Priscilla.

Oompa Loompa said:

That does not answer the question. What order was given that was illegal?

Click to expand...

Don't play me for an idiot. There were guys in the water whose ship had been wrecked. Even if you were at war, which you aren't (you really should check to see who decides that), then killing unarmed men in the water, apart from being absolutely morally reprehensible, is murder. Those that support actions like this really need to take a good hard look at themselves.

The Barbarian said:

Texas Senate passed a bill that forbids public schools from teaching history and current events about race that might upset students.

Click to expand...

How dare they try to upset students at a time like this! Don't they know there's a war on? We're at war with Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

-- A2SG, report to room 101, immediately!

essentialsaltes said:

GOP faces a familiar dilemma: What to do about Obamacare?​

Republican leaders have found themselves in a familiar place: pledging to make major changes to the Affordable Care Act, citing rising health care costs and a looming deadline - but far from agreeing on how to do it.

Republicans promised a mid-December vote on how to proceed on the expiring subsidies, in exchange for support from some Democrats for ending the government shutdown in November. Democrats have argued that the simplest and most politically popular option is to extend the subsidies, which were implemented in 2021 and meant to help defray the cost of health coverage during the covid-19 pandemic. But many GOP lawmakers have campaigned for years on pledges to “repeal Obamacare” and say that continuing to fund the subsidies is a nonstarter, calling instead to shift the money to Americans in the form of health-savings accounts.

“The White House has a solution for cost-sharing,” [can we see it? The last one the WH rolled out vanished in less than a day] Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” predicting that “people are going to work this out” by Christmas.

“We don’t want to cause panic for the folks who are worried that they’re going to lose the thing that they have,” Hassett added.

Thirteen House Republicans, mostly from liberal-leaning states, sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) during the shutdown warning that a failure to extend a version of the subsidies would “risk real harm to those we represent.”

However, many Republicans oppose extending the subsidies - arguing that they are a pandemic-era relic - and instead see the debate as an opportunity to revisit health care reforms the party has sought in the past.

Click to expand...

The problem lawmakers of both parties face is they don't want to lose the millions of dollars the for-profit health insurance industry funnels into their reelection campaigns. This money is largely why the GOP first promoted the Heritage Foundation plan as it was market-based and relied on private, for-profit health insurance. It's also why Democrats supported it later on, and that's the only reason the GOP now has a problem with it. But, the problem there is, they haven't come up with any idea that actually provides health care coverage AND relies on for-profit health insurance (protecting their own campaign bottom lines). The only idea I've heard floated about is health savings accounts, which seem like a good idea...if you have money. If you don't, it isn't.

Then again, when has the GOP ever really cared about people who don't have money?

-- A2SG, except when they vote Republican, of course....

Aryeh Jay said:

And speaking of politicizing, when is the President going to order the flag lowered for the death of one of our troops?

Click to expand...

Too divisive. It's not like she was some important podcaster or Youtube personality known for pushing politics.

GoldenKingGaze said:

Porneia, sexual immorality and romantic love, committed love in marriage

Click to expand...

First, about porneia > I think this is listed in Colossians 3:5 as a thing to put to death >

"Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry." (Colossians 3:5)

Here, "fornication" is porneia. And we are to put it "to death". So, I see this does not only mean to stop the outward and physical immoral actions, but put to death the spiritual depth of it including feelings and emotions and desires that are spiritual but immoral. So, it is stuff that is keeping a person away from relating right with Jesus as our Groom, and with brothers and sisters in Jesus the right way. It means stuff that keeps us from living in God's love. It gets our attention away.

So it is, then, an anti-love thing which needs to be put to death . . . getting rid of what in my heart would have me being immoral. Kill it so I can be alive in God's way of loving, instead. My experience is that interest in immoral activity has different things operating, and which keep me from loving the way I should >

*Interest in the pleasure*, even if I don't act on it, can keep my attention away from personally submitting to God in His peace . . . all the time > as we are "called in one body" to do >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

God's peace is so better than the feelings of pleasure of sexual stuff. To be intimate with nice feelings is not as great as being intimate with God and one another in His peace ruling us. I have found how I can use a woman for pleasure, but my intimacy is not really with her, but with the feelings I like. So . . . it is anti-love . . . using someone, instead of really loving her. And what contributes to this? >

*beauty discrimination* > I can favor a nicer looking woman, instead of loving every woman the way God wants. And immoral attraction can be brought on by how nice a woman acts and looks; so it is not really getting to know her and share deeply. And look what happened when Jacob discriminated against Leah because she was not beautiful like Rachel >

"When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren" (Genesis 29:31)

Jacob did not want Leah to be his wife; he got tricked into getting her. And he favored Rachel more than Leah, because of what they looked like. And I see how the LORD expected him to love her dearly and completely; and so the LORD enforced this, by not allowing Rachel to have children. And yes I have seen how my way of loving women can be connected with what they look like and how nicely they talk and move.

And a couple of women I have fallen for "the hardest" have turned out to have major personal and character and emotional problems. But they were "extravagant" looking and acting.

But Jesus says >

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

So, it is anti-love if I favor someone only because of how I can use her for pleasure . . . physically, or just to look at her, and/or because of how she can charm me. Yes, God "gives us richly all things to enjoy," we have in 1 Timothy 6:17; however, this does not mean for me to discriminate in how I love each person.

Reluctant Theologian said:

Just be careful with the English word 'lust' - the Greek does not have a dedicated word for that; the underlying word usually translated to 'lust' in English just means strong desire, and is also used in a positive sense (use your concordance to look it up).

Click to expand...

Paul says how to relate >

"not in passion of lust" > in 1 Thessalonians 4:5.

I think this goes even for in Christian marriage. There can be a difference between lust, versus desiring one another in intimate and tender caring for one another . . . in God's love. God's love is so better than just lust for the pleasure and what the companion looks like and the charming voice.

"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)

"All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." > in 1 Corinthians 6:12.

So, even in holy matrimony . . . it seems to me that God wants us to be first about sharing with Him in His love, all the time, and in this intimacy with God we discover how He has us sharing with one another in marriage and our other close relating as brothers and sisters in Jesus.

So, if I am just thinking about using someone, and only using someone to look at . . . this is getting me away from loving her . . . including how instead I need to be blessing and praying for her. And it has me away from staying submissive to God in His peace ruling us in our hearts > Colossians 3:15.

BCP1928 said:

No one has that intention. Regardless of the "law of armed conflict" once upon a time it would have been considered an atrocity to sink an enemy vessel and then machine gun the survivors in the water.

Click to expand...

And once upon a time it would have been considered mass murder and horrific that boat loads of drugs were killing a million people in a generation. More than all the major wars in the 20th century.

Once upon a time we were tough on drugs and crime. Now more people are dying than in wars because we allowed drugs and crime to get out of hand. Its all subjective and depends on what you think is the greater wrong.

BCP1928 said:

Once upon a time Christians would have lamented their deaths, even though they were the enemy. I guess we were just just inaccurately informed about the Gospel of Christ.

Click to expand...

Actually once upon a time Christians and most people supported the death penalty and supported a war on evil. Understoof that sometimes evil is met with bad consequences.

Now there's an adversion to even acknowledge there is such a thing called sin. That wrong doing cannot be helped because someone has been oppressed and never had enough love. So we have to go soft on crime and wrong doing. Let people steal as they are disadvantaged, give them 20 chances before we jail them because they are misunderstood.

I think its time reality came back and part of that is there are consequences for bad behaviour and let those consequences happen and stop protecting people from them. It just makes it far worse.

BCP1928 said:

Kill 'em all, right? OK, this is a Christian forum and it's good of you to instruct us about the Christian position on the incident.

Click to expand...

No just a couple of boats and suddenly the drug trade stops and we are saving 1,00s of lives. No one dares try that again. Its easy. Rather than all this compromise and cotton wooling that just covers up the bad and lets it continue.

Otherwise whats your solution. Some diplomatic talks, yeah sure when the government has their finger in the pie. What about reeductaing the Narcos. Nah don't think thats going to work.

So your alternative is also "Kill 'em all, right?" except in this case its allowing the drugs to come in and kill and destroy another million people over the next generation.

So we have a situation where a few Narcos are killed or a few more million Americans are killed. An ethical dilemma. So lets just stick our heads in the sand and let it continue.

I actually think its a bold and brave move. But also one where you have to be ready to backup the words if its going to work. But it will work and save millions and change the course of societies future for the better if even half the drug trade would stop.

I guarentee if this was something Biden or Obama did everyone would be supporting it. But because its Trump it must be bad.

Servus said:

Hegseth called it "fake news".

Click to expand...

Originally, yes, but the story has evolved with the WH acknowledging it.

Wow that was really good. About taking the kingdom from the Israelites, and giving it to the nations that bear its fruit which was 30-70 AD. And about Pentecost when the new covenant church the Israel of God was born in a day. I will make a post about it.

linux.poet said:

Moderators always win.

Click to expand...

feels good doesn't it.

bob121 said:

Steve, thank you for laying out that graceful-exit roadmap. My own Tokyo witness has never hinged on clever rhetoric: I simply raise Jesus’ name, share the freedom He offers, and leave the growth to God. Online, my blogs try to encourage deeper thought, but the depth always points back to the One who deserves all praise, life, and love. It’s a daily struggle for us all—yet plant, witness, and bow we shall. Grace and peace to you, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

I remember when I was younger and just reflecting on how the gospel was preached it was simple. There wasn't all the counter and alternative ideas and rationalisations for not believing in God.

It was a case of 'oh well if thats what you believe in, good for your'. People were more open to at least hearing the gospel and it was often framed as one of the ways people could find what they were looking for compared to other ways.

So if a person is lost and had no hope they were open to at least hearing the hope and life Christ offered. This was how I came to God.

But now the culture is full of all these voices proclaiming a better way. Along with the fact that the church was exposed for abuses and coupled with the fall away from God in the public square its become a mindfield of counter ideas and skepticism against religion and especially Christianity.

Thats why I think the simple gospel is more important than ever and not engage in the semantics and arguements over its truth. It is a truth and we are speaking and living that truth exactly as it was taught.

Today I think churches want to water this down to try and accommodate the world because the same gospel and teachings that had previously saved many was not as appealing today due to all these counter arguements and modern norms encroaching on the church.

But really its the very thing that has always saved. It may seem more outdated or in conflict today but the message is still the same. It still works the same way. People thirst for the truth even if it may seem too hard to believe or outdated to todays ears.

So telling that truth just like it is is exactly how we should preach the gospel and not be afraid of embarrassed about it. If people reject it that is up to them. But to then try and water it down to appease others is selling the gospel short.

Servus said:

I think that's what's being read into it. But it seems more likely that Hegseth was referring to the boat strike period.

Click to expand...

And that whatever was done (and they are no longer denying the "double tap"), Bradley was in charge.

Isaac the Recluse said:

I like the response of just calling it "growing up". Also, a large draw of SciFi was the concept, the what if. I guess that when the ideas are nearing a quarter of a century old, and have been growing in familiarity all that time, they just lose their shine a bit.

Click to expand...

Some recent Sci-Fi is awesome.
The Expanse, Last of Us, 3 Body Problem and even swashbuckling fun with "Mech's meet Mad Max" in Fallout.

Let alone the new Sci-Fi books!

But I do drift between genres, and there are also seasons of life. Younger, more idealistic versions of myself were obsessed with the more utopian versions. Older, more cynical versions of myself hope for the best for my kids, but kind of look at the dystopian stories like The Road, Blade Runner 2049, Last of Us, Fallout, and various Cli-Fi (Climate collapse fiction) as warnings of possible futures if we are not careful.

Tim Winton is a literary author in Australia who usually writes about life in small Western Australian country towns and is quite philosophical. (He's also a Christian - but you might not know it from his writing because he keeps his characters real, using real 'Aussie vernacular' if you know what I mean.)

He just wrote a Cli-Fi called Juice.

Seriously! It was like reading Ernest Hemingway writing about climate change!
Set 200 years from now - it was so bleak!


Then I'll go through a phase like yours where I feel guilty for reading or watching any fiction - and go nuts for various research projects and blogging.

I guess it depends on which version of myself gets booted up for that month!

Everything I said is correct. Revelation is in chronological order, and Rev 13-22 is future. The new Jerusalem coming down to new physical heavens and earth, final judgement lake of fire in rev 20-22 is future still. Rev 13-22 won't happen until 4400-4500 AD based on 1 Enochs 10,000 year starting at creation 5500 BC prophecy.
Whatever the abomination of desolation was mentioned by Jesus happened 70 AD. He was referencing the one in Dan 9, and 12 both ended 70 AD. Dan 8 ended in Maccabees, and Dan 11 ended before 70 AD whenever it was. . The man of sin in Thes had to happen before 70 AD whatever it was. The believers body is the temple of God now.
The language about mountains is found in the old testament too. Paste 1 Enoch 1:1-9 into chat GPT, and ask it to show all the same language from the OT. In some cases it is metaphor for judgement other cases literal eg earthquakes the day Jesus died, and more leading up to 70 AD. All the stuff chat GPT will show was about the Babylonian or Maccabean judgements in the OT but some was about 70 AD too. Jesus about 70 AD-
Luke 21:22 NIV
For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

There are NO issues with what I said. Rev 13-22 is future still.
Christians are supposed to love neighbor, and God help the poor sick needy etc or teach the bible preach. Not supposed to love money and focus on worldly gain.
The last kingdom of Daniel 2, and 7 is still future. It overlaps with Rev 13. It is the country "Israel", and the mark of the beast is the hexagram.

BPPLEE said:

I don't know if any of the strikes were lawful. It seems to depend on who you ask

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the "double tap" to finish off survivors. For the military that is flat-out unlawful.

The Barbarian said:

In biology, it's called "natural selection." It might look like magic, but species evolving in the same environmental pressures often tend to look very much alike.

Click to expand...

Yes, but why couldn't there be two things?

The Barbarian said:

I'd be interested in any literature about rat populations being able to learn more quickly after an isolated population learns something. What do you have?

Click to expand...

• Harvard Water Maze Experiment: A series of experiments started by William McDougall at Harvard in the 1920s involved training rats to escape from a water maze by avoiding a brightly lit pathway (which resulted in an electric shock).
  • Generational Improvement: Over many generations (up to 22 in some studies), rats learned the maze significantly faster. The initial rats required an average of around 150 shocks to learn, while later generations needed only about 20.
  • Control Groups' Improvement: Crucially, Sheldrake points out that even control rats whose parents had never been trained showed the same rate of improvement, suggesting the ability was not passed genetically but through a wider influence.
• • Global Spread of Learning: This is the core of the morphic resonance argument. When the same experiment was replicated with rats of the same breed in Edinburgh (Scotland) and Melbourne (Australia), those first-generation rats started their learning at the advanced rate where the Harvard rats had left off. The knowledge seemed to be instantly and non-locally accessible to rats of the same species and breed.

Sheldrake's Interpretation
According to Sheldrake, this phenomenon occurs because:

• Repeated behavior forms a "morphogenetic field" which acts as a kind of species-wide collective memory.
• Individual animals can "tune in" to this field through a process called morphic resonance, making it easier for them to learn behaviors that many other members of their species have already mastered, even without any physical communication or genetic link.

o_mlly said:

Belief in things unseen seems to be the problem.

Click to expand...

God doesn't seem to think so:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Fortunately, evolutionary theory is based on evidence of confirmed predictions of the theory. Would you like to learn about some of those?

How could an Israelite be saved by the Old Covenant Law? The Old Covenant was never about salvation. All the Law could do was point out sin. Only Jesus saves.

How are Jews who have not accepted Jesus any different than the rest of humanity? Gal3:
19 Why, then, was the law given at all? (to Israel) It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

In Matt 5, we read that Jesus came to fulfill (bring an end) the prophecies concerning His coming. In the same sentence, he also claimed the same for the Law. Doesn't that mean that during His time on Earth He ratified the New Covenant? The New Covenant then had to supersede the Sinai covenant. The Sinai covenant could not save one soul. It could only point out sin. Every living soul can hear the Word and claim the promises that Jesus made in the New and better Covenant. The Old Sinai Covenant is now history. No one is subject to a covenant that ended at Calvary.

To all who believe they are still under the guidance of the old covenant I would point you to Gal5:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

What good would it be for Jews to still under laws that Jesus brought to an end? Gentiles are not under those Law, and we find Jesus.

Say it aint so said:

Did how did I know what article and authors were referenced? Prophecy?

Click to expand...

I was referring to the article that I posted which you quoted. I am also referring to the article which said 500 Minnesota government workers are whistleblowers about the billions dollars fraud committed by Somalians in Minnesota.

I've never observed nuclear fusion in the lab, either. But like macroevolution, scientists have observed it.

o_mlly said:

Nothing new here.

Click to expand...

Right. This has been observed for a very long time.

o_mlly said:

Keep looking and, as I'm sure you will, keep your faith in evol theory.

Click to expand...

It's always funny that YECs pretend that science is about faith, as thought faith were a bad thing. But science can't be about faith, since it depends on evidence. If your faith isn't strong enough to save you, science can't help.
"Macroevolution" means the evolution of new species. If that seems meaningless to you, we've located the problem.

o_mlly said:

Nothing new here either and, yes, we've located the problem.

Click to expand...

It seems so. You've confused evolution including macroevolution, which is an observed phenomenon, with universal common descent. And that is from genetics, not evolutionary theory. Even Darwin just supposed that God created some number of original living things.

All this confusion is curable, if you're willing to investigate a little.

Oompa Loompa said:

Reference to the law being violated?

"It ain't a war crime the first time."

Click to expand...

The one noted within the Department of Defense. Post 2.

Hans Blaster said:

It's not that you include a lot of history as background, it is about how much of that history is wrong.

Click to expand...

Then show me how its wrong.

Vambram said:

I doubt you did. There's a lot more in that article than what you think.

Click to expand...

Did how did I know what article and authors were referenced? Prophecy?