From the previous article:

Small protests have been going on nightly outside Portland's immigration processing facility since Mr. Trump's second term began in January. There have been occasional flare-ups, including in June, but for weeks the demonstrations attracted only a few dozen people — until the Trump administration mobilized the Oregon National Guard on Sept. 28 against Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek's wishes.

tdidymas said:

Spiritual death is the result of sin. Physical death is natural, since mankind was barred from the tree of life. Don't get physical and spiritual death mixed up. Paul is talking about spiritual death in this whole argument from ch. 3 to 8. Infants who die in infancy are welcome in heaven because they have not corrupted themselves, thus they are innocent. Again, the "imputed sin" argument is unconvincing.

Ok, so you don't interpret it literally. You think it's figurative language.

Click to expand...

Ro 7:9 is absolutely not figurative, nor did I say it was.
Paul is speaking there of his own experience from the vantage point of his present understanding.
Before he realized that the law condemned him to death, he was alive.
"When the commandment came;" i.e., when Paul came to the realization that he stood guilty before the law and was condemned to death.

tdidymas said:

That's your prerogative. But again, it's an argument based on the premise of imputed sin. I'm trying to find out what Paul's meaning is, as opposed to what people think he meant.

Click to expand...

Ro 5:17, 18-19, 14-16, is not mere premise, it is Biblical fact:

death is the wages of sin (Ro 6:23),
sin is trangression of the law (1 Jn 3:4),
where there is no law, there is no transgresion/sin (Ro 4:15) and, therefore no death.

There was no law between Adam and Moses and, therefore, no transgression/sin to cause their deaths.
Then what caused the deaths of those between Adam and Moses when they did not sin against the law?
Their deaths were caused by the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19) to all mankind when there was no law to transgress and cause death.

tdidymas said:

Those that are by nature objects of God's wrath are those walking according to the sons of disobedience. How can an infant who has not even had a chance to commit sin be included in this wrath? Again, the "imputed sin" argument requires that you assume it to be true. Honestly, I don't really want to continue a debate with you, since you aren't using accepted methods of exegesis. And don't say I'm not either, because I'm the one asking the question - I WANT to believe, but can't, if the argument is not convincing.
Spiritual death is the result of sin. Physical death is natural,

Click to expand...

Physical death wasn't "natural" until Adam sinned. . .physical death is the consequence of Adam's sin.

tdidymas said:

since mankind was barred from the tree of life. Don't get physical and spiritual death mixed up. Paul is talking about spiritual death in this whole argument from ch. 3 to 8. Infants who die in infancy are welcome in heaven because they have not corrupted themselves, thus they are innocent. Again, the "imputed sin" argument is unconvincing.

Ok, so you don't interpret it literally. You think it's figurative language.

Click to expand...

Now I see where your problem is.
Mine is not a figurative but a literal understansing of Ro 5:12-19 (post #7), where in Ro 5:17, 18-19 Adam's sin is imputed to all those of Adam, and which imputation is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for Christ's righteousness being imputed to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

Fervent said:

It seems to me that for every exegete there is a unique position on eschatology that only vaguely coalesces with others. I believe in multiple fulfillments, because it seems to me that every prophet has prophecies for their immediate audience but then a fuller as of yet unfulfilled element. Sort of like how Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled within his lifetime and for the kings he prophesied to but then found a fuller fulfillment in Jesus' first coming. But I have yet to see two commenters that align completely with one another, even when they both claim to belong to the same camp.

Click to expand...

There is a stream of consevative agreement in history--obviously, those who reject God's truth are going to offer their competing positions. On peripheral matters there are going to be opinions, though they don't challenge most conventional beliefs.

The prophets were given not only to speak to their own generation but to also provide the wider context of God's redemptive plan. So, we should not be confused over the difference between literal fulfillment and allusions to Messiah's coming.

But saying that multiple interpretations over a single passage is illegitimate. Allusions to greater truth is a matter of spiritual perspective, and yet there can be a double fulfillment in this regard, or some kind of universal truth.

ThatRobGuy said:

As opposed to
- the lab leak theory is racist
- "if you get vaccinated, you won't catch covid"
- "cloth masks work because it spreads primary via droplets
- "natural immunity isn't reliable

Why was there no permanent professional consequences for those bits of misinformation?

Click to expand...

What is you point? That this guy (I don't know his name), Bret Weinstein, and all the other RW culture war "martyrs" you have brought up are just as unworthy of that appellation as the titular Mr. Kirk and his "half staff" honors? If so, congrats, else this is a dead horse. I concur with @GoldenBoy89 .

Everywhere the weather is cooler.

HARK! said:

I thought that you understood that criminals are being arrested for their crimes. Glad we got that cleared up; by why make bring race into it?

Click to expand...

There are various kinds of crimes and various ways of apprehending criminals. I think what is concerning many people is what they see as a policy to treat all illegal aliens as if they were violent offenders.

Zambians are producing electric vehicles.

VHCLS

stevevw said:

Lol I think this is silly that everything is termed in political ideologies. If you like a welfare system that looks after the basic health of its citizens which is a human right its now socialism. If you believe in traditional marriage its now radical nationalism.

Click to expand...

What I wrote is a parody, a vision of your country as seen by a US conservative.

stevevw said:

Don't get me wrong, we have a private health care system as well and people if they want can opt in and out. But basic health needs are supported by the government. I would have thought that a basic commonsense and duty of care really for any humane society. It does not mean its socialist. It just means your a decent human society lol.

Click to expand...

No, to US conservatives it just means socialist tyranny. Resistance to socialism is more important than human health for a true MAGA conservative.

stevevw said:

I lived in England and they had a similar system. I mean everyone pays a basic levy for funding the health system. England had a higher levy but that included dentistry and basic needs for mums and babies ect. Its not socialism but a basic right.

Are you serious. The commentary you are giving of my own country is completely some other country. We only had a conservative givernment in a few years ago lol. The States have different sides of politics in power. Where I live in Qld there is a conservative government in and its certainly not pushing any socialist agenda lol. Quite the opposite. Trying to undo the the Leftist ideas like open borders and all that.

Click to expand...

What about more dangerous leftist ideas like single payer health care? Are your conservatives not trying to undo that? What about gun control?
Many conservatives here would say that if you had been able to keep your guns you could have prevented the socialists for imposing single payer health care on you in the first place.

stevevw said:

Governments come and god. The US just had a socialist leaning government and now its a conservative one. Europe nations are moving in and out of socialist and conservative governments.

Generally speaking there has been a polarisation and radicalisation of the Left and Right. The extremes coming to the center. Thats why you hear of Left ideas like Marxism and dismantling the western colonial oppressive system. On the other side restoring the traditions and national identity. Its becoming like a war.

Yes like the Dems were and still are doing lol. Cultivating antisemetism. Growing the culture war that the revolution must rise up to destroy the oppressors. We must have equal outcomes for all so the oppressed must rise up to stop this evil even if that means violence. .

Click to expand...

That's better, now you are sounding like a true Conservative.

Larniavc said:

Are you sure? I worked it out as about 4.5%

Click to expand...

I looked the figure up, that was the amount I found. I thought it was a bit high, but the point still stands.

Good morning all! I haven't been around for a bit. I came here to look for a post I made quite some time ago, and now that I found it I just thought I would stop by. I hope all of you are doing well

caffeinated hermit said:

( Posting In Fellowship)

I'm struggling, a bit, with what to think of all this. On one hand, I feel like people who have been peacefully under the radar for a decade or more should, perhaps, be given a pathway toward applying for a legal status. On the other hand, we don't want violent gang members, child abusers, and unvetted creeps roaming around.

If I snuck into a country illegally, yeah, I'd be living in fear of discovery. That kind of goes with the territory when you break the law and, technically, shouldn't be somewhere. I'm sensing a degree of tension between idealized notions of immigration and the reality on the ground. I've also heard Anglican clerics advocate for compassionate, no-limits help for illegal immigrants. I have yet to see anyone advocating for this welcome unvetted illegal individuals or families into their homes.

How do you guys feel about it as Catholics?

Click to expand...

I have similar feelings. However, tragically, the Biden administration forced the issue by allowing 10 to 20 million people to enter the country during one administration. If people are willing to deport and apply legally I am all for letting in many many more as long as they love America and wish to assimilate into our culture.

stevevw said:

Just on Kimmels return. I never really watched him. I don't always get American humur though some of it is side splitting when I do get it. Like the Adam Sandler or Jim Carey comedy and some of SNL with Chevy Chase and all that ect.
But from what I have seen of Kimmel he always seemed too serious when telling the jokes. The body language didn't match the humor. Anyway that may have ben because I did not get the humor. But I sense theres more to this than just humor.
I am not sure people will believe him now. But its not just Kimmel. Its the general humor at the expense of others or spreading lies. Or just making comedy about politics. I have always thought that entertainers should stay right out of politics as far as letting their personal opinions influence their art.
If they are going to make fun then do it to both sides. Just joke about life and issues in general. Make a commentry on life as it is. Thats what comedy use to be about. Not injecting some poisonous political message that actually ends up not being funny lol.
I see these celebs like De Niro who I love as an actor and looked up to, their reputations and legacy and bank accounts go straight down the drain as soon as they open their mouths on political issues today. Stick to acting Bobby please.
And Snow White, Roger and Emma well lol. Roger what are you doing. You are the Floyd don't tarnish that for the many who grew up with your music lol.

Click to expand...

Only his followers/fans will believe him.
He knew what he was saying and chose to imply what he did. But it bit him back which is good.
But sadly these Left leanings ones learn little when they lies show them for who they are.
Johnny Carson was a famous late night talk show host in the US and he barely touched into politics and he said that it should be kept out of things.
A rock star Gene Simmons says celebrities should keep their "pie hole" shut about politics and just do their job.
So some get it, but sadly some of the Left leaning celebrities think it's ok to say whatever they want no matter how disgusting.

When John O’Leary walked onto the set of “Soul on Fire,” the upcoming film inspired by his own life, he wasn’t stepping into a recreation of his childhood; he was stepping into it.

The scenes of family dinners, prayer around the table and long talks with his father weren’t filmed on a soundstage, but inside his parents’ actual home in St. Louis, Missouri.

It was the same screened-in porch where his father once gently urged him to stop running from the past and the same church where he exchanged vows with his wife.

“This film was shot where it happened,” the 48-year-old motivational speaker and author told The Christian Post. “When you see John having dinner with his family, that’s actually the dinner table where I still have meals with my family. That’s my mom and dad’s house. The scene on the screen porch where John Corbett is talking to Joel Courtney, that’s a real conversation I had with my hero, my dad, on that screened-in porch.”

Continued below.

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of our death.
Amen

Jerry N. said:

I’ve given this much thought and you might be correct, and a lot of people agree with you. I will stay on the fence for a while, but your idea fits much better to the loving God I know.

Click to expand...

Just to add, not that you don't already know, but God is a Just God as well, executing righteous judgment.

Jesus once said:

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members "should perish", and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (And Perish)

He doesn't say, pluck it out and feed it to the ants, or torture it forever. It's better that just one of your eyes perish, than the entire body, seems to be his point.

In like manner, in my understanding, giving a rebellious, ungrateful and disobedient person, who call Jesus Lord, Lord, the right to eat of the Tree of life and receive immortality, and then inviting them to dwell among, influence and disrupt the perfect righteousness which will be the Kingdom of God, would defile the Kingdom, bring chaos and sin back to His Kingdom. It is better for God to follow His Own instruction, and cast this offending person out, than to leave it, and allow it to infect the entire Kingdom.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Harley. said:

I am typing this in a rather frantic state, so be warned, i dont know how clear this will be.

I have spent the last 2 years trying to get my porn addiction under control and I just CANT. I am DAMNING myself due to my weakness. I have tried everything from website blockers to just "manning up" and controlling the urges. Yet nothing works. I developed this addiction in childhood and I am reaping what ive sown now. God has been SO patient with me, and yet I keep failing him! I keep turning away! I want to stop!! But I can't! If I could press a freaking button that would eliminate my sex drive I would hit it in a heartbeat. I don't care about sex, I just want to stop failing God. Please, someone HELP.

Click to expand...

Harley sexual desire and sexual union be one of the most powerful unions known to humanity. There be no easy answer nor easy remedy to your problem considering that our laws allow such easy access to porn on the internet. It be a temptation to most if not all . You be in the prime of your youth at 24. Are you married .

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

Am I right to read these statements as saying you believe union with God is in the mind? Why would you not see union with God as being spiritual and that being joined with Him makes us one spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17)?

Click to expand...

IDK why you might read them that way; I have no reason to think union with God is strictly in the mind.

Michie said:

Charlie Kirk was murdered recently while talking to a group of young people at an open forum on a college campus. At his funeral, speakers presented different messages. Charlie’s wife, Erika, said of the man who murdered her husband:


President Donald Trump spoke after Erika. He acknowledged that:



The stark contrast between their comments presents challenging questions to Christians. How should personal belief impact public life and politics? Love and forgiveness or hate and vindictiveness? What is the role of Christian faith in the increasingly harsh world of politics?

Throughout history, Christians have taken five different approaches to culture and politics. Each suggests a different road Christians might take today.

Separatists


Continued below.

What’s next for MAGA Christians?

How should personal belief impact public life and politics

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

Here is my humble attempt at breaking this down in comparison to Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

A Separatists basically means being "in the world but not of the world". This could hamper the mandate given to us by Jesus Christ of Nazareth to spread the Good News. Many take this direction as no interactions at all and create an isolated community afterall, one can not spread the Gospel if they do not go into the den of sinners. Jesus Christ of Nazareth was not a Separatist.

A Conversionist use to be spreading the Gospel however in recent decades it has seen a shift in focus from individual conversion to cultural control aka Dominionisim. This is not tbe mandate given to us by Jesus Christ of Nazareth to lay dominion over a nation. Jesus Christ of Nazareth was not a Neo-Conversionist.

A Synthesist seeks to integrate, reconcile, or blend different, sometimes seemingly opposing, ideas, doctrines, or traditions into a coherent whole. This does not agree with the One Gospel delivered to the Saints. Jesus Christ of Nazareth was not a Synthesist.

A Dualist divides reality into two opposed principles, such as the soul being good and the body being bad, or the world being separated into purely sacred and secular spheres. Historically, extreme forms of dualism, like Gnosticism (which posited an evil creator of the material world), are rejected by orthodox Christianity as heresy because they deny the ultimate sovereignty of one good God and the goodness of his creation. Jesus Christ of Nazareth was not a Dualist.

A Culturalist in the theological sense, often termed the "Christ of Culture" position, is a view that actively interprets and adjusts Christian teachings to conform to the prevailing cultural norms, values, and philosophical ideals. Jesus Christ of Nazareth was not a Culturalist.

So what category does He fit in?

Jesus Christ of Nazareth is a Transformationist. He rejected isolation (Separatism) and cultural conformity (Culturalism) but also focused on renewal rather than mere dominion (Neo-Conversionism). His method was to actively engage the world to transform individuals and society by the singular truth of the Gospel, affirming God's good creation while calling for its redemption and renewal, thus establishing the Kingdom of God.

Be blessed.

Amo2 said:

No

Click to expand...

Is that because they don’t want to do rapes in Heaven or because God stops them?