![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/24b1e15c-f5b6-4a90-9369-d6cf1a7f1cac.png)
Nothing excuses Zionism even if some opposes the actions of their government
Nothing excuses Zionism even if some opposes the actions of their government
A lot of progress needs to be made and laws and regulations are slow to catch up, but at least things are trending in the right direction:
Qatar takes action to protect workers from extreme heat
UAE’s midday break for outdoor workers begins on June 15
As opposed to regressing:
Florida joins Texas in banning local heat protections for outdoor workers
“Arabs bad. must have nefarious motive”
True, but this is Bloomberg, after all.
They are already public domain here ;)
Summer started earlier than usual this year. The Saudi government needs to install more shades and outdoor cooling, as well as perhaps reduce the number of pilgrims allowed. 1.83 million at once, not counting those without permits, is a lot at once to take care of.
So they are forcing their own interpretation of Christianity on everyone? I guess that the US doesn’t have separate courts for other religions… So no one’s allowed divorce even if allowed in their religion? this can’t be legal.
To think that the caliphate at least allowed Jews and Christians to have their own religious courts.
They can’t prohibit it for other faiths though. Jews, Muslims, and so on can still divorce… right?
At least the Fediverse exists.
OP wants people to get shot.
They still worship Christ.
And I am arguing they don’t. People lie.
The term used in Islamic jurisprudence for someone who claims to believe in a religion but doesn’t follow it is munafiq i.e. hypocrite. I don’t know what it is called in Christianity/English. But since Islam borrows a lot of concepts, some literally such as shaheed being literal translation from Greek: martyr, and I have heard Christian Arabs use “munafiq”, I would think the Greek word for it will be related to hypocrisy.
A charlatan. Jesus said faith alone isn’t enough.
James 2:14-18 ESV What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Not a logical fallacy. Anyone can claim they worship Christ, but all religion have obligations that if you don’t follow you are clearly not a follower.
No one can follow everything in the Bible. It contradicts itself all over the place.
No one can follow “feed the hungry, heal the sick, and house the houseless”? I understand if it was some contradictory command, but this one clearly isn’t.
I will give an example from Islam since I am more familiar with it. Alcohol is prohibited in Islam yet some people claim to be Muslims and consume it. Those people fall under one of two, no third:
Those who are group 1, are still Muslims but sinners, but group 2 are out out out!
So those who don’t to feed the hungry and deny the obligation, aren’t Christian.
The party is under no obligation to respond to the voters’ wishes. They can always scare them that the Republicans will be worse.
I am not the one calling them fake Christians, God did
James 2:10 “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” The Bible said to take care of the poor and sick, fairly simple commandment, and they are failing to follow it.
Anyway, back to your point. One party is going to cut off both your hands; the other will only cut off one hand. Are they equivalent?
The majority want a ceasefire. Why can’t the Democratic Party just give its voters what they want and secure for itself the next election as well?
If the Democratic Party knows what the people want but refuses to give it to them, I think it is time for people to find another party to represent their cause.
They clearly don’t believe in Jesus. At this point they are just pretending to be Christians and destroying it from within, at least in the US. American-style Christianity still hasn’t spread everywhere, yet.
We agree on the essence. I am not going to argue over semantics and definitions. People have a right to self determination but not settler colonialism, we agree on that but disagree on the definition of Zionism. I go with the writings of Jabotinsky and Herzl.