Letita Jamews indicted for fraud
- By A2SG
- American Politics
- 89 Replies
Sure are putting a lot of mileage on that old thing.What if you (or your boss) has access to Obama's time machine?
-- A2SG, Hitler, get in the cupboard.....
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.
Sure are putting a lot of mileage on that old thing.What if you (or your boss) has access to Obama's time machine?
Who's gonna stop him after he uses Trump's favorite word?Why are their solutions such blatant violation of the Constitution?
God bless him!! If I recall rightly, the rubrics state that it is appropriate to kneel at the end of the Sanctus through to the end of the Pax Domini.When I first entered the Lutheran Church I asked my Pastor if we should kneel during the Elevation of the Host, at the Elevation of the Chalice, and at the Pax Domini:, he replied no. My new Pastor has instructions in the bulletin to kneel. I'm a happy man.
The education deficit is certainly having an effect.
View attachment 372681
I agree with you that the Holy Spirit helps to guide us and transform our desires to align with God's, but it does not convict us of sin. It may be through the transforming our desires to align with God's that we start to feel guilty in regards to our sin, but that is not the Holy Spirit convicting us.the Holy Spirit helps overcome sin by convicting believers of sin, guiding them with wisdom, and transforming their desires to align with God's will.
Those verses are not talking preeminence. He as a human being is preeminent above all people. He is God's firstborn, the only begotten.I agree with some and disagree with some.
Can you explain how salvation came before the cross? Otherwise, how would anyone be resurrected and go to heaven unless they've been saved. But Hebrews tells us that salvation hadn't yet been consummated at the time of its being written.
or, Christ being the first to rise from the dead? If His resurrection is about His physical resurrection, we know others were physically resurrected before Him.
1 Corinthians 15:20
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
Colossians 1:18
And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence.
Acts 26:23
Hethat the Christ would suffer, and as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to our people and to the Gentiles.”
Revelation 1:5
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and has released us from our sins by His blood,
I have now accomplished the laborious narrative of the decline and fall of the Roman empire, from the fortunate age of Trajan and the Antonines, to its total extinction in the West, about five centuries after the Christian era. At that unhappy period, the Saxons fiercely struggled with the natives for the possession of Britain: Gaul and Spain were divided between the powerful monarchies of the Franks and Visigoths, and the dependent kingdoms of the Suevi and Burgundians: Africa was exposed to the cruel persecution of the Vandals, and the savage insults of the Moors: Rome and Italy, as far as the banks of the Danube, were afflicted by an army of Barbarian mercenaries, whose lawless tyranny was succeeded by the reign of Theodoric the Ostrogoth. All the subjects of the empire, who, by the use of the Latin language, more particularly deserved the name and privileges of Romans, were oppressed by the disgrace and calamities of foreign conquest; and the victorious nations of Germany established a new system of manners and government in the western countries of Europe. The majesty of Rome was faintly represented by the princes of Constantinople, the feeble and imaginary successors of Augustus. Yet they continued to reign over the East, from the Danube to the Nile and Tigris; the Gothic and Vandal kingdoms of Italy and Africa were subverted by the arms of Justinian; and the history of the Greek emperors may still afford a long series of instructive lessons, and interesting revolutions. (The History of the decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 4, Chap. 38, pgs. 116 & 17 of the Everyman's Library edition)
I don't think its a case of just knowing they exist, but the teaching that it's promoting actually doing it. Like, you have your family saying it's a sin, but the teacher is saying it's okay to do and then encourages it. And since parents are not allowed to opt out, that's a problem within itself and gets into the realm of indoctrination where the state is in control over what they want to teach when it comes to morality issues, and you have no say in the matter. Why are kids being taught this at all in general? What happened to focusing on math, science, history and other lessons? Schools should leave morality and sexuality to the parents.
Interesting that you should bring this form of censorship up, which is a real problem that has been going on for a while, as the date of your article suggests. This would be a good time I suppose to take a look at a Vatican document on Internet Ethics, and related articles over the years regarding the Vatican and social media companies as those addressed above, in relation to censorship. Perhaps we will start tomorrow if time allows.
Author: Father John Flynn, LC
![]()
A ZENIT DAILY DISPATCH
Anti-Christian Censorship and New Media
Report Highlights Defects
By Father John Flynn, LC
ROME, 2 OCT. 2011 (ZENIT)
A report commissioned by the Virginia-based National Religious Broadcasters has revealed substantial problems in the way new media communications platforms treat religion.
Titled "True Liberty in a New Media Age: An Examination of the Threat of Anti-Christian Censorship and Other Viewpoint Discrimination on New Media Platforms," the report looked at many of the leading companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter.
NRB is a non-partisan, international association of Christian communicators according to a description of its mission on its Web site.
While it is true that the new means of communications made possible by the Internet have opened up many possibilities for the exchange of ideas and opinions, at the same time the report expressed concern that a small number of large companies have a lot of control of this industry.
Anti-Christian Censorship and New Media | EWTN
We don't argue against the fact that He makes it possible. We argue that our resistance can still thwart His purpose with it from actually happening. Your whole arguement to begin with was that the word, by itself, necessitates movement:Not entirely sure what you're meaning to say here. ἑλκύω denotes a decisive movement from one position to another. That is its semantic core. Whether the subject succeeds in the act is a question of the subject's ability, not the meaning of ἑλκύω, which is consistent with what you quoted.
Think again about the analogy I used: If I say "I am unable to lift a 1,000 pound boulder," my inability to do that doesn't define what "lift" means. "Lift" still means "to raise from the ground," not "to try to raise from the ground." One can try to lift (or ἑλκύω), and fail (e.g. John 21:6), but that does not change the definition of the word.
So you can say that the Father tries ἑλκύω but fails, if you really want to -- that's a meaningful use of the term -- but it doesn't mean what you might think it means. If the Father tries ἑλκύω but fails, that doesn't speak to the recipient's resistance of an offer; it speaks to the Father's failure to make it possible for them to even receive it. The opening clause of John 6:44 states that no one is able to come to Christ. The exception to that is if the Father draws (ἑλκύω) them. So what does the drawing of the Father do (if successful)? It moves them from the position of "unable" to "able." Thus, if you suggest that the Father can try ἑλκύω but fail, that means it is not even possible for the individual to come to Christ, because they have not been moved into that state of "able."
The point I was trying to make in response to fhansen is that this whole debate about the meaning of ἑλκύω is at best irrelevant, and at worst self-sabotaging for their view. Even if we were to accept "appeal/lure/woo" or something of the sort as a possible meaning for ἑλκύω, it can't be translated that way in John 6:44, because notice what the drawing modifies in the syntax of the verse: δύναται ("is able"). The Father's drawing in this context isn't merely an act of persuading people to come to Him; it is an act of making it possible for them to do so. That requires an understanding of the term that is decisive and effectual in its accomplishment, or we end up without any guarantee that salvation is possible.
This is too soft a definition of ἑλκύω. The lexical range of ἑλκύω is primarily in the realm of "drag" or "haul" (see John 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; James 2:6). It's a term that expresses decisive action resulting in movement, not gentle persuasion. Even when used metaphorically, as in John 6:44 and 12:32, the same strength of meaning carries through, because the drawing accomplishes its intent. In John 6:44, it accomplishes (at the very least) an enablement to believe; in John 12:32, it accomplishes the worldwide extension of the gospel's appeal. These efforts do not fail. They describe an effectual change of position -- from unable to able to believe (6:44), and from restricted to universal scope in gospel proclamation (12:32). That's the semantic force of ἑλκύω, "draw."
The thing about starlight is that if it reached earth in the time earth ticked off 4 days, it could have taken millions or billions of relative years in that amount of time on earth.The bible could mean not literal 6 days, maybe they were like times not days.
In any case God created everything but for me old earth could still be biblical, and makes more sense.
Things like, light of stars could have not reached us, if the world was 6000 years.
Those layers of 'mud' geologist investigate etc, that makes sense formed with a lot of time.
Well, since he shut down the department that reports songs of these numbers, maybe he's got plausible deniability?Is it news that Trump lies whenever he talks about numbers, including the level of inflation?