Trump meets with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at White House
- By BPPLEE
- American Politics
- 15 Replies
More likely they think no one will notice....I guess Disney isn't censoring ABC News reporters.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
More likely they think no one will notice....I guess Disney isn't censoring ABC News reporters.
The thing is that it has happened. It may or may not be reversed, but Texas did go through congressional redistricting in 2025.Would you do "X" if "Y" hadn't happened? It may not be a condition, but "Y" was a catalyst for the action. And if "Y" isn't a factor any longer, "X" is no longer necessary.
It's "in response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025". But if there is no congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025, there is nothing to "respond" to.
I don't disagree, but the way that the California law was written, the only ways to reverse it prior to 2030 are to find it unconstitutional or pass another law to roll it back.Legal proceedings aside, the intent of this proposition was clearly stated to "neutralize" what Texas was doing. But if Texas can't use partisan gerrymandering to rig the election in their favor, there's nothing to "neutralize".
I disagree.It has an inhibitory effect that could easily qualify as a restriction on free exercise.
Interesting that ABC asks this question when it's parent company has no qualms about doing business in Saudi Arabia
![]()
Disney recently built a pop-up theme park in Saudi Arabia
Disney built a 98-foot castle in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, along with "Lion King" and "Encanto" attractions — but now it’s all gone.attractionsmagazine.com
And yet.....
They exist.
I'm game to hear you defend this, but we're getting a little off topic. So if you're up to it, PM me because I've never encountered one. In fact, most moral philosophy has abandoned the idea of grounded morality entirely and shifted to more practical questions.So what's next?
Interesting that ABC asks this question when it's parent company has no qualms about doing business in Saudi ArabiaThe fuller quote is worse. Per atrupar
"You're mentioning someone [referring to Khashoggi or Charlie Kirk, I'm not sure which] that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about. Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen. But he [points to MBS] knew nothing about it. You don't have to embarrass our guest."
And yet.....How so? In light of the is-ought problem, I don't really see a basis for metaphysical grounding outside of an objective moral agent.
God works in mysterious ways. It may even be nothing you say particulary but how you said it or even something unrelated that causes the person to be convicted.When I did street preaching, I knew how Paul says the preaching of the cross is the power of God to us who are saved.
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18)
So, I understood that if I simply preached Jesus on the cross God could use this to save people.
Also, we have Isaiah 55:11 >
"'So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
. . It shall not return to Me void,
. . But it shall accomplish what I please,
. . And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.'"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Isaiah 55:11)
So, whatsoever is God's word, it shall do what God wants . . . not only what we might understand it to mean, but what God is able to desire and do ! ! !
So, while I was preaching . . . speaking with no preparation, but understanding I should be submissive to God, every moment while calling out what I said, I understood that whatever God had me say would be His word which He could use with each person howsoever He pleased.
Ones might hear one sentence, others a couple sentences, others might hear a little message. Each sentence could be a seed message, or in combination with other sentences it could form a message with more than one sentence. And there were longer combinations of things I said. So, ones could get a sermon in a moment, walking by, while others might stop or hear more. And I have stood where there was no one, and I would get directed to preach. And on I would go and ones might walk by. One time I preached to not many people going by; but another day a certain man profusely thanked me for the message I had given which helped him so much > and I never saw him while I was just calling over an intersection near a day homeless shelter.
At times, I did deal with morals. After all, Jesus died so we would repent and be forgiven for things that are wrong. So, part of preaching the cross can involve talking about right from wrong. However, I might concentrate on the sin problems which cause the things we are told not to do. I would not pick on certain groups of people and certain more politically involved sins, but talk about how sin takes us the wrong way.
I would talk about things within us which control us and do not deeply and nicely satisfy us to do what Jesus wants - - things which do not give us rest for our souls. And I might talk about how Jesus guarantees us His kind and pleasant rest while we do what He has us doing >
"'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:29)
And then I might say, "That is why God does not want you to do what He says is wrong. And as you can see, there are a number of church people who are not doing things right, by obeying Jesus in His rest for our souls. So, you are not the only one; we all need how Jesus is able to save us and deeply correct us."
"And Jesus died for all of us; so Jesus is not at all conceited. So, you are wise not to be so conceited that you think Jesus is not good enough for you!"
And I might talk about how sexual preferences can be only ways to get the pleasure you want; the intimacy you can have with pleasure feelings is not the same as we can have intimacy with God and with other Jesus people who know how to love; intimacy with pleasure does not make us all-loving the way Jesus wants. So, I would be talking about what can go for any person, not only for certain ones in political complication. "There still are church culture people who are intimate with their pleasures more than with God and their own spouses and families; we all need Jesus to have us find out how to love."
So, I guess I could be personal, instead of political.
I'm not sure how tax burdens are determined, quarterly?How do you usually file forms to the IRS?
It has an inhibitory effect that could easily qualify as a restriction on free exercise.Filing a tax form does not inhibit "free exercise" (and neither would property taxes).
How so? In light of the is-ought problem, I don't really see a basis for metaphysical grounding outside of an objective moral agent.What? Metaphysical groundings can come from those things too.
Yeah, it took supernatural intervention to open my eyes.Yeah. Frankly, I was really struggling with how to figure that out for a while and a well timed sermon on those Fruits radically simplified and clarified and simple it is
Yeah, that's why I don't make a habit of sorting "Christian" and "non-Christian" outside of broad generalities. God knows the heart, and some people are being brought along slowly.Of course, there are complicating factors. There are some "personality types" that have great, great difficultly following along with a few fruits.
That's not a conditional. "I'm doing X because of Y" is an explanation, not a condition.
If you wanted to make it conditional, you would say "I will do X if they do Y."
You're not a context reader either, it seems. No wonder you misunderstand Genesis 1I thought he mean''''''''t people on here, I'm not a mind reader.
What? Metaphysical groundings can come from those things too.I'm more thinking metaphysical grounding, rather than developmental.
Yeah. Frankly, I was really struggling with how to figure that out for a while and a well timed sermon on those Fruits radically simplified and clarified and simple it isIt only makes sense. Everything else can be at odds, but if we can agree to be peacemakers and show the love of God our allegiance will be clear.
Why would you think that?I thought @prodromos mean''''''t someone on here.
Ok, so it can look, here, like you are saying you would like to be rich. Beware >I have only gambled very small amount of money $2, the excitement of the chance to win big was there,
You mention chips, which can be a weight gainer and a money user-upperI wasn't really disappointed it was $2 not enough to buy a bag of chips these days.
How social is it? I suspect you do this by yourself. At least, get into some cheap-prize bingo, maybe. Even get some socially needy people together for some gaming which has no prize but that they are sharing with one another.I figured i'm not lucky and moved on.
It depends. Our Apostle Paul says >I can see how it can develop into a problem with people gambling excessive amounts of money, and they are devastated. But what about gambling such small amount of money it has no effect at all to the person who lost?
There is always risk in loving. But with God so creative we can create His good in spite of however others do us wrong . . . even using what anti-love people do - - - using their evil to bring about God's all-loving results. Have you read and fed on how God did this with Joseph? > this is in Genesis 37-50.Could a Christian also ever be involved in the gambling business?
We could have quite a debate about this. You could say gambling ruins lives, and I could argue that farmers produce food which people abuse so they are overweight and dying of diabetes and heart attacks. But I rule in favor of what Delvianna and Tim have said > my argument might be clever . . . but not really relevant!!Although some people move on, for others it destroys lives and they wished they never gambled. or is gambling seen as a legitimate business just like farmers?
That's not a conditional. "I'm doing X because of Y" is an explanation, not a condition. If you wanted to make it conditional, you would say "I will do X if they do Y."Sure there is. "In response to" is an indication of a catalyst for the action.
Sorry. I can't hear you all the way down there at 23rd place United States. You may need to explain yourself a bit more....My culture is not making sad people.
LOL! Do you know how far from Christian Scandanavian countries are?If Americans are sad, then I suggest that they turn to my Lord and Savior. Only the Lord Jesus Christ is the One who can give everlasting joy and happiness and peace.
Common sense and the prior citing should doAND since you say every person is BORN. through a WATER SAC is BORN. of WATER. you must a BIBLE VERSE , right !!
I believe every Word of God applies to everyone. Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4, Deut. 8:3And just asking are you saved BORN AGAIN. by the OLD TESTAMENT , and do you. believe that to be TRUE ??
dan p
There is no conditional used.
Texas did indeed undergo a redistricting process, which is one of the declarations in the earlier part of the proposition.
In response to that, we have proposed this action. Yea or nay.
IANAL either, but I don't think this has legs.