Today 1/3 New Congress updates: Several Democrats didn't back Pelosi for speaker of the House

[WaterSong]

But she takes the seat by a narrow margin.

Congress: House, Senate members sworn in as COVID-19 rages on

Also: (at same link)
'Squad' adds new members
The group of young, progressive lawmakers of color dubbed the "Squad" added two new members Sunday as the House of Representatives convened for the 117th Congress.

"Squad up," said Rep.-elect Cori Bush, D-Mo., in a Twitter post with a picture of her, Rep.-elect Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y.; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.; Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.; and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.

"Unbought and unbossed," responded Omar in a tweet.

The group of lawmakers had sparred with President Donald Trump during the last Congress, frequently drawing his ire on Twitter and in his campaign rallies.

That Omar is still in Congress is obscene. That she is still allowed to remain in this country is a disgrace.
Same with Tlaib. Enemies of America. Proudly so.
Unbought and unbossed. Must not have been enough room in that list of lies for a singular truth; un-American!

Omar gave a speech in 2019 at a CAIR conference. CAIR is related to the terrorist group, Muslim Brotherhood, wherein she told the Muslims gathered to raise hell!
During the riots by the domestic terror groups BLM and ANTIFA, her daughter transmitted intel she'd received through her mom to the terror groups with regard to pending police action. Apple not far from tree.

TGP EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Ilhan Omar's Full CAIR Speech -- She Calls on Muslims to 'Raise Hell' and 'Make People Uncomfortable,' Blames Trump for NZ Shootings

 

[Hidden In Him]

Omar gave a speech in 2019 at a CAIR conference. CAIR is related to the terrorist group, Muslim Brotherhood, wherein she told the Muslims gathered to raise hell!
During the riots by the domestic terror groups BLM and ANTIFA, her daughter transmitted intel she'd received through her mom to the terror groups with regard to pending police action. Apple not far from tree.

TGP EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Ilhan Omar's Full CAIR Speech -- She Calls on Muslims to 'Raise Hell' and 'Make People Uncomfortable,' Blames Trump for NZ Shootings

Omar is one of those people who tests your willingness to abide by the commandment that says to love your enemies, LoL. I find it disturbing that she holds such a high position in the US Government while being a died in the wool Muslim who would completely rewrite Christian history if given half a chance.
Rabbi blasts Ilhan Omar, NYT for pushing claim Jesus was ‘Palestinian,’ not Jewish

She's also as duplicitous as any Muslim, and will never answer any question that exposes her directly (they never do. I've never met a Muslim who will last in a debate with me for more than a few exchanges. When cornered and not allowed to lie, they immediately exit the conversation).

Anyway, we have a commandment to love, but people like her can truly put it to the test. At her core, I think Omar is as vindictive as any Jihadist, and secretly takes pleasure in the oppression and/or death of Christians. She just thinly vails it, so it won't effect her politically. She represents the worst of what Muslims are, not the best.

 

[WaterSong]

Omar is one of those people who tests your willingness to abide by the commandment that says to love your enemies, LoL. I find it disturbing that she holds such a high position in the US Government while being a died in the wool Muslim who would completely rewrite Christian history if given half a chance.
Rabbi blasts Ilhan Omar, NYT for pushing claim Jesus was ‘Palestinian,’ not Jewish

She's also as duplicitous as any Muslim, and will never answer any question that exposes her directly (they never do. I've never met a Muslim who will last in a debate with me for more than a few exchanges. When cornered and not allowed to lie, they immediately exit the conversation).

Anyway, we have a commandment to love, but people like her can truly put it to the test. At her core, I think Omar is as vindictive as any Jihadist, and secretly takes pleasure in the oppression and/or death of Christians. She just thinly vails it, so it won't effect her politically. She represents the worst of what Muslims are, not the best.

Yeahh, God knows me so he knows I'm not one that loves my enemies. Nor do I turn the other cheek and offer it to someone who has the stones to hit me in my cheek the first time. That's if my reflexes are taking a nap.
I consider scripture in the New in cross reference to the Old. Using the axiom, God does not change. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Hence, God didn't turn his cheek, God didn't love his enemies.
However, lets just postulate for a second here. Yeah, like any of my posts are that short.

Imagine an authoritarian entity obsessed with ruling the world and living eternally taking command of a new (newly legal) religion that perchance , per its teachings, shall span the world. Imagine, when it enters Roman territories it is referred to as, the religion of the slaves. Because it promises slaves, who are to be obedient to their masters, the life of luxury in the afterlife if they just obey its precepts while alive.

And the faithful to this new religion were also referred to by pagan peoples in these same regions as, the people of the book. Because the pagans saw them as a people who's God was found in script, or scrolls, or a "book".
Now imagine you're looking back at that authoritarian entity bent on conquest of the whole world because its history boasts the same under pagan polytheist precepts. Imagine incorporating that polytheism into the new seeming monotheist model.

How best to conquer and keep in check a people who will always turn to faith in something when enslaved? Tell a people who are promised riches in their after life if only they obey in this one, that they are to: love their enemies, not resist evil, continue to receive abuse even when offended the first strike, if robbed (of their lands and freedom) of their purse, give that thief (thou shalt not steal?) their cloak also, and obey the emperor.
Reiterate their eternal soul's destiny depends on absolute compliance. Because their God sat those in authority over them.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Yeahh, God knows me so he knows I'm not one that loves my enemies. Nor do I turn the other cheek and offer it to someone who has the stones to hit me in my cheek the first time. That's if my reflexes are taking a nap.
I consider scripture in the New in cross reference to the Old. Using the axiom, God does not change. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Hence, God didn't turn his cheek, God didn't love his enemies.

Ok, now since you list as Christian:

Do the above statements mean you never turn the other cheek because you feel New Testament exhortations fail to supersede Old Testament ones, or are you simply admitting that you're a naughty person with a bad temper?

 

[WaterSong]

Ok, now since you list as Christian:

Do the above statements mean you never turn the other cheek because you feel New Testament exhortations fail to supersede Old Testament ones, or are you simply admitting that you're a naughty person with a bad temper?

I don't list as Christian I live as Christian.
I don't have a bad temper. In fact, it takes quite a bit to fire my temper.
However, I would ask, is it a bad temper to resolve to ones self they shall not allow themselves to suffer physical abuse?

I will say what I don't abide, and I will show restraint to a point in these cases and an effort to interject reason, is when I come across someone abusing others who are seemingly unable or unwilling to fight back. Babies, children,the already injured, the handicapped, the elderly, meek women.

And you?

 

[JohnDB]

Now just wait for the next stunt by the Senate...

They are going to vote against certifying the Election results from the Electoral College.

I'm not seeing anything getting done by this congress. It's going to be a non-stop Jerry Springer Show.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I don't list as Christian I live as Christian.
I don't have a bad temper. In fact, it takes quite a bit to fire my temper.
However, I would ask, is it a bad temper to resolve to ones self they shall not allow themselves to suffer physical abuse?

No, just narrowing the field.

So it is not because of temper, it is based on principle. The next question then is:

What would you do then with a passage like Matthew 5:38-45?

I will say what I don't abide, and I will show restraint to a point in these cases and an effort to interject reason, is when I come across someone abusing others who are seemingly unable or unwilling to fight back. Babies, children,the already injured, the handicapped, the elderly, meek women.

Different issue. Let's stick with the question of allowing ourselves to suffer abuse right now.

And you?

Long answer. You first.

 

[Enoch111]

I find it disturbing that she holds such a high position in the US Government while being a died in the wool Muslim who would completely rewrite Christian history if given half a chance.

Muslims should have been banned from holding public office in the USA. Just as Chinese Communists would be banned. Yet the gutless American politicians never seem to get it. 9/11 should have been a wake-up call (1) to re-think the entry of Muslims into North America, (2) to ban mosques from American soil, and (3) to totally shut down all financial and military aid to Pakistan. There was no need to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, since the issue was terrorism on US soil. Those wars accomplished absolutely nothing other than the loss of lives and the wastage of BILLIONS of dollars which were not even there in the first place.

Muslims will never sincerely uphold the Constitution or sincerely take the oath to uphold the Constitution. Their only loyalty is to Islam, the Koran, Jihad, and the Caliphate. In view of this how could they possibly take any oath of office? Yet this matter was never openly debated in both houses, so that a new law would be passed to not only ban Muslims, but to ban Communism altogether. Both ideologies are designed to subvert the US, and subversion is a high crime.

Getting back to Wicked Witch Pelosi, it would be interesting to note how many RINOs voted to retain her as speaker, even after all her shenanigans.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Muslims will never sincerely uphold the Constitution or sincerely take the oath to uphold the Constitution. Their only loyalty is to Islam, the Koran, Jihad, and the Caliphate. In view of this how could they possibly take any oath of office. Yet this matter was never openly debated in both houses

If it were, the argument would be raised (as it always is) that some Muslims are "moderate." It is a cloak that the extremists use to get away with all sorts of deceitful conduct, including the undermining of national sovereignties. That's what's so troubling for me. Despite their better qualities, many Muslims are among the best liars on the planet.

 

[Enoch111]

If it were, the argument would be raised (as it always is) that some Muslims are "moderate."

Well the *moderates* could continue pretending to be moderate, but a ban on public office would ensure that the Caliphate was not promoted within government, while anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism were preached from on high (which Omar and Tlaib have been doing all along with no consequences).

Even those Muslims who are not outright jihadists will never question the fact that jihad is a tenet of Islam. And jihad includes (1) massive Muslim migrant invasion into the West, (2) the establishment of hundreds of thousands of mosques to promote jihad, and (3) the entry into Western governing bodies since there is no ban on Muslims. The end goal is to replace Christianity and Western values with Islam. If the conditions were reversed, not a Christian or a Jew could ever become a government official in an Islamic country. And if anyone criticized Muslim leaders, they would probably be decapitated.

 

[WaterSong]

Now just wait for the next stunt by the Senate...

They are going to vote against certifying the Election results from the Electoral College.

I'm not seeing anything getting done by this congress. It's going to be a non-stop Jerry Springer Show.

That's entirely possible. But if they vote against certifying the election results from the EC, that's a good thing. Right? Wrong? I dunno. "JERRRY,JERRRY, JERRRRY!"
He was a politician once upon a time. Then he got busted because he wrote a personal check to a Pro.
In a sense he was his own shows first guest. LOL

 

[Hidden In Him]

Well the *moderates* could continue pretending to be moderate, but a ban on public office would ensure that the Caliphate was not promoted within government, while anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism were preached from on high (which Omar and Tlaib have been doing all along with no consequences).

Even those Muslims who are not outright jihadists will never question the fact that jihad is a tenet of Islam. And jihad includes (1) massive Muslim migrant invasion into the West, (2) the establishment of hundreds of thousands of mosques to promote jihad, and (3) the entry into Western governing bodies since there is no ban on Muslims. The end goal is to replace Christianity and Western values with Islam. If the conditions were reversed, not a Christian or a Jew could ever become a government official in an Islamic country. And if anyone criticized Muslim leaders, they would probably be decapitated.

I think this is where John Adam's quote about our constitution being unfit for an immoral people comes into play. An immoral man will lie, especially if his religion promotes and condones it if in the furtherance of his religion. So while you would be correct, the big difference in America is that it is no longer governed by Christian principles and Christian leaders. So excluding a Muslim on a Christian or moral basis becomes impossible now.

In other words, when we departed from Christianity, we doomed our form of government to its eventual downfall.

 

[WaterSong]

No, just narrowing the field.

So it is not because of temper, it is based on principle. The next question then is:

What would you do then with a passage like Matthew 5:38-45?

I answered this already.
You've heard it said....
By the God that is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and does not change, nor does he show partiality.
Deuteronomy 19
If a false witness testifies against someone, accusing him of a crime, 17both parties to the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD, before the priests and judges who are in office at that time. 18The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is proven to be a liar who has falsely accused his brother, 19you must do to him as he intended to do to his brother. So you must purge the evil from among you. 20Then the rest of the people will hear and be afraid, and they will never again do anything so evil among you. 21You must show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,d hand for hand, and foot for foot.
(Formerly a semblance of the Code of Hammurabi about 1754 B.C. Mesopotamia)

Different issue. Let's stick with the question of allowing ourselves to suffer abuse right now.

I disagree. You asked me the question. My answers are my answers, not the issue.

Long answer. You first.

I've made an answer twice now. Long one's. You next.

 

[WaterSong]

I think this is where John Adam's quote about our constitution being unfit for an immoral people comes into play. An immoral man will lie, especially if his religion promotes and condones it if in the furtherance of his religion. So while you would be correct, the big difference in America is that it is no longer governed by Christian principles and Christian leaders. So excluding a Muslim on a Christian or moral basis becomes impossible now.

In other words, when we departed from Christianity, we doomed our form of government to its eventual downfall.

For that to be true all of our leaders, founders, and those in both the legislative and judicial branches would have had to be Christian until that date of exclusion.
Is that the case?

 

[WaterSong]

By the way, did anyone pin a lighthouse to the OP? Since we're far off in the channel now and away from it?

 

[Hidden In Him]

I answered this already.
You've heard it said....
By the God that is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and does not change, nor does he show partiality.
Deuteronomy 19
If a false witness testifies against someone, accusing him of a crime, 17both parties to the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD, before the priests and judges who are in office at that time. 18The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is proven to be a liar who has falsely accused his brother, 19you must do to him as he intended to do to his brother. So you must purge the evil from among you. 20Then the rest of the people will hear and be afraid, and they will never again do anything so evil among you. 21You must show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,d hand for hand, and foot for foot.
(Formerly a semblance of the Code of Hammurabi about 1754 B.C. Mesopotamia)

Ok, LoL. But see, the way this works is that I'm asking for you to give an account of how you interpret Matthew 5:38-45 if the above is what you believe the true NT teaching still is.

I disagree. You asked me the question. My answers are my answers, not the isssue.

Now don't get all defensive. Just saying it is a different question, and we may be attempting to deal with the first one for awhile yet : )

I've made an answer twice now. Long one's. You next.

Ok, in a nutshell, the OT commandments (like those you quoted) were for a people in the flesh, whereas the NT commandments were for a spiritual people. That's the short version. I fully agree that our God has not changed. The difference is in who He was attempting to govern.

Still a very long explanation to get into all the scriptural supports, but that's my position.

 

[Hidden In Him]

For that to be true all of our leaders, founders, and those in both the legislative and judicial branches would have had to be Christian until that date of exclusion.
Is that the case?

The US was founded before Darwinism took hold, when the vast majority of men and women in this country were Christian, including most people in the government. It would have been possible then. It is not possible now.

 

[WaterSong]

Ok, LoL. But see, the way this works is that I'm asking for you to give an account of how you interpret Matthew 5:38-45 if the above is what you believe the true NT teaching still is.

Is the Matthew scripture what the NT teaching still is? Yes. It's in scripture therefore it would qualify as that which still is in the NT teachings.
Let's keep that verse you've shared in Matthew in mind as I ask you, is Jesus, who was God, our God our God is one, the same yesterday, today, and forever, and he does not change, nor does he show partiality?

And this answers your questions yet again, if you agree, yes, to that question, then how do you qualify the OT verse, previously posted, wherein God said, paraphrasing what has already been posted, show no mercy, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, to that NT verse that changes that God given edict?

Now don't get all defensive. Just saying it is a different question, and we may be attempting to deal with the first one for awhile yet : )

I see you're trying to test my prior statement that I don't have a bad temper, etc... And again, I disagree. It is not a different question.
It's the same one that appears reworked because it appears you didn't like nor accept my first answer to the question.

Ok, in a nutshell, the OT commandments (like those you quoted) were for a people in the flesh, whereas the NT commandments were for a spiritual people. That's the short version. I fully agree that our God has not changed. The difference is in who He was attempting to govern.

You don't believe the OT people were spiritual people?

Still a very long explanation to get into all the scriptural supports, but that's my position.

What long explanation, and what part is your position? Thus far you've made this about clarifying my position.
Or is there a part of this post of yours I've quoted and replied to that appears here in invisible ink?

 

[Hidden In Him]

You don't believe the OT people were spiritual people?

This is at the heart of the question, so let me skip to here.

In short, no. There were some among the Jews who were spiritual people, but like any race of people, most were in the flesh. This is why they were constantly getting into terrible trouble and bringing judgment upon themselves at virtually every turn. It's also why the promises God made to them were carnal (blessed in the city, blessed in the field, many flocks and herds etc), as opposed to the NT promises, where they were spiritual (you will have treasure in Heaven, where neither rust corrupts, nor thieves break through and steal).

Granted, there are many nowadays who identify themselves as "Christians" who are carnal as well, but in NT times this was more rare, the reason being that a far higher percentage were suffering persecution for their faith, and the judgments of God were actively coming upon sinners in the church back then.

 

[WaterSong]

The US was founded before Darwinism took hold, when the vast majority of men and women in this country were Christian, including most people in the government. It would have been possible then. It is not possible now.

If it ever was, then there is no matter of that which would pertain to be possible back then. Rather, it would be a matter of was, as in former.
America is a secular government. Always has been.
While many Christians believe the DoI was referring to our God in those parts wherein natures God is referred to, is that our God of the Bible?
Or is it the individual persons personal god? Being religious liberty and freedom was a founding principle of America.

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
[...]
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a presence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." John Adams ~ "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788]