Guojing said:

OSAS is only found in Pauline epistles, so its part of the revelation of the mystery to the Body of Christ.

Click to expand...

mark46 said:

An inheritance tax on farms under $14M will cause many, many to go out of business.

Click to expand...

wing2000 said:

Odd, I thought conservatives were in favor of smaller government. From what I understand, Republican's found FDR's expansion of the White House (East wing) during WW2 to be wasteful.

Click to expand...

bling said:

Context, context, context and context, is what I was taught.
Paul does a wonderful communication job in writing to Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, so how would they have understood it?

Click to expand...

JosephZ said:

Breaking Down How Much Time Biden Spent on Vacation While President – It's Not 40%

The rumor that Biden spent nearly half of his presidency on vacation came from an exaggerated and incorrect Republican National Committee analysis.

Snopes comprehensively analyzed the former president's public calendar, research from his administration and pool reports — detailed daily dispatches from the White House press corps tracking Biden's movements — and found that the RNC's claim was inaccurate. It is difficult to define what a "vacation" is for a president, given that a president is never away from duties. Therefore, Snopes determined how many days he was in a vacation setting.

Biden spent 117 or 118 full days of his 1,461-day presidency (Jan. 20, 2021 to Jan. 20, 2025) on vacation, or about 8% of his presidency. He also spent 66 days, about 4.5% of his presidency, partially in a vacation setting.

Click to expand...

• Most of Biden’s public events and meetings have taken place between 10 or 11 a.m. and 4 or 5 p.m., with very few exceptions. [dailymail.co.uk]
• Evening events are rare, and aides have acknowledged that Biden tends to get fatigued and is more prone to missteps outside of this window. After the June 2024 debate, Biden reportedly told Democratic governors he would stop scheduling events past 8 p.m.. [dailymail.co.uk]
• He typically returns to his residence by 7 p.m., and his day usually starts around 9 a.m.. [people.com]
• Reports describe him as a “five- or five-and-a-half-day-a-week” president, with weekends and evenings generally kept free of public appearances. [nationalreview.com]

JosephZ said:

Qatar also has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and is a central hub for terrorism financing. I have no problem with Trump stopping in Qatar due to its role as a U.S. ally in negotiating with terrorists and its hosting of a U.S. air base, but like I said, many who are fine with Trump making an unscheduled stop and allowing the leaders of Qatar to board Air Force One would have criticized President Obama for doing the same because of Qatar’s links to Islamists and terrorists.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

I don't.

Click to expand...

Desk trauma said:

People with ruthless ancestors made up fancy words for why they’re better than us plebs, that’s how it works.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Hum I am not sure. The problem is according to the orthodoxy there was no lathe or potters wheel or bore stick. This was pre all that. They made pots by the coil method so not wheel or lathe required.

But then this leaves an out of place artifact that is found in a culture that did not have the knowledge or tech. Then you have to start getting into spectulation as to how this can be.

Did I say anything about your personal ability or expertise.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

I said that the logic you are using in citing your own expertise is the same as me linking the experts I have. So if you are going to use authority as the evidence then it works both ways. We get into a game about who can supply the most authoritive expert. Its not a good way to argue.

We can only go by what we know. But its not just based on the Naqada. We have evidence in other parts of the world such as when the potters wheel was first invented in Mesopotamia around 5,000 to 4,000 years ago. The bore stick tech came from that area into Egypt around 2600BC.

It could be as we have found that ancients were more advanced than we thought in other ways. Like the 300,000 year old calved wooden joint. As though ancients had a pretty sophisticated level of carpentry.

No I'm not lol. Anyway.

Very good as thats exactly what I said. They are what we see right before our eyes. Knowing or not knowing what caused them makes no difference.

Yes and I have clarified this and even said it would be silly to say that theres all these lost computers and NASA level CNC machines everywhere. That theres more than one way to skin a cat. We just havn't worked out how they did it.

Yes they have and this is one of the logical fallacies thats used against lost knowledge and tech. That we have not found any of it. If theres lost knowledge and tech then where is it. I can go back and find several arguements like this. And its sort of true in a way when you think. Ok so if its not like modern tech and its not the traditional then what is it. It gets frustrating not knowing because it would then complete the picture.

Please don't tell me what I know lol.

Yes I more or less said that above. Their level of development had not reach the level of inventing the potters wheel or lathe I don't think. The consensus is they made pottery by coil and slab methoth because they had no rotating device. Plus we are more or less saying the Naqada invented the potters wheel as their culture Naqada one extends back almost as early as when Mesopotamia invented it.

Yeah fair enough. But then this is not evidence. We can say all sorts of things are possible. What then.

Click to expand...

Desk trauma said:

Again, he doesn’t get to allow or disallow such gatherings.

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

Almost every paragraph, every sentence, sometimes even every clause that you type can be contested. Most of the time I forego the effort, since you routinely misunderstand, or ignore whatever I say. But . . .

It has been amply demonstrated, I think to the satisfaction of all save yourself, that your experts are not experts.

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

Consequently, comparing their expertise - demonstrably of limited quality and probably less relevance - to that of a practitioner of the topics under discussion (whom you are free to interrogate to the test that expertise) is inappropriate.

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

I repeat an earlier comment, to which I got zero reaction: show evidence that you have critically examined the speculations and claims you are throwing around and then I shall treat your ramblings with a measure of respect.

Click to expand...

Dan1988 said:

That's mall well and good, in theory. But it doesn't work in reality. Why, because you failed to take into account the fact that salvation is not by works. You're still pushing the false idea that God saves people because of their good works.
You have made repentance, faith and everything else a work to earn salvation.

Now the truth of that matter is that man only offers God his filthy rags and his stinking corpse, in exchange for eternal life in paradise and all the treasures of the universe.

You obviously reject what God said about the state of man, when He said we are born dead in our sin.

Now lets see where repentance comes from (I can do this for every other thing, which you think we must do to be saved) but I will just give you the truth of Gods Word regarding "Repentance", let me warn you this will be awful for you but think of it as bitter medicine.

• Acts 11:18: "When they heard these things, they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, 'Then God has to the Gentiles granted repentance that leads to life.'"
• Acts 5:31: "Him God exalted to his right hand to be our Prince and Savior, so that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel."
• 2 Timothy 2:25: "[God] opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. He corrects them gently, in the hope that he will give them repentance and they will know the truth."
• John 6:65: "And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father.'

Click to expand...

GoldenBoy89 said:

Yeah but I’m not just talking about this one particular case. Just in general, y’all love to stick up for this guy. Day in day out, you’re here explaining the president’s actions better than even he bothers to explain himself.

It’s just kinda weird to me.

Click to expand...

Tropical Wilds said:

Raises eyebrows further, blows nose, eats a pancake. Yes, he is objectively unpopular. Even websites and pollsters friendly to him and prone to exaggeration in his favor put his approval in the low 40s and his disapproval in the low 50s. On the world stage, 34% of those polled say they have a lot or some confidence in him, while 62% have little-to-no confidence. In that first statistic, if you remove "some confidence" as the poll option, only 7% say they have a lot of confidence in him. If you're looking for everybody on the planet to hate him so you can say "well you're right, he's universally unpopular," of course that will never happen. Given it's apparently not even universal thought that Hitler was a bad person anymore, it seems unlikely a universal hate for somebody who's not as egregious as Hitler will ever be forthcoming.

Obama has never been as disliked as Trump is during his presidency. At a few points, Obama's disapproval rating was 12%, whereas the lowest Trump has ever gotten is 45%. Obama peaked at a 69% approval rating. Trump has never gotten higher than 49%. Donald Trump has the lowest peak approval rating (by a significant margin) across all presidents since Truman (which is when they started tracking approval ratings).

As for the basketball court, Obama didn't unilaterally build one. He converted a space that was only tennis courts to a space that was mixed use, including basketball courts. He did so with his own money, through proper channels and oversight, and it cost $100,000 of his own money. In fact, money was offered to him by the government to do it, and he declined. Nothing was demolished to make it.

When Nixon closed the pool (the press conference where it was announced he would was done by staffers in October 1969), he did so in order to invite more media to the White House. He felt given the instability of the nation and lack of faith people had in government, inviting more press, more people, and allowing more face-time with leaders on a day-to-day basis would help restore stability and confidence. Also, he didn't destroy the pool; he covered it over specifically so if they wanted to use it again, they could. It's still there, maintained and preserved, accessed regularly because that's where storage for computer equipment is. Nothing was demolished to make it.

Ford built a pool, but its construction with being built to preserve the integrity of the White House and grounds was overseen by bipartisan government and civilian groups, cost $67,000, and was funded by private donations. Ford was so committed to integrity and transparency, the list of people who donated is still available, no one person or organization was allowed to donate more than $1,000 so as to ensure fairness, equity, and prevent the president from being beholden to any one group, and every, single dime was accounted for during the building process. The accounting of the project is actually studied by economists because of how exact it was. Nothing was demolished to make it.

The ball room is not yet fully funded, all the people who are funding it are not being disclosed, it's cost was initially $100,000,000 then it was $200,000,000 now it's being said it's $300,000,000, it is being done without transparency or oversight, resulted in the destruction of an entire wing of the White House (a segment Obama said in his book he was particularly fond of which I'm sure in no way influenced Trump at all) and it's not being used to increase media access or give the people more access to the government and representatives, nor is it being built for daily, frequent use. It's being used for parties, specifically, state dinners and dining events. Obama and Bush Jr. had 13 with no problems. Despite COVID, Biden had 6, and he had them at a pace closer together than any president since Reagan. Clinton had 29. You know how many Trump had? Two. Just two. That's it. And the two he had, he did under duress and protest. So even Trump himself only had need of this room twice in four years.

The president is a tenant at the White House. We are the landlords. Levelling an entire wing of a building you don't own in order to build a vanity project of limited use would make you a bad renter. Trump is a bad renter and this whole thing is just a reminder of how little he cares about anybody but himself.

November 4th, more than half of the country will lose funding to food, but an unpopular president will leverage the White House to private donors in order to get his opulent ballroom where he can host both of his state dinners.

But by all means, if you want to be mad about Nixon converting an unused part of the basement for $16k more than 50 years ago, go for it. Seems a bit odd to be mad about that when you have a Caesars Palace banquet hall that costs 18,750 times more than that being built today, but whatever.

Personally, I think this is just a testament to how bad a real estate mogul he really is. It was $100,000,000 which is already expensive, but to find out that it's 3x more than that as a surprise? Either he's awful at picking contractors, bad at estimating cost, bad at sticking to a budget, or surrounded by deeply ineffective people... None of which happens to people who are masters of their industry. Having done house repairs before, you find out about maybe an extra thousand here, an extra couple thousand there, uncover problems that need more work than you guessed... But 3x the original cost? That kind of stuff happens to people like me, who has no relationship with builders, no building experience, is working solo, isn't contracting with the best people available, has no means to leverage or negotiate prices, and lives in a house older than the White House. It doesn't happen to adept, networked, influential tycoons who use the best of the best in the industry, (in theory) pay all their bills and have major influence in the sphere in which they operate.

Like, he can't look at a blueprint and say "geez, this looks like it has really significantly been low-balled?" Me, a 44-year-old ametur carpenter who has no experience reading building blueprints or building or renovating homes can look at a submitted plan by my contractor and say "I'm sorry, I don't think buying all appliances, replacing the counters, cabinets, fixtures, and surface remodelling/painting in my kitchen will realistically only cost $5k... Are you sure that's right? What's the line-by-line and overage potential?" but Trump can't look at plans for a ballroom and know it's under-budgeted by more than double? Is this a "It's one banana, Micheal, what could it cost? $10?" scenario where he just has zero concept of real life?

Click to expand...

The “Ballroom”dimensions don’t add up

From a post on Facebook by Andrew Kerr, a licensed architect with 20+ years experience, who has worked on several Federal projects. 1. With a projected size of 90,000 sf and a budget of $300M, the cost per square foot would be $3,333. No building costs...

www.dailykos.com

Chesterton said:

That's because conservatives know the meanings of common two-syllable words.

Click to expand...

Richard T said:

Wondering if Trump only loves certain Americans?

Click to expand...

Chesterton said:

That's because conservatives know the meanings of common two-syllable words.

Click to expand...

Colo Millz said:

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

English Standard Version Catholic Edition (n.p.: Augustine Institute, 2019), Ga 4:21–27.

May there not be very many other OT passages that can be interpreted allegorically?

Is Paul's method here not an exemplar to us of proper exegesis?

Paul assumes the existence of the mystical sense (cf. § 40) in Scripture, in which events and figures of the OT are types of the NT. Taking yet another illustration from the history of Abraham, he shows that those who rely on the Law instead of faith in the Promise áre to be excluded from the inheritance; cf. Prat, op. cit., I, 221. 22. Cf. Gen 16:15; 17:15–21; 21:2, 9. 23. ‘According to the flesh’: on the one side all happened according to nature; but on the other, according to a divine promise, miraculously realized. 24. ‘Which things are allegorically interpreted’ as follows. 25. ‘(For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia)’: a supplementary confirmation of his interpretation inserted in parenthesis; for Ismael is connected with Arabia through being the ancestor of the chief Arab tribe. Arabia then denoted all the land S. and E. of Palestine. ‘She corresponds to that Jerusalem.…’ 26. i.e. the Church. 27. Cf. Is 54:1, with which the Rabbis connected Is 51:2

Dom B. Orchard, “Galatians,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe (Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 1117.

24. Which things are said by allegory; literally, ἅτινα ὲστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, which things are allegorized, i.e., the things narrated in Genesis regarding the sons and marriages of Abraham, signifying at the same time other things altogether different from themselves. By an allegory, writers on rhetoric understand a lengthened or continued metaphor. Ecclesiastical writers generally understand it to denote a figure in things, by which one thing is employed to typify or signify another of quite a different nature. “For these,” αὗται γὰρ, i.e., the marriages, or, according to others, the two wives of Abraham. “Are,” i.e., signify “the two Testaments”—viz., the New and the Old. “The one indeed from Mount Sina.” The Old Testament took its rise from Mount Sina; because, there was promulgated the Law, the observance of which was among the primary conditions of the Old Covenant. “Which bringeth forth into bondage.” The Old Testament brought forth children into the bondage of the Mosaic Law, a law of servitude, both on account of the multitude of its precepts, which neither the Jews nor their fathers could bear, as also on account of the spirit of fear which it inspired. “Which is Agar;” and this covenant is represented by Agar.

John MacEvilly, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul and of the Catholic Epistles, vol. 1 (Dublin; New York: M. H. Gill & Son; Benziger Brothers, 1898), 390–391.

Ancient Christian interpreters practised typological and allegorical readings to uncover the spiritual meaning of biblical texts in order to deepen their understanding of God. They did not consider such readings fanciful or arbitrary because they had a different view of reality from us moderns. Ancient interpreters assumed a connection between mind and a higher order of reality. For them, sacred texts were windows to divine realities. Theologians call this the ‘sacramental’ quality of language and texts, that is, their ability to mediate transcendent, divine truths. Already in the Greek philosophical use of Homer or in rabbinic interpretation of the Bible, the text was not read in a strictly literal or historical sense. In contrast to modern literalism, texts were treated as cryptic, containing hidden spiritual insights. Even historical events were means of conveying spiritual truths.

Zimmermann, Jens. Hermeneutics: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (pp. 84-85). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

Click to expand...

GoldenBoy89 said:

I don’t think I’ve ever had to write a book defending Obama’s actions.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

No he hasn't. All that article did was lay out the leftist complaints.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

Everything Trump has done has been legal.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

Government , presidents etc act based upon their interpretation of the Constitution. Its legal until the Supreme Court looks at it and interprets the Constitution and determines if rhe actions are Constitutional or not.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

Even if they do determine the action is not Constitutional doesn't mean it was illegal at the time it was done.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

Nope, certain actions conducted in defense of the country and its citizens due not require due process.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

Yes Im sure they were.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

Nice try. I don't need to prove it to you and neither does the military.

Click to expand...

US strikes on 'Venezuela drug boats': are they legal?

Experts have suggested several attacks launched by the US may be illegal under international law.

www.bbc.com

rjs330 said:

Well it was the leftist James and her DOJ who promised to go after him.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

They wanted him in jail.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

And right now James is also in the same boat.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

I think you definitely don't understand how it all.works.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

Sorry, I am consistently correct. The leftist James DOJ went after Trump to jail him. She ran on that as a prosecutor.

Click to expand...

RocksInMyHead said:

Queen Elizabeth could have done it, theoretically, by disowning him. But otherwise, it's a birthright - if you're the son of the king/queen, you are a prince.

Click to expand...

Michie said:

Did you see that a lot of people don’t want Donald Trump to be the king of America?
On October 18th, there were a lot of “No Kings” rallies around the country, decrying what the protesters say are authoritarian actions by President Trump, whom they claim acts more like a king than a president. One protester in San Francisco held a sign saying, “Hey Trump nobody paid us to be here. We all hate you for free.”
Nice. You can read the Babylon Bee’s list of things accomplished by people like that in the No Kings demonstrations here.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of protesters were democrats and leftists (I do believe there is a distinction between the two), and, of course, there were jabs from the right about the rallies, with some calling it “democrat sulk day.” Naturally, those supporting the “No Kings” rallies deny that and say they are simply against the despotic actions of any president who crosses the line of democracy.

Am I the only one calling baloney on that?

Click to expand...