FJK

This -violence against Christians- is a growing trend worldwide, we will be seeing it become increasingly pronounced in every country soon, nowhere will be safe to be Christian even if some places might be, or at least seem, safer than others.

Isn't that sort of like announcing that an act of mass shooting by someone shouting "Alahu Akbar" is not an act of terrorism while the bodies are still being carried away (and this is not a hypothetical situation) and the motives are not known? Deliberate sabotage for terrorist reasons were ruled out before the real reasons for the apparent failures are known (and are still unknown)? Chances are that if it was done for terrorism, or other politically incorrect reasons, it could quite likely never be brought to light in the public (remember that we still have not had the Covenant school shooter's manifesto made public when it was originally promised that it would be). In a world of deceit, it is not a wise thing to be trusting without questioning.

The Church should have never accepted the public educations system to raise its children, this is where the problem begins and where it will have to be solved if a solution is to be found (or if a solution is desired, as the case may be). IMO.

Being fair, it was almost immediately announced that it was not an act of terrorism when the only thing really known was that a boat had hit the bridge and the reasons for it were mostly still just initial guesswork.

what will be, and what will be the purpose of, the New Jerusalem?

I wonder how well they will be able to keep the harbor open for shipping while it is being rebuilt? I understand a large part of the economy of the area and the US in general is produced by it.

That's true but begs the question: Who did he originally delegate that authority to and how good was his pick?

I can understand that, but what I can;t understand is the entire bridge collapsing from one tower being accidentally hit. One section of it where the ship hit certainly would be, but the whole thing from end to end? I don't think more destruction could have been done if it were a deliberate demolition job being done to make way for a new one. I imagine it will take many weeks to fix it, I wonder how hard it will be to reroute the traffic it carried elsewhere.

Well, this is actually a subject of serious debate, it sometimes centers around what Jesus meant then he told a group of people at judgment that, in spite of performing miracles in his name, to go away because he never knew them. My understanding is that they invoked the power of God to serve their own purposes (something akin to sorcery or witchcraft maybe) instead of following God's guidance in their actions to serve God's purposes without putting their own purposes ahead of God (1st commandment). But that doesn't mean doesn't mean I should be considered either right or wrong about this, it is something every person should seek for themselves since God has a specific plan for each of us.

My opinion of it, which is just my opinion, is that the word of god is learned by studying it but it is understood by living it. This, the living of it, is what Holy Spirit teaches us how to do if we are willing to follow and not question. This is not easy to do since the world and wisdom of men teaches us the opposite and we are all swayed by the world and wisdom of men even when we don't realize we are.

What is in the prophecies is what will happen, what is not in them will not. What man does one way or the other is not going to change it by even a little bit.

I wonder why this possibility wasn't factored in when the bridge was designed, is it something that couldn't have been anticipated at the time?

Not through language alone.

Language we use today is not the original language God gave us. If it was we would have a unified world and there would be no room for understanding or not understanding one another, we would all think and speak the same. It is a long developing contrivance of men, not a means of expressing or understanding absolutes.

Bo, that would not be a better word, and it does indicate that God can change things.

When God speaks something it becomes true, the universe changes according to the words God speaks. That's how he created it (Genesis 1:3), and if he speaks differently the universe and all that is in it responds accordingly. He is not limited by mans concept of him, mans concept of him is what is limited.

This seems to suggest there are rules that are imposed on God that he must follow. Which leads me to ask, who imposed these rules on him and who enforces them to make sure he obeys them?

Basic behavioral science: Behavior which is rewarded is repeated, behavior which is punished is extinguished. I'm surprised our high leaders don't know this. Or do they?

I imagine the strategy was to make it impossible for him to appeal through an excessively large bond requirement, so this reduction will probably make them go crazy while they try to figure out some other way of stopping an appeal so they won't have to face a high potential of being overturned. Things just keep getting more and more interesting.

Oh, I'm sure we've got plenty of room for them, don't we?

I'm all in favor of evangelism and revival, but I fail to see how this will address the issues of the border we face now. Maybe if they went and conducted that revival in the countries the migrants are coming from it would do some good and help reform those countries, but I don't wee what they intend to accomplish here that would.

I imagine they're afraid that Hamas is actually going to be defeated, and the United States is also afraid of this but doesn't want to go on record of actually supporting this anti Israel resolution so it just abstained hoping it wouldn't be seen as actually in support of it. Or maybe I'm wrong and there's some entirely different reasoning behind it.

So far as I know, an actual egg cell form the same species female would be required to do this. It would involve removing the nucleus from the egg cell the somehow creating a donor cell nucleus by combining the DNA of the two different donor cells to make a new combined DNA nucleus that wold function as if it came from a single donor cell then injecting it into the empty egg cell, activating it so that it starts forming an embryo, then implanting it into a woman to bring it to term. This would result in a child that was a sort of artificial clone of both original donors combined into a single donor to produce a new body that was somehow representative of both in a single body. We don't have the technology to do that and it isn't something that could ever be done and still produce a child that was actually fully human. As far as I can understand it anyway. The days of Noah are coming upon us at an ever increasing rate.

Jesus said we can do all of the things he did and even more, yet we don't. Maybe this is why.

If he wants his campaign to take off like a rocket he should probably choose Elon Musk. FWIW, the under 35 and independents are usually dominated by Democrat voters so I would expect this to take away from Biden's vote, expect the Democrats to do something hysterical if they see this happening to get him out of the running if he can (that would divide their efforts into opposing both RFK and Trump instead of being able to concentrate on Trump alone). In any event, RFK is just another political insider and will act as one if elected, that means we'll keep doing what we have been that got us into our current state of affairs and will keep going the same direction we are now with the only difference being who gets to lead us while we do (IMO, subject to change). If anyone thinks he is actually different I would like to know why they do from his political record to date, I'm not of an opinion that people, particularly politicians, are subject to any radical departures from their history. Also FWIW, I think we are on the edge of several game changing events worldwide so I'm still unsure what the final theme of this elections will be if we go over that edge on any of them.