JSRG said:

Which again does not actually address the point I made.

Click to expand...

As you just saw, widely-diverse American political groups acknowledge that self-government is the core of our way of government.

JSRG said:

The mere fact that there was no mechanism for the people to enact laws disproves your claim

Click to expand...

In fact, the earliest form of American democracy, the town meeting is precisely that. Eventually, the state got large enough to require representative government. But the representatives were dependent on the consent of the governed. The idea predates the Constitution. Would you like to see that?

JSRG said:

And none of them had people vote on bills or laws themselves.

Click to expand...

Recall, referendum, and initiative are exactly that. And yes, various officials have tried to undo self-government. It's always a tension between the people and representatives, who are tempted to defy them.

FoundinGrace7 said:

Please pray for wisdom and energy, having a low day, thank you

Click to expand...

I pray you will be given light as to what to do about your low energy. You never know there could be a physical component, such as poor probiotics, in your gut, low iron, hypothyroidism, lots of causes, but I will pray for you to know, and for the problem to be resolved.

As for wisdom, we are told in the Bible, that if anyone lacks wisdom we can ask and our heavenly father will give it and give it generously, without searching through our faults. I pray you will be given wisdom and lead a wise life.

Chesterton said:

I tried to find an article with a clip with the least profanity.

Antifa Tried to Incite Violence Between Black and Jewish Neighbors – Watch How Their Plan Backfired

Antifa's attempt to incite violence fails as Crown Heights residents unite against them.

townhall.com

Click to expand...

The video shows how proof that the country has a mental health problem, not a gun problem. These are the same people who will shoot up a Catholic school attending Mass in Minnesota.

Manuel1983 said:

Shalom
Praise the Lord, he has given me a new job as a exterminator. I will be able to work with and for a brother in Christ in the future.
Please pray for me that the Lord will make me a light, salt, and blessing to the people I meet there and help me to lead people to Christ there as well, in Jesus' name. Amen.
May the Lord bless you abundantly (Luke 6:38, Job 42:10) in Jesus' name. Amen!
Soli Deo Gloria

Click to expand...

I think it is great that you have a new job. And it is wonderful that you want to spread the gospel.

But I hope you will be very discreet and very led if you try to share the gospel.

Here are some words out of the Bible itself. The Bible says to be discreet in evil times. It says that if you rebuke a fool, he will hate you. To some people sharing the gospel is an insult to them and they will hate you.

You should always pray for them, and pray to know, whether or not you should witness,
just the apostles threw their nets where the Messiah directed.

I haven’t always been perfect on that by far myself. Just saying what the Bible says. Messiah himself said, do not throw your pearls to the pigs, or give what is holy to the dogs. Whether they look holy on the outside or lost causes on the inside, we will often not know what kind of little spiritual feet they have inside their shoes.

I’m sorry to say that the hunting ground, or you could say the fishing waters, are not packed with great candidates. Messiah also said that few would take the path to eternal life, the narrow path. But that by far the most would take the broad road to destruction.

So, again, for your own peace of mind and so you don’t waste your time, I hope you will use your heart for others as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Blessings.

peaceful-forest said:

I used to go to a big and rich (Southern) Baptist church years ago. I was one of those few singles that attended that church and I wanted to meet a single Christian man there. The church was against allowing a singles Bible study group, claiming that they "had better things to focus on". This church was one of those churches that placed big emphasis on telling others about the Gospel.

After listening to people like Sheila Wray Gregoire, Beth Allison Barr, etc. I believe I know why that church was against having a singles group - because the leadership of that church has a lust problem. All the leaders are married men, no women. It was wrong to allow singles to congregate together, but...

• they had meetings for men in the church that struggled with lust (not sure if they still have this program or not)
• they are allowing Christian groups to congregate there separately from the church, and one of the groups nobody speaks English
• the church is expanding themselves and allowing non-essential things to be built on their property, like a gym. Yes, you saw that right, a gym. How is this advancing the Gospel?

Why were they against a singles group but are allowing all these other things in?

Click to expand...

I had occasion to visit a church after a funeral for a friend's wife. The pastor, at the funeral home, gave a prayer to close the service. Afterward, we went to his church for food. The potluck was being set up in their full sized indoor basketball court. I couldn't believe it when I stepped inside.

Singles being overlooked for married couples seems to be common from what I've been reading on forums. If my church wanted to put in a gym, but shot down a singles group, I would think that my church has its priorities mixed up, and I would speak up about it. The money thing is also a big warning sign to me.

God bless!

The Barbarian said:

Well, let's take a look...

From the right-wing Heritage Foundation:
The first usage of the term “independence” refers to the right of self-government. In Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence, he wrote that, “all men are created free and independent,” reflecting the language of the Declaration of Rights in his home state of Virginia. “Equal,” which was the word used in Jefferson’s final draft, is related to this understanding of “independence.” Both carry with them the connotation of self-ownership or self-government. As James Wilson explained, “All men are, by nature, equal and free: no one has a right to any authority over another without his consent: all lawful government is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it: such consent was given with a view to ensure and to increase the happiness of the governed, above what they could enjoy in an independent and unconnected state of nature.” The Founders considered that mankind’s independence exempted him from the arbitrary rule of fellow human beings and that his nature fortified him with the dignity of self-government.

The Founders’ Vision for American Independence

This Independence Day, it is worth reflecting on what the Founding Fathers meant when they used the term “independence.” On one level, July 4th is about our national independence, securing for America the “separate and equal station” befitting of a sovereign country. On another level, the...

www.heritage.org

Click to expand...

By "self-government" here it refers to the ability of the people to choose their rulers, not that the people were actually doing the governing themselves by passing laws. I notice also that the portion you apparently feel was the most important was not even an actual quote from Jefferson or Wilson.

The Barbarian said:

From the Left-wing Bill of Rights Institute:
The core idea of self-government is that people should have a say in the terms by which we live our lives. Self-government contains the idea that people should be free from unjust control over their lives, but it also means that people are responsible for their own actions.

Representation and Self-Governance | Bill of Rights Institute

How did the argument for "no taxation without representation" lead to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the formation of the United States

billofrightsinstitute.org

Until the rise of MAGA, pretty much all Americans of all political persuasions accepted the basic American principle of self-government.

Click to expand...

Which again does not actually address the point I made. The mere fact that there was no mechanism for the people to enact laws disproves your claim--and again, the US government was deliberately set up so that the people would exercise more limited say on various parts of it. Again, the House of Representatives was the only portion actually directly elected, with the Senate and President being indirect. And none of them had people vote on bills or laws themselves.

essentialsaltes said:

For Abrego Garcia, neither Uganda nor El Salvador have jurisdiction over a crime that allegedly took place in the United States.
The same goes for all of these others.

But at least you've backed off your propaganda that this is not happening. It is.

Click to expand...

Abrego Garcia was found guilty here. He can serve out his term in his own country. That is how most international courts work. You are found guilty in the country you violated the law in and you serve out part of or all of your term in your own country.

essentialsaltes said:

For Abrego Garcia, neither Uganda nor El Salvador have jurisdiction over a crime that allegedly took place in the United States.
The same goes for all of these others.

But at least you've backed off your propaganda that this is not happening. It is.

Click to expand...

I have to check it out. Just because people are picked up for questioning doesn’t mean they are being kidnapped and shipped out. Lots of people get picked up for questioning during investigations.

rjs330 said:

Slaves were freed in the 13th Ammendment. So they were legal residents. They were brought here against their will rather than migrated here illegally like today. Apples and oranges. Your argument is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

It's not irrelevant. You claimed that there were no illegal immigrants, but there were. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, but didn't say anything about making the illegal immigrants that were here legal.

rjs330 said:

We don't need to change rhe constitution. Just note that the ammendment does not apply to illegals since rhe constitution did not address that issue. If anything the constitution should need to be changed to count illegals rather than the ither way around. Since illegals didn't exist at the time.

Click to expand...

Again, they did exist at the time. But even if they didn't--and, once again, they did--your argument still fails simply because they still count as a person as the word was understood back then and even still today.

Indeed, it's striking the degree to which you refuse to examine the actual text of the Fourteenth Amendment, which should be the very first thing to look at. You have yet to address the clear fact that "person" means person; someone is a person whether they are an illegal immigrant or not. By your logic, state governments can go on a genocidal rampage and kill all of them with no due process, because the Fourteenth Amendment says that states can't deprive a person of life without due process of law--but your entire argument relies on illegal immigrants not counting as persons. Do you think that illegal immigrants can be killed by governments without any due process? Because again, the exact same word is used in the exact same amendment to say that the state government cannot kill a person without due process, and to also say they must count the full number of persons.

And if there being a new category of person somehow excludes them from the meaning of person, that would mean the government can set an entire class of people (say, all right-handed white people) as "bimpkepidardles" and then say they cannot be counted, because obviously bimpkepidardles was a class of people that didn't exist before.

rjs330 said:

Irrelevant argument. We aren't talking about organized crime. Organized crime existed at the time.

Click to expand...

My point was that your argument was about how it's bad policy to count illegal immigrants towards the census, and how prohibition turning out to not be great policy didn't make it go away.

rjs330 said:

Nope, it just needs to be understood in rhe context of the time, which only recognized legal residents since there were no illegal ones. Now there are and if people want them counted they need to change rhe constitution to count them.

Click to expand...

You continue to ignore the plain text of the Constitution and the obvious meaning of person.

rjs330 said:

If you are referring to freedom of speech the 1st ammendment did not put a limit on what type of medium its referring to. And SCOTUS has put limits on it as well saying what it does and does not refer to.

Click to expand...

And the Fourteenth Amendment does not put a limit on what kind of person it is referring to (outside of the exclusion of Indians not taxed"). Every person counts. You don't get to claim that because there's a new category of person, that somehow means they are not a person, although once again this was not a new category as it existed before, due to illegal immigrants existing prior and existing even at the time.

But even if illegal immigrants were a new category of person--which they were not--and that this meant they weren't intended to be included by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Internet is a new kind of medium. Thus, by your own logic, the Internet is not protected by the First Amendment.

In fact, one can argue based on the text for this far better. The First Amendment says the government can't infringe upon "the press" and "speech". The Internet obviously it not a printing press, and much communication on it does not involve speaking, but typing. This can of course be easily addressed by simply saying that an alternate meaning of "speech" at the time was general communication. However, there was no definition back then or even now for "person" to somehow exclude illegal immigrants, which were then and now considered to be persons.

rjs330 said:

SCOTUS certainly could take into consideration the difference between legal and illegal residents since ILLEGALS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE HERE.


At the time it was written it referred to persons who were here as residents because they were legally here. There was no such thing as an illegal. Now there is. If people want illegals counted then the constitution should be amended to do so.

Click to expand...

Again, you are ignoring the actual text of the Constitution and making up something new to insert into its place. This may be why you, instead of appealing to the actual text of the Constitution, essentially make up what you think it says.

Job 33:6 said:

Login to view embedded media A good video on YEC views of where people came from.

Click to expand...

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

As is obvious from the book of Genesis itself, the birth and or lineage of women was not recorded in these scriptures, other than to mention that Adam and his descendants had many sons and daughters not among those recorded. The first seven chapters of Genesis cover a period of about two thousand years, the vast majority of the history in relation to the greater part of humanity therefore, we are not informed about at all. In other than generalizations, accepting the few specifics addressed concerning the main peoples and events leading up to the first, end of this world. It makes no sense therefore to consider that which is recorded, as intending to be an accurate chronological account of all peoples and or events portrayed. To the contrary, it is most obviously a summary of only the most crucial events, concerning the most crucial people involved. Without much regard for the lineage or lives of countless peoples and events therefore, contemporary with them. Which are rightly left unaddressed or recorded, for the sake of comprehension and preservation of the most important and or pertinent truths.

We simply are not informed of all the peoples and especially women of the day. Nor therefore is anything in relation to them therefore, necessarily related in any sort of actual chronological order. To the contrary, only the main points of the main lives involved are related any such order. Obviously, what was recorded, was not intended to be a detailed and accurate account of who is who, and or by who. Save among the most prominent and important figures themselves. As the greater part of humanity during the two thousand years recorded in Genesis 1-7 are not in fact addressed at all. The presumption of the above video is that the short historical account of Genesis 1-7 does not leave any actual people out of its testimony. While these scriptures themselves indicate that this is exactly what they do, in not mentioning the births or lineage of any women, and stating within the lineages provided that there were many sons and daughters not included in those provided.

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

It appears likely from the above verses that Seth was the next male born to Adam, although the particulars mentioned concerning him, may be suggestive of others born before him. Who evidently were not according to his won likeness or image. We do not know however, how many daughters had been born before and or up to this time, as the birth of women was not recorded. There may have been and probably were daughters born before, in between, and or after Cain and Abel.

Chesterton said:

This is a very short thread yet you're the third person who doesn't bother to read preceding posts before posting. Strange.

You can wonder all you want but if you want to deny what was reported I'd like to hear some evidence.

Click to expand...

Good luck!

The word is frisson. It describes the effects of a shot of dopamine released into your brain that causes the skin to feel a rush and gives you a feeling of release, focus, well-being and clarity.

Lay Down Your Weary Tune, performed by Dylan, always does it for me. In another way, Men of Harlech will do it. And White Rabbit; Gracie Slick does it to me every time.

Amo2 said:

There is nothing in the first verse of Genesis that necessitates an allegorical rendering of the creation account.

Click to expand...

The lack of a sun for the first three days of Creation make those "evenings" and "mornings" problematic, don't you think?
(And just for entertainment porpoises, how long are "evenings" and "morning" at the earth's poles? )
s

Amo2 said:

If there is, please do expound upon that which therefore has apparently limited God to allegory alone

Click to expand...

Nice try, but nothing has made God allegorical, just the "days" of Creation. But you may want to allegorize this:
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing: that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day".

Amo2 said:

, concerning the days of creation mentioned in the creation account.

Click to expand...

See above. You may want to square St, Peter away when the opportunity arises.

Here's all you really need to know about the Creation:
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.

Guns

I own ten or more guns (I lost count). In Ohio, for every gun I purchased at a dealer, I had to fill out a form and go through a government background check before taking delivery. The process in place is plenty. The form asks about felonies, mental illness, etc. If you lie on the form, you will most likely be arrested and serve jail time.

I had a concealed carry permit for ten years before the concealed carry law went into effect in Ohio, to allow concealed carry without a permit. I haven't noticed a significant increase in gun crime since the law went into effect. Short-term, I think crime has gone down, but it has only been three years.

Societal Changes

Many of us remember the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, and how it was different. In my own lifetime I've seen how media has shaped society. The internet opened the flood gates, and now we're reaping the outcome of decades of unchecked sickness and sin.

I don't think there is anything we can do to put the genie back in the bottle. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I think history gives us plenty of perspective on what went wrong, if we have the hindsight to see.

As Days of Noah

Prophecy is being fulfilled. 2 Timothy 3:1-7 describes today's society to a tee. What we are seeing today is, "as the days of Noah." It should be a wake-up call to all Christians that the end is near, even at the door.

Ophiolite said:

Please point me to a couple of examples where this has occurred.

Click to expand...

No.

Vambram said:

I asked Gemini AI "Should the Federal Reserve reduce the prime interest rate?"

Click to expand...

That was silly, since the Fed doesn't control that.

Platte said:

And btw. God did define a day.

Click to expand...

An evening and a morning, as I recall. Which works great when you have a sun, and assuming that the earth's orbit was a a settled decision after the sun was installed. And no, the mere existence of light doesn't suffice for the measurement of time unless you're using light's speed, and not the duration of "evenings and mornings". So you're still invoking a fiat "day" as a definiitive measurement of elapsed time, when we have every reason to believe that is not the case based on easily observed empirical data. The net effect is that it's not at all a good basis for a dogma.

But that's OK. The Christian Faith isn't based on Genesis. It's based on the entrance of the Creator, God Himself, directly into human history. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. 'Nuff said, Trying to impose man-made time measurements onto it is nonsense. God's "days" aren't the same as ours. You may have read this, but if you're like most folks you've tried to force a human understanding of time on it.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing: that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

God's "days" aren't 24 solar hours. That's the Christian position.

JSRG said:

The founders did not assume that people were better at governing themselves than rulers were--in fact, they outright rejected that entire idea. Yes, they thought people should have a say in the government, but not that they would govern themselves.

Click to expand...

Well, let's take a look...

From the right-wing Heritage Foundation:
The first usage of the term “independence” refers to the right of self-government. In Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence, he wrote that, “all men are created free and independent,” reflecting the language of the Declaration of Rights in his home state of Virginia. “Equal,” which was the word used in Jefferson’s final draft, is related to this understanding of “independence.” Both carry with them the connotation of self-ownership or self-government. As James Wilson explained, “All men are, by nature, equal and free: no one has a right to any authority over another without his consent: all lawful government is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it: such consent was given with a view to ensure and to increase the happiness of the governed, above what they could enjoy in an independent and unconnected state of nature.” The Founders considered that mankind’s independence exempted him from the arbitrary rule of fellow human beings and that his nature fortified him with the dignity of self-government.

From the Left-wing Bill of Rights Institute:
The core idea of self-government is that people should have a say in the terms by which we live our lives. Self-government contains the idea that people should be free from unjust control over their lives, but it also means that people are responsible for their own actions.

Representation and Self-Governance | Bill of Rights Institute

How did the argument for "no taxation without representation" lead to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the formation of the United States

billofrightsinstitute.org

Until the rise of MAGA, pretty much all Americans of all political persuasions accepted the basic American principle of self-government.

Always in His Presence said:

We will find out in September if the Fed lowers prime - won't we.

Click to expand...

No. Because the Fed does not control the Prime.

Chesterton said:

This is a very short thread yet you're the third person who doesn't bother to read preceding posts before posting. Strange.

Click to expand...

I've read the whole thread.

Chesterton said:

You can wonder all you want but if you want to deny what was reported I'd like to hear some evidence.

Click to expand...

The burden of proof is on the author of the article. He made lots of assertions without backing them up.

Maybe in the future you can choose higher quality journalism to share with the class.

Always in His Presence said:

What Fed must do now after Jerome Powell's Jackson Hole epiphany​

Click to expand...

Economies are squishy things and it is unclear where the absorption of the tariffs, (when they’re finally realized, after all the grace-periods have expired) will fall, will foreign manufacturers lower the cost of their wares? Will importers shave a point or two of their own profits? How much more/less will the tariffs effect imports?

Those things are still being sorted out.

Traditionally the preceding President owns the economy until the next fiscal year, so all of this goes on Biden’s page until October 1, so there’s that, too.

rjs330 said:

At the time it was written it referred to persons who were here as residents because they were legally here. There was no such thing as an illegal. Now there is. If people want illegals counted then the constitution should be amended to do so.

Click to expand...

There were no such people as airline pilots, either. But like undocumented workers, they fit into the category of "population" and "people", and so are already mentioned in the 14th amendment.

Pommer said:

Exactly.
It’s not like we can change the law to fit the circumstances!

Click to expand...

Then do so. Change the constitution to count people who are illegally here. Until then we should only be counting legal residents just like were here at the time.