guojing said:

Its most interesting that both of you stated you are "Baptist", and yet do not have the same view on whether salvation is by faith alone or require works to show faith.

Click to expand...

Hi Guojing. , it seem. that most of those here have NEVER heard off Eph 1.:4. ??

dan p

Pet Alien

Apple Sky said:

2 Timothy 3:12-14​

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it​

Click to expand...

Proverbs 3:5

I note that 2 Timothy 3:12-14 can't apply to you, because you don't know Dean Odle or Rob Skiba. You've never met any of the people you put forward as your teachers.

rjs330 said:

Dude, im for releasing the files and letting the chips fall where they may. I could care less about protecting anyone who was involved in pedophilia. If you are a pedophile you should be locked up forever as far as Im concerned.

You do know that just because you emailed Epstien doesn't mean you are guilty of pedophilia right? Or even if you ride on his plane or had dinner with him?

Click to expand...

No but also having victims (who are known to be a link between those two fellows) accuse you of such things doesn't exactly "wash him squeaky clean".

dms1972 said:

What is the difference between these two groups? I've been in churches, and had elders trying to instruct me, and they claim to be Evangelical, but I think they are closer to Fundamentalist.

Click to expand...

Hello! Part of it might be how they relate to secular society around them. Evangelicals might see themselves as in the world but not of it, trying to permeate many parts of society with a gospel witness. Fundamentals on the other hand might want to come out and be separate from the world, protect themselves form being polluted by the world and worldly things.

For example nightclubbing. An evangelical might go along if invited, but draw the line somewhere in regards to amounts of alcohol, the skimpiness of clothing and sex, while trying to do some good for their friends. A fundamentalist would perhaps say no to the whole experience.

God Bless

ChubbyCherub said:

Why do we have to give birth to redeem ourselves of Eves sin in addition to having to redeem ourselves in the way men do?

Click to expand...

Paul does not tell the women to have babies, if I remember right. He says that if they live in a holy and sober way, they will be saved while bearing children. What especially matters is not the baby upbringing, but how they stay right with God in holiness and sobriety. And do this while in their lifestyle calling of having and bringing up children.

ChubbyCherub said:

My husband has a similar view and suggests that Jesus doesn't expect us to understand the apostles who were Jewish, we are not, and although they preached to the Gentiles, they were of a different time.

Click to expand...

I think what Paul means is for all of us. He says for the lady to learn in silence. Well, leaders are to be "examples to the flock" > so, we too need to learn in silence, as an example > 1 Peter 5:3. Plus, Paul says not to usurp authority "over" her man. However, she does have authority, by having authority over his body, as we can see in 1 Corinthians 7:4.