Dear CF,

Please pray for me as I have no more strength to go on.

Even my own mother gave up hope that there will be something good from my life. She recently told me I had never brought them good news, ever.

And I looked back on my life and she is right. Been unemployed a lot, was falsely accused and ended up convicted and sent to prison, unmarried, no kids.

I'm angry and disappointed with God. Angry that he made me to suffer. And disappointed that even though I pursued his blessings by honoring my parents, being kind to strangers, the poor, etc. and pursued the Abrahamic blessing, I still have a life with nothing to show. Why is God not keeping to his promises?

I am out of faith. I don't expect anything good to show up in my life.

I am out of gratitude. I have nothing to be grateful for.

I stopped going to church....I've been to several and they all talk about how great they are and what new building they are building, but no one bothers to do a welfare check on a newcomer in so much pain.

I've also pulled back from all social engagements. Everyone has their life together except me.

There are no words for the misery I feel every day.(staff edit)

Democrat lawmakers have repeatedly expressed support for laws that would allow abortionists to end the lives of babies who survive abortions — and voted against laws that protect babies who survive abortions.

That’s a fact that former President Donald Trump highlighted during Tuesday night’s debate, drawing the annoyance of Vice President Kamala Harris and the admonishment of debate moderator Linsey Davis.


“There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it is born,” Davis said Tuesday evening, as Trump argued that some Democrats support executing babies after birth.


So much for the fact checking.

I've seen a lot of posters here claim that Harris "lied incessantly," though they've pointed out few specifics. The Federalist, though, has helpfully provided a list of 25 lies. So let's look at them:

1. "Middle Class Kid"

I'm not sure how being the child of a college professor and a university research scientist disqualifies someone from the middle class. Neither is a particularly lucrative profession. Her family certainly wasn't poor, but she didn't claim that.

Verdict: Not a lie.

2. Trump's tax cuts

It should be noted that the analysis cited here by The Federalist is just a loop of the same person citing himself, and only considers data from 2018. Furthermore, it only looks at individual income tax data, which doesn't tell the whole story. While that data does show that people making less than $50,000 received the largest percentage tax reduction that year relative to 2017, the real dollar value of those reductions was mostly pretty small. For example, people making $10,000-$15,000 saw their average taxes drop by 72%. Which is great - but the real dollar value of that "massive" drop was $85/taxpayer. In contrast, people making $500,000-$1,000,000 saw their taxes drop by a paltry 9% - which worked out to around $15,000/taxpayer. Now, if you consider those numbers as a percentage of the taxpayer's total income, the picture changes a bit. Ther person making $15,000/year regains 0.6% of their income per year, while the person making $1,000,000 regains 1.5%. Seems to me that the person making a million per year wins out in this exchange.

Verdict: Not a lie.

3. Trump "Sales Tax"

Trump has proposed a 10-20% tariff on all imports, and 60% on imports from China. While not technically a sales tax, we would see most, if not all of that passed on to consumers, leading to higher prices for imported goods.

Verdict: Mostly true

4. Jan. 6

Contrary to the Federalist's claim, the J6 events did put American self-governance in jeopardy. And bringing up examples of military attacks is a complete non-sequitur; Harris was referring to attacks on our democratic institutions, not physical attacks on US territories.

Verdict: Not a lie.

5. Project 2025

Hard to grade this one. While Trump certainly has said that he has nothing to do with Project 2025, the fact remains that many current and former members of his administration/campaign are involved in it, and some of its provisions look a lot like things that Trump did or was trying to do towards the end of his first term. Ultimately, though, this is a statement of opinion, as no one can predict the future, and opinions are not lies.

Verdict: Opinion; not a lie

6. Just Restoring Roe

She absolutely dodged the question, but dodging the question isn't lying.

Verdict: Not a lie

7. Pro-Life Laws Criminalize Miscarriages, Ectopic Pregnancies

While technically correct in their assessment that these things are not explicitly criminalized, the Federalist conveniently ignores the real effects of recent anti-abortion legislation, which have been widely discussed here on this site. In states like Texas, hospitals have been turning women with life-threatening conditions away over fear of prosecution. Even if the laws do not explicitly criminalize these situations, the effect remains the same.

Verdict: Half true

8. Trump's abortion stance

I'll give them this one. Trump does not seem to be in favor of a national abortion ban.

Verdict: Lie

9. Ninth Month Abortions Don't Exist

Last I checked, 21 weeks gets you into the 6th month, not the 9th month. Therefore, the number of abortions performed after 21 weeks is not evidence of abortions being performed during the 9th month of pregnancy.

Verdict: Not a lie.

10. Border Bill

This is just the Federalist's opinion. Others disagree with their assessment, and again, no one can see into the alternate future where that bill passed, so no one knows for certain what the real effects would have been.

Verdict: Not a lie.

11. SCOTUS Immunity Ruling

The Federalist is splitting hairs here. The SCOTUS ruling was rather vague, and arguments couple be made for many things that the president does being "official acts." Regardless, it's pretty clear what she was getting at.

Verdict: Mostly true.

12. Fracking Ban

Again, dodging the question isn't lying. Regardless, 2019 was not 2020, so using an example from 2019 to disprove her statement about her beliefs in 2020 is misleading. By 2020, Harris had already backed away from the commitment to a fracking ban, even casting the tie-breaking vote to expand fracking leases then, so her statement that she "made herself very clear in 2020" is accurate.

Verdict: Not a lie.

13. Minnesota Rioters Bail Fund

Harris did indeed promote the Minnesota Freedom Fund in a June 1, 2020 tweet. However, at that point, they were a very small organization that had only been in operation for 4 years, having helped a total of ~500 people in that time. The aftermath of the George Floyd protests (and, in part, Harris's tweet) caused them to expand massively and seems to have changed their policies, such that they started providing bail for more dangerous/violent criminals. So, it's a bit misleading to suggest that she promoted an organization that was putting violent criminals back on the streets when - at the time that she promoted it - they were not.

Verdict: Not a lie

14. Trump's Role in J6

Trump did make the "peacefully and patriotically" statement, but he also said that his supporters needed to "fight like [heck] or [they wouldn't] have a country anymore" in the same speech. And that's before getting into the repeated lies that he told leading up to that day about the election being stolen or fraudulent. There is a pretty strong argument to be made that Trump at least had some role in inciting the J6 riot.

Verdict: Not a lie

15. J6 Deaths

I believe that the final cause of death for Officer Sicknick was a stroke. While technically "natural causes," it can be reasonably deduced that the stroke was related to the injuries he sustained on January 6th. Additionally, 4 further officers died of suicide in the immediate aftermath. Harris specifically said that these five officers died "as a result of" the January 6th riot - in that their deaths were related to it and they would likely still be alive had it not occurred. The Federalist tries to debunk her words by deliberately misinterpreting them to mean that they were directly killed during the riot.

Verdict: Not a lie

16. "Fine People" Hoax

Yep, Trump walked that one back and clarified, but it took a while, and he did say it.

Verdict: Mostly true.

17. "Bloodbath" Hoax

Again, he said it. Maybe he didn't mean it in the way that Harris puts it, or maybe he did. As we're not mind readers, it becomes a matter of opinion.

Verdict: Mostly true.

18. Trump's NATO Comments

Technically, the Federalist is correct here - the comments that Harris refers to were about NATO members, not Ukraine. However, those comments reveal a fundamental misunderstanding about how NATO works - the defense spending targets are not binding obligations, and there are no penalties for not meeting them. If Trump wants there to be penalties, that's fine, but he needs to push for an amendment to the NATO charter to that effect - he can't just declare it unilaterally. Furthermore, his many other statements on Ukraine and Russia, as well as his evasiveness when asked directly about his preferred outcome of the current war, reveal his attitude on the conflict.

Verdict: Lie, but the Federalist misses the point.

19. Autocrats' Preferences for President

The reasons for Putin's "endorsement" of Harris have been discussed on this site already. Also, Viktor Orban is (arguably) an autocrat, and Trump specifically touted Orban's praise of him during the debate. He's also fond of pointing out his close relationships with Putin and Kim.

Verdict: Not a lie

20. Combat Zones

Harris was splitting hairs here. I'll call it a lie.

Verdict: Lie

21. Blaming Trump for Biden's Botched Afghanistan Withdrawal

Both parties bear some blame on this one. Trump negotiated a pretty bad deal (including releasing 5000 Taliban fighters), and Biden then rushed the process.

Verdict: Half true

22. Gun Confiscation

Harris did support a mandatory buyback program for "assault weapons" in 2019, but more recently, she's amended that to say that she supports an assault weapons ban, but without a mandatory buyback program.

Verdict: Half true

23. Trump's Foreign Policy Record

This is just opinion.

Verdict: Not a lie

24. Defunding the Police

“reimagin[ing]” policing and “redirect[ing] resources” from police toward what the outlet described as “other areas of government [such as] schools and small businesses.” does not sound like "defund the police" to me.

Verdict: Not a lie

25. IVF

While Trump himself may not be opposed to IVF, the abortion bans that he enabled (AKA "Donald Trump's abortion bans") have not been so discerning. The issues in Arkansas have bene well-publicized.

Verdict: Not a lie.

So, final counts are 3 lies, 7 partial truths, and 15 things that weren't actually lies. Not a strong showing from The Federalist, I gotta say.

Login to view embedded media
There She Stands by Michael W Smith
For me, the music and lyrics of this song will always have an especially powerful meaning each and every year on this day.
Let us never forget the day terrorists attacked the USA and never forget to honor the heroes who gave their lives on September 11, 2001
I know that all of my fellow soldiers will NEVER FORGET where we were when the terrorists attacked our nation on 9/11

A new survey from the Pew Research Center shows that while most Protestants and Catholics intend to support former President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, voters of most other religious backgrounds plan on backing Vice President Kamala Harris.

Pew released the results of a poll of 9,720 adults in the United States conducted from Aug. 26-Sept. 2. While the survey looked at the overall state of the presidential race with two months to go until Election Day, it also analyzed preferences for each major candidate among religious subgroups.

Trump, the Republican nominee for president, leads Harris, the Democratic nominee, among both Catholics and Protestants as a whole. Fifty-two percent of Catholics plan to support Trump compared to 47% for Harris. Meanwhile, Trump has 61% support among Protestants in contrast to Harris’ 37%.

Continued below.

Tuesday's debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris was truly about the moderators. Nothing that was said by Trump or Harris was groundbreaking and both will be seen as winners by their respective supporters.

The real story is not how they articulated their policy positions, but how Trump was constantly fact checked while Harris was allowed to say abject lie after abject lie without any pushback from the moderators.

She has 275 million followers on Instagram.

A CNN poll taken after the presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris found that the percentage of voters who trust Trump more on the economy rose from +16% to +20%.

Taking a page out of her boss’s playbook, Vice President Kamala Harris told major whoppers during her Tuesday night debate against Donald Trump. With help from left-wing activists masquerading as debate moderators, Harris whitewashed her extreme record, lied about Trump’s policy positions, and more.

Here are some of the biggest falsehoods she told throughout the evening.

ABC News‘ David Muir and Linsey Davis faced intense backlash online during Tuesday night’s presidential debate for their obvious bias against Republican nominee Donald Trump.

The bias manifested itself in several ways, from asking Trump more hostile “gotcha” questions than they asked Harris to pressing Trump with followup questions while allowing Harris to evade answering questions with no followup to fact checking Trump while allowing Harris to lie with impunity.

It would be useful for Christians to carefully read through all the
items that were fact checked. And, to read other news sources' fact
checking for the debate (such as CNN).

The political debate between Democrats and Republicans, in Washington, D.C.,
has been so angry and stylized, that it is difficult to get at whether or not the
slogans used by both parties, are true.

Many of the fact checking results have "Need Context" noted. That is, the
statement by the candidate needs to be narrowed by other details, in order
to be true. Politicians in Washington have become loose, making broad
generalizations that are true sometimes, but not true in other situations.
Christians need to listen less to the general slogans, and as about the
details surrounding the generalizations.

Some of the assertions by the candidates, are simply false.
Some of the false statements, are still widely accepted as true, by some
social media platforms.
Some of the assertions are false, and backed up (as false) by professional
economists, however some groups still are promoting them as true.

*****
One of the things that HAS GOT TO CHANGE IN WASHINGTON, is the
presentation of slogans that are so general, as to be almost meaningless.
The real situation in America includes complex dynamics, and the political
candidates need to feel free to talk about topics such as "inflation" using
many more types of information, and more complicated statements, than
"it's great" or "it's worse than it has ever been before". You would not let
your financial retirement planner to use this type of silly statement to describe
how they are handling your financial investments -- and we should not expect
these sorts of childish statements to be used by politicians.

The problem with politicians, is that American citizens let them get away with
stating goals, without substantially stating HOW THEY WILL REACH THOSE GOALS.
Anyone can assert that they will attain goals, that American citizens find attractive.
But in complex technical situations, we have seen that the average American
citizen does not have the technical skills, to bring about those goals. In a very
technology centered society (sorry to say this), but amateur citizens don't have
the technical tools to reach technical goals.
---------- ----------

I find that many of the same useless generalizations in politics, are
aimed at people who do not carefully look for information about
the underlying topics (that the slogans claim to be addressing).

The same problem of shallow slogans, exists in the area of Christian apologetics.
Christian apologetics that is filled with religious slogans, but is not very careful
about using biblical definitions of words and phrases, may sound wonderful (to
some denominational groups), but will be producing LOGICALLY UNSOUND
arguments.

Christians should reject slogan apologetics, and slogan politics, and carefully look
to test all things, and hold onto what is good. And THAT does not mean going to
your favorite daytime talk show host for answers. Try reading articles from 20
different news sources (such as the Google news page). Try reading the articles in
Christianity Today, about political candidates.

With cheering!

Login to view embedded media

We see all throughout the Bible that there are some, which we call prophets, who rebuke the unbelievers.

It is thought that in the midst of Jeremiah's preaching, obviously, the people did not listen. But the moment that Jeremiah left, they wept over his leaving, after the destruction of Jerusalem. Such is the role of the prophet--that when they are in ministry, they are despised, hated even. It is not until the prophet is gone that (s)he is dearly missed.

We see these kinds of examples all throughout the Bible. From Moses to Isaiah to Hosea to the Apostles, and especially Christ.

The inquiry here, is at what point does the prophet have the right, as being called by God, to rebuke, even sternly, those who are unbelieving of heart?

I will not go into the fact that it happens, as that should be a given that it does indeed happen (look no further than Matthew 23 for one example).

So at what time should the prophet rebuke his hearers? It is a practical question. We also do not need to needle over what exactly it means to be a prophet, but a simple definition is that a prophet is someone who reminds God's people of His promises, both positive and negative. We do not need to say that a prophet tells the future or necessarily does so. Rather, a prophet is often a fiery individual. Jeremiah said,

Jeremiah 20:9
"I say, “I won’t mention him
or speak any longer in his name.”
But his message becomes a fire burning in my heart,
shut up in my bones.
I become tired of holding it in,
and I cannot prevail."

Such is the feeling of the prophet to have a "fire burning in the heart."

Where does this calling come from? And at what point can a prophet rebuke people?

Please show Biblical references if you can.

Thank you.

As of Monday, over 1,000 came to Jesus. Sunday Night, my wife and me, We went to a free outdoor concert at a local high school. Some of the Football Players and Cheerleaders recognized me. so, they ask me to come onto the field with them. I was able to explain the Gospel of our Lord and Savior to them. Most who were not born again 57 gave their lives to Jesus as their Lord and Savior. There are some who do not know our Lord yet. Please Pray for them. Only God knows if there is going to be a revival in the local school districts.

Lessons we learned in the past few years on hydration.

Drinking too much water can:

- Significantly raise blood pressure. When you should normally be at 110/70 blood pressure, over-hydrating can send the blood pressure soaring to 140/85 and beyond.
- Lead to low levels of electrolytes and cause symptoms similar to nutrient deficiency.
- Inefficient digestion of food because too much fluids in the gut and the body will dilute the acid used in digestion. You get less nutrients from food than otherwise. The poorly digested food might also lead to poor quality of gut microbiota. You can at least avoid drinking any liquids while eating during meals. Save all the drinking until you're done eating all the solid foods.
- Some of these symptoms may trigger the hunger response (from poor digestion and low electrolytes) and cause you to eat more or make it more difficult to control calorie intake.

Why people over-hydrate? Everyone is saying to drink specific (relatively fixed) quantities of water each day but not everyone have the same hydration needs. The negative consequences of over-hydrating isn't being told enough and only few knows about it. It leads to unnecessary expenses to over-hydrate mostly from causing you to eat more or get medications and supplements you otherwise won't be needing if you're drinking just the right amount of water (not too much).

I prefer looking at the color of my urine and only drink when thirsty to make sure I don't over-hydrate.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, OP, archbishop of Vienna, said in a recent interview with a French Catholic magazine that in the face of rising secularization and the growth of Islam in many historically Christian nations, Catholics should “trust in the work of grace” and remember that the Church is “an expert in humanity.”

“The Church is alive and will always be, albeit under different circumstances. We must accept the decline of Europe. We tend to gaze at our ecclesiastical navel, but it is an undeniable continental movement,” Schönborn said, speaking to Famille Chrétienne.

“In 20 years, the European population will not be the same as it is today, and it is already not the same as it was 50 years ago. This is inevitable, above all due to the decline in the birth rate in Europe but also due to immigration and the increasing presence of Islam. This poses new challenges for us Christians. We must also not forget that the Lord is at work in his Church! Just think of the 12,000 baptisms of adults and young people in France this year.”

Continued below.

I need to make a decision regarding a behavior problem my special needs brother has. I don't want to post the details publicly and searchable by Google, so I was wondering if people could reply whom I could send the information and question to by private message? I desire to keep my brother's issues private from the public.

In Job chapter one we are told that Job is perfect (or blameless) and upright and that one day when the sons of God gathered Satan came in among them and accused Job saying "he will curse you (God) to your face" if God's protective hedge were removed and Satan given free reign to hurt Job. Would you weep for Job when this happened were you a son of God in the gathering before God?

Job 1:6-12 NET Now the day came when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD – and Satan also arrived among them. (7) The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” And Satan answered the LORD, “From roving about on the earth, and from walking back and forth across it.” (8) So the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil.” (9) Then Satan answered the LORD, “Is it for nothing that Job fears God? (10) Have you not made a hedge around him and his household and all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his livestock have increased in the land. (11) But extend your hand and strike everything he has, and he will no doubt curse you to your face!” (12) So the LORD said to Satan, “All right then, everything he has is in your power. Only do not extend your hand against the man himself!” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

I've had OCD for over forty years and without going into detail I've been having a few issues with it and God, I happened to say to myself the other day that if he does indeed exist it would be easier for me due to these thoughts if he didn't as they are horrible and doing my head in and now I feel awful for saying such a thing and beyond forgiveness. Please can you give me some advice.

I see this verse come up so let's have a look at it.

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

Click to expand...

So according to Jeremiah, there are days coming when there will be a new covenant with the people of Israel (v31) that will be unlike the old covenant established at Sinai (v32). And the covenant will be unique in that it will be put upon their minds and written upon their hearts (v33) and this covenant is a universal covenant for all people (v34) which defines the "people of Israel" in v31 more abstractly, not specific to location/time/people group.

To rehash this:
it is a new covenant for Israel which is a new Israel that includes all people groups (v31/v34)
it is unlike the old (v32)
dynamic and living (written upon their hearts) (v33)
universal (v34)

The Sinai covenant was written on stone tablets and the tablets themselves were called the "tablets of covenant law" and the 4th was a sign of the covenant (Ex 31), everything about this points to covenant boundaries. The covenant was also exclusive, outsiders had a process to be accepted within but in practice, this was a covenant for a specific people group.

This new covenant does not re-print the 10 commandments "as it" in the old covenant nor any other law "as is". instead, it is living, and dynamic, written upon our hearts and is meant for all people. If it includes the 10, it is not at face value, and is with new revelation, living and dynamic, the antithesis to being made of stone and is Spirit-led not tablet-led.

2 Corinthians 3:3
You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

I'm confused about how the Jeremiah text can be used to pull the 10 commandments out of the covenant they are explicitly bound to and then inject them into the new when it says the complete opposite. I have heard it said that the 10 are at the very least included from this Jeremiah text's reference to law be written upon our hearts. But I don't see that at all, what's written on our hearts is quite explicitly not the 10 commandments.

Hello folks. September 11 is just around the corner, or had already passed, depending on the time you are reading this. Please take a moment to remember the victims, first responders, and families impacted by this tragic event. Pray for these victims.

Source(s):

All they do is generate heat and waste energy.
Once all coins are "collected", it will lead to serfdom.
Thee with the most coins will rule.

SMH

Some complain when the idea of the Christian Church being the True Israel of God is brought up; they complain that it is replacement theology, but I ask even if it is derided as replacement theology is it also biblical theology?

Galatians 6:11-18 NET See what big letters I make as I write to you with my own hand! (12) Those who want to make a good showing in external matters are trying to force you to be circumcised. They do so only to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. (13) For those who are circumcised do not obey the law themselves, but they want you to be circumcised so that they can boast about your flesh. (14) But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. (15) For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that matters is a new creation! (16) And all who will behave in accordance with this rule, peace and mercy be on them, and on the Israel of God. (17) From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear the marks of Jesus on my body. (18) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers and sisters. Amen.