The_Patriot21

On 2/20/2024 at 1:29 PM, ayin jade said:

Harris, save us from evil,???

She is the last person who should be president.

 

Well, I would say she'd be better then another term of Biden, but realistically she's the one calling the shots this time around.

Please copy and paste this to your status if you’re constantly being asked to copy and paste things to your status by friends who copy and paste things to their status. Many people won’t copy and paste this, but my truly sarcastic friends will copy and paste it, because they know this was copied and pasted from a dear friend in need of more stuff to copy and paste. And if you don’t copy and paste it, then this means you hate puppies and bacon. And if you hate bacon, the terrorists win.

Well if a frozen embryo is a baby (which I agree with) then the next logical step is to ban abortion to, right? 

I think honestly the sentiment here that it's not gonna matter, that they won't let him in is probably the most accurate, but to me that shouldn't matter, defeatist attitudes won't accomplish anything. 

So the answer is most likely, yes. Had desantis remained in, I may have voted him instead, but since hes not I'm probably going to vote trump because I don't see any other options.

On 2/9/2023 at 11:30 AM, portlie said:

I am wondering if baptism for children is what God wants, many say it is the new covenant and, like circumcision should be done to dedicate a child to God

thank you to whoever can help 

Well, it's certainly never, ever found in the Bible. Their are only two baptisms mentioned in the Bible, baptism of the Holy spirit, which only happens after a person becomes a believer which involves a informed choice, something a infant is incapable of doing,

And water baptism, which is by immersion only, and again only once someone has made a commitment to Christ which involves a conscious and informed decision, something a infant cannot do.

So if you want to dedicate the baby to the Lord (I've seen some of these) that's cool. It's saying your agreeing to raise them the way Christ wants to, but keep in mind two things.

One, it's for YOU. dedicating the baby won't save the child. That is a decision the child will have to make themselves when they grow up. The dedication won't save them regardless of whether your spray some water on them or not. It's a action on YOUR part to commit to doing everything you can to convince them to make that decision themselves when they grow older.

The second is it's NOT commanded in the Bible. Infant baptism is not found anywhere in any light. So it is NOT something you have to do. And from a salvational perspective it's completely useless, so if that's your goal, to "save" your child? Yeah won't happen.

So if your goal is to make a commitment to raise that child In a Christlike home, then yeah, but I wouldn't mess with the baptism I'd just do a dedication ceremony.

If your doing it because you've been lead to believe it's somehow for salvation? Don't. Your doing it for the wrong reasons and it's entirely empty and hollow, and a waste of time.

Yes, except neither are running for president. Between the two one (Harris) maybe a legitimate candidate depending on what happens to Biden in the next year or so. But Hertling? Last I checked there's absolutely no way he could run.

I think perhaps it's time to lay of the soushi  or whatever it is your eating at night.

On top of that, there's no way God would tell Christians to vote for Harris. She's evil.

So if it wasn't a food inspired dream, it certainly wasn't from God.

So I will be casting my vote elsewhere.

Forgiveness doesn't mean blind trusting. There are people from my past who did me wrong, whom I forgave, I legitimately don't have any I'll feelings towards them, but on the same note they're no longer in my life-on purpose. I don't associate with them anymore because I don't seek to let them hurt me again.

Not unless they were to seek forgiveness and show change. And I've had people in my life whom sought my forgiveness and I've let them in. 

So to me it's kind of whether they seek it or not whether they get to stay in my life or not. If they seek my forgiveness and work towards changing them I'll keep them in my life. If they don't seek it and don't show any sign of change, depending on what it is I'll often forgive but distance myself. 

The assumption here is on big stuff, not little stuff.

You know, if they wouldn't climb the wall they wouldn't get hurt falling off the wall. 

Probably have a minimal effect. Largely the only ones who will be able to boycott will be the owner operators, which by in large avoid new York City anyway due to excessive parking lot fees and fines for idling to long. 

So you will see even fewer of a already small pool of drivers going there. A lot of your company drivers for your big outfits will still go in there. Especially since a lot of these drivers are foreigners who really don't care.

Maybe because God knows what you need and what you want are two different things.

4 minutes ago, Debp said:

I usually turn my phone off overnight... every night.   That way the telemarketers won't wake me up in the a.m.

Do you think that harms the battery turning off each night?

Also, is there a way to get rid of the listing of phone calls or even text messages?

I really don't want to text.   Too small to type and I prefer email on the tablet.

That's understandable, though like I said you could just lightly tap the power button.

The other option is your phone has a do not disturb option in your menu. What it does is disable all sound. People can still call and text you, but it won't ring or make any notification sounds, or even light up your screen. You can set it so it turns on and off automatically as well.

You can also make it so certain people can ring through. I have my phone set to do not disturb every night 10pm to 5 am. And the only people that can ring through are immediate family and my best friend. Everyone else has to wait until morning.

It's a really cool feature, that way if someone does need to get ahold of you you can but it keeps you from getting woke up by spam callers.

4 hours ago, Debp said:

So I guess I should have the phone turned on while charging?   I have it off... that's why I had to unplug and replug it to see the big battery icon.

Absolutely leave it turned on. It won't hurt anything. It is beneficial to restart your phone once In a great while (maybe once a month) but not needed. You can leave it on all you want.

But even shut off, you should be able to lightly press the power button and it should light up the screen so you can see the charge percentage.

If she's truly hungry, offer to buy her groceries. Perhaps try and sit down and get her to go to church before helping her out further.

Or more effective, take her out to dinner and tell her about Jesus. She gets fed and gets to hear about Jesus. But stop giving her money she's just using you, and your just enabling her.

10 hours ago, Debp said:

Yes, I always do updates on my tablet.   So I know I need to do the Google Play Store updates on my phone....even though I don't use many of the apps.   The AT&T updates happen on their own.

 

My phone has "battery optimization".   It charges quickly to 80%, then waits to charge the remaining 20%.... after seeing how long you usually take to unplug the phone.

I wonder if I should not enable that...as I usually keep checking my battery to see if it is charged to 100%.   I usually unplug the phone charger and then replug it to see what percentage it is.   I keep repluging it until fully charged.

 

You don't need to unplug it...just open the screen up, there's a battery icon in the top right hand corner that shows the percentage. If it's hard to see you can slide the menu down. There's also various apps that will show it.

A lot of the time your lock screen if you have one will show your battery percentage, mine does.

But I wouldnt be unplugging and re plugging it in, it can wear the plug out prematurely.

17 hours ago, Debp said:

The Google apps keep updating periodically as do the cell towers....so I wondered if that would eventually take up too much space on my phone.

So far the phone says it is nearly half full on storage.   It has 32 GB.   I was able to uninstall about three apps only.

My tablet and the phone seem to know about each other.   But I don't think they are synced.  

 

Let me be clearer. You should always keep your phone and apps up to date-to clarify I was saying I wouldn't worry about them filling up your phones memory.

8 hours ago, Debp said:

The Google apps keep updating periodically as do the cell towers....so I wondered if that would eventually take up too much space on my phone.

So far the phone says it is nearly half full on storage.   It has 32 GB.   I was able to uninstall about three apps only.

My tablet and the phone seem to know about each other.   But I don't think they are synced.  

 

Chances are by the time your phone fills up on updates by themselves with only base apps your phone will no longer be operational or obsolete. I wouldn't concern yourself with updates. It's usually stuff like pictures, music and games that fill it up fast. 

Half full on a 32 gig drive from the factory sounds about right.

Ok well, whether you choose to sync or not is up to you. If there's stuff on your tablet that you want on your phone it maybe beneficial. If not, and your only planning on using your phone as a phone I wouldn't bother.

As far as extended space, your sim card does not store anything other then your phone carriers data. Thats the sim cards job, it gives your phone the data it needs to communicate with your phone carrier, nothing more nothing less.

Most phones today however have a extra slot in your phones sim card holder, that slot is for a micro SD card, which can be used for extra storage of things like pictures and music. Not all phones have this, but most today do.

Whether you need it or not depends again on your usage. If your just using it for calling people, then you should be fine your phone's internal storage will hold all your contacts and messenging apps just fine.

15 minutes ago, FJK said:

But not legal in most countries (of course, laws only apply to those willing to obey them).  There is a great deal of actual open air slave market type of slavery practiced in Islamic Africa, but you will almost never see it talked about in the mainstream of the world and the rarely posted video's of it are completely scrubbed within hours when they are.

No not legal your right, but my point is technology won't eliminate slavery. There will always be room for cheap labor -and you said it before, people like to control other people. Slavery is the end all for most people who seek power. Their ultimate goal, total control.

1 minute ago, FJK said:

Oh, that's true (but we keep mention of it hidden from the general public for some reason) but it is no longer something that is legal (just overlooked according to who is practicing it) and isn't used for active slave labor in agriculture nowadays.

Actually they are still used for agriculture as well as other menial jobs in many places. When people hear human trafficking they assume it's all sex or drug mules, and while those are a big part of it, it's not all of it. Slaves for labor are still a thing.

4 minutes ago, FJK said:

Maybe, but there is also the potential is that within the next 10 or so years that farming equipment would become much more effective than slave labor and cost less than maintaining slaves so that there would be no major resistance to abolishing slavery through peaceful means as they would already be be largely obsolete for agricultural use (which is what the vast majority of them were used for).

But it didn't go down that way so we'll never know.

No, it wouldn't have otherwise slavery wouldn't still exist. Slavery is a bigger issue now then at any point in human history. Human trafficking has far surpassed the illegal gun trade, and has even surpassed drug smuggling.

23 minutes ago, FJK said:

Don't overlook the rapidly industrializing North with it's developing agricultural and other machine powered products not wanting to compete with slave labor and wanting it eliminated so the states using it would become a new market for its products as the were then needed to replace slave labor.

Always "follow the money" when looking into the causes of conflicts.  Lots and lots of money to be made and power gained means war, no money or power to be gained means no war, everything else is just incidental excuses to rally the people.

I don't know about that entirely. In the end I'm glad the north won. Slavery needed to go, and the only way it was going to go was by force. All the other reasons were trivial to me.

6 minutes ago, FJK said:

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever heard one of her songs, I usually listen to stuff from earlier times,  but maybe with that getting dumped theme maybe she's a Country&Western singer?

Used to be a country singer. In fact she was really good as a country singer and I enjoyed her music. I still turn the radio up when I hear one of her songs, country is what made her famous.

She switched to pop though, and I stopped listening to her. Not much of a pop fan, and some of her stuff has been getting demonic. Which isn't a surprise I see a lot of demonic stuff among pop stars and I'm sure she's been influenced by a lot of that.

10 minutes ago, FJK said:

Ah, but you have to consider that she has considerable mysterious powers that she invisibly casts upon people to make them worship her and do her will.

I think if that were true, she'd have a lot fewer songs about men dumping her :-D

Like any war, the causes of the war wasn't as black and white as many would have you believe. 

Yes, blacks fought on both sides of the civil war. That's a fact.

Yes the war started over "slavery" or at least on the surface.

The reality was there were a great many things that led up to the civil war, one of the biggest ones was states rights, especially the right to secede.

And like a pot of boiling water these things just kept adding up until they boiled over, and in that case, slavery was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, it was what finally set the south off enough to secede, and the civil war began.

People on both sides like to twist it and only focus on the facts that make their side look good. Those who are in favor of the south will say it was all because of state rights, and ignore the slavery issue altogether, and will gladly bring up the fact some slaves fought for the south. (Even though far more fought for the north)

And those who think the north was in the right will make it all about the slavery and ignore the issue of states rights and ignore the fact that some slaves did indeed fight for the south. People have a habit of seeing what they want to see.

Hmmm interesting post. Trying to make sense of it. Like Jesus chasing people out of the temple with a whip? Doesn't seem appropriate by today's standards of Christianity. But Jesus was an appropriate person....and His response was indeed appropriate for the situation.