Desk trauma said:

Don’t matter how I feel about it.There’s no alternative organization that could realistically win the power struggle at this time.

Click to expand...

It sounds like: as long as the IDF leaves Gaza, it's acceptable for everyone that a terrorist organization govern Gaza.

Always in His Presence said:

What percentage of your income are you willing to give for life, so the nation can have ‘free’ healthcare?

Click to expand...

Let's say on average I make $50,000.00 a year. As a Sole- Proprietor I pay for my own private insurance. If I want average coverage that would be about $1450.00 per month. So that is $ 17,400.00. This represents almost 35% of my income. So in order to make it more affordable I would be happy to pay half of that figure. Its a win win. Everyone gets healthcare and I get a substantial saving!

Thanks for sharing !

BCP1928 said:

That seems a stupid plan, but you never know with Trump. If he thought it would help him to the Peace Prize he would do it in a New York minute. But that would be for afters. Right now the fighting has to stop and in order to do that you have to deal with the people who are actually doing the fighting. Trying to find a more sympathetic leader who might go on be elected in hypothetical elections some time after the fighting has stopped begins to sound like an excuse to keep fighting. What authority would he have to have to order HAMAS to stop fighting? Why should HAMAS obey him?

Click to expand...

If the IDF leaves Gaza today, it will not make any difference for Palestinians in Gaza. Saying "fighting needs to stop" overlooks that if the IDF leaves Gaza, conflict is likely to persist—just involving different groups and interests. Hamas will hold Gaza until they are fully defeated. Peace will only come if Hamas surrenders and gives up their weapons.

Ten pages in, and all I have read was frivolous bickering. Regarding morality, there are two options. Either it is absolute and was given by an absolute moral law giver (God), or is subjectively relative and varies with time and culture. Bandwagon fallacies does not prove anything. There are only two logical positions to have. One requires the acceptance of an absolute moral law giver that surpasses humanity, the other requires accepting that the standards of morality is a social construct humanity has adopted for the survival of the species. It is illogical and contradictory when someone tries to suggest the existence of moral absolutes while simultaneously denying the existence of God. This is all I will say on the topic.

What is so strange there are people who actually believe this type of nonsense.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/rogue-planet-fastest-growing

Velv said:

Hi everyone,
I'm Bertha a new member to the community hoping to find like minded individuals and make friends along the line. Let's connect, learn and share the word of GOD.

Click to expand...

Welcome!

durangodawood said:

Thats easy to say. And I agree it is wrong as a matter of my own judgement.

But it gets interesting when we try to be precise about what wrong means and where our sense of it comes from. Words like intrinsic and absolute have certain implications that Im not sure are correct. Depends on exactly what you mean.

Click to expand...

Exactly: Do you know anyone who thinks rape is good? Do you know any place where rape is good? Do you know any time when rape is/was good? If you do not know who, where or when rape is good then one can conclude that rape is wrong for any one, at any time and in any place. Such an act must be objectively, intrinsically, absolutely wrong. What other implications do you think bear on determining the act as good or wrong?

The nonsense argument that strips the definition of rape to the merely physical act of sexual intercourse denies the richness of language. Is a daiquiri an alcoholic drink? That contorted mind would say, No ... the drink is served in a glass of lime juice.

Apple Sky said:

Nobody has ever been in 'Space'. The lunar missions never happened.

John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

Click to expand...

Yes, heaven, not "the heavens" where the stars, sun and moon are.

Apple Sky said:

Proverbs 30:4
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

Psalms 24:3
Who may ascend the mountain of the LORD? Who may stand in his holy place?

Click to expand...

Context is vital when looking at the Scriptures. Take Psalm 24:3. You quote it to support the notion that nobody had ever been into space. But the very next verses tell us that there are people who may ascend the mountain of the Lord:

“He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted up his soul to an idol, Nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive blessing from the LORD, And righteousness from the God of his salvation. This is Jacob, the generation of those who seek Him, Who seek Your face. Selah” (Ps 24:4-6 NKJV)

The psalm is talking about a mountain (probably Mount Zion), not space.

Nobody has ever been in 'Space'. The lunar missions never happened.

John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

Proverbs 30:4
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

Psalms 24:3
Who may ascend the mountain of the LORD? Who may stand in his holy place?

Michie said:

A TikTok Rapture date prediction is wrong. Shockingly, no Jesus return

Someone appeared on TikTok claiming Jesus was going to return in the Rapture between September 23rd and 24th Unfortunately, lots of people believed him

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

Apparently, he was using the "wrong calendar" and the date is now tomorrow.

childeye 2 said:

I'm talking about immigrants like dreamers who have built productive lives that contribute to the community.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The laws are written to allow good people in and that they have to prove that before they come. The laws are not written to allow everyone to come in and then sort it out later. Obey the laws.

childeye 2 said:

And I'm talking about asylum seekers who genuinely seek asylum

Click to expand...

The majority of them do not meet the requirements.

childeye 2 said:

And I'm talking about a president who says those types of immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country,

Click to expand...

Those arent rhe ones hes referring to.

Here's the what he said:

"That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world."

He also clarified his remarks on Truth Social.

asserting on Truth Social that "illegal immigration is poisoning the blood of our nation. They’re coming from prisons, from mental institutions — from all over the world.”

Now I know its not nice language and Trump has tendencies not to be precise. But he has used this type of language when talking about criminals and rapists who are coming over rhe border. Which of course we have learned is true. There are murderers and rapists and other criminals, traffickers etc coming over the border. If YOU arw not referring to those people in your comments the Trump isnt referring to nice illegals in his, especially when clarifying.

So let's just get off rhe bandwagon here.
There are decent people coming as well as bad people coming. But ALL if them rhat are coming illegally are coming illegally regardless. And they should be sent back if caught no matter how long they've been here. This is not a olley olley oxen free country. No country is.

camille70 said:

I'm paying around 600.00 per month now. Surely if everyone were paying into the kitty it would be less than that.

Click to expand...

It would also be less if we could eliminate large chunks of the bureaucracy related to for-profit health insurance and billing.

It’s amazing how the “pro-efficiency” party never seems to care about all the bloat and dysfunction in that part of the medical supply chain and, instead, just focuses on the amount potentially paid by the government.

Some other known Catholic jazz musicians...

Mary Lou Williams (she also composed a Mass)

Msgr. John Sanders

Posting this here to keep an eye on it:

rambot said:

It's not fair for you to use arguments that are not based in reality




No netsnyahu no conflict
No idf no conflict
No american govt. Pumping trillions of dollars into Israel no conflict.

Click to expand...

Hamas attacked Israel first on Oct. 7, 2023. If this attack would not have happened then the present war would not have happened. So make an argument based on reality.

RandyPNW said:

It depends on what you mean by "keeping the Sabbath?" If you are suggesting the NT Scriptures *require* under Law obedience to the Sabbath Law, you are quite wrong. We do not have liberty to teach Sabbath observance *as Law!*

I'm not hiding a thing, and shame on you for accusing me of something that is untrue. I've preached this thing for many years and in many places. I do try, and sometimes fail, to be tactful, but my position has been long established.

If you say there is no Law under the New Covenant that is untrue. The New Covenant is literally filled with laws! Just read the NT Scriptures, and you cannot deny this. We are required under the New Covenant to do lots of things, including many of the things required under the Old Covenant, such as love God alone and respect others, etc.

Yes, Sabbath Law is ritual or repetitive, and if not done in the Spirit it was rote. However, even ritual laws, when done by the Spirit, were moral laws. They were a matter of following God, and as such, expressions of faith for His mercy in sustaining them in covenant relationship despite their sins and weaknesses.

I really don't know why you come across so loveless and accusing? Please explain?

Click to expand...

I must apologize to you. This reply was meant for someone else. My deepest apologies.

A2SG said:

Well, no. You can always write in a candidate who isn't on the ballot...but that rarely amounts to anything even with a serious, concerted and organized effort behind it. The only example I know of where it worked for a major election was with Senator Strom Thurmond in 1954.

-- A2SG, beyond that, it's still rarely successful, and even then, pretty much limited to local elections....

Click to expand...

Lisa Murkowski had a successful write in. She was, of course, already well known.