Lawrence Alma-Tadema - The Death of the Firstborn: 1872

Gaetz said Sunday that he plans to introduce a motion to remove McCarthy from his leadership position, marking a dramatic escalation of the long-simmering tensions between the men. Once Gaetz does so, the House would have 48 hours to vote on the matter. The Florida Republican did not say when he would introduce the motion.

“I think we need to rip off the Band-Aid. I think we need to move on with new leadership that can be trustworthy,” Gaetz said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Hard-right obstructionists in the House GOP have made clear for weeks that McCarthy would be removed if he relied on Democrats to pass any funding legislation.

On Sunday morning, Rep. Michael Lawler (R-N.Y.), one of the most vulnerable moderate Republicans in the conference, told “This Week” that Gaetz’s decision is a “diatribe of delusional thinking.” Lawler noted that while Gaetz is complaining about how slowly the House has moved to advance appropriations bills, the Florida Republican himself is one of the reasons the process has been so slow.

“By putting this motion to vacate on the floor, you know what Matt Gaetz is going to do? He’s going to delay the ability to complete that work over the next 45 days,” Lawler said. [just as he had in the weeks leading up to Saturday's last-minute vote.]

If you’re pregnant in Bonner County, Idaho, you’ll likely spend a lot of time on Route 95.

Bonner General Health, a 25-bed hospital, discontinued obstetrics, labor and delivery services this year. So for residents, Route 95 is the way to the closest in-state hospital with obstetrics care, which is at least an hour’s drive south — or longer in the snowy winter.

The hospital, which staffed the county’s only OB-GYNs, cited the state’s “legal and political climate” as one of the reasons it shuttered the department. Abortion has been banned in Idaho, with few exceptions, since August 2022.

The four OB-GYNs who previously worked at Bonner General, meanwhile, have left Idaho to practice in states where abortion is legal. All four told NBC News that the state’s ban contributed to their decisions to move.

Drs. Amelia Huntsberger, Kristin Algoe and Lindsay Conner — former Bonner OB-GYNs who now work in Oregon, New York and Colorado, respectively — each said some of their Sandpoint patients had to start strategizing about whose car they could borrow or how they would pay for gas to travel for maternity care after the department closed.

Huntsberger, who was on the Idaho Health and Welfare Department’s now-disbanded Maternal Mortality Review Committee, emphasized that poverty and maternal mortality are intertwined. In Idaho, she said, Medicaid recipients accounted for the majority of pregnancy-related deaths in recent years. Despite the committee’s recommendations to expand postpartum Medicaid coverage to last 12 months, Idaho was one of just three states where legislators finished this year’s session without doing so.

--

Bradish said her biggest fear is about the timing of her due date in January — what she calls “blizzard time,” given that Sandpoint can get more than 30 inches of snow that month.

She has already stocked up on “shower curtains and some rubber gloves for the car,” Bradish said, in case she winds up delivering on the drive to Spokane [90 minutes away].

“That may sound like a joke, but it’s not,” she said.



See also: from earlier this year

Asking for prayers for the two above things. My aunt had a stroke last year and I can testify that prayers to God have helped her regain the use of her legs. Thank you Lord Jesus!

resort
intransitive verb
1. To turn to or make use of a person, strategy, or course of action for help or as a means of achieving something.
2. To go, especially customarily or frequently; repair.
noun
1. A place frequented by people for relaxation or recreation.

Ancient Trait, The Power of Blindness


Lord of glory said to 'Let them alone", but not by word.

Once upon a time, us kids were raised to know with varying regularity certain catchphrases. One of those at the top of the list was said of poorly conducted business types riddled as a Fly-by-Nights to be avoided whenever possible.

Today, things have changed the way unscrupulous folks conduct themselves as well as the way they think. The old “Fly-by-Night” has finally flown and come to achieve its ultimate purpose which is to fly-by-day.

Have they succeeded to shed every sign of integrity? It appears they have for the most part. Because they too are part of that ancient stack of unreliable “blind leads the blind”. Blind means lack of understanding, thereby, inability for living within everything upright, including, a way out of error by healthy correction. When healthy shame takes its last breath among all children of fly-by-night life-choices, the loss of shame now enables to enrich their craft of deflection in the ample light of day, saying,

‘We see no truth, nor world of proof you have placed before us. We have long-fashioned, effortlessly invigorate our own godless/utopian vision, by means of a logic seared from good-conscience till a perpetual evil refusal is accomplished, now armed to walk lockstep in a diabolical cult.’

Is that the full intent of their rush for the “ditch”? No, something founded on lust is never finished, because blindness isn’t content with others who are blind, but for all to be parasites to draw light and life away, including yours.

Daniel 7 is that Daniel had a dream that night. Verse 1 is that Daniel wrote the dream down, of all that he saw and was told.

The dream, if we correctly analyze, can be divided up into three sections.

The first section was the vision about the four beasts in verses 2-12.

The second section was the vision about Jesus in verses 13-14

The third section was the angel (we can assume) standing nearby, who gave insight to all that Daniel had previously saw, verses 15-28.

Are songs like "Father Stretch My Hands" and "Follow God" considered Godly?
Considering the fact that he sang it with a choir

A listener-supported radio station in North Carolina, WCPE, is planning to withhold the broadcast of six contemporary operas this season from New York's Metropolitan Opera, because of the station management's objections to the operas' content. It is a classical music controversy that echoes larger, nationwide culture war debates.

In the NPR interview, Proctor called WCPE's programming "a safe refuge from the horrors of life." Repeatedly, Proctor also appealed to the sensibilities of any children who might tune into her station or come across it online and said that her personal values were integral to her decision-making. Breaking into tears on the phone, Proctor said: "I have a moral decision to make here. What if one child hears this? When I stand before Jesus Christ on Judgement Day, what am I going to say?"

In speaking to NPR, Proctor called Jake Heggie's 2000 opera Dead Man Walking, which is reportedly the most performed opera written in the 21st century, a "shock opera" that had not proven that it could withstand "the test of time." Dead Man Walking was already known as a popular book by Sister Helen Prejean and a movie before Heggie and the late librettist Terrence McNally turned it into a stage work. The opera has been produced more than 70 times worldwide over the past nearly quarter century.

In her conversation with NPR, Proctor contrasted Dead Man Walking with other, much older operas in which sexual violence, rape, suicide and murder are major plot points. Dead Man Walking, she argued, is based on a true story, while other operas that are canonical repertoire but violent as well, are fictional and therefore less potentially traumatizing. Such operas — all scheduled as part of the Met's 2023-24 broadcast season, and all of which Proctor still plans to broadcast — include Bizet's Carmen and Gounod's Roméo et Juliette, as well as Puccini's Turandot and Madama Butterfly.

I don't normally care for science fiction/fantasy, but there are two exceptions that actually turns out are my favorites. First and foremost, Frank Herbert. His Dune series I must have read a dozen times all through school. I also read JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings during that time as well. Of course these guys were and still are very popular writers. For a number of years now I have ever so gradually, when I have time, still read their works free online. Links below.

Read Herbert free online. Read Tolkien free online.

The academic was fired after almost 20 years of his data — including figures used in an explosive study, which claimed the legacy of. lynchings made whites perceive blacks as criminals, and that the problem was worse among conservatives — were found to be in question.
College authorities said he was being fired for “incompetence” and “false results.”
Among the studies he has had to retract were claims that whites wanted longer sentences for blacks and Latinos.


I actually dug into this story after coming across research by other academic "experts" that got retracted for being fake. Unsurprisingly, the professor here had made his career with research showing how awful and racist whites are...and how that affects the outcomes of blacks and latinos both in the justice system and educational system...and he made up all his data. It wasn't only faked, it was obviously faked, and when he finally was under investigation he claimed that his hard drives that held all the data got one of those data erasing viruses (like the one in the Wuhan lab that erased all their covid 19 data). Basically, he made a career selling fake stories of racial hatred and discrimination that were politically convenient.
One might think that the university that he was a professor at earning 190k$ a year would be embarrassed by this and take his investigation seriously, but they actually tried to cover for him back when it was suspected that he only faked data on a couple of different studies. When it came to light he may literally have faked all his research, the university started taking his investigation seriously.
If you're wondering why a university would initially cover for him...well, it largely has to do with how research grants are awarded and the broken nature of academia. The reason why students are saddled with decades of debt for degrees that are worthless has everything to do with professors like this who prefer to cater to ideological/political narratives about "systemic racism" then actually search for truth and do the difficult work of real research.
Thoughts?

‘No enemies to the right’: DeSantis ally hosts debate hedging white nationalism​

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo, who is a close ally [and New College board appointee] of Florida governor and Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, hosted a social media debate in which one participant argued that conservatives should cooperate with a hypothetical white nationalist dictator “in order to destroy the power of the left”.

Participating in the debate was Charles Haywood, a former shampoo magnate who the Guardian previously reported is a would-be “warlord” who founded a secretive, men-only fraternal society, the Society for American Civic Renewal (SACR).

The debate concerned Haywood’s promotion of a strategy he calls “no enemies to the right”, which urges people on the right to avoid any public criticism of others in their camp, including extremists.

Early in the Rufo-hosted discussion last Tuesday, Haywood raised the hypothetical possibility early in the discussion: “Let’s say a real white nationalist arose who had real political power … and therefore [could] be of assistance against the left.”

Responding to the hypothetical, Haywood said: “I think that the answer is that you should cooperate with that person in order to destroy the power of the left.”

[Later:] “When we’re talking about people like Franco or Pinochet or even Salazar … they did kill people. ... that’s just a historical fact.”

“But,” Haywood added, “they saved a lot more people than they killed.”

1 Oct 2023

Trump calls for store robbers to be shot in speech to California Republicans​

Former president and frontrunner for GOP nomination also warns ‘this country will die’ if Joe Biden wins election,

Donald Trump called for shooting store robbers on Friday in a bleak speech to California Republicans –and warned “this country will die!” if Joe Biden remained president.

During the address to GOP members, Trump also railed that wealthy Beverly Hills residents smell because of water denials, and repeated election fraud lies, according to the Associated Press.

“We will immediately stop all of the pillaging and theft. Very simply: If you rob a store, you can fully expect to be shot as you are leaving that store,” Trump said, spurring applause. “Shot!”

The rhetoric is in keeping with Trump’s tough-on-crime mantra but signified a ramped up emphasis on punishment. Trump has previously pitched shooting migrants to keep them from entering the US.

The former defense secretary Mark Esper has said that Trump asked about shooting George Floyd protesters. He also floated imposing the death penalty on convicted drug dealers, cop-killers and human traffickers, AP said.

More;

Trump calls for store robbers to be shot in speech to California Republicans

Former president and frontrunner for GOP nomination also warns ‘this country will die’ if Joe Biden wins election

www.theguardian.com

Republicans in the House had been pushing for border security measures -- particularly the House GOP’s signature border security and asylum reform legislation — to be included in any stopgap funding bill. A vote on a bill that included most of the "Secure the Border Act" failed on Friday after 21 hardline Republicans joined Democrats in voting against it.

As I've said, Joe won't budge on the border (and thus a government shutdown) until enough Democrats stand up.

Sept 28 (Reuters) - Roving groups of young people broke into retail stores in Philadelphia and grabbed merchandise in the early hours on Thursday, as a beefed-up police presence failed to bring a halt to a looting spree that began the previous night.

The two-night rampage, which resulted in dozens of arrests on Tuesday and Wednesday, targeted an auto dealership, an Apple (AAPL.O) electronics store, liquor stores and other retailers. The break-ins prompted all state-run liquor stores in the city to close indefinitely on Wednesday, according to local news reports.


Philadelphia's looting spree comes amid a nationwide surge in organized retail crime, compounding the financial losses that big box U.S. retailers are experiencing as a result of weakening consumer demand, according to the National Retail Federation (NRF) trade group.

CMS rescinds its ban on ‘Banned Books Week’ activities​

CMS Communications Chief Shayla Cannady [sent this message to principals]

It has come to our attention that some schools have planned events next week October 1-7, to mark the American Library Association’s “Banned Book Week.” If this is the case, all principals are requested to cancel all events and messaging associated with this observance.

“Banned Book Week” is not aligned with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools academic curriculum or our pillars of excellence.

Please do not (send) out any communication on “Banned Book Week” or use school resources to promote or communicate about this observance. This includes but is not limited to daily announcements on the loudspeaker, visuals on screens, bulletin board displays, book displays in the media center or in classrooms. Additionally, please do not hold any book readings or offer suggestions for resources for staff and students.

Under the Parents’ Bill of Rights, any attempts to share material in relation to Banned Book Week could be seen as a violation of the measure.

--

A later message said it was up to individual schools to decide.

We are not taking a position on banned book week as it is a site-based decision. It is not a violation or in any way associated with Parents Bill of Rights.

Another demonstration that these vaguely/poorly written 'parents rights' laws are having a chilling effect on free speech.

Hi everyone,

I'm really discouraged and confused.
I've been exchanging about christian issues with a christian pastor and some of the things he said or which he brought up
really confused me.

We were talking about healing and wether God wants to heal and why christians don't get healed and he brought up the example
of the blind man about whom Jesus said that he was born blind so that God would be glorified through his healing.

How do we interpret this? Does this mean that God PURPOSEFULLY made a human being to be born blind ONLY so that later on He (Jesus)
could heal him and glorify God?

I'm sorry, but to me this sounds really perverted.

I can't deal with this. It's simply disturbing. Is this really what Jesus meant? I hope not, but at the same time I worry what if God really is like
that?

What if God is simply "different" and we simply cannot understand His heart? To me this is totally depressing.

Is it possible that God does things which I think are perverted and simply disturbing?


Another example which my friend brought up is Job. I know Job but I haven't really thought about him for a long time. It's not a story which
I enjoy. When he mentioned Job I automatically got all my questions back which I struggled with in the past, when thinking about the book of Job.

I simply can't make sense of it and interpret Job in a way which does not disturb me.

When I imagine that God more or let made a bet with satan about wether Job would stick to his faith or not and what was at stake was Job's relatives
who all lost their lives, then this is totally disturbing to me.

Would God really do this? Would God allow people to get killed ONLY to prove something and win a bet?!


I don't know, all of this is so dragging me down. I just don't know how God really is and I hate being torn between opinions of others and my own
thoughts.

But can you really feel close to God and really trust God when AT THE SAME TIME you struggle with such thoughts and worry that God could do
things which are disturbing to you?

This only scares me and makes me feel alienated from God.

Can one be a Christian and decide to use nuclear weapons against an earthly enemy?

I've been tempted to post this in Soteriology DISCUSSION, as that forum seems to be much more active. However, my understanding of the rules is that debate should not take place there (even though it seems to anyway). I want to abide by the rules, but I hope that my doing so will not cause thread to go unnoticed.

I want to offer the argument that the logical structure of John 6:44 leaves little doubt as to its meaning.

The verse consists of three clauses:

• These three clauses can be represented by the logical expression -q if -p and r, where q is "one is able to come to me," p is "the Father, the one who sent me, draws him," and r is "I will raise him up on the last day."
• The first two clauses form a conditional sentence. More specifically, they form a third class condition (ἐάν μὴ + the subjunctive, ἑλκύσῃ), of the present general variety (the main verb of the apodosis is present tense). These conditions express axiomatic statements. Thus, the truth of the statement is not restricted to the specific context, but is rather a proverbial truth about the nature of man - namely, his natural inability to come to Christ.
• The protasis (the "if" clause) and the apodosis (the "then" clause) are reversed, given the negative way in which the condition is stated. The sense is, "[Then] one is not able to come, [if] the Father does not draw him."
• Clause B, or p, is the protasis (if); clause A, or q, is the apodosis (then).

Thus, stated properly in symbolic logic, the condition can be represented as -p --> -q, which reads, "If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to come to me."

Clause C, or r, is not part of the conditional statement:

• It can't be part of the protasis because the verb ἀναστήσω is not in the subjunctive (which is required of the protasis in a third class condition).
• It is extremely doubtful that it would be part of the apodosis because the condition in that case would logically distribute to both clauses A and C, with the conclusion being that the Son would raise up those not drawn by the Father.

Therefore, r is best taken as an additional clause appended to the end of the conditional statement. Moreover, it assumes the fulfillment of the condition. Compare how the full verse reads when stated "properly" without the reversing of the protasis and apodosis:

• "If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to come to me, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Logically, this statement is equivalent in meaning to John 6:44 (as long as we recognize that the last clause is not part of the condition). But the wording is awkward, as it is tempting to read this statement in a way that does take the final clause as part of the apodosis. Thus, the last clause only makes sense given the negative way in which the condition is expressed, with the reversing of the protasis and apodosis. In other words, "I will raise him up" assumes the fulfillment of the condition. That is, given the successful drawing of the Father, one is enabled to come to Christ (direct statement of the condition), and that same one will be raised (implication of the appended clause).

It is at this point that the debate comes to a head. Is it really the Father's drawing that entails the raising, or is it the individual's subsequent coming that results in the raising? Or is it both?

Theologically, and contextually (cf. vs. 39-40), we know that coming to Christ is the condition for being raised on the last day. However, grammatically, the Father's drawing, not the individual's coming (strictly speaking), is the condition for being raised in John 6:44:

Notice what the main verb is in the opening clause. It isn't "come." Ἐλθεῖν is an infinitive. The main verb is δύναται, "is able." So our main idea in the condition is this: "If not drawn --> is not able." Strictly speaking, the grammar of this verse isn't concerned with the question of who actually does come. It's concerned with the question of who is and isn't able to come. If one is drawn by the Father, he is then made able to come. However, what this entails is that those enabled by the Father's drawing are the ones being raised up on the last day. It is commonly objected here that "only" those who actually come will be raised up, as if to suggest that those who are enabled to come constitutes a larger group of people than those who actually do. However, this is a theological assumption. It is not a conclusion drawn from the text, nor is it compatible with the grammar.

There is no room in this verse for the postulation of a category in which one might be enabled to come, but does not actually do so. Enablement is described here as an action entailing the subsequent coming and being raised (which parallels nicely with what is said in verse 37), given that the object of the raising is grammatically one-to-one the same as the object of the Father's drawing.

The contrapositive of the above logical expression will demonstrate this clearly. A conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. The contrapositive of -p --> -q is q --> p. This reads, "if he is able to come to me, then the Father draws (has drawn) him." Further, given that the final clause is not part of the condition, it remains as an appended statement to the end of the condition in the contrapositive. It does not flip sides with the apodosis. Therefore, the expression -p --> -q ^r, which represents John 6:44, is logically equivalent to q --> p ^r. Compare these two statements:


What this demonstrates is that the one who will be raised up on the last day is the one who has been enabled by the Father's drawing. Again, we know theologically and contextually that it is those, and those only, who actually come who will be raised up on the last day. But grammatically it is clear from this verse that if one is enabled by the Father's drawing, he will be raised up. In other words, Jesus does not recognize a distinction between being enabled to come, and actually acting upon that enablement.

The suggestion that enablement does not necessarily entail coming, while perhaps philosophically true, does not grammatically work here. What Jesus is saying is that the specific kind of enablement being spoken of here - this drawing action of the Father - is an effectual act that actually brings about the intended result. The conclusion seems unavoidable on a simple grammatical level, as the same "him" is being spoken of throughout the verse. The "him" who is drawn is also the "him" who is enabled, who is consequently also the "him" who is raised. To suggest that the "him" who is enabled is not necessarily one and the same as the "him" who actually comes is a suggestion grounded in rationalism and/or theological tradition, not one grounded in the grammatical facts of the text. The final "him" of the verse has the same referent as the "him" who is drawn. They do not refer to different subjects.

In sum, what I am contending that John 6:44 tells us is that humanity is essentially composed of two groups:

1. Those who are not able (οὐ δύναται) to come.
2. Those who are able to come, who are here defined as those who actually do come, given that their enablement is the grounds of their being raised.

This is not some vague philosophical concept of enablement. So objections the likes of, "having money (i.e. being able) to buy something doesn't necessarily mean I will choose to buy it" won't work here. They appeal to an erroneous philosophical notion of enablement, not to the definition we have right here in the text. This drawing of the Father is a specific enabling activity - some kind of work upon the heart of man - that in and of itself constitutes an overwhelming desire to act.

Democrats were caught off guard by House Speaker McCarthy’s new 45-day stopgap bill, which includes $16 billion in disaster aid and continues funding the government at the current fiscal year’s levels.
Individuals interrupted proceedings on January 6th, Democrats need to support prison time for those responsible for the interruption.

Hey, something interesting- I know of a young man at my church. He claims God shared something with him about his calling and destiny. He claims that God told him that the antichrist is coming and that his calling is to prepare the body of Christ for the antichrist! His gifts are so strong he almost has to be telling the truth! He sees things visually from God, if you have something wrong with you he can tell you what it is just by looking at you, he sees auras around people. He also can heal you of any sickness, I was in church years ago and I had bronchitis, I was having coughing fits but he suddenly looked at me and breathed on me and instantly I was healed, I stopped coughing completely and my sore throat also left. He also sees angels on a regular basis. He also has a very strong presence of God around him.

Looking at it objectively, from what I was in the past told by many of my fellow evangelicals and read from evangelical leaders in the media, it should be a very easy decision to place their support behind Tim Scott instead of Trump for 2024. Yet that isn't happening. Why?


Things that the evangelical voters who supported Trump should find very attractive.

1) Tim Scott is an evangelical like they are, not somebody who has only promised to support them "I see myself first as a biblical leader and not as a Republican or conservative leader," Scott said during a 2020 video conference with students at Bob Jones University, which is known for its conservative cultural and religious positions. "I am first a Christian," he added. "And it is the thing I have chosen to be above all other things."

2) Tim Scott supports many of the policies (religious freedom, pro-life) that Trump supporters claimed drove their Trump support (over the supposed dislike of Trump's immorality and narcissism) to the point that "Democrats have signaled that their plan is to cast Scott, who at times was critical of Trump, as a disciple of his policy pursuits. They called attention to his social views, calling him a "MAGA Republican"."

3) His whole theme of personal responsibility and that we need "more victors and not victims" aligns with the worldview of that group.

4) Tim Scott's demeanor shows love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.

4) Scott consistently beats Biden in hypothetical general election polls and doesn't have strong negatives in polling, which is a solid foundation to grow his lead over an unpopular incumbent as he gets more exposure.

My current conclusion is that evangelicals have gone tribal and now identify as Trump supporters first and Christ followers second. Sticking it to the Democrats for the way they treated Trump is more important to that group than anything else. They could support a man in Scott who has a long history that shows he looks to our God and Savior; instead they are so far sticking with Trump who Dobson had to try and defend as a "baby Christian" and who years later was unable to answer Sean Hannity's question about how his faith had grown.

Is it adultery to date someone who is just separated but not divorced, however, they weren’t married in a church?