I believe that Jesus Christ still weeps over those who make professions of faith in the one true God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – and for the same reasons he wept over his people Israel when he walked upon the earth. And that is because so many of them are deceived into believing the lies and into rejecting the truth taught by Jesus and by his NT apostles. And he knows that they will not inherit eternal life with God but that they will die in their sins, without hope.

For Jesus said that if anyone would come after him, he must deny self, take up his cross daily (die daily to sin and to self) and follow (obey) him. For if we hold on to our old lives of living in sin and for self, we will lose them for eternity. But if for Jesus’ sake we deny self, die daily to sin, and follow him in obedience to his commands, then we have the hope of salvation from sin and eternal life with God. For he also said that not everyone who calls him “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one obeying God the Father.

[Luke 9:23-26; Matthew 7:21-23; Ephesians 4:17-24; Romans 6:1-23]

Now Jesus was not just speaking here of the judgment at the end of time or at the end of our lives on this earth when we will either enter into God’s holy presence or when we will end up in eternal damnation and torture. But he was speaking of a physical judgment on his people Israel that was to come which I believe occurred in 70 A.D., if I am not mistaken, which is when the Old Covenant temple of God (a physical temple) was destroyed, for it was no longer God’s temple, for his temple was now the hearts of his saints.

And the wayward and rebellious and lukewarm church of today is promised a similar judgment in Revelation chapters 2 and 3, where five out of seven churches were threatened with God’s judgments if they did not repent of their waywardness and if they did not turn and now follow Jesus Christ with their lives in humble submission to him as Lord (Owner-Master) and Savior of their lives. And after these warnings of judgment were given, then in the book of Revelation we have detailed for us the types of judgments to come.

And it is clear that Christians will exist during this time of tribulation, and that they will have to endure severe persecutions for their walks of faith in Jesus Christ, but that God will use this time to purify their hearts and to make them ready to meet their Lord at his return, which is when our salvation will be complete, and not before then, and only if we are those who are walking in obedience to our Lord in holy living in the power of God and if we are not walking in sin, making sin our practice (1 John 3:4-10).

And I believe that the church in America, at large, which fits the description of the church in Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22), and is fleshly, and is market-driven, is already under the judgment of God, and that soon we may see the physical institutions of human origin called “churches” being physically destroyed such as what happened in 70 AD when God visited his people Israel in judgment, and the physical structure which once was God’s holy temple, was destroyed, never to be rebuilt, because God does not live in buildings made by human hands, but in the hearts of those who serve him.

For we know that a time of great tribulation is coming, and that God is going to judge the people of the earth, but the book of Revelation begins with God threatening judgment to the churches which did not repent of their sins against the Lord, and then what followed was the declarations of judgments, whereby we learn of the persecutions of Jesus’ followers during this time, as well (Rev 6:9-11; Rev 7:9-17; Rev 11:1-3; Rev 12:17; Rev 13:1-18; Rev 14:1-13). So we need to take this seriously.

For right after we read of how Jesus wept over Jerusalem, we read of how Jesus cast immediate judgment on those who had turned his temple into a marketplace (a den of robbers, a house of trade, a place of business). And his temple today is the church, the body of Christ, which so many now have turned into places of business to be marketed to the people of the world just like any other businesses, using human marketing schemes and ploys to attract the ungodly to the gatherings of the church to grow their “churches.”

And God’s judgments are definitely upon those who have turned his temple into places of business and who are marketing “the church” to the world via worldly means and methods, and who are also turning his church into places of fun and entertainment, and who are thus altering the character of God/Christ and of his church and of his gospel message so as to attract and draw in large crowds of people from the world, and so as not to offend them with the truth of the gospel taught by Jesus and his NT apostles.

Thus, the Lord is calling out to his people to come out from among these institutions of human origin called “church,” which are just businesses of human making, and to not have fellowship with the ungodly, and to not partner with the ungodly (the world). And then he will receive us and he will be a Father to us, and we will be his sons and daughters. For we are not to take the “mark of the beast,” i.e. the influences and character and nature of the ungodly world upon us, but we are to be holy as God is holy.

We are to come out from among these market-driven and flesh-driven businesses called “church,” but which are honoring the flesh and not God, so that we do not participate with her/them in their sins and in their plagues, for this worldly and flesh driven and market driven “church” of today has piled her sins high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities, and he will judge her (Babylon) for her sins. So find a fellowship of believers in Jesus who are following the Lord and not human marketing schemes.

[Matthew 21:12-13; John 2:13-17; Acts 5:27-32; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Philippians 3:18-19; Revelation 13:5-8; Revelation 18:1-5]

Oh, to Be Like Thee, Blessed Redeemer

Lyrics by Thomas O. Chisholm, 1897
Music by W. J. Kirkpatrick, 1897

Oh, to be like Thee! blessèd Redeemer,
This is my constant longing and prayer;
Gladly I’ll forfeit all of earth’s treasures,
Jesus, Thy perfect likeness to wear.

Oh, to be like Thee! full of compassion,
Loving, forgiving, tender and kind,
Helping the helpless, cheering the fainting,
Seeking the wandering sinner to find.

O to be like Thee! lowly in spirit,
Holy and harmless, patient and brave;
Meekly enduring cruel reproaches,
Willing to suffer others to save.

O to be like Thee! while I am pleading,
Pour out Thy Spirit, fill with Thy love;
Make me a temple meet for Thy dwelling,
Fit me for life and Heaven above.

Oh, to be like Thee! Oh, to be like Thee,
Blessèd Redeemer, pure as Thou art;
Come in Thy sweetness, come in Thy fullness;
Stamp Thine own image deep on my heart.

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

The death of Queen Elizabeth II who was supposedly a
Christian caught my attention. ( Supposedly she did seek Christian counsel from Billy Graham).

I would like to sort of put forth the following analogy:

Queen Elizabeth II ---sort of roughly equivalent to--Bible Old Testament's King David

Prince Charles (now King Charles III) ----( sort of roughly equivalent to)--Prince Amnon ( one of King David's son who was initially the heir to the throne prior to being killed )

Princess Diana --( sort of roughly equivalent to 2 Bible characters
)---Bible Old Testament's Prince Absalom ( one of King David's sons
who revolted against him ) and Princess Tamar ( one of King David's
daughters who was raped by her half-brother Amnon )

Prince Philip, Princess Ann, Princess Margaret, Queen Elizabeth Queen
Mother ---( sort of roughly equivalent to ) --- Joab ( Commander
of David's army)

King David was Certainly Not a perfect person, but I do want to point
out some of the many honorable aspects about King David's life:

1)-Bible Scripture emphasizes clearly that David is man after God's
own Heard as evidenced by the following 2 bible verses:

a) (Acts 13:22) After He had removed him, He raised up David to be
their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, ‘I have found
David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My
[a]will.’

b) (1 Samuel 13:14) But now your kingdom shall not endure. The Lord
has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has
appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what
the Lord commanded you.”

2) When King Saul became an enemy of David, and started to hunt for
David, the response from King David was broadly compassionate &
gracious.

a) For example, in 1 Samuel 24:10-22, David responded to King Saul's
attempts to hunt David by restraining himself by Not responding
violently when he had a chance to kill King Saul in a cave, but
instead spoke to King Saul by claiming that he did Not want to harm
King Saul:
(1 Samuel 24:10)Behold, this day your eyes have seen that the Lord had
given you today into my hand in the cave, and some said to kill you,
but my eye had pity on you; and I said, ‘I will not stretch out my
hand against my lord, for he is the Lord’s
anointed.’".....................more
scripture..........
(1 Samuel 24:13) As the proverb of the ancients says, ‘Out of the
wicked comes forth wickedness’; but my hand shall not be against you.

b) Another example, in (1 Samuel 25:33-34) David listens to Godly
wisdom provided by Abigail which Stopped him from taking revenge:

( 1 Samuel 25:33-34 ) 33 and blessed be your discernment, and blessed
be you, who have kept me this day from [a]bloodshed and from avenging
myself by my own hand. ....more scripture....
until the morning light as much as one male.”

I'm Not saying Queen Elizabeth II was a perfect person( just like King
David was Not a perfect person), but I do want to point out some
honorable aspects about her life ( just like King David was honorable
):

-At a very young age of 25 years old, she responsibly and dutifully
took the throne when her father suddenly unexpectedly died.

-For the most part, she kept a neutral role in politics but would
always diligently give her best advice in private to UK Prime Minister
on major issues
--Queen Elizabeth II wanted sanctions against South African
apartheid but the UK Prime Minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher,
did Not want to enforce sanctions against South Africa (
)

-Queen Elizabeth II remained loyal to her husband, Prince Philip, in
their marriage even though her husband was a womanizer and adulterer
when they were young married couple.

Let's start off by looking at the similarities between King David to
Queen Elizabeth II. Other than David's illicit affair with Bathsheba, and his
responsibility for the murder of her husband, Uriah, let's also try to
analyze another sinful act by David that involved his inability to
bring justice after hearing about Amon raping his half-sister Tamar.


**It's very important and interesting to note that David merely had a
galling silent angry reaction when it came to hearing about Amnon
raping his half-sister Tamar, and David did Not enforce any sort of
justice as a response:
(2 Samuel 13:21 ) Now when King David heard of all these matters, he
was very angry.**


Queen Elizabeth II also was guilty of quasi-inaction because she, for
the most part, ignored Princess Diana's complaints about her husband,
Prince Charles, in regards to her adulterous love affair with Camilla
Parker Bowles:


( Credited Reference:
)

(Quote)"Tensions emerged between Diana and the royal family, including
the queen, when their marriage hit romantic and then tabloid troubles.
The relationship worsened as Diana suffered from bulimia.


Diana told biographer Andrew Morton that during one conversation with
the queen, “she indicated to me that the reason why our marriage had
gone downhill was because Prince Charles was having such a difficult
time with my bulimia.”


“She hung her coat on the hook, so to speak,” Diana continued,
according to Morton. “And it made me realize that they all saw that as
the cause of the marriage problems and not one of the symptoms.”


Diana kept trying to confide in her mother-in-law. The queen, now 95,
grew weary of it all.


One afternoon, Diana stopped by to visit the queen and was made to
wait. “The princess,” a palace footman told the queen, according to
Seward, “cried three times in half-an-hour while she was waiting to
see you.” The queen’s reply: “I had her for an hour — and she cried
nonstop.”



In public, even as rumors of the prince’s affairs swirled, Diana was
still saying the right things — that the prince supported her, that he
was a good father and husband. “That was not what she was telling the
queen in their private meetings,” Seward wrote. “Charles, Diana kept
saying, was letting down the monarchy.”



The queen couldn’t deal with her daughter-in-law anymore. “Faced with
a situation that was slipping out of her control,” Seward wrote, “the
queen retreated from the problem and started seeing less of Diana.”


Let's now see the similarities between the bible characters named
Princess Tamar and Prince Absalom, and Princess Diana of modern day's
UK's monarchy.

Princess Tamar and Prince Absalom were really physically attractive
just like Princess Diana was attractive:

(2 Samuel 13:1 ) Now it was after this that Absalom the son of David
had a beautiful sister whose name was Tamar, and Amnon the son of
David loved her.

(2 Samuel 14:25-27 ) Now in all Israel was no one as handsome as
Absalom, so highly praised; from the sole of his foot to the crown of
his head there was no defect in him.....more scripture...
sons, and one daughter whose name was Tamar; she was a woman of
beautiful appearance.

Forgive me, however, it's also important to note that 2 Samuel
16:20-22 recounts Prince Absalom's promiscuous lifestyle when had sex
with his father's concubines( who during King David's reign were
responsible for the upkeep of the Royal palaces, etc. ) which was
somewhat similar Princess Diana's promiscuous lifestyle:

(2 Samuel 16:20-22)
20 Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your advice. What shall we
do?” 21 Ahithophel said to Absalom, ..more scripture.. 22 So they pitched a
tent for Absalom on the roof, and Absalom went in to his father’s
concubines in the sight of all Israel.

Not to sound vulgar, here is a listing of Princess Diana's numerous
extra-marital affairs:
----------------------(Credit Reference:
)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Albert Mannakee – 1985

James Hewitt – 1986-1992

Oliver Hoare – 1992 to 1994



The Bible character named Prince Amnon is somewhat similar to Prince Charles.

Both are the heir apparent to their thrones.

Here is the bible passage that mentions Prince Amnon's raping his
half-sister, Tamar, and then subsequently intensely hating her:
(2 Samuel 13:11-22 ) When she brought them to him to eat, he took hold
of her and said to her, “Come, lie with me, my sister.” 12 But she
answered him, “No, my brother, do not violate me, for such a thing is
not done in Israel; do not do this disgraceful thing! 13 As for me,
where could I [a]get rid of my reproach? And as for you, you will be
like one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the
king, for he will not withhold me from you.” 14 .....more scripture.. and she put her
hand on her head and went away, crying aloud as she went.
20 Then Absalom her brother said .....more scripture...
matters, he was very angry. 22 But Absalom did not speak to Amnon
either good or bad; for Absalom hated Amnon because he had violated
his sister Tamar.

Now, Prince Charles's troubled marriage to Princess Diana is certainly
Not tantamount to Prince Amnon raping Princess Tamar. However, Prince
Charles and Princess Diana's marriage did End painfully:

(credited reference:
)

"Before long, however, the fairy tale couple grew apart, an experience
that was particularly painful under the ubiquitous eyes of the world’s
tabloid media. Diana and Charles announced a separation in 1992,
though they continued to carry out their royal duties. In August 1996,
two months after Queen Elizabeth II urged the couple to divorce, the
prince and princess reached a final agreement. In exchange for a
generous settlement, and the right to retain her apartments at
Kensington Palace and her title of “Princess of Wales,” Diana agreed
to relinquish the title of “Her Royal Highness” and any future claims
to the British throne.
In the year following the divorce, the popular princess seemed well on
her way to achieving her dream of becoming “a queen in people’s
hearts,” but on August 31, 1997, she was killed with her companion
Dodi Fayed in a car accident in Paris."


We, as bible readers, can probably infer/deduce that David's silence,
and lack of enforcing justice as King of Israel in response to Amon
raping Tamar is what led to Absalom's violent & vicious response.

Princess Diana's response to how Queen Elizabeth II and the royal
family for the most part ignored her complaints about Prince Charles's
illicit affair with Camilla Parker Bowles might Not have been as
violent and vicious as Absalom which involved killing his brother
Amnon out of revenge, and then leading a violent coup but it still was
damaging to Queen Elizabeth II's monarchy. Princess Diana publicly
battled against Queen Elizabeth II and her royal family by using the
media and press.

To elaborate, she was secretly involved in Indirectly encouraging the
writing of a tell-all book:
( Credited Reference:
)
(Quote) "The principal source disclosing details of the Princess of
Wales's unhappy marriage to Prince Charles and her troubled relations
with the royal family for the 1992 book ''Diana, Her True Story,'' was
Diana herself, the author, Andrew Morton, said today."

Furthermore, Princess Diana also went to give a public TV interview
about the troubles behind her marriage:

Login to view embedded media
Also, more specifically, Search the internet for Princess Diana's 20
November 1995 BBC
Interview where she stated “I’d like to be a queen of people’s hearts”
( Side Note: Understand the similarity with Absalom's
rising popularity among the Israelites by grandstanding which is
recounted in the ( 2 Samuel 15:1-6 ) bible passage. )

(2 Samuel 15:1-6)
15 Now it came about after this that Absalom provided for himself a
chariot and horses and fifty men as runners before him. 2 Absalom used
to rise early and ....more scripture And he would say, “Your servant is
from one of the tribes of Israel.” 3 Then Absalom would say to him,
“See, your [a]claims are good and right, but no man listens to you on
the part of the king.”.....more scripture....
and take hold of him and kiss him. 6 In this manner Absalom dealt with
all Israel who came to the king for judgment; so Absalom stole away
the hearts of the men of Israel.
( -------------------------------------------------- Credit Reference:
)
When pop culture’s princesses are virgins, the press treats their
sexuality as unthreatening. They are hot, but not in a scary way; they
don’t know what they’re doing; they are safe to want.

But if they begin to wield their sexuality knowingly, everything
changes. And their relationship with the public changes, too.

The big question with Diana, the question on the cover of The Diana
Chronicles: How much of it did she do on purpose?


“Was she ‘the people’s princess,’ who electrified the world with her
beauty and humanitarian missions?” asks Brown. “Or was she a
manipulative, media-savvy neurotic who nearly brought down the
monarchy?”

Any honest reckoning of Diana would have to say the answer to that
question is both. She was beautiful; she did have a remarkable gift
for connecting with disenfranchised people doing humanitarian work —
and she also spent much of her time as Princess of Wales in the grips
of bulimia and suicidal ideation, using her skill with the press as
her most potent weapon against the Windsors.

**Throughout Diana’s marriage to Charles, she consistently outshined
and outworked him. At public gatherings and charity events, she was
able to genuinely connect with the crowds in a way Charles couldn’t.
She would crouch down on her knees to talk to the kids. She would
shake hands with an AIDS patient. Such moments established both her
reputation as the “people’s princess” — the saint in the killer
designer suit who could love her subjects more than anyone else could,
who could transcend the monarchy — and her reputation as a schemer who
was upstaging the monarchy on purpose, out of selfishness and greed.
And after Diana’s divorce from Charles in 1996, as she partied her way
across multiple continents and began campaigning against land mines,
those two ideas became ever stronger.**

But Brown frames her question in a way that suggests these two
opposing images of Diana are mutually exclusive. The idea that Diana
might have been intentionally using the press, that she might have
desired to be as famous and beloved as she was and that she might have
intentionally wielded her beauty and charisma to get there, seems to
somehow negate the idea of saintly Diana, the people’s princess.

And if Diana courted the press, if she used them in the same way they
used her — well, how does that square with the way she died? How can
we say that Diana was using the press that drove her off the road and
to her death?

All of Princess Diana's aforementioned public responses really did
hurt the public image of Queen Elizabeth II, and her royal family.

Finally, Just like Absalom's violent death, Princess Diana also died violently

To me, it was really interesting how Bible stories sometimes are
repeated in today's world.
(Major Side Conclusion: A Highly relevant bible verse associated with
Princess Diana's story is (Ecclesiastes 9:11) "I again saw under the
sun that the race is Not to the swift ... more scripture...for time and chance overtake
them all." The reason being is that Princess Diana was very physically
attractive and had an aristocratic background but was Not loved by her
royal princely husband, and was merely used by other men in her life
for short-term flings. Therefore, even though you might expect her to
have a happy family life by being in a royal marriage with wonderful
children, her life was a tragedy. )

An appeals court ruling has delivered a body blow to Seattle's "heckler's veto" practices, in which police officers ordered a man, on public property, to quit speaking or leave because others objected to what he was saying.
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case involving Matthew Meinecke returned to the lower courts for an injunction against that leftist ideology.

The ruling was written by Judge Jay Bybee and was joined by Margaret McKeown and Daniel Bress.

They posted a lengthy description of the events:

Protestors surrounded Meinecke after about an hour. One protestor seized Meinecke’s Bible. Meinecke retrieved another Bible from his bag and continued reading aloud. Another protestor grabbed hold of—and ripped pages from—the new Bible. The altercation soon escalated. As protestors, some of whom Seattle police characterized in their written reports as Antifa, encroached, Meinecke took hold of an orange-and-white traffic sawhorse. Five protestors, some clad in all black and wearing body armor, picked up Meinecke and the sawhorse, moved him across the street, and dropped him on the pavement. One law enforcement officer who observed this interaction reported that "'Antifa' members … began to fight/assault"\ Meinecke.

Undeterred, Meinecke walked back to his original location by the federal building and resumed reading and held up a sign. While people gathered on the street, however, some approached Meinecke, knocked him down, and took one of his shoes.

Seattle police finally intervened. Although the officers acknowledged that the protestors had assaulted Meinecke, they took no action against the perpetrators. They instead ordered Meinecke to leave the area. The precise dictates of the officers’ order are in dispute. Meinecke maintains that the officers instructed him "to go where no one could hear [his] message or read [his] sign." The city disagrees, claiming that Seattle police simply directed Meinecke to the other side of the street and that they told Meincke that he "could still display his banner and exercise his [F]irst [A]mendment rights."
Regardless, Meinecke declined to go to a different location. The officers then arrested Meinecke for obstruction under Seattle Municipal Code Ordinance § 12A.16.010(A)(3), which provides, "A person is guilty of obstructing a police officer if, with knowledge that the person obstructed is a police officer, he or she … ntentionally refuses to cease an activity or behavior that creates a risk of injury to any person when ordered to do so by a police officer." The officers took Meinecke to the police precinct and kept him there for about two hours; they did not book him. Meinecke was released after the abortion protest ended…

Seattle’s annual PrideFest took place on June 26, 2022, two days after the Dobbs rally. The event was held at the Seattle Center, a public park. Meinecke, again dressed in a shirt and tie, entered the park around noon and began to read from the Bible in a conversational tone.

Eventually, PrideFest attendees noticed Meinecke’s presence. As the district court found, they began "dancing near him, holding up a flag to keep people from seeing him," and making "loud noises so he could not be heard." According to his complaint, "a couple of attendees stood close to Meinecke and howled and barked like dogs, and mocked Meinecke, while he read passages from the Bible. Meinecke did not engage with them." Another individual poured water on Meinecke’s Bible. Meinecke kept reading aloud.

After a couple of hours, more PrideFest attendees gathered around Meinecke and began yelling. This attracted the attention of about ten law enforcement officers, who asked Meinecke "to move to a public area located outside the park." Meinecke declined and continued to read from his Bible. A PrideFest attendee shouted at the officers, demanding Meinecke’s removal. The officers then told Meinecke "\that they were imposing a 'time, place, and manner' restriction on him and ordered him to leave the park." Again, Meinecke declined to leave. The officers told Meinecke "that he was posing a risk to public safety," and they again demanded he leave the park. Meinecke told the officers that he was not in any danger. The officers then arrested Meinecke for obstruction.

Meinecke again was taken to the precinct. This time, though, the officers booked him. He was later released on bond. At his hearing a few days later, the city informed Meinecke that it was not pursuing the charges against him at that time, but it warned Meinecke that "it could bring up charges for this incident at a later time."

Click to expand...

Albo, Labor and Lambie think Australia should be able to tell every other nation what is legal to be watched in their territories. would they really be happy for North Korea, Iran and China to dictate what can be shown in Australia? Tanya Plibersek said we should respect the victim, except the victim didn't want it censored, isn't that disinformation? It is more about protecting a special community from being protected from the actions of one of their followers. Oh and taking down meme's of Albo being the absolute the clown he is.

A
complaint I hear increasingly leveled at contemporary American politicians is that they are out of touch with voters, if not downright contemptuous of them. On a number of core issues, politicians seem less concerned with pursuing policies that are deeply unpopular with ordinary Americans than with upholding the ideologies and self-interests of the ruling elite. Two dramatic examples of this political disconnect with average citizens are the refusal of urban governments to prosecute violent criminals, which has caused a surge in crime, and the White House’s tolerance of mass immigration, which threatens jobs, security, and the rule of law.

As I survey the current political and intellectual landscape, I cannot help but see a resurgence of the arrogance and disdain of the 18th-century French revolutionaries for those they considered to be incapable of rational thought and moral behavior. But I am moving too fast. Let me slow down and give some historical background.

Click to expand...

The author then gives a few paragraphs with that historical background. Allow me to go deeper into the article for some of it's conclusions.

As a citizen in a representative democracy, I expect our political leaders, including Donald Trump, to be held up to public scrutiny and questioned, even investigated, when the facts warrant it. What I do not expect, and find increasingly troubling, is the widespread and ongoing demonization and character assassination of all those who support Trump and approve of his candidacy and his policies.
I am old enough to remember how roughly the political establishment treated supporters of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, especially if they identified with a conservative branch of Christianity. Reagan and Bush supporters routinely had their concerns ridiculed, motives suspected, and intelligence doubted. Still, the dismissal of Reaganites and Bushies as boobs and rednecks pales in comparison to the viciously sanctimonious profiling of Trump supporters as authoritarian, narcissistic white supremacists utterly unconcerned for the common good.

Whereas the liberal progressives of the 1980s expressed some compassion for the needs and struggles of the working man, the woke philosophes of today express only contempt for those who work with their hands. While carrying on the oppressor/oppressed identity politics of Karl Marx and his heirs, they have reduced America’s blue-collar proletariat to a racist, sexist, transphobic rabble who must be suppressed, managed, and reeducated.

Convinced, as philosophes were, of the “wickedness, stupidity, inhumanity, unreason, and prejudice” of the rabble, today’s progressive philosophical, political, and social engineers have appointed themselves the task of redefining for the masses what Diderot believed the general will should define for them: what it means “to be a man, a citizen, a subject, a father, a child, and when it is suitable to live or to die.”
No wonder the majority of working men and women in America look to Trump as their advocate. He not only defends their traditional family values, common sense, and God-given humanity. His seems to be the only voice in Washington speaking up for, or even understanding, the joys and woes, hopes and fears, victories and struggles of that “rabble” that the political establishment, on both the left and right, seems only to dismiss, disparage, and despise.

Most of “polite” society attacks Trump for his caustic tone, his cutting remarks, and the obvious glee he takes in labeling and mocking his opponents. They fail to understand that Trump’s rhetoric is central to his appeal. The “masses” who flock to his speeches do not go merely to be entertained. They go to witness a much-needed turning of the tables, a political topsy turvy during which the weapons of the progressive philosophes are turned against them.

Far from the bully, Trump is the champion of those who have been bullied relentlessly and mercilessly by a self-appointed elite who holds them in contempt. In Trump, they have found a modern George Bailey — albeit a crasser and more combative one — who is willing to stand up to the Mr. Potters of the world.

Click to expand...

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised a question Thursday that goes to the heart of Special Counsel Jack Smith's charges against former President Donald Trump.
The high court was considering Trump's argument that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while president, but another issue is whether Smith and the Office of Special Counsel have the authority to bring charges at all.
"Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?" Thomas asked Trump attorney John Sauer on Thursday during a nearly three-hour session at the Supreme Court.

Sauer replied that Trump's attorneys had not raised that concern "directly" in the current Supreme Court case — in which justices are considering Trump's arguments that presidential immunity precludes the prosecution of charges that the former president illegally sought to overturn the 2020 election.
Sauer told Thomas that, "we totally agree with the analysis provided by Attorney General Meese [III] and Attorney General Mukasey."
In a 42-page amicus brief presented to the high court in March, Meese and Mukasey questioned whether "Jack Smith has lawful authority to undertake the 'criminal prosecution'" of Trump. Mukasey and Meese — both former U.S. attorneys general — said Smith and the Office of Special Counsel itself have no authority to prosecute, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate to any position.

Federal prosecutions, "can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices," Meese and Mukasey argued. "But neither Smith nor the position of special counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria. He wields tremendous power, effectively answerable to no one, by design. And that is a serious problem for the rule of law — whatever one may think of former President Trump or the conduct on January 6, 2021, that Smith challenges in the underlying case."
The crux of the problem, according to Meese, is that Smith was never confirmed by the Senate as a U.S. attorney, and no other statute allows the U.S. attorney general to name merely anyone as special counsel. Smith was acting U.S. attorney for a federal district in Tennessee in 2017, but he was never nominated to the position. He resigned from the private sector after then-President Trump nominated a different prosecutor as U.S. attorney for the middle district of Tennessee.

It was basically the music part that made me cringe so bad. I can't believe how different this parish was than the other parishes I've attended (I went to this parish because I missed confession at the parish I wanted to go to, and this parish had confession at least after Mass). If you want to give a great example of whatever is wrong with the music in today's Catholic churches, this is a standout example. Clapping during the Gloria, oh my gosh. Trying to jazz the Gloria up to make it "soul" sounding - OK maybe that belongs in a different denomination, but I was taken aback. I'm not trying to be legalistic here, but this is just something that Catholic parishes are not known for. How can the Diocesan Cathedral be SO DARNED DIFFERENT THAN THIS?

Homily was great though - thank God, lol. Cantor, albeit CRINGE, was welcoming to me.
(Sorry, I hope I don't sound like a snob, lol)

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

BARR: So it’s not about me. I think that, that I’ve said this all along. If faced with a choice between two people, neither of which I think should be president, I feel it’s my duty to pick the person who I think would do the least damage to the country. And I think Trump would do less damage than Biden. And I think all this stuff about a threat to democracy, I think the real threat to democracy is the progressive movement. And in the Biden administration.

COLLINS: The Biden administration, or President Biden himself.

BARR: Biden’s, Biden’s support for the progressive agenda.

COLLINS: I think a lot of people hear that. And the case that we just talked about that went before the Supreme Court, essentially, and say, how can you see that and say that Biden is a greater threat to democracy?

BARR: Well, where are we losing our freedoms? We have our freedoms being constrained that they’re being constrained by, the progressive government and, you know, democracy especially, you know, from the Anglosphere democracies, the Five Eyes and so forth. The threats never been for autocratic government on the right.

COLLINS: But how specifically, is Biden threatening democracy?

BARR: The threat to freedom and democracy has always been on the left. It’s the collectivist, socialist, agenda. And that is where we’re losing our freedom. Parents are losing the freedom to control, their children’s education. And, you know, people can’t speak their mind without losing their jobs and things like that. This is worse than the McCarthy era. Where is that coming from? It’s not coming from the right.

COLLINS: Those two things that you just noted there, you believe are worse than a president of the United States trying to subvert the will of the people by overturning the results, no question.

BARR: No, I think I think a country well, all the things together, like we’re not enforcing our borders, we have open borders, we have lawlessness, in our cities, we have regulations coming fast and fierce. So telling people what kind of stoves they can use and what kinds of cars they have to drive and, you know, eliminating cars and and so forth. Yeah, those are those are the threats to democracy.

COLLINS: But but President Biden is not in control of what some school boards across the country.

BARR: He’s using the administrative–

COLLINS: You can make that argument, but.

BARR: He’s making.

COLLINS: How is that the same thing?

BARR: Major changes are being made in our country without without the democratic process. And they’re being made by bureaucrats in these agencies.

COLLINS: You, okay? Pause! You cannot argue that Republicans across the country are not doing that as well. My own hometown. There’s a huge fight at the library over which books kids can read. This is not something that is a single-party fight.

BARR: Do you think there are? Don’t you think there should be some limits on on what people are able to read? I agree, young people.

COLLINS: I just think people look at what you’re saying and they don’t. And maybe, maybe even Republicans who have concerns about what’s happening with school boards or, you know, the culture and don’t maybe abortion, even don’t equate that with with January 6th and Trump’s efforts. When you told him the the election was not stolen and he still went out there and said it was stolen and led a lot of people to believe that they don’t, those things aren’t equal. It feels like a false equivalency.

BARR: Well, I disagree, I think, and I think, the country is much more susceptible to losing freedoms by the excesses of the left, and they have been steadily and that’s clear. People lose their jobs. Kids can’t speak out in the classroom. They have to go along with what the professor says in order to get good grades and so forth. It’s become like Stepford Nation being directed by, the progressive elites.

…
COLLINS: It is what you said recently, which was that, you know, the conduct that was involved with Donald Trump, you said trying to subvert and prevent the progress, the execution of probably the most important process we have, which is the peaceful transfer of power after an election. Name one thing that Biden has done that’s worse than that.

BARR: I think this whole administration is a disaster for the.

COLLINS: Is worse than subverting the peaceful transfer of power.

BARR: Did he succeed?

COLLINS: Only because Vice President Mike pence stood in the way? And now the people who are lining up again say that they will not do what Mike pence did.

BARR: Look, I was very loud and saying, I thought it was a whole the whole episode was shameful. And I’m and I’m very troubled by it. And that’s why it’s not an easy decision. But I think when you have a Hobson’s choice, you have to pick the lesser of two evils.

Hello all. I'm wanting to start a company but am having trouble deciding what type - an investment company, or rather a multi-faceted company whose primary focus is security investments and things like that or a faith based publishing company. Problem is I have zero money (completely flat broke) so the only kind of websites I could do would be free ones like wix or wordpress. I'm currently having to rely on family to help me on certain things (even am living at home right now). So I'm hoping some of you all here might be willing to help out, at all in any way, shape, or form. It would be much appreciated. Thank you all for reading this, God bless you all, and stay safe.

1 Corinthians 5:
9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.
10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous,
or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother,
who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—
not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?
13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

Here Paul makes a direct reference to Torah "put away from yourselves"; Deuteronomy 17:7,19:19, 22:21&24, 24:7
demonstrating that "all scripture is profitable".

How are we to judge those among us? Only by the Anointing upon the fellowship, the Light of the Spirit.
Ephesians 5:
1 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children.
2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us,
an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.
3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you,
as is fitting for saints;
4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting,
but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater,
has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God
comes upon the sons of disobedience.
7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.
8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light.
9 (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth),
10 finding out what is acceptable to the Lord.
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,
but rather expose them.
12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret.
13 But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light,
for whatever makes manifest is light.
14 Therefore He says:
“Awake, you who sleep,
Arise from the dead,
And Christ will give you light.”

There is a tendency to avoid passing judgment on others because the Lord has commanded to
"judge not, lest we be judged". We cannot act on suspicions and rumors. But when the Holy
Spirit exposes wickedness among the fellowship as vividly described in these doctrines,
the brother must immediately repent, or be expelled from the congregation.

Hence, leadership must be above reproach
1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court.
In fact, I do not even judge myself.
4 For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden
things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.

In these days especially, reading "until the Lord comes' leads many to think of the second coming.
For the apostolic doctrine to hold up under scrutiny, we must understand that "the Lord is the Spirit"
and the presence of the Spirit in the midst of our fellowship will expose all wickedness.

"This is people's nest egg. This is them saving, them investing — it's their American dream. And here is Biden coming out with the highest proposed capital gains tax in 100 years," Palicz said.

Look, the EVs, charging stations, etc. are not free. And someone has to pay for a $10,000 debit card, smartphone, healthcare, and a fancy hotel for the immigrants. Just take it out of your grocery bill that must be coming down--don't you listen to the White House? Welcome to Bidenomics.

T-45 minutes...

Login to view embedded media

OXFORD, England (OSV News) — Catholic bishops in England and Wales have rejected “gender identitytheory,” reminding Catholic schools and parishes to uphold traditional teachings on human identity and sexuality.

“Many conflicting, divergent and often contradictory views of the human person have found wide acceptance … they have led to holders of traditional theories being cancelled or even losing their jobs,” the bishops said.

“We should never seek to cause offence to another, including in situations where the other person advocates a view of reality that is different from or departs from the Church’s vision of the human person. Yet care should be taken to resist the temptation to adopt the language of gender ideology in our institutions,” they added.


The call was included in an 11-page “Intricately Woven by the Lord” pastoral reflection on gender, published April 24 by the Westminster-based bishops’ conference.

Responding to a ‘new language’​

Continued below.

What are your thoughts on what is seriously (most) wrong in our country

Login to view embedded media
What does the Bible teach about different types of demons like Marine Spirits? In this video, Pastor Nelson answers the question: What are marine spirits? 3 minutes and 17 seconds.

I’ve heard of spirits over certain areas and cities before but marine spirits? It seems to be a big topic among African pastors.

Has anyone heard of this before? Seems a bit off to me. Like a mixture of cultural aspects mixed with Christian belief. I’m just curious.

If the only thing they share in common is political views and Faith views can the relationship work good and well in the long run ?

I'm sure this has been covered many times, but I couldn't find a similar thread with a quick search, so will start another.

What is meant by the term "Law" in the Bible? I propose that like the word "love", it has many different meanings in the mouth of different people, and in different contexts.

Here are some of the meanings I can think of:

• The general, overall law of Moses. This involves everything given by Moses, which encompasses concepts of civil matters, religious/ceremonial matters, and also moral matters.
• The law as an upholding of a contract. I.e. God said that He would have the Jewish people as His special **IF** they obeyed His laws. So a Pharisee in the time of Jesus could point to their paying a tithe of the herbs in their garden, and assert that this (along with all their other points of obedience) was a complete fulfillment of their duty to uphold their part of the contract. All they had to do was meet the letter of the law and they felt they had done their duty.
• The law as a form of instruction. God imparts wisdom about how a successful society will operate, and it people will follow these instructions, they will naturally prosper. Before the Israelites crossed the Jordan, Moses told them how all the other nations would marvel at how wise their laws that God had given them were. Thus it would not be seen as arbitrary, but rather as something that makes sense and all could see the benefit of them.

So it seems to me that much of the conflict between those how emphasize the importance of the law (I suspect many of the posters to this section of the forums may be in this camp), and those how feel that the law is not longer in effect since Christ "nailed the law to the cross", have to do with different understandings of the word "law."

Examples of this:

• Paul was the apostle sent to the Gentiles. He was following God's direction to gather His sheep from other pastures. But many Jews felt that they needed to follow "the Law", and especially the part of the law regarding circumcision. I feel this was the "contract" interpretation of the law.
• At the counsel in Jerusalem, there was discussion of what rules the Gentiles should be recommended to follow. They set up a very limited set of recommended actions (avoid sexual immorality, the blood of strangled animals and food offered to idols), with an additional mention that all the other elements of the law Moses are continually taught. I interpret this to mean that they were considering the law in its "instruction" aspect. The limited set was a bare minimum of what they felt was needed to keep new converts out of trouble, with the idea that they could learn further concepts over time.
• Paul writes extensively against the law (I feel in its "contract" aspect), but then when a church member marries his father's wife, he rails against the man as acting in a manner that not even the heathen would do. This is a direct application of one command from the Mosaic law (Lev 20:11) against having sex with a father's wife. Most people today understand that it is also a bad practice due to societal issues even aside from religious considerations. Thus Paul is writing this in the "instruction" aspect of the law.
• Paul, after extensively dismissing the "law" and those that felt self-righteous by their rule-keeping, sets out many many rules about how a Christian should live. He essentially gives a new set of rules such that one might even consider all that the Law of Paul. He describes how husbands should treat wives, how wives should behave, how masters should treat slaves etc etc. I'm not exactly sure how to categorize this set of rules. It seems similar to my first bullet point above, as an "overall" rule. And Paul recommended that the man who fell outside it (the one having sex with his mother or step-mother) be "handed over to Satan." Sure sounds Mosaic to me.
• At the death of Jesus, the curtain that separated the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place was miraculously torn by invisible hands. I interpret this to mean that God was doing away with the sacrificial system involving the death of lambs etc, which had always pointed forward to Christ. But a change in the ceremonial aspect of the law wouldn't change the fact that we should, for example, still honor our parents.

So, in modern times, I commonly see the law discussed in these ways. I am not saying that I agree with all these, but rather that these are themes that I see:

• The law is a reflection of God's perfection. As imperfect humans, we can never match up with God's perfect mandates. Therefore Jesus stands in the gap, and the blood of His sacrifice "takes away" our sins in the same way that the sacrificial lamb was sufficient to remove the legal status of "sinfulness" from an errant Israelite. In this framework, sin is a legal debt and Jesus is able to pay off this debt with His blood.
• Or, that any attempt to go back to law keeping is backsliding away from the grace of Jesus. And example of this was when Paul chastised Peter for not eating with the gentiles for reasons related to Jewish law. And if anyone were to speak against eating unclean meat, for example, it would be seen as trying to keep the "contract" aspect of the law, rather than the "instruction" aspect of the law. Mark 7 explicitly states that Jesus declared all foods "clean". So if a piece of meat falls into a sewer, then when retrieved it would still be "clean" in the contractual sense Jesus states. But I think all will agree that it would not be clean in a sanitary or health-wise manner -- and anyone who eats it may still suffer the health consequences with throwing up and diarrhea etc.
• Others seem to make a distinction between written regulations vs Spirit-led actions. The idea here is that any regulation that is written down can be worked around in a manner that obeys the letter of the law but not the original intention. So the argument goes that a Christian will be lead by the Holy Spirit and they don't need regulations. If it seems OK, and they don't have any guidance otherwise from the Spirit, then it must be OK.

So what do I believe?

• Certain actions in life have bad outcomes. God wants to help us to avoid these pitfalls, and thus gives us instructions to avoid certain behaviors. Failure to follow wise instructions is erroneous (sinful), and consequences have to be dealt with.
• God's ways are infinitely better than our ways, and we will always have something more to learn from Him. Even after the 2nd coming of Christ and the establishment of God's new kingdom on earth, we will still be improving and learning through the life-giving instruction from the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit.
• Something that is wrong for one person, who has been taught an advanced concept by God, may not yet be wrong for a person just starting out their journey in Christ. Just like a child is not held to the same standards as an adult, so God meets us sinful humans where we are and does His best to guide us in a good direction. And this is the problem with writing down regulations. They can be discouraging to those not yet reached a level of understanding to incorporate them into their life. And they can be restrictive to others. For example, imaging a regulation of "you must exercise 60 minutes every day." Those just starting can't tolerate this level of intensity, and others my wonder why they are limited to just 1 hr. Thus we should constantly seek God's guidance to help us, while still paying attention to what has been written. So I might try to "exercise 60 minutes", but only succeed to 5 minutes. I pray to God for mercy and keep trying, and with time He helps me succeed.
• There is a very fine line between legalism and "cheap grace" that has to be avoided.

So these are some thoughts that have been buzzing around in my head, and it helps me to try to get them down "on paper."

What do you all think? Have I missed something? Are some of my thoughts above off base?

Best wishes,

Kevin

NIV, 1 Timothy 1:

15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst.

Click to expand...

Paul persecuted the church before his conversion. Three decades later, he still thought about that as if it were yesterday. He used the historical present tense.

English Standard Version:

The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

Click to expand...

ESV translated G4413 as "foremost". Paul humbled himself before the Christian brothers. NIV, Ephesians 3:

8 Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ.

Click to expand...

Pray The Holy Spirit comforts & heals an Israeli lady named Moran Yanai who suffered when she became a hostage kidnapped by Hamas on 7-Oct-2023:

So I have been employed at a non-profit for almost 8 years now. While we are not a Christian organization per say, we are Christ centered. What we do is offer pregnancy center resources (such as tests), parenting classes, counseling, and address immediate needs such as formula/diapers/car seats.

Our director of operations has recently decided to make it mandatory that we pray with each and every client that comes into our center, after the Lord placed on their heart to do so.

When we do client intakes we do ask about spiritual beliefs, church attendance, etc. Now, I have always felt comfortable listening for what the Holy Spirit is leading me to do in client interactions. I have absolutely no hesitation in praying for or with clients, if I feel I’m being led to or if it is appropriate. We are now to mark it as yes or no on our daily client tally if we prayed, so it can be shown as a center statistic.

We have clients who show up needing physical needs met immediately. Some are not religious or express that they are pagan or atheist. I have degrees in psychology, Christian counseling, and ministry. I say this to explain my thoughts that sometimes immediate needs must be addressed or a relationship needs to be established before addressing prayer with clients. This is what we were taught, to let the Holy Spirit guide us in our actions!

At first we were approached by the director if we marked no to prayer and had to explain why we did not. I have had to explain my thoughts about it several times. And I did so as I said above, letting the Holy Spirit guide me. When I said I felt that sometimes immediate physical needs needed to be met first in order to establish a relationship with nonbelievers, the director responded with “Pregnancy tests and diapers are just how we lure them here”.

Now the director has started taking clients away from us if we do not pray with them at their first appointment.

I feel so torn. On one hand my confidence has been shaken and I am afraid that I am just not hearing Him telling me to pray with everyone. On the other I’m not comfortable being forced to pray with those I do not feel led to at that moment.

(Just to be clear, I am referring to praying with, not for clients.)

Can anyone please offer some guidance on how to handle this?

Reader,


Lets say that a young mother ......is not born again, and they have 6 young children.
She is 25 yrs old, and her husband left her, after #6 was yet to be born.
Two of the Children are Twins., the boys...... and 4 are little girls.
'Mary" is dirt poor and on food stamps....and the children are dressed in rags, none of them are over 6, and often they are barefoot in the winter.

So, on one side of Mary, is a Christian family, who believes that if they are starving (and so are their 3 children), then that is a "Godly sign of Spirituality".
They teach and preach the "poverty gospel" as their faith, even tho the Bible teaches that "Poverty is the destruction of the poor".

On the other side of Mary, is a family of Believers, and they have been blessed abundantly beyond measure, and they give some of their money into the work of God, and He's keeps giving them more of His money, through them.
They have the favor of God on them, and Jesus said, I have come to "give you life, and that more abundantly".

So, Mary the young single mother, and her 6 children, need a new furnace., and its winter and they are very cold in their wood frame house that has no funace heat.

1.) So, she goes to the "poverty gospel Christians" and says...>"can you help us"?
And the Poverty Gospel Christians say...>"...oh...would that we could..... but we have nothing we can give you, and we too are freezing every winter, but God is well pleased.. and ... God bless.""""".

And Mary says......'"ummmm, ok, thanks".

2.) Then Mary goes to the other Christian neighbors, and says... "Can you help me and my children, we are so cold"'..
And the Christian man and wife invite her in for a moment, and they listen... and they say......" Mary, hon....you are coming here to stay with us, right now.....and your children also. And we'll put sleeping bags on the carpeted floors and find a way to keep us all warm, and tomorrow, we'll call the Furnace Specialist and have them come and repair... or put in a new furnace in for you, and we'll see about helping you pay off your mortgage also.. And we'll go shopping tomorrow for some socks and shoes for your kids"...Now Mary, we are here for you, we are your new family, because God loves you and so do we.".

We see repentance mentioned more than 20 times in the Gospels, and here in the book of Acts, it continues

Then again here:

Then here in Romans


Let’s talk about repentance - what does repentance look like in real life?
Maybe share some of your story of repentance.
How often do you find the need to repent?
If you have to repent from a specific sin more than once, is it really repentance?

This could be a very interesting discussion.