Q. What's for dinner?
A. Whatever is on sale.

I've gone though my whole life this way and spend very little on food. And avoid process food, since it is always more expensive than putting some effort into cooking.

Douggg said:

Paul was not implying that man of sin's action to sit in the temple was the abomination of desolation.

You are right about the abomination of desolation's position will be that of standing.

What Paul described is what is called in Daniel 8:13 as the transgression of desolation (TOD). A transgression is an act.

Click to expand...

Paul is referring to Matt. 24:15 and Dan. 9:27. Dan. 8:12-14 is the same event. The 2300 "days" is really 2300 Evening and Mornings or 1150 days.

Douggg said:

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

Click to expand...

The Covenant my friend will be exactly what I explained, Israel will join the E.U. In Dan. 9:4 Daniel was just reminding God of his promise to free Israel after 70 years in Babylon.

Douggg said:

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.

Click to expand...

God is not dealing in a Covenant He sees as evil now. Those who trust in the Law over the Promise will not be in God's favor. My time is short tonight, gotta run, have a blessed day/night.

BPPLEE said:

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

Click to expand...

Congratulations!

Praying for the persecuted Church!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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".

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.

Mark Quayle said:

—"What more is needed"? Context is needed. It is not talking about him desiring that absolutely all sapient sentients responsible to God be saved, nor even all humans.
—"What more is needed"? Reasoning use of language is needed. It is not double-minded for God to feel outrage at disbelief and to call it desire for the opposite (I say, supposing, for the sake of argument, that the verse was stand-alone, which it is not).

Click to expand...

"Reasoning use of language"? Sounds like you're trying to deny what is written in the Bible because it doesn't suit your doctrine.

Mark Quayle said:

Frankly I doubt very much that is what you mean by it, though what you do mean by it may be understood by you to be implicative of that conclusion. "Of their own accord" can mean something along the lines of independence from others of our kind, but it cannot be independent of God's causation.

Click to expand...

It is what I meant, because your "reasoning" is unable to connect with the efficient cause of your belief.

Mark Quayle said:

I don't think you would say that your reasons not to believe in determinism are unrelated to your belief in free will.

Click to expand...

Nope, but that's because there is a straight line between my exercise of said free will and my reasoning faculties.

Mark Quayle said:

Confirmation bias. That we must (and do, constantly,) choose does not imply free will.

Click to expand...

Oh? So that we must exercise free will doesn't imply free will? Sheer confusion.

According to AI - it is a close up photograph of the top side of an intel Xeon Platinum 848+ processor

The golden/bronze color and the distinctive pattern of circles and squares are the exposed copper layers of the processor’s integrated heat spreader (IHS) after the nickel plating and lid have been removed (a process called “delidding”).

What you’re seeing is the actual silicon dies (the four large rectangular chips arranged around the center) and the surrounding copper heat-spreading structure that sits directly under the lid on these server-grade CPUs. The circular features are thermal vias and structural supports in the copper IHS.

Perhaps you have a different view of these tiles?

Job 33:6 said:

The ACA has decreased costs for million of Americans.

Click to expand...

I stopped there because it is an inaccurate statement.

stevevw said:

I have been thinking about the current political claimte and how people are being cancelled and even killed for their views. Is street preaching or declaring the gospel in public now a dangerous occupation.

Click to expand...

The main danger is myself, how I might take preaching into my own hands, possibly in order to make a show of myself. However, if I am doing the preaching which God has me doing, that is all that matters.

I suspect there is persecuted stuff which is not for preaching the cross of Christ. But it is mixed with political and business and land conflicts and other things of this life which are connected with desire for what money can do.

Er, people get murdered in America all the time? I get that she is a young photogenic white woman but she’s one of many women killed in America every day (probably).

Sad for the people who loved her.

Hentenza said:

I don’t buy that.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. The issue revolving around this scripture was not when the thief would join Him, but why he got to when the other thief wouldn't.

rambot said:

How weak must your opinion of America be when the mayor of one city brings about proselytization of the downfall of the entire country.

Click to expand...

When I see what happens to Christians in Syria since the “Arab Spring” ( & centuries before) & know that a Syrian convert from Islam to Christianity still has to watch their back in America, I wonder.

Robert P. George, a Catholic academic focused on philosophy and law, resigned from his board position at the conservative Heritage Foundation on Nov. 17 after the think tank’s leader Kevin Roberts posted a video defending Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes.

In the interview, Carlson and Fuentes bonded over criticism of Israel, and Carlson pushed back on Fuentes for tying his criticisms of Israel to Jewish identity and blaming “organized Jewry” for the American support of Israel. Jewish organizations and some conservative and other political commentators argued that Carlson platformed Fuentes’ views and kept a friendly tone without adequately pushing back against antisemitic claims. Carlson allowed Fuentes to speak uninterrupted and challenged general blame levied against Jewish people but did not address each specific claim Fuentes made.

Roberts, who has since apologized, said in his initial video that he abhors “things that Nick Fuentes says” but urged debate instead of “canceling him.” He said Heritage would stay friends with Carlson and criticized the “venomous coalition” attacking Carlson.

In the video, Roberts said: “Christians can critique the state of Israel without being antisemitic.” Roberts issued an apologyfor using the term “venomous coalition” amid accusations that it was an antisemitic trope and said Heritage would continue to fight antisemitism.

Continued below.

When Jessica Williams became pregnant with another man’s child while she and her husband were separated, her husband pressured her to abort the child.

As soon as she took the first abortion pill, mifepristone, she regretted it.

“As a nurse, the reality of what I had done had hit me hard,” said Williams, who was nine weeks pregnant at the time. “Here I was working to save lives and about to take one of my own child’s lives.”

But as a nurse, Williams knew that in spite of the pill cutting off the progesterone supply to her child, the baby might still be alive. She hadn’t yet taken the second pill, misoprostol, which would expel the child from her body.

When she found a pregnancy center, First Choice Pregnancy Services in Las Vegas, staff immediately brought her in for an ultrasound.

“They provided a free ultrasound, and that moment changed everything,” she said.

Her baby was still alive.

First Choice helped her through the abortion pill reversal process, a practice to reverse the effects of mifepristone soon after the woman takes the first abortion pill.

Continued below.

The secretary of the Bangladesh Catholic Bishops’ Conference has criticized the death sentence given to ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina as unilateral and politically motivated, reaffirming the Church’s opposition to capital punishment.

Bishop Ponen Paul Kubi, CSC, of the Mymensingh Diocese, told CNA that the verdict handed down Nov. 17 by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal was “one-sided” and that “the accused had no lawyer and that the current government used political power to give this verdict.”

“The Catholic Church has never supported the death penalty,” Kubi said. “I think that even if Sheikh Hasina committed a crime, she should be punished in a way that is remedial.”

Describing the verdict as an abuse of power, Kubi added: “If we judge in a hurry and give a verdict as we wish, we are no longer living in civilization, we have gone back to the primitive era.”

Continued below.