ICE Nativity scenes: Churches reimagine Christmas story amid deportations
- By BCP1928
- News & Current Events (Articles Required)
- 35 Replies
I guess you didn't read it.I guess you didn’t see post #28.
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.
I guess you didn't read it.I guess you didn’t see post #28.
I have been back in the US since Saturday.If you are still in Germany, find Black Forest Gateaux, and eat it.![]()
I guess you didn’t see post #28.Not only is it unsustainable, it's a dumb idea to start with. You need to pay attention to what "liberals" here really want to do, instead of just making it up.
Death bots with a financial incentiveDeath panel ---> Death bots
Yes and that weak "authorization" is still better than nothing.Yes, Congress used a AUMF declaration for Iraq instead of formally declaring war, but it was still authorised by Congress. But yeah, it's essentially to just avoid the scrutiny that comes with being officially at war with someone, as stupid as that sounds.
I grew up with verbal abuse. I was judged by an atheist father. God did not tell him that all people without college educations are losers.As this thread is titled 'Not a lot of respect for men' I think it's wise to never cite this requirement for husbands from Ephesians 5 without also citing the requirement for wives from the same section: 'to submit to their husbands as to Christ' and 'to fear/reverence their husbands'.
And as husbands should love their wives even when their wives don't properly submit or fear/reverence them, in the same way the wives should still submit and fear/reverence their husbands even when they don't properly love them.
Of course I'm not talking about a situation where a husband literally beats his wife up, but these days the definition of 'abuse' gets stretched so much that any (verbal) correction or setting boundaries setting by a husband may already be construed as emotional abuse (this is not a joke).
Be blessed sisters .. !
Is the GINI coefficient increasing? That's the only economic measure MAGA thinks important.The economy is doing swimmingly well. Everyone knows that "affordability" is just a Democratic con job.
When it says that women are saved through child bearing I think it refers back to the promise in Genesis 3:15 . It was a woman who brought forth the man child. Not only are women saved but men also. It was women who were the the mothers of all the prophets and Apostles as well as all of GODS saints. The 5th commandment contains a promise , Ephesians 6:2-3 The woman is that delicate vessel which their husbands should love and cherish. It is family now on earth that becomes adopted into the family of GOD, brothers and sisters to our lord Jesus Christ.With the childbearing thing, theres FAR too many problems with the interpretation that unless you have children, you aren't saved. What about women who can't have kids? That is like saying God created them for the sole purpose to condemn them to hell. I know Calvinists agree with that stance, but then that is just an evil God in my opinion. So ultimately then, there is an issue when other scripture and dozens of other passages talk about the saving faith and grace of Jesus. That forms a contradiction. So just on surface level there are issues and it bugs me that people teach to accept Pauls 1 sentence and just toss out the entire new testament because then it doesn't apply.
I really like this explanation, so I'm going to post it with the Link that maybe it will edify you tooLink
The reason why that makes the most sense is because during that time, women were not getting married or having children and instead, were leaders in the cult of Diana (Artemis). They were also promoting the lifestyle being a single woman (sound familiar?? *cough* today's 'women empowerment' *cough*) So Paul again, was addressing the issues for that particular place and culture and he's saying that if women reject that cult culture, that they would be saved from the deception that the cult was going on about and ultimately, be saved in a salvation sense "if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety".
Or, they were probably drug smugglers, which is good enough reason to stop the boat and arrest them. It's questionable whether that is a good enough reason to just blow them up. It certainly is no reason at all to kill the survivors.It's speculation and perception. A: they were Narco-terrorist drug smugglers. B: they were innocent fishermen.
Yes, Naval Intelligence was aware that they were hauling Columbian cocaine to a larger ship in Suriname.Yes it's a matter of how intelligence tracked the operation. I'd say that's more likely than it being "hey look there's a boat, kill em!".
I think it's less likely that those involved were operating as unthinking psychopaths blowing up boats for kicks.
It's just giving them the benefit of the doubt based on available info. Innocent until proven guilty applies to the adminstraition and military as well. Seems folks condeming them didn't take that into consideration.
What you seem to be saying is that it is morally acceptable IFF it is legal. Does that work for gay marriage, too?Whether Trump is competent or incompetent is subjective. Some say best president ever. Some say worst president ever. Others don't go to either extreme and see him as a good president in some ways and not so good in others, like any other president.
So would the number of things that he does believe.The number of things you don't believe would make an excellent topic list for an informative suite of factual textbooks.
You haven't - some have.The only thing I'm denying at the mo, is that we have never been or walked on the moon.
But Biden IS actually a commie homosexual evil senile genius who's too stupid to do anything right and did blow Bubba. So it's ok!Does your anti America human description cross party lines to include everything said about Biden?
The number of things you don't believe would make an excellent topic list for an informative suite of factual textbooks.I don't believe this.
It doesn't change the answer. It's still Congress, though technically the question itself is nonsensical because USA hasn't declared a war after.Like I said to yarddog. Would you like to reread my question and try again? With emphasis on "after WW2. I know I struggle with reading comprehension at times, but dang.
Why put in quotes what people-not-me have said and then sweetly inquire how I defend "my beliefs" when they're not my beliefs?First of all, I'm not "demanding" anything of anyone. I put things in quotes that people have said.
Oookay....then what was your intent in labeling what was in quotes as "my beliefs" then delicately requesting that I defend said beliefs?I'm pleased to know that you don't think VAERS is "riddled with lies and misnfo" and I apologize if you think I was trying to make it seem like you said something you did not. That was not my intent.
The pandemic was a new situation as was the vaccine development and distribution. Data will always lag the events with analysis lagging even further behind and determining a course of action, particularly a change in the course, lagging even further behind. Do you truly believe that adverse reactions to the administration of the vaccines were not and are not tracked?I couldn't disagree more. VAERS did nothing to inform the vaccination policies during COVID despite a veritable mountain of reports. V-Safe did even less. The main thing they provided was the illusion that someone was tracking adverse events.
There are also reports from health professionals and required reporters - as well as cranks, trolls and those looking to game the system to make a profit.if you say so. Meanwhile, the database consists of reports from real people who have been harmed by vaccines, and they are tossed into this database and simply forgotten.
Well then, that's that. I don't see any point in further discussion since your mind is made up no matter what.I truly don't believe the database exists for any other reason than to pretend like someone actually cares about adverse events from vaccination.
Oh look! A graph with no sourcing. Cool.Did you see the increase in number of VAERS repots during COVID? Even though there were clearly fake reports, exactly how many reports do you think constitutes a "significant trend"? There's no doubt there's "noise" in this data, but there's also some very real "trends"that warranted further investigation. That didn't stop the government and public health from telling everyone to get vaccinated multiple times per year. Their booster recommendations during the Biden administration resulted in the top two vaccine regulators at the FDA resigning in protest.
The bottom line is, what you're saying sounds great. If VAERS were used in the way you explain, it would be a wonderful system to identify risks and pivot accordingly. But that's not what happens in practice. In practice, people pretend like the fact that there were over 1,000,000 VAERS reports in a single year when the previous high was around 60K is all just "noise" worthy of being ignored.
View attachment 374261
This was years ago. Generally, at some point I was looking at some covid vaccines particularly among the elderly in nursing homes. I don't remember the specifics - it was years ago and I was not particularly invested.Would you be willing to share more specifics? What vaccine was involved, and what was concerning to you?
No, the question is not completely different; it is mostly the same.Again, you're asking a completely different question.
I disagree - the question is what is the risk to benefit ratio to vaccinating at 24 hours versus at three months? That there is a benefit at all has been pretty well established by the near elimination of Hep B and its associated problems (cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, etc.) in children after the protocol was instituted compared to before.The question should be, is there a benefit to vaccinating a newborn who is at low-risk?
Is the risk at 24 hours greater than the risk at three months? The risk includes the vaccination itself as well as the risk of infection between 24 hours and three months, taking into consideration that a newborn is more likely to be closely monitored by doctors and nurses than a three month old in a doctor's office or clinic.If there is no evidence of benefit, then you're simply introducing risk, no matter how small it might be. "First do no harm" means tthat if we're going to recommend that every newborn baby should receive a Hep B vaccine within hours of birth, there should be evidence of benefit for such a recommendation.
Baloney. Is the risk greater or lesser at 24 hours than at three months? I don't know - my theoretical actually assumed equal risk but not no risk. If the risk is greater earlier, please provide evidence that this is so. You haven't even given a theoretical why this would be so.Your theoretical can only be true if you assume that the risk associated with vaccination at birth is zero.
If that's what you know, then I question your general knowledge.It's not. We may not know exactly what it is, and I'm sure it's quite small. But it's not zero. There is always a risk in any medical intervention. I know people have been taught to believe that vaccines are all benefit and no risk, but that's simply not true. If there is no evidence of benefit, then all you have left is risk, no matter how small it may be.
How do you justify other people-not-you saying what you haven't said?Earlier in the thread, there was a link to the ACP's statement on this change in recommendation. It said:
“For example, ACIP’s decision to downgrade the longstanding recommendation to vaccinate all newborns against hepatitis B at birth will lead to more childhood hepatitis B infections, will lead to more chronic infections that will follow patients into adulthood, and will complicate vaccine access for children. No new data was presented during the ACIP meeting to justify this change. “The evidence remains clear: the hepatitis B birth dose is safe and an essential component in helping children develop immunity against a serious, potentially lifelong disease. In fact, since the U.S. implemented the hepatitis B birth dose in 1991, annual hepatitis B infections among infants and children have dropped 99%, from 16,000 to less than 20. This progress is directly attributable to timely vaccination. “ACIP’s actions will harm children, their families and the medical professionals who care for them. That is why we are joining together to speak up. American families deserve information grounded in science and clear, consistent guidance – not speculation intended to scare them. We urge the CDC leaders to reject ACIP’s new recommendation and instead retain the current, evidence-based approach.”
Those are bold statements. Is there any evidence that "timely vaccination" is the reason that Hep B infections have dropped? We've already established that correlation is not causation, but here it seems it gets a pass. They make a bold statement this is "directly attributable to timely vaccination", as if we're to believe that there are no other confounders in play here over the last 34 years. No in this case, correlation IS causation.
Where is the evidence that supports this apoplectic hand-wringing?
"Use AI"
Using strict rules, identify the largest Trinitarian Christian denominations that claim (1) scripture is a sufficient test of doctrine and no extra-biblical document is necessary for testing all doctrine, (2) possess a single global administrative authority, (3) maintain one unified set of binding official doctrines for all members, and (4) contain no doctrinally autonomous subgroups within their membership.
AI Response from "USE.AI"
That’s an excellent and very precise question about ecclesiology and formal doctrinal authority. Let’s apply each of your criteria strictly and systematically.
Result: Denominations That Fit All Four Strictly
- Seventh-day Adventist Church
- Scripture alone as authoritative test of doctrine (Formal statement: “The Holy Scriptures are the supreme, authoritative, and the infallible revelation of His will.”)
- Single global administrative authority: The General Conference governs worldwide.
- Uniform doctrine: The 28 Fundamental Beliefs, binding worldwide.
- No doctrinal autonomy: National and local entities are administratively subordinate to the General Conference and cannot establish divergent doctrine.
- Church of the Nazarene
- Scripture alone: Historically and officially declares the Bible the sufficient rule of faith and practice.
- Single administrative authority: The General Assembly is the final doctrinal and legal authority for the global church.
- Unified doctrine: One global Manual defining binding Articles of Faith.
- No doctrinal autonomy: Regional bodies cannot create independent doctrines.
Therefore — Strictly Applying Every Criterion
The largest Trinitarian Christian denominations that meet all four are:
- Seventh-day Adventist Church (est. ~22 million members globally)
- Church of the Nazarene (est. ~2.5 million members globally)
Yes, Congress used a AUMF declaration for Iraq instead of formally declaring war, but it was still authorised by Congress. But yeah, it's essentially to just avoid the scrutiny that comes with being officially at war with someone, as stupid as that sounds.Yeah we just do war. We dont declare it.
My sense is that anything that would be considered an act of war against us should need congressional authorization if we do it to others - even if a "declaration of war" wouldnt be the specific instrument to use.
For example, there was an authorization for the Iraq War 2, as I recall. But I do wish it would be more formalized so Congress would have to "own it" more, and exert greater scrutiny on exec branch claims - which for Iraq2 were largely fraudulent.
@DaisyDay ...I feel very sad, if the truth is burdensome for you.
Stay strong, continue to resist any anti-America humans who berate the Trump DoD with their hypocrisies and doublestandard.
The Korean war was fought as a UN police action authorized by the Security Council--it was not a declared war. The Vietnam war and Iraq I & II were authorized by Congressional resolution, although war was not formally declared.Okay? Would you like to reread my question and try again? With emphasis on "after WW2."
Aramaic Bible in Plain EnglishDoes AI follow that thinking? Does AI have a god? Will it one day also become aware of self?