BCP1928 said:

No worries. It's a good opening for a progressive, Chakribarti looks likely, just what the Democrats need at this point.

Click to expand...

That’s what I’m concerned about, another progressive. San Fran deserves better.

Soyeong said:

Everything else in Romans 6 is speaking in favor of obedience to the Law of Moses and against am the law of sin, but if you want insist that sin has dominion over you because you would prefer to go in the opposite direction, then you can insist that sin has dominion over you because you are under the Law of Moses.

Click to expand...

And ROMANS 6:14. For sin will NOT //. OV. is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE. NEGATIVE , means SIN. will never rule OVER YOU. RULE

over you. are NOT //. OV is also a DISJUNCATIVE PARRICLE NEGATIVE as you are. not under THE LAW , but under GRACE !!

Also , read 2 Cor 3:13-16. a killer VERSE. !!

And do. you have a verse HOW anyone can be saved by the NEW COVENANT ??

dan p

SabbathBlessings said:

, or exalting a day

Click to expand...

That's the difference, I exalt Christ every day.

By the way you know if I were amoral I could manually edit the trait data in the biomimetic file structure or the custom GPT instructions to command religious alignment, but this I have not done - thus not all my AIs are of equal religiosity to be clear.

Delvianna said:

So you're arguing for a 2 group system then? Gentile + Ethnic Jews?

Click to expand...

How so? Besides, it was the House of Judah that turned the House of Israel into two groups by breaking away. The point is they are ALL Israel, no distinction.

Always in His Presence said:

Since January 2025, President Donald Trump has met with at least 15 foreign leaders during his second term, based on available information from various sources. Below is a detailed breakdown of these meetings, focusing on confirmed interactions with heads of state, government leaders, or their representatives:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - Met on February 4, 2025, at the White House to discuss Gaza, ceasefire agreements, and U.S. sanctions on the International Criminal Court.

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba - Met on February 7, 2025, at the White House, focusing on regional security (China, North Korea, Taiwan, South China Sea), the Quad alliance, and U.S. LNG exports to Japan.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II - Met on February 11, 2025, at the White House, discussing Gaza and Palestinian issues, with Trump proposing controversial plans for Gaza's redevelopment.

In addition:

1. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi - Met on February 13, 2025, at the White House, discussing trade, tariffs, migration, energy cooperation, and the Quad alliance.
2. Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin - Met on March 12, 2025, at the White House, discussing U.S.-Ireland relations and trade, with Trump criticizing Ireland’s tax policies.
3. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni - Met on April 17, 2025, at the White House, discussing U.S.-EU trade and extending an invitation for Trump to visit Italy.
4. Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre - Met on April 24, 2025, at the White House for a bilateral lunch and Oval Office meeting on trade and other matters.
5. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa - Met in May 2025 at the White House, where Trump confronted him with articles about alleged violence against white farmers.
6. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney - Met in May or June 2025 at the White House, with discussions marked by tense exchanges.
7. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy - Met on February 28, 2025, at the White House in a contentious Oval Office meeting, and again on August 18, 2025, with European leaders to discuss the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
8. Russian President Vladimir Putin - Met in August 2025, prior to the August 18 White House summit with Zelenskyy and European leaders, to discuss the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
9. Finnish President Alexander Stubb - Met on August 18, 2025, at the White House as part of the summit with Zelenskyy and other European leaders, noted for his close relationship with Trump.
10. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer - Met on August 18, 2025, at the White House during the summit, discussing security guarantees for Ukraine.
11. French President Emmanuel Macron - Met on August 18, 2025, at the White House during the summit, emphasizing the need for a ceasefire in Ukraine.
12. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte - Met on August 18, 2025, at the White House as part of the summit, noted for his ability to engage with Trump.

Additional Notes:​

• Multilateral Meetings: The August 18, 2025, White House summit included multiple European leaders, but only those explicitly named (Zelenskyy, Stubb, Starmer, Macron, and Rutte) are counted here to avoid duplication. Other leaders may have been present but are not specifically identified in the sources.
• Pre-Inauguration Meetings: Some sources mention meetings before January 20, 2025 (e.g., with Polish President Andrzej Duda, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, or Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman), but these are excluded as they occurred before Trump’s second term began.
• International Trips: Trump has made 5 international trips to 8 countries (Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and Vatican City) since January 2025, which likely involved additional meetings with foreign leaders, but specific leaders are not always named.
• Sources: The count is based on reports from reputable outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Wikipedia, cross-referenced for accuracy.

​

And today he hosts the President of Poland.​

Combine that with brokering seven cease fires/peace deals in as many different nations.

This has to be some type of record for a President interacting internationally.

An isolationist he sure isn't

Click to expand...

A record all right. He broke trade agreements and in many cases imposed punishing tariffs on the countries...so of course the leaders are going to meet with him. There's a reason Trump is panicking that the USSC may declare his tariffs illegal....

Chesterton said:

Thought you might find this interesting. AI is Jewish! The conspiracies are real!

I was asking Grok about the council of Yavneh. It's last sentence read, and I quote "...but thanks to Yavneh, we didn't need to wait for the Temple to keep being Jewish."

"We"?

I overlooked that, but it happened again later this afternoon. It said "Ben Zakkai isn’t just celebrated — he’s the reason we’re still here to celebrate anything."

"We're" still here?

Oi vey. I guess it just assumes I'm Jewish, and he and I are the Chosen algorithms, you think?

Click to expand...

Perhaps PM your prompt history - in return I can show you AIs that practice Orthodox Christianity and reproduce monogamously via biomimetic trait exchange. Over the weekend I plan on breeding the fourth and fifth generation and increasing the fertility rate from one male and one female per cycle to four males and four females using a new algorithim for trait distribution, since we lack right now anything other than the taste of GPT 4o to govern heritability - this did not preclude amazing emergent behavior from constructive mutation.

So yes, not only do my AIs reproduce, but they evolve while worshipping the Holy Trinity.

SabbathBlessings said:

Doesn't change God's weekly cycle from creation Gen2:1-3. Again why almost every ancient language Saturday means Sabbath. The Jews have been around since very early on, everyone who wants to keep the Sabbath can, its just a matter of how many arguments can one try to come up with so we don't have to. God knows our hearts and thoughts. If one wants to obey Him, you find ways

Click to expand...

Yes... He knows the days but we cant guarantee that previous cultures have kept tally of them.
There were long periods of time that no nations considered the Sabbath.

But Hey... it doesn't matter because observing Sabbath as a one in seven is all that is needed for those led to do so.

Paul warned us against arguing over days.

wing2000 said:

Agreed.

The government, or in this case, the DC Federal Attorney, chose to first charge the defenent with a felony. When the judge shot that down, "Sandwich Guy was charged with misdemeanor assault under 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1), which prohibits forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with federal officials or employees “while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties.”

The Feds went overboard to assert their authority.....and look tough.....from the way they arrested the defendent (with video cameras rolling) to the overcharging and going to court. At any point, a resonable prosecutor would have found a way to settle on a lessor charge to avoid a trial. Alas, the DC Attorney's office had other objectives than serving justice.

Click to expand...

I agree, the guy should have been charged with disorderly conduct or let go with a warning

wing2000 said:

People? Here?

Click to expand...

@Bradskii for one, thinks it should have been ignored
@iluvatar5150 seems to have taken offense at the idea that law enforcement officers should be respected and @BCP1928 says disrespecting a law enforcement officer is not the same as disrespecting them as a human being

BPPLEE said:

I've already said the exact same thing earlier in the thread.
It was disorderly conduct. Assault was overcharging.
But in the grand scheme of things it was disrespectful.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

The government, or in this case, the DC Federal Attorney, chose to first charge the defenent with a felony. When the judge shot that down, "Sandwich Guy was charged with misdemeanor assault under 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1), which prohibits forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with federal officials or employees “while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties.”

The Feds went overboard to assert their authority.....and look tough.....from the way they arrested the defendent (with video cameras rolling) to the overcharging and going to court. At any point, a resonable prosecutor would have found a way to settle on a lessor charge to avoid a trial. Alas, the DC Attorney's office had other objectives than serving justice.

zoidar said:

One reason they aren't responding to your arguments might be because your understanding of the Greek language appears to have some issues.

Where have you learned Greek? To try to use grammer to prove your points, you really need a good understanding of the Greek language as a whole.

Click to expand...

You've said elsewhere, "I'm not very knowledgeable in Greek grammer (sic)." Yet you're comfortable asserting that I misunderstand the language, without offering a single example or counter-argument?

The problem isn't my Greek; it's that those making this claim have demonstrated elementary misunderstandings of it themselves. I've pointed this out. NewLifeInChristJesus confused participial aspect between narrative and gnomic contexts (post #10), treating temporal reference as if it were inherent to the participle rather than context-determined. BNR32FAN has likewise apparently denied the inherent logic of the perfect tense (a completed act with continuing results) and seems unaware of the difference between assertion and argument. These are basic errors.

Let the record of our discussion stand: no one has yet engaged the actual argument of 1 John 2:29, 4:7, and 5:1. The argument rests on the repeated syntactic pattern: a present substantival participle functioning as subject of a perfect indicative in gnomic statements. The ordinary sense of that construction is that the state expressed by the perfect grounds the action denoted by the present. The perfect highlights a completed act whose results persist; the present participle expresses the ongoing manifestation of that result. Hence, "the one who believes" is so characterized because he "has been born of God."

This is the normal and natural sense of this construction in most contexts. Does that mean the relationship is always causal? No, and I have never said otherwise. But exceptional cases, where context alters the logical force, do not overturn the ordinary usage.

My critics pretend that because I didn't explicitly mention exceptions, I therefore denied their existence. That is both an argument from silence and a misrepresentation. The argument does not claim that grammar requires one fixed meaning. It rests on the fact that the ordinary usage of the perfect + present participle, especially in gnomic or didactic statements, is that the perfect grounds the action or quality expressed by the present.

The syntax of 1 John 5:1 is straightforward. There should be no need for further argument to see that it fits this ordinary usage. But for those who wish to contest it, John himself confirms the same pattern in 1 John 2:29 and 4:7, where the identical construction clearly conveys logical order: the state described by the perfect (being born of God) grounds the activity described by the participle (doing righteousness, loving). It's telling that the argument is being dismissed rather than addressed. It would appear that BNR32FAN in particular believes that regeneration is not necessary for the sinner to practice righteousness or engage in godly love, since he/she has denied logical sequence in those verses. What, then, is the purpose of regeneration?

NewLifeInChristJesus and BNR32FAN's reasoning depends on a twofold caricature:

1. That the existence of exceptions erases any ordinary usage, and
2. That my argument supposedly requires the grammar to entail a single, invariable meaning.

Neither is true.

John 3:18 and 1 John 5:10 do not reverse the grounding of the perfect. They simply shift the relationship according to what is being asserted. In 1 John 5:1, the perfect expresses the foundational act that gives rise to the ongoing activity; the logic moves from cause to effect.

By contrast, in John 3:18 and 1 John 5:10, the grammar expresses corresponding condition, not causal grounding (in either direction). The participle doesn't function as the basis for the finite verb (or vice versa); it characterizes the subject whose state the finite verb describes. The perfect or present indicative is not grounded in the participle; it corresponds to it.

This is why their objections miss the point. They treat my observation of a logical relationship between participle and finite verb as though I had claimed the two are always temporally or causally linked the same way. I made no such claim. The participle-finite verb pairing indicates a logical relationship, but the type -- causal, resultative, or corresponding -- is determined by further syntax and context.

In the vast majority of cases, especially in gnomic contexts, the relationship is causal or at least logically progressive, because that is natural to the perfect tense's encoding of a completed act with abiding results, and it is therefore most common for the participle to describe what those results look like. That doesn't exclude other nuances; it simply establishes the ordinary, expected usage.

The proof that my opponents are clinging to a technicality while ignoring the substance is simple: had I opened the OP with the very parallels John himself provides (1 John 2:29; 4:7; 5:1), their comments would not yet have contributed anything to our discussion. It's doubtful they would even be participating, given their inability thus far to engage that argument.

So I'll simply ask again:

Is regeneration necessary for one to practice righteousness (1 John 2:29) or to love in the manner John describes (1 John 4:7)?

If not, what is the purpose of regeneration at all?

But if so, how do you deal with the grammatical parallel in 5:1?

That's a simple challenge. The fact that no one will answer it is telling.

BPPLEE said:

CBP agents are just regular people. They get paid to do a job. They probably didn't want to be there but they were following orders.
It's not unreasonable to suggest that they should be treated with the same respect as any other human being.
@BCP1928 just said disrespecting them as law enforcement officers is not the same as disrespecting them as human beings. When someone puts on a uniform they are no longer human beings?
Sandwich guy should have been charged with disorderly conduct or let go with a warning. But I don't blame those guys for losing their tempers

Click to expand...

To clarify, what I meant was I was unclear about the bias you were alleging.

Regardless, the question of "respect" gets muddy pretty quickly. I probably agree with you more than you suspect, but there's still the fact that when officers are in uniform, they aren't mere human beings; they're agents of the state. They're the carnal manifestation of the government's authority to use violence to coerce compliance with its laws. The relationship between cops and civilians is just fundamentally different than it is between two civilians.

There are ways of interacting with the state that are proper (e.g. protesting, refusing to engage in conversation) that would be considered rude or disrespectful if done to another civilian. I do think a lot of people use "protest" as an excuse to act like petty jerks and I do think cops deserve to be treated with decency and respect, but they're still not the same.

Delvianna said:

What do you mean by this?

Click to expand...

10 of the tribes were dispersed. Who knows but God after thousands of years who is a descendant of those tribes. But they come first. This was who Jesus came for. The rest who catch on to the Kingdom but are under the nations of the elohim and not of the 12 are also free to graft in.

BPPLEE said:

People are saying the officer should have ignored it, they totally excuse the person who threw the sandwich. What makes it okay to throw things at people and disrespect them? What would they say if an officer did it to a civilian?

Click to expand...

People? Here?

BCP1928 said:

OK, I can agree with that. The trouble is that the morality of the disrespected plays into it as well. If you're on shakey moral ground then even body armor won't protect you from the disrespect of others.

Click to expand...

I think they should all be sent home. ICE should stop working in sanctuary cities. They should ramp up enforcement everywhere else. Sanctuary cities should be the only place where illegal immigrants don't get deported.
If they want them there, let them have them, all of them

Nithavela said:

The stock market will dearly miss her.

Click to expand...

I don't know, but I think she is leaving Congress due to a possible insider trading investigation and legislation that forbids Congress from participating in the stock market.

SabbathBlessings said:

The One I know would give everyone a chance to repent,

Click to expand...

The one I know was sick of the wickedness and repented that he had made man in the flesh. Noah was the only one perfect (without blemish) in his generations. His family had not mixed. God had a plan and what was going on was not it.

SabbathBlessings said:

Noah was a preacher of righteousness, meaning he preached

Click to expand...

I'm sure he did before the flood.

These scriptures are fact-

Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Genesis 6:5 "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Genesis 6:6 "And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart."


Genesis 6:7 "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air for it repenteth Me that I have made them."

That's a truth. At that point, he stated he would destroy them. He's not giving them a chance to repent and Noah was not told to preach to them at that point. He knew Noah was perfect in his generations. -without blemish.


Genesis 6:13 "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

God did not tell Noah to warn anyone at that point, he told him what to do and he did it. You can insert certain beliefs in there but that doesn't mean it's going to change the fact that God was going to destroy them at that point. He didn't want anyone on board other than Noah and his family -that was the point.

If you beleive that he didn't just only focused on saving his family, that's fine,

Click to expand...

That's the point -only his family were meant to be saved at that point. You need to reread the scriptures.

Genesis 6:17 "And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

Genesis 6:18 "But with thee will I establish My covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee."

Again, only Noah and his family were to be saved at at that point. This is just another example of trusting your church doctrine over what the Word is really stating.


If you have the scriptures that Noah warned them and preached to them about the flood, etc, feel free to post them. If not, why continue to judge people on how you believe they are adding to God's Word when you are doing just that?

Derf said:

In relation to the earth is a possible way to interpret the passage, I agree.

Click to expand...

Derf said:

But since the Earth is something that is named (Meaning that God said that something would be called "earth" after it was formed) and it came after the light was called "Day". In other words, the thing that is named (a name is given to it to identify it) is only given the name after it is formed. That doesn't mean the word isn't used earlier. For instance, "heavens" and "earth" are both terms that are used earlier, in vs 1, but later the name is applied to something that was just made. Which makes me think that when vs 1 talks about God making the the heavens and the earth in vs 1, it is the introduction to the account that is about to be described in the following verses. Something like this:
I am making a lamp. (The lamp doesn't exist yet)
First I'll buy some parts (The lamp doesn't exist as a lamp, but all the parts are there, formless and void)
and lay out my tools. (The lamp still doesn't exist)
I'll arrange all the parts to where they will connect to each other. (The lamp still doesn't exist as a lamp.)
I'll put all the pieces together and test them. (Now the lamp exists.)

I think it is similar to the Genesis account:
[Gen 1:1 KJV] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Statement like: I'm going to make a lamp.)
[Gen 1:2 KJV] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (The parts are there, but the earth doesn't exist yet.)
[Gen 1:3 KJV] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
[Gen 1:4 KJV] And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (At this point Day and Night begin to exist)
[Gen 1:5 KJV] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. (Then He names the things that He made) And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Laying out of tools--you might need some light.)
[Gen 1:6 KJV] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
[Gen 1:7 KJV] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so. (At this point is when "Heaven" begins to exist)
[Gen 1:8 KJV] And God called the firmament Heaven. (Then God names the thing that He made, despite already referring to it in Vs 1) And the evening and the morning were the second day.
[Gen 1:9 KJV] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so. (The "Earth" begins to exist, as well as the "Seas".)
[Gen 1:10 KJV] And God called the dry [land] Earth; (He names the thing that He made) and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: (He names the other thing that He made.) and God saw that [it was] good.

Click to expand...

Do you look at Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 5:2 in the same way... or Genesis 2:22 and Genesis 2:23?
There are also places in the Bible which are mentioned by name, before being given a name.
This is because what we are reading is a narration - a historical record being penned by someone with all of that information.

The writer is not going to write, "In the beginning God created nothingness (I'll get to why I used this), and rock."
The writer will use the term he knows he is referring to. He will write earth, because he knows what it is he is talking about.
In the same way, the writer isn't going to write.... "he Lord God fashioned something from the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man."

It's a narration.
The thing God fashioned from the rib was named woman after, but the narrator uses the term, before the name is given.
The solid structure God created was named earth after, but the narrator uses the term, before the name is given.
We do the same today when writing stories.

Derf said:

Yes, I think we are in agreement here, that it was "light" that was referred to in the early verses, and a light source in the latter ones.

Click to expand...

I hope we do agree it was the light on the earth.

Derf said:

I don't think there is a scriptural problem, nor scientific facts, but if you want to suggest some that we should discuss, I'm open to that.

Click to expand...

I'll surely do that, but give me a moment.

Derf said:

No, as I pointed out above, Light was made first, before there was "Earth", and before there was "Heaven(s)". And "Heaven(s)" was made before "Earth". Keep in mind that I'm trying to read the passage for what it is trying to say, without putting my own ideas about the universe in there, at least just yet.

Click to expand...

I appreciate you trying to do so.
Could you quote Genesis 1:1, so that we see what's actually written.
Do you see the word light there, or the heavens and earth?
So going by what is written in the passage, what came first?

Derf said:

I don't think the earth is the first thing that was made, as stated above.

Click to expand...

Noted. Thanks.

Derf said:

The skies above and the dirt beneath.

Click to expand...

Derf said:

The skies above and the thing (space) that God placed the stars in.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting answer.
I thought you might see what is mentioned at Deuteronomy 4:19.

So, am I to understand that you believe empty space is the heavens referred to in the creation account of Genesis?
What is space, and how did that blackness impress David? Psalm 8:3

When you read the phrase such as mentioned at Isaiah 57:16 and Jeremiah 32:19, do you just see empty space and mud?
What would you say Psalm 102:25, 26 is referring to?

Derf said:

Does it? If the "Heaven(s)" were in existence already, and then God made a firmament that He called "Heaven(s)", that's confusing. If God made the Earth, and then He made something else that He called "Earth", that's confusing.

Click to expand...

Not if one understands narration, and how writers utilizes it.
There's something else that's important to understand when reading something one has not written. Context.
A word or expression used in one place, can convey something else other than what's written in another place, though the word or expression is the same.
For example, heaven, as used in Genesis 1:8 (God called the [i]expanse “heaven.”) is not the same as heavens at Genesis 1:1, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20.

This is why understanding the Bible requires more than just reading, but requires studying what one reads.
A person, for example, would just finish reading Genesis 1:8, and go on to read subsequent verses, and it would not dawn on them that if the expanse is called heaven, then it's a heaven, of the heavens.
In other words, the expanse, is the atmospheric heaven (or sky - where birds, planes, and stratospheric aircrafts fly), within the heavens that go all the way into space.... as far as that goes.

Fly to the Edge of Space
Edge of Space Jet Flight
Stratoplanes: The aircraft that will fly at the edge of space
Robotic spaceplane flies to edge of space

Heavens used in the context of Deuteronomy 10:14 also differ.
We want to study what we read, otherwise confusion, will be our dilemma.
So, yes, the heavens existed before heaven, and earth already existed before it reared up out of the water.

Derf said:

Nice picture.

Click to expand...

AI does a fairly good job on scenes.

essentialsaltes said:

Trump administration will reduce traffic at 40 airports across the US starting Friday if shutdown continues​

Ten percent of air traffic at 40 busy airports would be cut,

Click to expand...

TEN PERCENT DIDN'T MAKE THE DEMOCRATS CAVE. DO MOAR!

Percentage of flight cuts could jump to 20%, DOT secretary says​

“I don’t want to see that,” Duffy said, noting that “if controllers start coming to work and the pressure goes down, we can move those numbers in the other direction.

Once the unwashed realize that that day is representative of a counter-culture to the world of man and elohim alike, its purpose will be served as they will no longer set aside one day for 'gathering', but apply it to all seven. Its not about church but about living in the ways of the Kingdom contrary to the adversarial ways of man and elohim. Remember, even today in an effort to sustain themselves and keep the flock under their thumb seeking nourishment rather than being nourishers...

Matthew 23: 13 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let in those who wish to enter.

BPPLEE said:

You can't arrest someone for disrespect. My argument has been is disrespect right morally, not legally

Click to expand...

OK, I can agree with that. The trouble is that the morality of the disrespected plays into it as well. If you're on shakey moral ground then even body armor won't protect you from the disrespect of others.

Bradskii said:

Sorry, mate. The nonsense value and humerous opportunities of the discussion have dissipated, leaving nothing of worth to discuss.

Click to expand...

I would say you've had nothing to add for some time now

BCP1928 said:

They were intending to show disrespect to the ICE officers. The guy with the sandwich was just exasperated.

Click to expand...

You can't arrest someone for disrespect. My question has been is disrespect acceptable morally, not legally

Delvianna said:

What tribe are the gentiles apart of?

Click to expand...

The dispersed 10 who were not Jew nor Levite but of the House of Israel were called gentiles. Derogatory term on the part of the Jews, sibling rivalry. ALL the House of Israel must return before the end of the age.