Fraiser

Xeno.of.athens said:

do you believe that God cares about how you worship him? should you kneel when you pray, should you be standing when you pray? Should you receive Holy Communion Every time you gather should you be baptised once or more than once? is it OK to dance while you're in church? is it OK to speak in tongues even if you had no idea what those tongues might mean and you don't know what you're saying?

cheque out your answers to see if they fit with what the Bible has to say. The Old Testament has a few things to say about worship so does The New testament.

Or do you not really care very much about what the Bible has to say on worship and you just go along with whatever your denomination says is good?

Click to expand...

I believe the Lord permits various expressions to worship God in spirit and in truth ( John 4:24 etc.).If somehow a person does this in light of His commandments ( John 14:15-18 etc,) then I guess it must be right. How it all works, the Lord knows.

Personally, I worship within the liturgy and the Eucharist is given to the faithful. We should discern where necessary but realize expressions vary among Christians.

Scarpetta by Patricia Cornwell

Seems to me that Speaker Johnson is also anti-American for not seating the Arozona Congresswoman. Talk about suppressing democracy and denying votes. Commentary: She won a landslide election. But Trump and Jeffrey Epstein have her stuck in limbo

Who remembers The Next Generation?

HENEX

Servus said:

Various news reports.

Click to expand...

News reports are legal rulings now?

Servus said:

Title 10 of the US Code.

Click to expand...

Quote it.

ETA: To clarify, the federal government only has authority over federal law. In order to justify federalizing the National Guard, the government must show that federal law is being willfully violated by the state. See, for example, Eisenhower federalizing the Guard to enforce the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court ruling on Brown v. Board of Education. That is a federal law (the Constitution), and the governor of Arkansas had directed the state's National Guard unit to support its violation, forcing the President to seize control.

Local police not doing their job to your satisfaction is not grounds for a federal response. It is not a national emergency, it is not a violation of federal law, it is not a rebellion or an insurrection. In cases where the feds intervene in local law enforcement matters without the state's request, there must be an explicit violation of federal law, as determined by the Courts.

Xerxes

Titus

Yuck

Shepards' pie?

Soup

Youtuber

BobRyan said:

Rev 13 has the dragon of Rev 12 already existing in Rev 13:1.
Rev 13 says the first beast arises out of the sea but does not say when it arises. Although the Rev 13 text says that the first beast did all of the 1260 years of damage already discussed in Rev 11 and again in Rev 12.

Rev 13 does not say that the first beast arises out of the sea after the first beast received at deadly wound. Rather it says that second beast arises after the first beast arose from the sea, received a deadly wound and did the 1260 years worth of damage.

Your statement that the first beast must joins in consolidation with 6 other heads (where each head is one of the 7 total heads in Dan 7), and the ten kingdoms of divided Rom unite, is also not in the text of Rev 13.

Click to expand...

Bob, so glad we are dialoging in a written format, because what you claim I said can be shown to be a
misunderstanding on your part. But first, you state, "Rev 13 says the first beast arises out of the sea but does not say when it arises. Although the Rev 13 text says that the first beast did all of the 1260 years of damage already discussed in Rev 11 and again in Rev 12".

Rev. 13:3, states in was after one of its heads which had, [past tense] a fatal wound was healed [past tense]. Quite clear.

And you are correct when you say, "Rev 13 does not say that the first beast arises out of the sea after the first beast received at deadly wound." Nor did I say that if that's what your implying. But rather the texts says this beast arises after one of its heads fatal wound has been healed. (past tense)


You go on to say, "Rather it says that second beast arises after the first beast arose from the sea, received a deadly wound and did the 1260 years worth of damage." Yes, the second beast coming up out of the earth vs. 11, will appear after the first beast, but you read vs. 3, which say, "One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had (past tense) a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed (past tense). You interpret as, "One of the heads of the beast will received a fatal wound which will be healed after it arises from the sea. That is a blatant distortion of the texts which a unbiased jury would agree.

And you last statement is a total distortion on anything I have ever said. You fail to grasp that the first beast when it appears on earth consist of the seven heads and ten horns. It is not some earlier beast that then gathers in the seven heads and ten horns. No! No1 No!.

Erie, Pennsylvania

Dream Weaver

Karen Grassel

Identifying

Nails