UK Palestinian Activists Fractures Female Officer's Spine
- By Aryeh Jay
Time for the UK to outlaw all hammers.
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.
View attachment 373899
Time to do a tiny bit of research. I wonder what they are hiding in the north pole.![]()
“Those who are of faith, these are the sons of Abraham.”
“So then, those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.”
“That the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus.”
“The promises were made to Abraham and to his seed… and that seed is Christ.”
“If you are Christ’s, you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Abraham is the father of all who believe, whether circumcised or uncircumcised.
“He is the father of us all.”
“If children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.”
“Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.”
“He is not a Jew who is one outwardly…
but he is a Jew who is one inwardly,
and circumcision is of the heart, in the Spirit.”
“For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit…
and have no confidence in the flesh.”
“Peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”
“You are a holy priesthood.”
“You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,
a people for His own possession.”
“Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God.”
“To all who received Him… children of God.”
“Not all who are of Israel are Israel…
The children of promise are counted as the seed.”
“One new man from the two.”
The promise to Abraham was that he would inherit the world,
and this promise comes through faith, not the law.
“The meek shall inherit the earth.”
“The Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.”
You'll also notice that there are 33 grid sections covering the plain.
I never made that assumption. That is your assumption on my thinking. Your creating an either/or. I am not placing any stipulations on why abortions happen. Only that they increased dramatically after those laws were changed. Its the combinations of all factors that led to the increase.Part Ib opens with our discussion using abortion as an example...
I think you are confusing the correlation with causation. Legalization of birth control, abortion, and easier divorce all occurs in the US in a narrow window starting in the mid-1960s. I am well aware The Church (of Rome) consideres sex outside marriage to be a sin and abortion to be murder. I have heard many a homily on the subjects. That was not the point I was addressing. Rather I was addressing the false assumption that women having abortions are unmarried and not in relationships.
This is begging the question. You can be married today and not be a Christian. But if a couple are married under God as Christians then abortion is a sin. So you are conflating secular marriage with Christian marriage which is part of the problem and shows how secular norms and Christians norms are so different.This is not the case, then or now. Churches push this false impression all the time. Both birth control and abortions are used by married women because they don't want another child or one at the current time.
You literally just told me I was conflating correlations with causes.Since these things have occurred, unwanted pregnancy rates are down, abortion rates have fallen and so have divorce rates. (I suspect domestic violence is also down, but I don't have recollections of reading those statistics.)
Why, is it propaganda when its a biblical truth. Stating truth is not propaganda. This is a good example of how Christian beliefs are now seen as hateful and in this case propaganda or some false belief that is being pushed.That's not what I said. I mentioned that "baby killing" was the other primary bit of propaganda used by anti-abortion Christians.
Ok Christians who reject the bible. If you can call them Christians. Christians who not only reject the bible but promote unbiblical ideas. You can't sit on both sides of the fense.What are non-biblical Christians? If that's the kind that never read the bible, then we were definitely them.
Yes this is part of the very ideology that supports progressive ideas. They have to undermine the bible to do so. By questioning the truth that abortion is wrong they open the door for abortion.While churches certainly hold the position that "abortion is murder" that concept does not appear in any passage of the Bible. It is constructed by stacking conclusions upon on conclusions through theology. (That's they way theology is done it seems.) Other groups using the same sacred texts do not reach the same conclusions.
Then you don't know history. I explained this in the previous post. So perhaps you should be reading my posts more carefully.No. Again, you didn't read carefully. You used two terms straight from Mao's revolution: "The Long March"
Well the4y also have meaning in the west. You should not have assumed and I did explain this as the Long March through the Institutions. Its was a new strategy coined by Gramsci that instead of armed conflict in taking over the establishment. They could infiltrate the institutions and and take over that way.and the "Cultural Revolution". Both are well known epoch in Chinese communist history and neither was relevant to your discussion from why I could tell, so I was trying to figure out why you kept using CCP terminology.
But surely thats a subjective belief. So those who believe that it caused a lot of damage to people and society have an equal say. If a bible believing Christian tells their belief that sex outside marriage is a sin or SSM is a sin then this is not hate and wrong but just the right to express a belief by conscience. The same with those who believe sex outside marriage is good.Probably because I happen to thing the outcomes of the "sexual revolution" were good things.
Then what did the Colonies base their morals on. What morals did the Federation base it morals on. Was it the majority social norms. What was the majority social norms based on.The US was not a "Christian nation", then or ever, nor was it "Muslim" or "pagan". It was and is *secular*. (your country may be different, but I am not prepared or inclined to discuss your country.)
OK so does every house have an equal say. Which house holds the truth on what is moral so that we can make a determination over which house we should use as the basis for social policies and laws.In your house, perhaps, not in mine.
What was the false premise. That abortion was wrong or that society was wrong about thinking abortion was wrong.and built in part on false premises
So if we have less influence from Christianity then what influence do we use instead for social norms on sex and marriage.As I noted above, I agree with less influence of moralistic Christianity on sex and marriage.
Its not a conflation because what the 1950s were using as their basis was the bible which was the same basis for every other time in history. Including back to the early church right up until today. It has not changed. That we can only find certain times where society aligned with those biblical truths is irrelevant as to their truth.This is an ongoing conflation of the mores of the 1950s with all periods before then. It just wasn't the case.
What is a modernist strain of Christianity. You are not even a Christian. How can you know what Christianity is fullstop.Nah, it's just evidence for an strongly anti-modernist strain of Christianity.
I never said they were the same thing. I said laws are often based off social norms. How did SSM come about. It happened because society had changed and were more open to SSM.An extreme claim! LOL! It is a literal fact that "laws" and "social norms" are not the same things.
Have you not heard the famous quote "the personal is political which was part of 2nd wave feminism and set the stage for bringing the political into the private sphere.Not sure what that means.
I have studied extensively the early churh. Yes Christianity came from basically a Jewish sect and there were a number. But the important destinction is that it became the only sect or even religion as far as Islam that opened up to non natives or sect members.I suggest you learn more of the early history of your relgion then. In the early decades what we now call Christianity (sometimes called in these contexts the "Jesus movement" or "The Way") was a sect of Judaism. Importantly for my point in inclusion is that Judaism is from outside western culture.
Surely this is your personal opinion and a belief. If Christ is truely the saviour of all humankind then surely this is the greatest thing. Your begging the question that what you believe is the greatest good.I am not kidding and do you really need to ask? (I know you know.)
I think its an assumption that these things did not actually come from Christian values. Like democracy was used in the early church that the congregation was to affirm the leaders and the leaders were servants to the people. Or that all are equal in Christ as the basis for equality and human rights.It didn't and no one said it did. Certainly not me. What I said is that the things from ancient western culture that *I* find most valuable or important are most certainly not Christian -- democracy, mathematics, the early stages of science, as is the case for the best things of the Enlightenment.
Which is another way of saying they were intolerant of the Jews and Christians in the end.Finally the Romans were quite tolerant of other religions, but the did expect everyone to make the appropriate supplications to the civic and imperial cult. Jews (including Christians) being by then monotheists refused to do so and this cause some trouble.
Wrote about what moral basis for sex and family. Which set of morals were they referring to. Was it Venus. Or was this just some personal opinion of a philosopher.Roman philosophers wrote on sexual morality and family without any input from Christianity. This is reality, not some "bias view".
Actually it means exactly what it says. This verse includes 'neither Jew or Gentile'. It was that all were equal in Christ when it came to salvation. The free were no more better than the slave or the Jew to the Gentile. The Jews were regarded as special to Judaism and the frre were seen as higher status than the slaves. But all were the same in Christ."neither slave nor free" was about salvation through the death of Jesus -- anyone could be saved. It didn't change actual social status of anyone, slave, woman, or Jew.
Well the west also brought psychodelic drugs. Maybe thats why he thought the west was the best lol.You're going to ask Mr. Morrison for that. Perhaps it was ironic "best"ness given that in the same song he sings of wanting to kill his own mother.
Fair enoughWe're going to need a part Ic as I have other things to do...
You failed to understand that Ezek 28 is not speaking about the devil. It's actually about Lucifer, who was not created as a devil, but became "the Devil" or Satan, after He rebelled against God and sinned.Ezek 28:
15 “You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
16 “By the abundance of your trade
You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.
17 “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
I put you before kings,
That they may see you.
18 “By the multitude of your iniquities,
In the unrighteousness of your trade
You profaned your sanctuaries.
Therefore I have brought fire from the midst of you;
It has consumed you,
And I have turned you to ashes on the earth
In the eyes of all who see you.
19 “All who know you among the peoples
Are appalled at you;
You have become terrified
And you will cease to be forever.”’”
========================
Malachi 4:
“For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,” says the Lord of hosts, “so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.” 2 “But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. 3 You will tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says the Lord of hosts.
I find your logic illusive just then
"cease to be forever"
"wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life"
destroyed as in "by reducing them to ashes" 2 Peter 2
No doubt the second death of Rev 20 does involve a great deal of suffering and torment but it ends just as Ezek 28 states even for the devil himself
One would have thought no demand was required if people just went with what was preferred by the person.No, because the pronoun police demand that certain pronouns be used by others. No one here has made that demand. Are you?
According to this post you sound awfully pro-terrorist. Shame!Well, there we have it. Comitting the textbook example of a war crime is "bold and brave". Extreme solutions are needed to save the lives of your people. You just have to be keep being brutal to solve the problem.
This kind of reasoning has been used to rationalise the worst atrocities of mankind. But with an army as strong as yours and the world too fractured to oppose you, perhaps this time you can kill your way to utopia.
No. SHeldrake is a fraud.AI Overview
Morphic resonance is
a theory proposed by biologist Rupert Sheldrake that suggests all natural systems, including organisms and crystals, have a collective memory that influences their form and behavior over time. This proposed mechanism of "formative causation" claims that past forms and behaviors of similar systems create a cumulative, invisible influence that shapes the development and patterns of present systems, rather than being governed by fixed physical laws alone. It implies that nature is habitual and that new behaviors can spread more rapidly through a species because of this shared, non-physical memory.
Key concepts
Collective memory: Each species, from animals to plants, possesses a collective memory that individuals can access and to which they contribute.
Habitual nature: The theory suggests that the regularities of nature are more like habits that have been reinforced by repetition, rather than being immutable laws.
Similarity: The resonance is based on similarity. The more similar an organism or system is to past ones, the greater the influence it will have.
Behavior and form: Morphic resonance is said to influence both the physical form and the behavior of a system. For example, it is proposed to explain instincts and how certain patterns of behavior, like a new trick learned by rats in one location, can be learned more quickly by other rats of the same breed elsewhere.
Individual memory: The resonance of a system with its own past is also suggested as a way to explain individual memory, where memories are not entirely stored in the brain but are accessed through a resonance with the brain's past states.
I dont think its unfortunate at all. Things have changed. People are realizing what its doing to America and the problems it is causing.The unfortunate reality is that many Cuban Americans who immigrated illegally and benefited from American generosity now strongly oppose immigration reform for others in similar situations.
After the Clean Coal we will have the Healthy Drugs.Release Honduran President found guilty of importing millions of dollars of drugs into the country: It doesn't matter. Trump did it so he's keeping us safe.
Show me the proof that any of this actually happened.This. If they are in the water without a ship in the middle of the ocean, they are no longer a threat and therefore no longer a target.
If you want to remove them from the board, you send out a craft and detain them. You don't send another missle their way.
It sounded to me like you misinterpreted the term strongman to mean someone who tends to be fair and generous. Terms like strong as in virtuous, and strong willed, and strongman are not synonymous. Therefore it doesn't make any sense to compare the term strong as in virtuous to the term strongman just because they both contain the word "strong". Otherwise one might as well throw strong odor into the mix.Please explain how that changes my observation?
It's likely if this didn't happen before.
That is all true yet it remains essential to understand there is no Greek word 'lust' in the NT. In the English the word 'lust' is inherently immoral/bad, but the same cannot be said for the underlying Greek word for 'strong desire'. And even strong (physical) desire within marriage should be considered good with the morally 'right' attitude. The LXX even uses the word 'agape' in Song of Songs in an erotic context. Strong physical desire in marriage without the proper holistic love is selfish and probably ends up hurting the other party. But there is a Christian tendency to Asceticism (growing very strong already in the 2nd century AD) that seems to depart from the Jewish perspective, and that views physical desire by definition as sinful, or at best just tolerated for the sake or pro-creation.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.
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.
There's a sense in which this is all fulfilling the oldest of promises and prophecies, before they even ENTERED the land in the first place!Isaiah 49:1-26 Listen to Me you peoples far distant,...... But Zion [the Holy Land] said: The Lord has forsaken me, and my Lord has forgotten me…. The children which you will have, after you have lost the former ones, shall say to you: This place is too small for us, give us more space to dwell . Then you will say to yourself: Who has begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am alone and desolate, and where have they come from? Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders, for they shall not be ashamed that have faith in Me.
Now let's try something a bit different.Hebrews 12:22-24 But you have come unto mount Zion......
We Christians are the latter children of Zion, Spiritually of the twelve tribes, the true Israelites of God, all the faithful Christian peoples from every tribe, race, nation and language. Revelation 5:9-10
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.Texas Senate passed a bill that forbids public schools from teaching history and current events about race that might upset students.
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.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.