Release from Epstein files
- American Politics
- 208 Replies
Remember - there is only one President that Epstein thought enough of to hang a portrait in his home.
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.
—"What more is needed"? Context is needed. It is not talking about him desiring that absolutely all sapient sentients responsible to God be saved, nor even all humans.I don't need to answer yours because the supposed "problem" doesn't exist. God isn't double minded, so when He says He desires all to come to knowledge of the truth, what more is needed?
Frankly I doubt very much that is what you mean by it, though what you do mean by it may be understood by you to be implicative of that conclusion. "Of their own accord" can mean something along the lines of independence from others of our kind, but it cannot be independent of God's causation.It means that whatever reasons a person claims to believe determinism are not actually related to their belief in determinism, should determinism be true.
Confirmation bias. That we must (and do, constantly,) choose does not imply free will.You seem to misunderstand the argument, because it's not just that i affirm what I affirm, but that whether we affirm or deny free will we must do so on the basis of an act of free will. So in order to make an affirmation of determinism, the claimant must first demonstrate their affirmation to be false.
Which he did -But that would be weaponizing the DOJ for political purposes. That's more a Trump thing, despite all his 'three fingers pointing back' talk.
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.How else do you think there could be a change of government? We're not talking of force here. It's what might be described as a peaceful transfer of power. As a citizen, if the US was considering becoming a theocracy, then would you like a say in that or would you leave it to others to decide?
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.Oh dear me, no. Christianity is judged on Christians and how well they follow the teachings of Christ.
Then show us what sort of figures we're talking about. Don't treat us like morons, making claims and expecting us to accept them. Back them up. Who is getting health care that you think shouldn't? How much does that cost as a percentage of overall costs? How much will healthcare drop, if at all, for an individual?It's common sense that with less people and the same amount of doctors that doctors will have more time per patient and thus better healthcare.
I find that surprising. Our parish is mostly GOPMy former parish has embraced the LGBTQ+ ideology. Conservatives and of course Trump
supporters, are convinced to leave. It doesn't matter if you don't support Trump, but as
long as they think you do, you're not welcomed.
The GIRM calls for it:According to the GIRM all bow at the mention of the Incarnation in the creed (cf. 137). This is different from what is being discussed in the Zenit piece of the OP, where the subject of the bow is not explicit. McNamara is clear, "With respect to such customs, the above norms of the GIRM say nothing either for or against. Thus, wherever the local custom is for all to make the bow whenever the name of Jesus and Mary are mentioned, nothing in the text of the GIRM would forbid it."
I stopped there because it is an inaccurate statement.The ACA has decreased costs for million of Americans.
The main danger is myself, how I might take preaching into my own hands, possibly in order to make a show of myself. However, if I am doing the preaching which God has me doing, that is all that matters.I have been thinking about the current political claimte and how people are being cancelled and even killed for their views. Is street preaching or declaring the gospel in public now a dangerous occupation.
How else do you think there could be a change of government? We're not talking of force here. It's what might be described as a peaceful transfer of power. As a citizen, if the US was considering becoming a theocracy, then would you like a say in that or would you leave it to others to decide?There you go with your futile thoughts of "voting"
Does that mean you can't back up your grand claim?You are way too ignorant about this topic to be making grand claims. Just go learn the basics about whats in the the law.
But that would be weaponizing the DOJ for political purposes. That's more a Trump thing, despite all his 'three fingers pointing back' talk.Yet anyone with half a brain knows its not true because if it were Biden would have released it.
You are way too ignorant about this topic to be making grand claims. Just go learn the basics about whats in the the law.Oh, please - link looking forward to it.
Oh dear me, no. Christianity is judged on Christians and how well they follow the teachings of Christ.Christianity must be judged on Christ...
Oh, please - link looking forward to it.My goodness. The list of the things that came through as promised goes on and on.
There you go with your futile thoughts of "voting"So you'd vote against an Islamic theocracy? But would you vote to maintain the status quo or vote for a Sikh theocracy?
Uh huh. You keep telling yourself that.Actual truth is not controversial as it is clearly evidenced.
Your famous evidence, I suppose.I don't have the details, but I feel relatively confident that religion was passed down through indoctrination from parents to child and that chain goes back until a conversion at the point of a sword.
And by privileging a particular religious persuasion, such restrictions are in violation of the spirit of the establishment clause.Generally speaking, all employers can restrict the on-the-job behavior of their employees. Public employees work on behalf of the state. When they are on the job they must follow the restrictions on "the government". If they want to pray to Mecca on their breaks in the break room, they can.
So it sounds like you'd vote against an Islamic theocracy. But would you vote to maintain the status quo or vote for a Sikh theocracy?Not all theocracies are created equal. Just because I wouldn't want to live in an islamic caliphate...
Sounds like you're telling Christians how to live their lives. Normative ethics is a part of public life, so why should Christians sit silently while baseless "moral"s run rampant instead of holding firm to the normativity of their ethical principles?But people simply would rather Christians leave them alone to live their lives. Christians don’t have a right to tell people how they must live their lives.
Let Christians live as they like as long as it doesn’t affect people who do not care about what religious beliefs said Christians have.
Doesn't matter. The issue revolving around this scripture was not when the thief would join Him, but why he got to when the other thief wouldn't.I don’t buy that.