FAITH-IN-HIM said:

I bat it doesn’t make sense to you that that a virgin could give birth to a child who later called himself the Son of God, died on the cross, and was resurrected three days afterward.

How can I explain you that prophet Ezekiel predicted around 590 BC that the Jewish people would be gathered from all corners of the earth to form a nation. This prophecy, delivered by God to Ezekiel nearly 2,500 years before Israel became a modern state in 1948.

As an atheist who does not believe in God or the authenticity of Biblical writings, I recognize that our perspectives on this matter differ considerably. Given these fundamental differences, I do not see value in debating this issue further. I respect your right to hold your beliefs, and I will continue to adhere to my convictions.

Click to expand...

It's a matter of definition. The use of the phrase "born again" to describe the conversion experience is pretty much limited to Evangelical Protestantism. Catholics and other Traditional Christians have a conversion experience, just different way of describing it. A more important difference is whether or not the present state of Israel represents a fulfillment of God's promise to the Jews. That is definitely an Evangelical Protestant position that not even all Jews agree with.

Jackie Shroyer, the 44-year-old wife of late Minnesota missionary Beau Shroyer, who is alleged to have been the mastermind behind a murder-for-hire plot that led to his death in Lubango, Angola, in October 2024, has been convicted and sentenced to 24 years in prison.

Troy M. Easton, lead pastor of the Lakes Area Vineyard Church in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, where Shroyer and her late husband were members before moving to Lubango to do missionary work under the auspices of longtime global missionary organization SIM USA, confirmed the conviction in a statement to his congregation on Nov. 5.

“It saddens me deeply to share the following update regarding the legal proceedings involving Jackie Shroyer. This morning, I was notified that Jackie was convicted by an Angolan court of involvement in the murder of her husband, Beau Shroyer, on October 25, 2024. Jackie is expected to serve her sentence in an Angolan detention facility,” Easton said.

Continued below.

MarcusGregor said:

That is pretty weird. He's doing this with the threat of a ground war in Venezuela and blowing up "drug boats" in the Caribbean, but fentanyl doesn't come from Venezuela or the Caribbean...

Click to expand...

It's not like the WMDs have to be in the country, or exist, for the US to invade because of them.

MarcusGregor said:

I'm not sure what this means or how it can be... enforced?

Click to expand...

It wont be, executive orders are not laws.

The Liturgist said:

I’m not sure I get what your point is or the reason for your outrage at Mark.

Click to expand...

I'm just saying it's disrespectful to regard God as a mere "designer." "Outrage" seems to be someone else's reaction to the observation. As I pointed out before, it's not something that will send one to hell; it's just selling God short.

The Liturgist said:

Also you seem to be … upset, curiously, about the idea of humans being holy aside from the soul.

Click to expand...

Since no one mentioned that here, I'm puzzled why you would think so. I suppose if you thought that God using nature to make our bodies, as opposed to directly giving us a living soul, means bodies can't be holy, then maybe. But no one said that, either.
Edit: there was the issue of an odd belief that assumed the natural is imperfect and the supernatural is not. But I don't think that this is what you're saying here.

The Liturgist said:

but Genesis 1 is important as a prophetic text, for in Holy Week God remade us as he made us in Genesis 1, on Great and Holy Friday, before resting on the Sabbath and rising from the dead on Sunday, the first day, also typologically symbolizing the mystical eighth day of creation, that of the Life of the World to Come.

Click to expand...

That's one of the things it is.
1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

But it's also a clear distinction between God and the gods of other nations, making clear that the God of Abraham is the omnipotent Creator with no other gods at all. He did not have to bring the universe into His control; He created it to do His will.

The Liturgist said:

Roman Catholics had historically celebrated the Dormition, which is also called the Assumption, but some erroneously believe she did not repose but was assumed while still alive,

Click to expand...

The Western Church teaches that after her life, Mary was assumed, body and soul into heaven. The Eastern Church seems to put more emphasis on this moment, but other than noting that the Dormition of the Theotokos is often depicted in Orthodox churches, I don't know much about any differences in theology.

None of this is actually an issue for salvation, as God makes it clear what will save us.

"And you shall be hated by all men for My Name's sake.....if they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you."

(Matthew 10:22, John 15:20)

SabbathBlessings said:

Hebrew 4 is quoting Old Testament. It has 5 OT references in a short passage. Without knowing and understanding these references one will come to the wrong conclusion of this passage.

God already promised He would not change the words of His covenant Psa 88:34 Deut 4:13 Isa 56:6 not a jot or tittle Mat 5:18-so no Scriptures can say otherwise what God promised clearly He would not be altered. The author of Hebrews did not change God’s times and laws, that’s what He warned us about would happen but not by God. Dan7:25 Isa 8:20.

Click to expand...

So then every jot and tittle of the Torah applies to Christians?

Yes or no.

And don't go back peddling now.

Dan1988 said:

The problem with Thee Shepherd is, that He can't teach you anything and you can't even speak to Him. Unless you of 'course you believe you can ascend to heaven to hang out with Him.

Click to expand...

The problem you refer to does not exist.

" You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." John 14:14

"14 For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom every family[a] in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

20 Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen." Ephesians 3 14-21

Jesus is alive, and will hear our prayers, and can absolutely teach anyone who asks.

I had to throw in the description... Merry Christmas Everyone! God Bless! We Love You!
And God Bless everyone here as well! Merry Christmas!

Haven't you, or someone else, done this exact same thing already? I'm getting SERIOUS deja vu from this.

DamianWarS said:

Let's agree that calling Sunday the Sabbath day is biblically indefensible

Click to expand...

You and I can agree to that of course. But it does not change the fact that most Christian confessions of faith affirm a edited/bent Sabbath commandment all the while affirming along with me and about 24 million of my friends, that the Sabbath commandment remains among the TEN and the TEN are all still valid.

DamianWarS said:

, regardless of how your list of dead guys sees it.

Click to expand...

Sad that when someone dies you think the Bible truths they promoted die with them. But you have free will of course

DamianWarS said:

While we are there, let's also agree that the sum of using biblically indefensible claims against biblically indefensible claims is still biblically indefensible.

Click to expand...

Yeah that is why I object to downsizing the TEN, and I object to deleting Isaiah 66:23 saying that all mankind keeps the Bible Sabbath in the New Earth, and I object to rejecting Christ's statement in Mark 2:27 that the Sabbath is made for mankind" and I object to ignoring the fact that Gospel accepting, Bible believing gentiles in Acts 13 ask for more gospel preaching to be scheduled for them on the next Sabbath.

I choose the Bible even when it is inconvenient to preferences against the Bible Sabbath

============ these are details so blatantly obvious even AI seem to get the point

BobRyan said:

.Conclusion

• 1 Corinthians 16:2 is not describing a Sunday worship gathering. It is Paul’s instruction for each believer to privately set aside money at home on the first day of the week, so that when he came, the collection would already be prepared.

==
Q: is there a meeting described in 1 Cor 16 for week day 1
A: No

Q: So then it would be incorrect to list 1 Cor 16 as an example of gathering on the first day of the week for worship or to remember the resurrection

A: That’s correct — it would be incorrect to use 1 Corinthians 16:2 as an example of believers gathering for worship or to commemorate the resurrection on the first day of the week.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

Why? (AI continues to address 1 Cor 16)

• The Greek wording “par’ heautō” (translated “lay by him in store”) means each person privately, by himself, at home.
• Paul’s instruction was about setting aside money individually so that when he arrived, the collection would already be prepared.
• There is no mention of a worship service, communal gathering, or resurrection remembrance in this passage.
• “Lay by him in store” — The Greek phrase (par’ heautō) literally means “by himself” or “at home.”
  • This suggests Paul was instructing each believer to set aside money privately, not to bring it to a public meeting.
  • Purpose: Paul wanted the funds ready when he arrived, so there would be no need for hurried collections.
  • Not a Worship Gathering: The verse does not describe a church service or communal worship on Sunday. It is about personal preparation for a future offering.
  • Contrast with Acts 20:7: That passage does describe believers gathering on the first day of the week. But 1 Corinthians 16:2 is about individual action, not a meeting.

Click to expand...

Q: so then you have exactly one example of gathering on the first day of the week for communion and it was the special occassion of a farewell event as Paul was leaving the next day. There is no record of the Acts 20 gathering being held on the Lord's Day. Since this is the one and only record of a service held on Sunday ,and no text says that the first day is the Lord's day, and they continued worship services on Sabbzth Saturday, does scripture say they met weekly on Sunday for worship

A: You’ve summarized the evidence very well — and the answer is no, Scripture does not say that the New Testament church met weekly on Sunday for worship.

What the Bible Records

• Sabbath (Saturday) gatherings:
  • Acts 13:42–44 — Gentiles asked Paul to preach again the next Sabbath.
  • Acts 16:13 — Paul went to a place of prayer on the Sabbath.
  • Acts 17:2 — Paul reasoned in the synagogue for three Sabbaths.
  • Acts 18:4 — Paul preached every Sabbath to Jews and Gentiles.
• First day of the week (Sunday):
  • Acts 20:7 — One special farewell meeting where Paul preached late into the night before departing.
  • 1 Corinthians 16:2 — Instruction for believers to set aside money privately at home on the first day, not a worship service.

Key Observations

• Only one recorded Sunday gathering (Acts 20:7): And it was a unique farewell occasion, not a regular weekly service.
• No text calls Sunday “the Lord’s Day”: The New Testament never equates the “first day of the week” with “the Lord’s Day.”
• No command to change the Sabbath: The Bible consistently identifies the Sabbath as the seventh day, and there is no passage that institutes Sunday as a weekly day of worship.
• Pattern of worship: The consistent pattern in Acts is Sabbath observance and preaching, even among Gentiles.

✅ Conclusion

Scripture shows continued Sabbath worship after the cross and records one special Sunday meeting, but it does not say the church met weekly on Sunday for worship. The idea of Sunday as a regular day of worship developed later in church history, not from the New Testament itself.

RamiC said:

Thank you. If they were Australians seeking to escape Brisbane's summer that makes a bit more sense.

Click to expand...

Makes sense to whom? It has been -3 F here. Escape from summer makes little sense to me.

How amazingly different Paul’s method of “provoking the Jews to jealousy” (Rom 11:11), from that pursued by many Jewish mission workers today! From them the Jew must have a “special” place as a Jew. In some quarters they are even organizing “Messianic assemblies” (the Lord Jesus will not be returning as the Messiah again—NC).

All this, we cannot but feel, is kowtowing to Jewish flesh, and hinders their salvation. Jews now are common sinners, who have for the present been set aside nationally (but will bring them back as always—NC), and must come to rely, as individual sinners, hopelessly guilty and helpless, upon the shed Blood of Christ, and upon Him risen from the dead. It is an awful thing to make present day “Jewish” claims, when God says Jews are, during this present dispensation, no different from Gentiles, before Him: but are just sinners!

There are those who insist that the Jew has a special place right through this dispensation; that he must always be “first,” that there is a difference, although Goad says plainly in Romans 3 that there is no difference as to the Lordship of Christ and the availability of salvation to the “whosevers,” Jew or Gentile. If Paul were among us today, he would abhor and decry the special, esoteric methods of approach to the Jew in vogue in some pretentious quarters today. Become all things” (1Co 9:22) to the Jew, to win him, certainly. Paul did. But tell him the truth that he is just a whosoever.

What the poor, Jewish exiles need this hour is a Paul to go right in among them with a “whosoever” message for sinners, “provoking them to jealousy” (Rom 11:11) by boasting in a Savior whom their nation has lost—a nation to whom God is not now offering a Messiah, but instead salvation, as common “whosoever” no—distinction people, ordinary guilty lost sinners. In Acts 28 God through Paul officially closed the door to the national offer of the Gospel to the Jews; therefor to treat the Jew as having a special place with God, is to deny Scripture.

In Acts 28:25, 28 Paul officially shuts the door to national Israel: “Well spoke the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers . . . Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it” (Rom 2:14, 15).

Since this awful use of Isaiah 6, the Gospel has no Jewish bounds or bonds whatever, and it is presumption and danger now, to give the Jews any other place than that of common sinners! “No distinction between Jew and Greek,” says God (Rom 10:12). Those who preach thus have God’s blessing. Those that would give any special place whatever to Jews, since that day, do so contrary to the Gospel; and, we fear, for private advantage.

Tell Jews the truth! Their Messiah was offered to their nation, and rejected. God is not offering a Messiah to Israel now, but has Himself rejected them: all except a “remnant,” who leave Jewish earthly hopes, break down into sinners only, and receive a sinners Savior—not a Jewish one! Then they become “partakers of the heavenly calling” (Heb 3:1).


—Wm R Newell (1868-1956)



MJS daily devotional excerpt for December 16

“Self-disappointment is a very different thing from self-judgment. Indeed, if there were true self-judgment there would never have to be self-disappointment. If in honesty and sobriety of heart I have judged ‘that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing,’ I shall certainly not expect anything from myself, and it has been well said that where there is no expectation there can be no disappointment.

“But I feel sure that many young believers, and I dare say some old ones too, are very familiar with the wretched and depressing experience of self-disappointment. They have made many fresh starts; they have often been stirred up, and have made up their minds to be more for Christ; they have thought, ‘I shall do better now; I am more earnest about it than I was before’; but it has all ended in disappointment.

“They have no idea that they are trying to improve themselves; they would repudiate such a thought; they suppose that they know better than to look for good in themselves. And yet their disappointment is the plain proof that, in spite of all their knowledge of Scripture, they have expected to make themselves different, for they are disappointed because they have not succeeded in doing so.”

Charles Andrew Coates (1862-1945)

essentialsaltes said:

Alabama’s senior senator has accelerated attacks on Americans of the Islamic faith and called for their forced deportation.​

U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville accelerated attacks on Muslim Americans over the weekend, calling for the forced deportation of those of the Islamic faith.

The Alabama Republican’s remarks followed attacks on a school for Muslim children and Somali immigrants in Minnesota, accompanied by the filing of two bills targeting Muslims.

In recent days, Tuberville accelerated his assaults. On Sunday, Tuberville’s Facebook account posted a statement that said Islam is “not a religion. It’s a cult.” and claimed that “Islamists aren’t here to assimilate. They’re here to conquer.”

“Stop worrying about offending the pearl clutchers,” the statement said. “We’ve got to SEND THEM HOME NOW or we’ll become the United Caliphate of America.”

He also referred to the Islamic Academy of Alabama, which withdrew a proposal relocate to Hoover amid criticism and threats.

“I was asked about it,” Tuberville said during his comments on Thursday. “And I said the only place this Islamic academy should be moving is out of Alabama and out of our country.”

A spokesperson for the school declined to comment on Tuberville’s statement, referring instead to a news release published after the Hoover planning and zoning committee denied the school’s proposal to move its site from Homewood.

“Not one word of these allegations reflects the teachings, values, curriculum or culture of our school,” Stacy Abdein, the school’s assistant principal said in the news release. “They are irresponsible fabrications that fuel fear, prejudice and division.”

Click to expand...

Well, if they really are here to conquer, maybe we should let them conquer Alabama first, and then send them away.

stevevw said:

I think all the recent conflicts on immigration and national identity is a recent problem due to an unreal idea about mixing cultures where they can all have rights to their own culture while at the same time trying to have a unified nation of people under the one cultural identity.

Click to expand...

Unreal or not, that's what the founders bequeathed to us in the United States.

The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

[E]very one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

Say it aint so said:

the very same group of people

Click to expand...

By a one or two people. I still have no idea what conspiracy theories are floating around.

I've recently been watching Murder She Wrote because I missed it.

They are doing a reboot of Murder She Wrote staring Jamie Lee Cutis as Jessica Fletcher.

I miss Out of This World.

A lot of shows I used to watch are available on streaming so that's been nice.

fhansen said:

What does that even mean? If we were actively breaking the commandments we only prove that we don't even know Christ, let alone love Him and neighbor.

Click to expand...

you're conflating not to mention bifurcating law. in ex 20 the 10 are introduced. Ex 24 there is a blood covenant (all before the tablets) In between those chapters is a whole pile of laws and commandments not of Moses but of God and this is the covenant that was formed to which the 10 are an inseparable part. the covenant is not just regarding the 10, it's the whole thing. so when you say "actively breaking" what you are really are saying is there are some we can actively break and others we can't but the distinction is biblically indefensible and we need to relay on post biblical tampering to understand what laws of the old covenant are not obsolete and what laws are obsolete.

the 4th is not a moral claim. by letter the instruction is regarding ritual rest. your remarks about the 4th are not about rest they are about devotion to God and I suspect you mean something other than physical rest. the 4th is also unambiguously on the 7th day, I'm not sure what day you keep but if your tradition can speak for you it's not the 7th day. the 4th is also as much about not working for yourself as it is not causing others to work. this would demand us to go off the grid during the Sabbath which is something I doubt anyone actually does. there's a manpowered system at the end of all these services we use daily. if they are non-essential then our participation in them violates the 4th. I don't know what you keep or not keep but I suspect it's not the 4th according to the 4th, and it's some traditional/modern contextual variant of it.

the 4th points to Christ and he fulfills it in the same way he fulfills other ritual/ceremonial/symbolic components of the law like the sacrafice or circumsion (all commandments of law). I don't break the 4th in the same way I don't break the everlasting covenant of circumcision made with Abraham or in the same way I don't break sacrafical laws or other ceremonial aspects of the law. why does the 4th not come under the same scrutiny?

Michie said:

Twenty years ago, I wrote my first book with the late Bishop Harry Jackson, Personal Faith: Public Policy. Among the major issues we examined were immigration and health care. And here we are — two decades later — still listening to the same debates. Some issues in Washington are like that proverbial leaking roof: everyone knows it needs fixing, and every storm reminds us of the problem. But instead of grabbing a ladder and repairing it, the buckets just get moved around.

The current storm was created when Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer used the manufactured COVID-19 crisis as cover to spend billions more taxpayer dollars to prop up the failing Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Many predicted this back in 2010, when Nancy Pelosi famously declared, “We have to pass it so we can read it,” as she pushed it through Congress without a single Republican vote. The so-called Affordable Care Act quickly became what many warned it would become — the unaffordable care act.

Democrats doubled down in March 2021 and again in August 2022, passing the American Rescue Plan Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, again without a single Republican vote. The first bill created temporary subsidies to mask the ACA’s structural failures, and the second extended this bailout until December 2025. Not only has the Affordable Care Act proven unaffordable — contrary to President Obama’s promises — it was deliberately crafted to bypass the longstanding bipartisan Hyde Amendment, which kept taxpayers out of the abortion business.

That brings us to the present dilemma for Republicans, who now find themselves the property managers of this leaking roof. They have inherited a failed, government-driven health system that funds abortion and pays for controversial experimental drugs and surgeries used in gender transitions.

Continued below.

Obamacare is collapsing. Republicans should let it

Some issues in Washington are like that proverbial leaking roof everyone knows it needs fixing, and every storm reminds us of the problem

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

This seems odd to me because of course the affordable care act has provided affordable insurance to enrollees. Hence why millions of people's health insurance premiums are going up along with the expiration of subsidies.

And that's not to say that health insurance costs aren't rising. Insurance companies have been charging more, along with hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. But that doesn't mean that the subsidies of the ACA aren't subsidizing health insurance and thus making it affordable for enrollees.

I suspect the opposite, that it is actually the GOP that would rather keep funds in the hands of insurance companies by keeping them deregulated. Unlike the democratic party that has been pushing for more regulation and even universal healthcare which in every modern country is the cheapest healthcare option around.

Hazelelponi said:

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

Goodness.
Clicked the video and it led off with the indicted Mayor Adams and antivaxx conspiracy theorist RFKjr complaining the Democratic party left them. Well yes.

Mark Quayle said:

It occurs to me that, by this particular verbiage, you may have in mind direct causation, and not indirect: "...because God created me in such a way so that I can only choose what is predetermined." It is not merely a matter of what you can or cannot do. It is a matter of what you WILL do.

This is sort of like one of the accusations against Calvinism (and Reformed theology), that goes something like this: "If Salvation is automatic, then what is the use of obeying or even choosing Christ?" But it is not automatic. It is only SURE.

Click to expand...

But if it is SURE what I WILL do, I don't see how that does not affect what I can or cannot do. I can only do what I WILL do, for that is what is SURE. I cannot do what I WILL NOT do, because that is not SURE. This is circular reasoning.

Mark Quayle said:

John 6:37-45 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one coming to Me, I shall not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not that I should do My will, but the will of the One having sent Me.

Now this is the will of the One having sent Me, that all that He has given Me, I should lose none of it, but will raise it up in the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone beholding the Son and believing in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day.”...

... No one is able to come to Me unless the Father, the one having sent Me, draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets: ‘And they will all be taught of God.' Everyone having heard from the Father and having learned, comes to Me.

(I don't claim to be Calvinist nor Reformed, though people keep mistaking me for it—it's just that most of what I believe, they do, too. I'm Calvinistic, I suppose you can say.)

Click to expand...

John 6:44 could be construed in such a way that we are doomed unless selected to be drawn to God, but Jesus explains this in John 12:32 "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."

Humans are/have been drawn to God through Jesus sacrifice and the witness of his resurrection, which was spready by Christianity and continues to be spread today. Jesus specifically says he will draw all people, which if drawing people to God is selective would not be the case. Clearly, not everyone believes in Christ.

samaus123456789 said:

Augustine also promoted the idea that 1 Enoch was not written pre flood. So up until 300s AD the majority of Christians believed 1 Enoch was written pre flood like Jesus, Jude, 1 Enoch, and all the other evidence says it was (there is stuff in the dead sea scrolls about Abraham reading Enoch when in Egypt, and Levi passing Enochs books to his children).

Click to expand...

Peace to you in our Lord Jesus Christ, samaus.

I am going to challenge a couple of points you make in the quote above.

1. I see you say "majority" which is an improvement from most that I see, but I don't think you can find any evidence for this "majority" claim. At the most one must concede, myself included, that there was a split view among Christians way before 300s AD. Even among the Jews also.

Tertullian (around 155-220), who held the Book of Enoch view you do, himself, admits in his own writings,

"I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order of action to angels, is not received by some. For it is not admitted into the Jewish canon, either. " Tertullian, c. 198 W., 4.15; Book 1, Chapter 3

Click to expand...

This "not received by some" are those Christian priests and theologians of his time. In other words, this book of Enoch issue was disputed even then. It wasn't a majority view.

Further, Origen (185-254), admonishes Celses for using a Book of Enoch quote and passing it on as truth (Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. IV, Origen, Origen Against Celsus, Book V). I could go on, but the point is it wasn't a majority view on either side.


The rest of what you wrote...I have no comment.


Peace to you brother

Hans Blaster said:

The *governor* should not be doing it at all. If some church-paid friend wants to do it with private funds that is one thing, but a governor is still not a church official.

DeSantis put all of his political theater into action to get the 2024 nomination. He's got nothing left and has made almost no news in the last year plus. Trump crushed dreams by running for reelection.

don't care what "ai" says.

Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree with this. While I am fully on board that the government should not be passing religious based laws that have no secular purpose, this strikes me as different. This is using his religious based morality in his governing and that I think is valid. If we are going to allow that people who are on the left and religious use their reasoning to help taxes support the poor then we must allow for the same sort of reasoning on the right. We might disagree with their actions, but that is a matter for the law. The reasons they took those actions are none of our concern.