“[1]And thou shalt, without haste, pass the military aid of no less than 10 billion silver talents to Israel. [2]Thou shalt include the funding of the hollowed log that travels by air, the rock that sits atop a wheel, [3]and many other things that make a frightening sound and cause much ruckus.”
IIRC biblical prophecy ties the End Times and second coming to a war in the Middle East involving Israel.
Yeah, I know all of that, Bird. But that still falls short of a "Biblical injunction to stand with Israel." That's a Biblical motivation to do so, maybe, but not an injunction.IIRC biblical prophecy ties the End Times and second coming to a war in the Middle East involving Israel.
What is Israel’s role in the end times? | GotQuestions.org
What is Israel’s role in the end times? What is going to happen to the nation of Israel in the end times?www.gotquestions.org
A good many American Evangelical Christians take the Bible literally. 40%, as of 2022, according to this article, although that's slowly falling. Couple that with the general Evangelical precept that they are required to spread The Word and save the unbelievers. Their whole thing is that they believe Judgment Day is going to happen (and, more to the point, that it's a good thing; they want it to happen) and anyone who hasn't embraced Jesus as their Lord & Savior will be left behind, and they're supposed to save as many as they can.
www.christianpost.com
I feel like that’s a narrow definition used by the survey takers (and I don’t blame them, they’re doing phone surveys)—does the term “literal word of God” need to imply that the events described in the Bible happened as written? Is it not within God’s power to write the same way as humans, using rhetorical devices? Or if God commanded the writing of the Bible, is its limitation in that it can only be written using concepts that humans can understand?
The problem with the US Senate isn't so much that it's malapportioned, in a federation upper houses are generally designed that way because federations exist where there's sub national units of diverse sizes and dispositions and a political system has to cater to that. For example, North Rhine Westphalia has 1 seat per 3m people, Bremen has one per 200k. Tasmania has 1 seat per 46k, New South Wales 1 per 700k. México state 1 per 6m, Baja California Sur 1 per 290k. Sikkim has 1 per 600k, Uttar Pradesh has 1 per 8m.
A lot of those states have low budgets and low incomes. That's how clout has worked out in the interplay between the economies of consumption and the economies of production. Services availability, too. Enough that people clearly find the desirable over the available alternatives. Prima facie the political skew isn't yet large enough to correct through governance towards social equity as yet. It might need to get larger.
The majority of those came after The War.
I agree, and I don't know what the most likely fix is. I think we need to abolish the Electoral College, create term limits for SCOTUS justices, require SCOTUS justices to abide by the same code of conduct that other Federal judges are required to observe, and clarify that the Senate confirmation of SCOTUS justices isn't optional. Those four things would solve a few problems, and I don't think any of them are in any way unreasonable, but I think they're all essentially impossible. It would be asking the party in power and the branches of government to impose new rules upon themselves. In the event the Electoral College can't be blown out the proverbial airlock, individual states are allowed to appoint their EC representatives proportionally. Currently, two states do that, Maine and Nebraska. Again, what are the odds 40-something other states would do that? (I don't actually know how many states would need to do that for the results of the General Election to essentially mimic the popular vote, even if it's still technically being done through the EC.)
Proportional votes. Two-party systems exist because of the FPTP.
No.
