Chesterton said:

You said you wouldn't express it the way they do. That's fine, but they're free to express it the way they do, yes?

Click to expand...

Of course.

Richard T said:

You make some good points on the balance of church and state. But the GOP and maga goes far beyond desiring state's rights. I have blogged in here about the use of immediate capital punishment to blow up boats and it is not particularily biblical. Critical Issues on Trump Policies in South America.

In all kinds of ways Trump and maga can be defined as progressive using your approach. For instance, the U.S. government now being the largest shareholder of Intel. This directly intervenes in the free market principles of "private ownership." Maga too violates Godly principles by continuing to increase the federal debt, and the use of Federal troops in the USA in state's where they are not wanted. Trump's heavy handed government policies have not freed up markets for energy, agriculture, ranching, crypto, etc. Though Trump has changed many policies within these areas, it is still prone to heavy government intervention.
Consider Trump's version of Shay's rebellion. In Shay's rebellion, the state of Massachusetts asked for help, but received none. Here we have Trump forcing states to receive help that have said they do not want it.
So in your defining progressiveness, Trump is impuned as well as democrrats. Your ideas are more in line with Reagan, who though not perfect, wanted to devolve more government responsibility to the state level. I know that I certainly applaud that.

The big elephant though in the room is what are your feelings about the consent of the governed as espoused by Locke and others? How can anyone push a Christian agenda for many states, that are no longer very interested in being a Christian state? Sure I wish too that the USA had more Christian influence, but the church has declined and in many states that are not interested in any specific set of Christian principles, including putting the bible at the center of education. You are right it has to start with churches. Repressive government forcing people into Christian thought seems doomed to failure and actually is not much different than what cultural neo-Marxists such as Gramsci called for.

I might argue too that without a safety net of health and welfare spending that America or any modern capitalist state has that the interruption would be quite dramatic and cause enough unrest that it would interrupt the usa or any nation's economy and system that some sofcial spending is now required.

America's maga movement will become a failure because it is based in politics and policies that nto only violate God's principles, but it does not start with the one thing that the bible suggests is needed - Humility. For lasting Godly, change, that is where it starts. There is no short cut as II Chronicles 7:14 and James 4:10 suggest.

I would note too your ideas of what freedom of the press are not backed up by evidence. Here is a more realistic view offerred in the words of Thomas Jefferson. “The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Freedom of the press

Freedom of the press protects the right to gather information and report it to others. This vital freedom helps protect democracy.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

Click to expand...

Although I am a big Trump supporter. That is not what I am communicating. I'm communicating a very lost and hidden in darkness biblical doctrine on human government. Nor am I teaching that God will only work within this form of government. What I am teaching is this is God's best. Just like there are all kinds of church governments. God does not forsake his people just because they are part of an institution that does not perfectly reflect what the Bible has in mind for a church. There is God's best. There are some types of churches that God can barely do anything in and there is every point in between.

The easy to grasp point of this is that any form of government that makes the state supreme is dangerous, foolish, ignorant and in many cases downright evil. Jesus did not say his kingdom is not in this world. He said his kingdom is not of, as in like the kingdoms of this world. In that day and age, the governments of the world reflected nothing but the despotism of the supremacy of the state.

As far as my opinions about the free press. I'm not sure you are understanding my point. The newspapers of the day, pre bill of rights were basically larger pamphlets written by individuals with opinions who gained followings and paid printers to print their opinions every week. Just like social media today. It was not the "4th branch of government" that they view themselves as today. Newspapers as professional news gathering organization really came into being immediately after the founding of the nation. My whole point is that freedom of the press is the exact same thing as freedom of speech. Just like people have the divine right to speak, they also have the divine right to have their thoughts printed on a printing press and distributed as they see fit. Or, in today's world, published on the internet. Now because this developed into something far greater than anyone imagined. Does that mean it is wrong? No. It just needs perspective because it was the press. That is, the printing press that gave the world Bibles and Christian preachers and teachers pamphlets that empowered mankind to overthrow 7000 years of despotism. It was not a professional "press corps" that did this. In fact today. the professional press corp is the problem. not the solution.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

She didn't sound drunk to me.

Click to expand...

So you're saying...oxycodone?

Aristarkos said:

You make yet another mistake, the law and the covenants are two different things. Both the old and the new covenant are about the law.

You can read more about the covenants here: The Five Key Covenants God Makes With Humans in the Bible

Aristarkos

Click to expand...

AND there two COVENANTS and was WASHING in. the NEW COVENANT OK. ??

Soyeong said:

Indeed, if we are still required to refrain from doing what the Law of God reveals to be sin, then we are still under it.

Click to expand...

And I believe Rom 6:14 that we are NOT UNDER THE LAW , but under GRACE. is EMPHATIC. and to the LAW OF MOSES

dan p

Why dont we just legalize all drugs. Then leave yge junkies alone. We could have major pushes to warn everyone like we do with cigarettes. Then the junkies are on their own if they choose to do drugs. We could prohibit them from doing drugs in public due to the danger to the public, but other than that, treat it no different than cigarettes.

Brightfame52 said:

This ultimately makes man his own savior

Click to expand...

Oh. In truth that makes man willing, no matter how weakly at first, to allow God to save him; it's to not say "no"; it's to open the door when He knocks. And that small nascent willingness, itself prompted and aided by grace, is meant to be confirmed and to grow as we express and act upon the faith, hope, and love that is given us, and then those virtues, that righteousness, grows in strength and conviction as well.

God is a good parent, guiding His children into ever increasing righteousness, ever increasing love, ever increasing likeness to Himself. He doesn't wish to do it all for us because His purpose has always been to produce something, something grand, something greater than he started with, and not to just throw a number of otherwise worthless sinful wretches into heaven and the rest into hell. He's been patiently working to draw man to Himself and His plans since the beginning.

Bob, you state in your first post, "For over 150 years the Seventh-day Adventist church understood the book of Revelation as predicting a close - almost joined-at-the-hip relationship between Protestant America and the Vatican/Catholic Church would exist right near/at the end of time."

Bob, are you able to walk me through the prophecies on which we as Adventist base this assertion?

Hey guys, hope everyone is doing well

RileyG said:

Unless I am mistaken, were you ever an Episcopalian or independent Anglican? I remember you very well!

God bless you abundantly!

Click to expand...

I visited the Episcopal cathedral in my last town quite a bit. I just read lately that the Rector i liked quite a bit is retiring due to issues brought on by Covid. I've also visited a couple of ACNA parishes over time.

Amo2 said:

God has given His Church no more authority over people, than to separate those who will not submit to the truth from their body.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, see John 20:23. God didn't establish a church as impotent as a local Rotary club.

Amo2 said:

No it is not.

Click to expand...

1 Cor. 5:5 and 1 Tim. 1:20.

Amo2 said:

The greater part of the world has always rejected the spiritual authority of the New Testament itself, let alone those who claim to preach the truth regarding it. The New Testament itself records those who rejected the authority of even the apostles themselves, not to mention occasions of disagreement between themselves, such as Paul and Peter.

Click to expand...

Right, none of those is "rejecting the concept of spiritual authority altogether," those are instances of rejecting particular spiritual authorities.

Amo2 said:

Why don't you give a good reference to what you quoted and or add some context that all might see for themselves what exactly is being said or addressed. The author you are quoting wrote an awful lot of material, are you just clicking and pasting from someone else's arguments, or did you actually read the above in the material the author actually wrote? If the latter, why not include a reference for all to examine if they wish.

Click to expand...

The particular quote is from Early Writings, 67.2. I'm not really interested in this becoming a lengthy sidebar, though, since it seems difficult enough already to get straight answers on the main topic in this thread.

Henrik Kochan said:

Hello, my name is Henrik Kochan. I'm an author living in Israel.

My books in Hebrew include The Meaning of Life – Socrates, Jesus, Nietzsche and Jesus and the Laws of Moses. I’ve recently completed my first book in English (not yet published), titled Steps to Heaven: On Morality, God, and the Soul. It explores themes such as salvation in Judaism and Christianity, Jesus and Paul, the Holy Spirit, atonement, and more.

Although I’m not Christian myself, I’m deeply interested in these topics and would love to hear what my Christian friends here in the forum think about them.

Click to expand...

Welcome to Christian forums. It is great to see an intellectual that is searching for what are the most important things in life. I pray you can find some good fellowship here and are welcomed by many. I pray too (if I may) that God touches your heart and you can learn more about him and what true Christianity is. God bless you!

johnnypapa said:

The Art of Dying Well: Facing Death, Judgement, Heaven or Hell.

Each day we live is a preparation for the day we die. We will die well if we live in a manner that prepares us for Heaven. We either prepare to die well or we’re headed for Hell. The choice is ours.

www.catholicunscripted.com

Click to expand...

That's the issue we should pay most attention to --- eternal salvation and everything related to it.

Ridley12 said:

Honestly, it was mainly because I don't think I've 100%ed it.

Another one that I've been slowly chugging through is Skyward Sword HD, though I'm moreso trying to get to Hero Mode as soon as possible so that I can start my "real" playthrough (I defeated the final boss in the original Wii version.) It's a bummer that players can't just jump right into Hero Mode like with Wind Waker HD (or so I've heard; been a while since I played it.)

A third one which I've been playing more recently, however, is Final Fantasy VII (with texture/performance mods; made it up to the railroad tracks right before getting to the Gold Saucer.)


When I want to play something, but don't have enough time, I can play something online. Usually, I play slot games, and I really like it. They don't take a lot of time, and I have some fun. Lately I've been playing at 20 bet casino, and can say that it's one of the best I've ever tried. I've played a few games, and I actually liked them, and I can get some cool bonuses too.

Click to expand...

I've also been playing Final Fantasy VII, and it's actually the first time I've played it. Such a cool game.
I also started Mafia: The Old Country a few days ago

Yorkshire Terrier
His name is Chivas, and he is 5
Actually, he lives with my parents, but when we got him, I used to live with them too, so I consider him my pet as well.

BNR32FAN said:

ok so what about Simon Magus in Acts 8? The passage doesn’t differentiate any difference between his belief and the rest of the people who believed. And you quoted 1 Corinthians 2:14 when Paul wrote that in reference to the behavior of the Corinthians in chapter 3. If you read the next 6 verses you’ll see that. Luke 8:13 is just describing and example that Jesus often spoke of which was some believers will turn away. That’s why we have passages like John 15:1-7 and Matthew chapter 10 and 2 Timothy 2:11-13. In Matthew 10 Jesus was telling the 12 not to fall away in times of tribulation and in 2 Timothy 2:11-13 Paul was telling Timothy the same thing. Both Jesus and Paul expressed real consequences for falling away. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. Do not fear those who are able to kill the body but are unable to kill the soul. Fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. If we deny Him, He will deny us. That statement right there is written about two true believers. So if Paul and Jesus taught the doctrines of TULIP why aren’t they applying those doctrinal aspects to these statements? Oh and the same can be said about James 5:19-20.

Click to expand...

"What-aboutism" and scatter-gunning prooftexts is no way to advance a discussion. None of this is exegesis; it's assertion. You're not taking time to establish why your reading is demanded by the grammar, context, or argument of these passages, nor are you interacting with my own exegesis. So what precisely do you want me to respond to here? How about starting with one or two of these verses and interacting with the syntax, flow of thought, and historical setting, to show what the author is actually asserting in context. Then we can go from there. I'm not going to spend more time "responding" to unargued claims when there are still plenty of exegetical points of my own -- points that contradict everything you're saying here - that have not yet been engaged with.

Regarding 1 Cor. 2:14, please interact with my comments to Spiritual Jew in post #54. You're making the same error they did.

BNR32FAN said:

But is their unbelief the result of them being judged already? That’s the point of quoting the passage? Is the tense of the verbs dictating sequence?

Click to expand...

What kind of sequence? The tense-forms in John 3:18 are not about temporal sequence, but logical condition or state. The perfect κέκριται ("has been judged") expresses a completed divine verdict already in place; the present participle ὁ μὴ πιστεύων ("the one not believing") identifies who that verdict presently applies to: those characterized by unbelief. It's a matter of categorical identity. The logic is, "whoever does not believe (present state) is already judged (settled verdict)."

BNR32FAN said:

Would the jailer have been saved if he didn’t believe? The passage specifically states that in order for the jailer to be saved he must first believe. You’re saying that the jailer was already saved before he believed which is not what the passage says at all.

Click to expand...

This is answered in the very portion of my reply you were quoting:


What more do you need me to say? You didn't answer my question you quoted. Define what you mean by "saved." Why are you equating the term "salvation" with regeneration? That hints at a misunderstanding of what my argument is, hence the question.

BNR32FAN said:

But they do in fact clearly indicate that verb tense doesn’t imply sequence which is what you’re whole argument is based on.

Click to expand...

No, my argument is not based on verb tense "implying sequence." I clarified this in the middle portion of the reply you were quoting here, which you conveniently chose not to respond to. Where is your interaction with what I pointed out about the 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7 parallels?

BNR32FAN said:

Really because it doesn’t sound like He’s proclaiming “certain efficacy” in verse 36.

...

It sounds like He’s telling that if they believe they MAY BECOME sons of Light. Why doesn’t He word it in a manner that is more certain instead of conditional?

Click to expand...

What you're doing is eisegetical atomism. You're isolating one verse, talking about how it "sounds," and using that as an objection to dismiss everything I just took the time to argue from the context and grammar of the pericope. That's not a serious way to respond.

Your objection doesn't articulate anything that my argument did not already sufficiently answer. You're conflating exhortation language (v. 36) with redemptive result language (v. 32). You're also completely disregarding the discourse hierarchy I pointed out: v. 32 gives the theological outcome of the cross; v. 36 gives the ethical summons to the hearers in light of that outcome. You can disagree all you like, but this does answer the objection you gave. So once again, your reply doesn't advance the discussion.

What specifically do you disagree with about my exegesis of John 12, and why? Do you disagree that the arrival of the Greeks is the narrative trigger? Do you disagree that the ensuing discourse explains the theological significance of Jesus' "hour," namely, that it will effect the drawing of all kinds of people? Do you disagree that the verb ἑλκύω conveys efficacious movement from one state to another, not mere invitation? Merely quoting v. 36 as if conditional language erases the meaning of v. 32 doesn't interact with any of the exegesis I provided. It's dismissive.

BNR32FAN said:

And I would point out that becoming a son of Light is synonymous with being born again. So this is another verse that rivals your interpretation of 1 John 5:1. I would say that this statement parallels John 1:12.

Click to expand...

Why? What's your textual argument for declaring the two to be synonymous? Why wouldn't it be synonymous with justification? Or adoption? Or something else? Why regeneration? Declaring it doesn't prove it.

BNR32FAN said:

No my point is that if we take the information given in all of these passages and put it all together we can make better deductions about how the verses were intended to be interpreted.

Click to expand...

This is syncretism, not synthesis. You're skipping the exegetical step that determines what each passage actually means in its own context before correlating them. Theological synthesis must come after exegesis, not instead of it.

You're pretending that your "bigger picture" reading is the higher ground, but you can't get the "whole counsel of God" by shortcutting the counsel of the text you're actually in. When you use Ezekiel or 2 Peter to cancel what Jesus explicitly says in John, you're not harmonizing Scripture with Scripture; you're forcing other material to reinterpret revelation on the basis of your system. You can interact with the grammatical and contextual reasoning I've already offered on these texts if you choose to continue discussing. Otherwise, I'll take your non-response as a concession of the points I raised, in which case the discussing in finished.

BNR32FAN said:

The statement made in John 6:44 contradicts Jesus’ statement made in John 12:32. So the only way to determine what He actually meant is thru deductive reasoning.

Click to expand...

Jesus contradicts Himself?

The only way these verses contradict is if ἑλκύω means the same thing in both contexts and refers to the same scope of people in the same sense, which it manifestly does not. I've shown this and you've not interacted with the argument for it, so...

BNR32FAN said:

John 6:44 is completely different situation that took place during Christ’s ministry during the time when God had blinded those who didn’t believe the words of the prophets in order to bring about Christ’s crucifixion so that they would shout “crucify Him” in order to complete God’s plan of redemption.

Click to expand...

Where in John 6 does the text state, or even imply, that Jesus' words there are limited to those "blinded to bring about the crucifixion"?

BNR32FAN said:

In Mark 4:11-12 Jesus quotes from Isaiah when He said

“And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven.””
‭‭Mark‬ ‭4‬:‭11‬-‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

He’s quoting Isaiah 6

“He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.’ Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.” Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered, “Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, Houses are without people And the land is utterly desolate, The Lord has removed men far away, And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be subject to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump.””
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭6‬:‭9‬-‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

He quotes Isaiah again in John 12

“This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God. And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me. I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.”
‭‭John‬ ‭12‬:‭38‬-‭48‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In John 5

“And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. I do not receive glory from men; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?””
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭37‬-‭47‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Click to expand...

Where in these texts does it say that God blinds people to prevent belief as part of the broader pattern you're claiming?

BNR32FAN said:

Then in John 6:44-45

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭44‬-‭45‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Jesus didn’t just say that no one could come to Him unless The Father draws them, He included the prophecy that those who believed the words of the prophets would come to Him. This is why some were not permitted to come to Him during His ministry.

Click to expand...

Again, I've already demonstrated why your interpretation of neither of these verses works. I addressed both in this post. Those drawn are all effectually saved, and those "taught by God" have received the benefits of the teaching. See my argument at the linked post. Show me where I've erred.

Strong in Him said:

It's not a "sensible and feasible idea"; it's ludicrous.

Click to expand...

Basically then; you reject the fact that the end time Prophesies are for us, who are the people that have seen the 'fig tree', that is Judah, re-established in part of the Holy Land. Matthew 24:32-34
Jesus then said: ....then you will know the end is near, at the very door. Truely, I tell you, the generation who sees this, will live to see it all.

Strong in Him said:

You noticed that I'm biased because I don't like it when people rewrite Scripture and then tell me that I am wrong because I don't agree with them?

Click to expand...

What I notice is how people dislike any idea that they might be involved in the frightening and dramatic end time things, as God has informed us thru His Prophets. They have no clue about what must happen, which is an indictment against them for rejecting scripture.

Michie said:

Is it a keepsake or an heirloom/antique? If it’s an heirloom or an antique, you’ll probably need someone familiar with those type of pieces. Jewelers usually have staff that know about those type of pieces. New stuff is nothing like the quality of the old stuff.

Click to expand...

Keepsake mostly. Close to an heirloom. Antique? Maybe closer to it than I'd think. It's one of the early saw blade clocks. Just a saw blade with a printed face and a quartz battery movement. These types of movements have been around for a long time. It's just a quartz oscillator controlled stepping motor, which sounds fancier than it is. You have a simple solenoid with a U shaped piece of metal run through it, and that makes a pulse that turns the rotor a precise amount. You can make the things run backwards by carefully disassembling the motor and flipping over the U shaped piece of metal. That's handy for making gag clocks that run backward. Have made two or three, along with a mirror image clock face, but, like a Billy Bass (tm), it gets old. The rest is plastic gears that turn three shafts nested inside each other. A plastic kitchen clock that we got when we married almost forty years ago had such a motor, and they weren't new even then.

I dropped this clock taking it down to set the time. It broke the minute hand shaft and bent the second hand shaft. Straightened the second hand shaft and was wondering if a certain brand-name epoxy would work, but lost the broken off part. Gluing a nested shaft like this would be iffy, anyway, and that's if it adhered to the plastic.

Really, the only way to repair it is to replace the motor. Were it not for the metal saw blade, might would have tried a radio controlled clock motor where I wouldn't have to worry about setting it forward and back each year.

Really, if it was a cheap plastic clock, would just replace it. But it has sentimental value.

you do know you have to exceed these testimonies with your doctrine to be credible

childeye 2 said:

To me your statement above describes a will/desire/motive/intent, that the ability to reason (weighing pros and cons on how to proceed) is serving to fulfill. That would be consistent with what Jesus said in the OP John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Click to expand...

Reasoning is a separate question, and I'm not sure why you think that quote is relevant.

childeye 2 said:

However, the OP is framing a free will -->(singular), as a freedom of individual 'choice' in a moral/immoral context, which means to me a deliberate and voluntary choice to do either right or wrong which would indicate contrary motives/wills. <--(plural)

Click to expand...

I don't see it as being a moral/immoral context. Simply presenting it as the typical philosophical free will of "freedom to do otherwise." Moral issues exist subsequent to free will, since free will is a necessary component for culpability.

childeye 2 said:

I saw it as a loaded question. Please note from my response, that to respond definitively yes or no, I would be wrong either way.

Fervent said:
Are you saying that Jesus' words imply people will not be held blameworthy?

childeye 2 said:
I'm saying that there's a just reason why Jesus said people will be judged by what measure they use to judge others. And I'm saying that he qualified his meaning by saying the merciful will receive mercy. And I'm saying that we are justified by grace through faith. And I'm saying that the apostles who said we are all sinners, also spoke of being found blameless by God.

Click to expand...

What was loaded about it? I was trying to clarify what you were attempting to say with the quote.

childeye 2 said:

Not sure what you're trying to convey here. It reminds me of how a lie can be a subtle deviance.

Click to expand...

It's a reference to 1984 and the concept of newspeak/doublethink. Your statement struck me as being internally contradictory.

Hi everyone,

Please pray for me this week. I have a heavier workload than usual because one of my bosses—who has always treated me kindly—is on leave, and I’m helping to cover her responsibilities while also managing my own.

I’d really appreciate your prayers for good health, strength, and focus throughout the week. Please pray that God will give me the energy, wisdom, and peace of mind to handle everything well, and that I’ll stay healthy and not feel overwhelmed.

Thank you so much for your prayers and support. God bless you all!

— Jane Chai

camille70 said:

Oct. 13 (UPI) -- U.S. consumers will likely pay for more than half the cost of tariffs this year through higher prices, according to a new Goldman Sachs analysis.

Click to expand...

Trump tariffs could add $40 billion to holiday shoppers’ and sellers’ costs, LendingTree warns​

• The average American holiday shopper will pay $132 more because of the tariffs implemented by President Trump, the online lending marketplace estimates.
• “It can have a real impact on many families. It could prompt people to cut back on gift-giving this year or lead to them taking on extra debt,” said LendingTree’s chief consumer financial analyst.

Hark! the tariff angels sing
'Ten percent on ev'rything!'

Hans Blaster said:

In Parliament? Check again.

Click to expand...

Mistake noted, though it remains that the slogan was a major oversimplification given the structure of British governance and official agents and virtual representation. At any rate, the "justice" of that rebellion depends more on the fact that it succeeded than on the grievances lobbed.