Fervent said:

I go along to get along.

Click to expand...

Yet you immediately say this:

Fervent said:

...we've already got secularists who want government to wield the power to destroy against religious institutions and we have laws that appear to target specifically religious political activities.

Click to expand...

So I call bulldust. You say that you're worried about some mysterious secularists who want to destroy religion and target religious activities but hey, you're not interested in having a say about your country being run by a religion which in many ways is directly opposed to yours. Why not go along to get along?

You're arguing opposing views in the very same post. I'm impressed.

Fervent said:

There's a difference between judging people and ideologies. And belief systems are far more relevant than you give credit for, as they inform character and competence. But then again, your judgment is more or less arbitrary so why should anyone care how you judge them?

Click to expand...

My judgement is based on what people do. Not what they say they believe in. And the ideology?

You know, if there was one single ideology, one coherent belief in a god, one all encompassing set of moral rules that everyone held to then there'd be strong chance that I'd be an adherent to whatever 'religion' that was. But there isn't. There are multiple religions. There are literally hundreds of denominations within those religions. There are countless 'ideals' based on those religions that say 'this is the way we are to live!' And countless teachers and philosophers from the last few thousand years that all have different ideas on that matter. And I am to believe that because I was born at a specific time and in a specific place that the one denomination of this one religion just happened to be the right path? I should ignore all the others? That they don't count?

You just gotta be kidding me. And that was what I thought at a very early age. Simply because it was so obvious that a child could see it.

So I do judge your 'ideology'. I do judge your religion. I judge it against literally everything else that I have experienced. I judge it against everything I have read. Against all the people I have encountered. By the actions of people who say that they follow that religion. How it 'informs their character'. I've done this for decades. Listened and tried to learn. So you might not like my judgement. But listen up, it's a very long way indeed from being arbitrary.

wing2000 said:

A federal judge on Monday offered a blistering assessment of the Justice Department’s case against former FBI Director James B. Comey, detailing what he described as a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” and possible misconduct that could imperil the prosecution.
.....
After reviewing the grand jury transcripts, the judge said he came away with deep concerns about the process leading to that indictment.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick criticized authorities for their “cavalier” attitude toward the rights of Comey and others. Lindsey Halligan, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney overseeing the case, appeared to have made “fundamental misstatements of the law” to the grand jury that indicted Comey on charges of lying to Congress, he wrote.

“Here, the procedural and substantive irregularities that occurred before the grand jury, and the manner in which evidence presented to the grand jury was collected and used, may rise to the level of government misconduct resulting in prejudice to Mr. Comey,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/17/comey-james-cook-trump-prosecutions-misconduct/

“The court is finding that the government’s actions in this case — whether purposeful, reckless or negligent — raise genuine issues of misconduct, are inextricably linked to the government’s grand jury presentation and deserve to be fully explored by the defense,” Judge Fitzpatrick wrote.

gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.191.0.pdf

Click to expand...

Lindsey Halligan is the next Trump lawyer on the Bingo card to be sanctioned and disbarred.

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

Sanctification

KJV Dictionary SANCTIFICA'TION definition: The act of making holy, the act of consecrating or of setting apart for a sacred purpose.


(MY NOTE: In Ex 40:
9 and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels thereof: and it shall be holy.

10 anoint the altar of the burnt offering, and all his vessels, and sanctify the altar.

11 anoint the laver and his foot, and sanctify it.

Ok, All the vessels: altars, laver, the utensils used for offerings: tongs, pans, forks, basin etc. This oil anointing, made ALL the vessels Holy/setting then apart for a Godly work. These vessels never followed a law, never did a good deed. Yet, when the priest anointed them with oil, they were made HOLY/SET APART.

Likewise, when the Great High Priest/Jesus (Heb 4:14) anoints the believer, based on FAITH, with His FOREVER (Jn 14:16) indwelling, salvation SEALNG (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, 2 Tim 1:14), eternal life giving (Jn 10:28) Holy Spirit! They are saved/justified (declared righteous by a sovereign God) & sanctified/made holy/set apart for a Godly work.

Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship [His own master work, a work of art], created in Christ Jesus [reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, ready to be used] for good works, which God prepared [for us] beforehand [taking paths which He set], so that we would walk in them [living the good life which He prearranged and made ready for us].)

SabbathBlessings said:

It’s not interjection, it’s all in the same context.

Click to expand...

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:

Bradskii said:

No, this will be a different 'programme'. This is a decision on whether the US remains a democratic republic or becomes a theocracy. It's a simple question: Do you want others to decide or do you want a say in the matter?

Click to expand...

I go along to get along. The stripes of my oppressor aren't all that interesting to me.

Bradskii said:

The bill of rights was mentioned earlier. Do you know how that came about? States voted on it. Do you know who proposed the rights? Men who were voted into their positions. Do you know how amendments to the constitutions are made? People vote yay or nay. Do you know why you have freedom of religion? It was passed by a vote.

Click to expand...

I seem to recall a couple of wars involved.

Bradskii said:

Now we're talking about changing the whole system into one that might take away your freedom of religion. Again, do you want to have a say in that?

Click to expand...

I don't think theocratic governance is the sole threat to my freedom of religion, especially when we've already got secularists who want government to wield the power to destroy against religious institutions and we have laws that appear to target specifically religious political activities.

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

ThatRobGuy said:

I don't think most folks would say that one justifies the other...

I do, however, think that if a person sat quietly for one set of pardons (and didn't appear to be all that bothered by them), that would preclude them from feigning outrage and and getting all "hot & bothered" about another set of pardons.

So it's really the perceived hypocrisy that people are providing a rebuttal against.


Speaking personally, I have a love/hate relationship with pardons.

I understand why that power exists (as it's pretty much the only "check" on the judicial branch that comes from an external branch -- every other "check" on a judicial ruling comes from within the judicial branch itself)

But I would like to see that power refined just a bit... so that it exists less within the realm of "yeah, the did it, but meh, they're a close friend and family member, so I'm letting them off the hook" and bring it back more into the realm of "correct a mistake or overstep by the judicial branch".

Click to expand...

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.

Merchant Taylor

Fervent said:

I don't believe there truly is such a thing as a peaceful transfer of power, just a change in nominal leadership pursuing the same basic program under a different heading.

Click to expand...

No, this will be a different 'programme'. This is a decision on whether the US remains a democratic republic or becomes a theocracy. It's a simple question: Do you want others to decide or do you want a say in the matter?

The bill of rights was mentioned earlier. Do you know how that came about? States voted on it. Do you know who proposed the rights? Men who were voted into their positions. Do you know how amendments to the constitutions are made? People vote yay or nay. Do you know why you have freedom of religion? It was passed by a vote.

Now we're talking about changing the whole system into one that might take away your freedom of religion. Again, do you want to have a say in that?

Bradskii said:

It's easy having an ideal. Anyone can have one. We can all expound on the very best way to live a good life. But I don't judge people on what they say they should do. I will judge them on what they actually do. Their belief system is frankly irrelevant to that.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between judging people and ideologies. And belief systems are far more relevant than you give credit for, as they inform character and competence. But then again, your judgment is more or less arbitrary so why should anyone care how you judge them?

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?

Vambram said:

The Trump businesses have a long standing decades history of success waaaaay

Click to expand...

Gotta stop you there.
His business successes are not all that impressive. He got a substantial amount of his wealth by licensing his name. There's no skillset there. That's just convincing people your NAME (not your skills, mind you) are worth it.
That's a helpful indicator to recognize the reality that he is one of the bottom 5 ranked president of all time by most historians.

I have NEVER heard anyone impartial say anything overly glowing about his skills in investments or actual business acumen. I have heard many people call him some very unflattering things regarding his intelligence. And I've seen him say things that also make me question it (I can't imagine what he says behind closed doors protected by NDAs...which is its own psychotic issue)

Vambram said:

before he decided to run for president. On the other hand, Hunter Biden doesn't.

Click to expand...

Well he graduated from Yale Law school and I'm not convinced that was a hindrance in his life nor that he learned any marketable skills while attending. He was on the board of Amtrak; Perhaps that Chinese had interest in such things (even though the US is HILARIOUSLY behind, well, the rest of the world, in train travel).
And then, of course, he had his investment firm. Who could guess why an investment firm would want to go to China.

So...again....what difference did it make? What was it again that made trump's nepotism acceptable but Biden is in the wrong?

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

The two writers reference different time frames & statements in Abraham's life:

Paul's, recorded event is from Gen 15:6 "believed"

James, recorded event is from Gen 22:18 "obeyed"

Contrast the word "believed" in Gen. 15:6 and the word "obeyed" in Gen. 22:18

Gen:15: Paul's speaks of a time 30-40 years before the time James refers to

In Paul's reference in Gen 15:6 It's Abrahams FAITH that obtains Him a declaration of righteousness.

In James reference in Gen 22:18 Abrahams obedience seen here, is a result of his Faith, exercised 30-40 years earlier. When FAITH is the root, obedience & good works will be the fruit.

The Gen 26 obeyed passage injected into the thread, in context, are promises being made to Isaac. Based on Abrahams actions of obedience which took place, years after the Lord God's Gen 15 declaration of righteousness based on Abrams FAITH.

Delvianna said:

That's not scriptural at all.

Click to expand...

Jer 31:31-33; 32:40 Eze 36:24-27. These are prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled. It will involve only Israelites. I don't expect others to accept this as truth, but it's what I presently believe.

Fervent said:

Christians should rightfully be judged on how well they follow the teachings of Christ, but failure to live up to an ideal is no discredit to the pursuit of that ideal.

Click to expand...

It's easy having an ideal. Anyone can have one. We can all expound on the very best way to live a good life. But I don't judge people on what they say they should do. I will judge them on what they actually do. Their belief system is frankly irrelevant to that.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

IF you don't accept the simplest citing of 1 John 4:7 or Matt. 10:34 or can't look up ALL the others yourself, why bother?

Were it me I'd challenge where I "think" I stand just to make sure

P.S. It's ALL THERE if you looked

Click to expand...

And in Matt 10:34 says. :

# 1 THAT LOVETH. //. AGAPEO. is in. the PRESENT. TENSE. in. the ACTIVE VOICE. is a PARTICIPLE.

in. the NOMINATIVE CASE. , in. the SINGULAR

# 2 IS BORN //. GENNAO. is in. the PERFECT TENSE. in. the PASSIVE TENSE , in the. INDICATIVE MOOD. , SINGULAR

# 3 OF. //. is a. PREPOSIYION

# 4. GOD //. THEOS. is in the GENITIVE CASE. in. the SINGULAR

# 5. AND. //. KAI. GINOSKO. is a CONJUNCATION

# 6. KNOWETH. //. GINOSKO. is. in. the PRESENT TENSE. in. the ACTIVE VOICE. in. the INDICATIVE MOOD. , means

you better believe IT

# 7. GOD. // THEOS is in the ACCUSATIVE CASE in. the SINGULAR.


# A The words IS BORN , MEANING NOW.

# B. AND KNOWETH. and. the INDICATIVE MOOD means you better believe it so how do you know God ?/

# C How were you BORN AGAIN with a verse ??

# D How were you BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT ?

dan p

Pet Alien

Vambram said:

The Trump businesses have a long standing decades history of success waaaaay before he decided to run for president. On the other hand, Hunter Biden doesn't.

Click to expand...

The Trump businesses have a long standing history of being fraudulent scams.

And Hunter Biden never ran for office, he’s been a private citizen his whole life.

See? We can both play this dumb game.

But if you say it’s ok for Trump to use the presidency to secure business deals for himself then you’re arguing that it’s ok for anyone to use the presidency in this way. Is that really the precedent you’d like to set?

Elizabeth Taylor

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.

Hans Blaster said:

it was politics of which you wrote.

Click to expand...

No, I wrote of religious participation in the public square. Politics is merely a portion of that.

Hans Blaster said:

It sounds like you are a teacher of some sort at a public school. I'm not sure why you would need to tell them anything about your private life at all. I knew some of my teachers were married (because they went by "Mrs."). I knew some of them had kids (because they were in my classes). I knew a couple were Catholic (because they went to our church, or in one case was a my mom's second cousin and went to our church). Thre really isn't any need to tell them these kinds of things anyway. If a student does ask you can give a short and answer and go back to classwork ("Are you, like um, a Christian Mr. Fervent?" "Yes, I am. Now back to our lesson..."). If it had ever come up for me it would have been ("Are you a Christian, Dr. Blaster?" "No. Now back to our lesson...").

Click to expand...

It's called building rapport/relationship. Teaching is far more than just conveying academic instruction, and to properly motivate and manage classrooms it requires the ability to engage the students to some degree both in their private lives and our lives. While there is a theoretical amount of tolerance for religious disclosure, even answering student questions can land us in hot water if some parent decides to object.

Hans Blaster said:

Religious institutions are already subject to all kinds of state power. Filing a tax form is not some extraordinary request. McCulloch is about federalism.

Click to expand...

McCulloch certainly is about federalism, but the reasoning transfers(the power to tax is the power to destroy) in such a way that tax exemption is part and parcel to true separation of church and state.