New Posts

2PhiloVoid · 2024-05-22T06:59:29-0500

zippy2006 said:
Yes, that seems right to me. Good analysis.

That was only for the opening ...

zippy2006 said:
I assume you are asking about delineating "differences between forms of government." Generally speaking Aristotle will move between induction and deduction. We know that he studied and analyzed actual regimes that existed in his own day as well as prior to him. He inevitably brought his biological science into the social sphere, studying human relations in a similar way that he studied animal relations. He obviously goes on to begin chapter 2 by arguing about the natural way that a society grows or develops, beginning with relationships of dependence.

No, I'm not asking about government in particular here, even though for Aristotle, that is the overall context that he thinks he is delineating.

What I really want to hone in on is the actual logical method Aristotle uses when he is attempting ascertain and discern the "observed" nature of both slaves and masters. It's not really clear, I think, that he's using induction for this operation in method; no, I think he's defaulting to one of deduction, particularly where he recognized that both slaves and masters are "people," but then goes on to delineate that we can discern that one is not the same as the other.

So, that's merely preliminary before moving on to what Aristotle has to say in Book 1.

zippy2006 said:
This is interesting to me. I think it is well known that Aristotle spoke and wrote about induction. The IEP article seems to give a good overview of Aristotle's inductive reasoning, including the way that Aristotle's deductive/inductive distinction is different from the current deductive/inductive distinction. Regarding induction, I generally hold to the view of the school to which Groarke belongs (see the book review from my previous post). Note that Groarke specifically says that we must go back behind the modern tradition, which is exactly what PH denies. This is not an uncommon opinion, and many prominent recent philosophers have been Aristotelians or else strongly indebted to Aristotle (Fine, Anscombe, Foot, Nussbaum, Adler, Whitehead, Hare, Austine, MacIntyre, to name just a few).

If you like I can literally send you a long thesis on the study of "experience," the prerequisite of induction, as analyzed in Aristotle and the Thomistic appropriation of Aristotle.

I appreciate the sources, and I may look at them later. Keep in mind that I already have a number of sources describing Aristotle's thought, so it's not like I'm coming at this without either my own sources. Also keep in mind that my point about strengths and weaknesses in everyone's respective philosophy can be pointed out and that where Philosophical Hermeneutics is concerned, they've already incorporated what they perceive are the strong points in Aristotle's ancient view on "natural philosophy," so it's a new amalgamated synthesis that is replacing Aristotle.

mikeforjesus · 2024-05-22T06:57:32-0500

I believe it is most important to trust in God for one soul that the fear of man brings a snare. For what shall it profit the man if he gains the world and loses his soul. That instead of seeking to gain your life to put spreading gospel first and pursue otherwise if not killed or injured so that if I die for spreading gospel I am saved or if I lose an eye or foot or hand I will not care I will just spread gospel more and I will be more commited to preaching gospel.

o_mlly · 2024-05-22T06:57:08-0500

Hans Blaster said:
"Atheism" ... doesn't have any body of "wisdom" associated.

Ending on a happy note, we agree.

(I dismiss the second sentence of your post as uninformed nonsense.)

mikeforjesus · 2024-05-22T06:57:06-0500

I believe it is most important to trust in God for one soul that the fear of man brings a snare. For what shall it profit the man if he gains the world and loses his soul. That instead of seeking to gain your life to put spreading gospel first and pursue otherwise if not killed or injueed so that if i die for spreading gospel i am saved or if i lose an eye or foot or hand I will not care i will just spread gospel more and i will be more commited to preaching gospel

SabbathBlessings · 2024-05-22T06:51:20-0500

LoveofTruth said:
I wasn’t saying that Jesus was condemning anyone for “following” scriptures. The Pharisees (as many today) think they have eternal life in the scriptures , they think they know the way of life but they did not hear his word or have his word in their heart even thought they read the scriptures and heard him physically speak.

Consider this again, they read scripture but did not hear the word of God or hear Jesus word. Or have his word abiding in them.

John 5: 39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”

The scriptures are testifying of Jesus but they did not hear his word or the voice of the a Father inwardly so they did not hear the word.

Only those who have heard the voice of the Father inwardly and been taught by him can come unto Jesus.

John 6: 44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”

And yes, could have the Soirit if the Father speaking in them before the death of Christ (but not without that event in time).

Matthew 10: 20. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.”

No man can keep the law in the flesh. The Pharisees read scripture commented on it thought they kept the law but all along many were of the devil and not of God. They did not hear the word of God even though they read scripture and read it aloud and heard Jesus speak in the natural. To hear the word of God you must have spiritual ears. As Abraham had without scripture.

And we read nowhere of scripture being written for Abraham or by him. To say it was or imply that is not according to truth. Many had no scripture and yet heard Gods word inwardly such as Abel, Noah, Abraham etc

They added to the law thier traditions but they did claim to follow even the most strict aspects of the law. You are somewhat mistaken here. Even Paul said he kept the law blameless and strictly before conversion. Although everyone outside of Christ broke the law and was already condemned unless they came to God in humility and faith.

But here is evidence that the religious people and Pharisees tried to keep the law and thought they did.

Luke 11: 42. But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”

Luke 18: 9. And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10. Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.”

Matthew 23: 23. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”

And Paul before conversion also thought he kept the law blameless but didn't

Philippians 3: 6. Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 7. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:”

Only in Christ are we free and the can understand the scriptures. We follow the Spirit the letter kills the Spirit gives life. Then we use the scriptures aright not as a way of attaining righteousness by following an outward code or law to attain righteousness. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made us free from the law of sin and death.

2 Corinthians 3: 6. Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.@

Yes the Pharisees added their own traditions but they also thought they kept the law and read scripture.

Like sone today who do similar and think they have eternal life by simply reading scripture and trying to follow the righteousness of the law.

The Spirit gives life and we are to walk in the Spirit in all things. Then the scriptures are seen and understood in a wondrous light and are profitable for doctrine correction etc.

No one could obey Gods commandments unless they were in the Spirit and love. For love fulfills the law.

John 7: 19. Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

And the law has a purpose then when we come to Christ they were no longer under the law. The law was a schoolmaster but then in Christ we are no longer under it.

Romans 3: 20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Galatians 5: 18. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.”

They were condemned already for not believing in him. They were children of the devil.

I never said that Paul said we should not teach from scripture or use scripture all scripture is profitable.

Even the whole Mosaic law is done away for believers in its use to show sin (though we may still draw truth and lesson from it), it is abolished , done away a ministration of death and condemnation . I speak of the whole law especially the Ten Commandments written in stone. That would include the Sabbath .

Consider carefully this section

2 Corinthians 3: 7. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8. How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9. For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 12. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13. And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14. But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.”

No wonder why we have this warning 2 Peter 3:16 and warning for those who keep not the commandments but want to be teachers- its a dangerous place to be if we are to believe in Jesus and His teachings. Did Jesus teach the Ten Commandments ended and we can now vain His name, worship other gods, break His holy Sabbath day, covet, steal or break the least of these, no He taught and lived the law John 15:10 for our example to follow 1 John 2:6. He condemned the Pharisees for doing this, saying their hearts are far from Him and their worship was in vain and why Jesus warned not to break or teach others to break the least of these commandments as it affects our status in heaven- least being lost Mat 5:20 Those who keep His commandments are blessed and can enter through the gates but outside (judgement) are the lawless (commandment breakers) Rev 22:15 just as scriptures teach Mat 5:18-30 James 2:10-12 Mat 7:23 1 John 2:3-6. We are not saved by keeping the law, we are saved by Jesus but those who have Jesus live differently than those who don't Rev 14:12. They believe in His teachings and do them instead of being just hearers James 1:22

Believe what you want, but I would consider believing and living the teachings of Jesus. Many misunderstand Paul and pit his teachings against Jesus, but Paul was a servant of Christ and Christ servants want to follow Jesus- hence why he and the apostles kept every Sabbath Acts 18:4 Acts 13:42-44 just as Jesus did Luke 4:16 because Christ people do not just hear His Words, they live by them. Mat 4:4

Christ righteousness never changes Psa 119:142 so I would consider Christs Words to live by, instead of out of context Pauls. Only God can reverse His blessing, not man Num 23:20 and there is no scriptures in all of the Word of God saying we can break God's Ten Commandments- or the Sabbath. This is a teaching from another spirit that has deceived the whole world. Who teaches we can be saved in our sins when Jesus came to save us from sin Mat 1:21 and those who continue in sin there remains no more sacrifice Heb 10:26-30

Listen to Christ Words- He will only lead us on the path to righteousness and reconciliation. This is what Christ in His own Words says if we keep His Sabbath that He said is made for everyone. Those who want to join themselves to Christ, to love His name and serve Him and want to do what is righteous instead of depending on our own righteousness instead of God's Psa 119:172.

Isa 56:1 Thus says the Lord:

“Keep justice, and do righteousness,
For My salvation is about to come,
And My righteousness to be revealed.
2 Blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who lays hold on it;
Who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil.”

6 “Also the sons of the foreigner
Who join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him,
And to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants—
Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And holds fast My covenant

Psa 89:34 My covenant I will not break,
Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips.

Just like many of the Jews, who Jesus called His people crucified Him, what do we do when we do not obey Him?

Eze 22:26 Her priests have [a]violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

2PhiloVoid · 2024-05-22T06:49:47-0500

rocknanchor said:
Who's kicking shame around except by possible willingness, the resulting point of the Apostle upon those who refuse that sacred task (2 Tim 2:15)?

Not so, the inspiration did not originate from flesh and blood, next chapter, v16.

The epistemic problem here is that simply quoting Scripture is not a final proof of much of anything divine. It takes more than simply quoting.

2PhiloVoid · 2024-05-22T06:47:55-0500

stevevw said:
I agree. But I don't think its a case of total collapse due to Totalitarianism or any other political or ideological worldview. Its also about identifying the different manifestations of that thinking and how it develops, how a society can cultivate such ideas despite them inevitably leading to self destruction. How they decieved themselves into such positions.

Peterson is revealing the thinking behind how this happens so we can then identify it within society. Just as we can identify the mindset of a controller or psychopath but on a societal level. In that sense society as a whole can become deluded and detached from reality. In some ways that is evidenced by the high level of psychological disorders today. In some ways modern society can make people mentally ill.

The problem here is in differentiating the concept of Christian sense of spiritual delusion from the more common political problem of mass psychosis. These are not the same thing and do not necessarily manifest in the same way.

Moreover, one or both of these doesn't need totalitarianism to be present as a catalyst. In fact, in the case of the former, "business as usual" will do the job.

fli · 2024-05-22T06:45:39-0500

Mr. bling and d taylor

Thank you both for your replies.

Yes, Mr. bling your right, repentance can be done by anyone. As I stated if they believe the message and want what the message offers, eternal life with Jesus in heaven, they can repent. As I see it people who meet those two conditions repent without realizing they are repenting.

When I put myself in the audience at Cornelius' house (Acts 10: 34-43) my thought process proves my sinfulness. Because I've been told that this guy, Peter, a Jew, is going to tell me how to get to heaven I would be anxious to hear what he had to say. I imagine my thought process would be from verses 34 to 42, come on Peter skip this useless information, just tell me what I have to do. Everyone knows that the Gods expect their subjects to do great deeds to earn their (the God's) blessings. At verse 43 when I learned all that I had to do was believe in Jesus the Savior and boom I was speaking in a new language, praising God. Without realizing it I had put my hope in Jesus had repented by believing. Later, I would have learned that what I though was useless information was the gospel.

Yes, Mr. d taylor repent can and should be dropped from the gospel. There are times when repentance is appropriate. Acts 2 and 3 when Peter was speaking to those who had demanded that Pilate crucify Jesus, the call for repentance was justified. If they repented of their rejection of Jesus as the messiah, they might believe in Him. Repenting of that sin would help coping with the guilt when they realized their sin.

As to eternal life being a gift, your right. However, it is not the only gift. Jesus is the main gift. God's grace, His mercy, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, repentance and our saving faith are all gifts from God. Then there are the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Since love is listed as both a gift and a fruit of the Spirit then I include the fruits as a gift also. Fruits also include joy add peace which true joy and true peace can only be found in Jesus.

Thank you both for your replies. To continue why believing the gospel is repentance.

Genesis 3:17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': NKJV

What God punished Adam for is after the because. When Adam heeded the voice of his wife he proved that he did not believe God. Therefore, not believing God was Adam's first mistake (sin).

Isaiah 41:22 "Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, That we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come. NKJV

If we know how something began, we will know how it ends. Sin and death began in the garden when Adam did not believe God.

Genesis 15:2 But Abram said, "Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" …........ 5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness. NKJV

When man believes God sin and death end.

John 3: 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. NKJV

God said that if we believe in Jesus, we will have eternal life. If we believe God death ends for us.

John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. NKJV

Sin ends for us when we believe God and believe in Jesus.

Apple Sky · 2024-05-22T06:37:40-0500

Strong in Him said:
If he refused the vaccine because he thought it was harmful, or maybe not needed, he was mistaken. Because he caught Covid and died.

No he didn't he went into hospital for something entirely different it was just unfortunate for him that it was during covid 19.

civilwarbuff · 2024-05-22T06:37:35-0500

Vanellus said:
I know this is your pet idea that I believe you have stated more than once in this forum. The problem with it is that it doesn't correspond to the reality of the situation. Netanyahu (and other Israeli leaders) have committed themselves to the complete destruction of Gaza and its people This was the meaning of Netanyahu's reference to Amalek. More examples are given here:

The language being used to describe Palestinians is genocidal | Chris McGreal

Netanyahu's negotiating position is that in return for Hamas returning all the hostages, Israel would grant a brief pause while they do that. Then he has said Israel would continue its campaign to destroy, Hamas, Gaza and its entire population or ethnically cleanse it out of Gaza.. This is not a realistic proposal and the families of the hostages and other Israelis know this. That is why they have been camped out outside Netanyahu's home.

Netanyahu doesn't want the conflict to stop as that would mean elections and a strong possibility he would be kicked out - many in Israel hold him responsible for security failures that allowed Oct 7 to happen. And he is facing legal challenges and possible jail. And as far as he is concerned his own skin is far more valuable than many thousands of Palestinians.

What part of 'destroying Hamas' do you not understand? Everyone who stands against terrorists and terrorism understands this. If the gazans aren't smart enough to pick the right dog is this fight then they deserve to get bit.

BTW, it is not a 'pet idea'. When enough people turn against a government that government will fall. The Soviet Union is a great example of that. It's just too bad the people didn't protect what they had afterwards.

JulieB67 · 2024-05-22T06:37:14-0500

Eternally Grateful said:
You need to complete Jesus words.

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

1. He never knew them
2. They practiced sin

these were not saved people who fell away, they were lost people trying to earn their way to Gods grace by these works they did in Jesus name

My point is many are going to fall away from the truth. Unbelievers have nothing to fall away from. We are talking about people that have taught and cast out demons in his name. We aren't talking about people that are taught the truth but don't believe it, don't take it to heart.

Apostasy is departing from the truth. These that taught in Christ's name, cast out demons and so on believed in him at one point. They knew the truth.

There are many reasons people fall away from the truth-

II Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"

II Timothy 4:4 "And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto unto fables."

Love of the world is another one -

II Timothy 4:10 "For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia."

II Peter 2:20 "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."

Peter 2:21 "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

I Peter 2:22 "But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, "The dog is turned to his own vomit again"; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."

Our Father even talks about this in the OT-

Ezekiel 18:21 "But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all My statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die."

Ezekiel 18:24 "But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die."

That's why Christ can state he never knew them because all that righteousness will be for naught.

Again, he states - but he that doeth the will of My Father Which is in heaven."

Yes, the difference is Christ became that one time sacrifice that paid for sin but the point is still the same, anyone that turns from a life of righteousness to wickedness is not saved. And we see here that this person was righteous but it was all for naught. Just as Peter is talking about. Anyone that turns back is not saved and in fact it is worse than someone who never had the truth in them.

The foolish virgins had belief in Christ, they are waiting on the Bridegroom. Unbelievers are not waiting for the bridegroom. This is a hint that something major happens to cause them to fall way.

Paul talks about the falling away before Christ returns.

Eternally Grateful said:
Your either saved or your not saved.

Salvation is certainly for those that have "kept" that faith until the end. Not everyone does. That's why Christ states the way to the gate is narrow and few find it.

HIM · 2024-05-22T06:36:34-0500

davetaff said:
Hi Him thank you for your reply if I have taken Hebrews 4 out of context please tell me what the context should be the way I see it Gods sabbath rest is a future event which we can enter into.

Love and Peace
Dave

Not much time presently. But for starters, do you know that chapter 3 and four in Hebrews is speaking of two rest, not one?

stevevw · 2024-05-22T06:36:18-0500

Paidiske said:
Well, the main reason I ever see anyone raise the idea of men as "protectors," it's always coupled with the idea of different gender roles and women staying home, and all of that sort of thing. So that's exactly what I see reflected in how this idea is actually applied.

Then you must live in a very narrow world because the majority of males have this protective inclination and they don't push it on anyone. You just see it in the nobel ways they behave in living out that.

And thats really the point. That some take these natural aspects and abuse them just like they physically abuse they abuse and distort what is natural to many males. Like mascullinity, its a natural inclination for males but can become distorted or what fiminist call toxic. But mascullinity itself is not toxic.

Paidiske said:
I don't believe they have such a "natural inclination." Not in a way that only pertains to men, and not to women as well.

And thats your ideological assumption and belief but not the reality of males. Its funny as the Woke idea is to affirm the expressed identity and that denying this is abuse. Yet when males express their natural identity its denied.

So you are saying men and women are the same. That the mascullined brain has no influence on thinking and behaviour. The simple fact that a male is bigger, stronger and more powerful points to a difference in mindset due to physical ability. If your equipped to be strong then surely it must also be embodied. Otherwise your denying your own physical reality.

Paidiske said:
And we are actually treated differently in many situations.

Thats not always a bad thing you know. But as far as say which competency and merit don't you think that the job or position should go to whoever is more capable and based on merit rather than gender or race. So if a particular group ends up dominating a sector due to that capability or merit is that being abusive and denying another group who are not as capable or have merit.

Paidiske said:
Denying the reality of someone's experience is basically textbook gaslighting.

But I am not denying your experiences. I said that your experience is real for you and I believe you when you say that is your experience for you is real without knowing the circumstances. Thats a fair position to take when people share experiences. We take them at face value that they are sincerely sharing their personal experiences.

But I am talking about beyond that. If we just went by experiences as far as what is real or not in the world, not within the individual then we would be in trouble always being fooled and having no coherent idea of what is real and what is not. So its when people want to make their personal experiences real for others that it becomes a problem.

Paidiske said:
It still happens! And the point here is, it is fed by ideas like men being "protectors" and women being "protected."

Its interesting how two people can see the same words and have completely different ideas assumptions about what that represents. While you see 'Protection' the mere mention of it as abusive for many others it can also be a nobel trait in males that will make them non abusers. I think it all depends on where your coming from.

I think humans have a protective instinct and its only natural that they want to protect others especially those closest to them. The idea that we have to give up such natural and nobel ideas because its PC seems self defeating.

By the way did you know that women naturally look for a male who is above them as far as resources, money, and capability is concerned. They naturally want someone who can protect them and make their situation stronger. They see weak and incompetent males as non suitable. Well thats the growing trend anyway.

Research has shown females demonstrate far more stringent preferences than males for mates with good earning potential or higher education [11], particularly during the years of peak fertility [13, 14].
Sex differences in sexual attraction for aesthetics, resources and personality across age

Paidiske said:
Virtue is not gendered. Courage, responsibility, integrity are all good qualities for anyone (not specifically qualities men should strive for and women not). Competitiveness and loyalty I think are more mixed, and probably need to be carefully nuanced.

OK yes both males and females should develop these qualities. So if males had a propensity to persue these qualities more often would that be a problem. Like how we see that the vast majority of rescue workers and police are males. It seems that this is one way they display their courageous and nobel side. That doesn't mean women can also do the same. But it seems that males have a natural affinity positions of protection and require courgae.

Paidiske said:
But what I'm critiquing is the binary; that men being "protectors," casts women as "protected," and therefore disempowers women in all sorts of ways.

Yes the binary or the extreme positions that distort the nobel protection into being used as a weapon to abuse. Its like the concept of control being used as a weapon to abuse unnecessarily. But if anything I have been continually argueing for the balanced view. You seem to be making things into a binary by always taking these neutral words to one extreme, always the abusive extreme while denying the balanced view.

Paidiske said:
I'm not so sure of that. Ask women about their tendency to be "mumma bears" when their children are threatened. I think our culture just talks about it differently for men and women.

Well as mentioned above we see this in the large disproportion of males to females in the type of protective roles in society. Well at least the ones that will take strength, size and power like policing, rescue work and war. But I am not saying women have this protective instinct. But rather that its expressed differently.

But its interesting that you quickly stand up for womens protective instincts to be expressed and then protest when males do the same in their own way.

Paidiske said:
No, again you miss my point. When I say we set up "the dynamics of the system" I mean not just who is in what position, but what authority, what responsibility, what limitations, what expectations, and so on, go with being in that position.

Ok yes thats true. I would say that the reasons or values we use to place people in those positions is tied to how we setup the systems. Though there is flexibility or should be. The systems themselves are based on values similar to that of the people within them. Integrity of individuals and systems.

If you put competent people with honesty and integrity into certain positions of influence then I would have thought it goes hand in hand that we would want the system they work in to also be competent and honest.

Nevertheless we have checks and balances to ensure people are doing the right thing. If they don't then we have the general public. Social media has made it easier for individuals and groups to have their say and even bring down individuals and organisations who do the wrong thing. To a degree that is.

I will read your article below and come back. Regards Steve.

tall73 · 2024-05-22T06:33:04-0500

LovebirdsFlying said:
I'm sorry I'm coming in late. I only skimmed the first five pages, and I may rehash something that's already been said.

No problem!

LovebirdsFlying said:
When we get into mutual submission, I think this entails putting another person's needs above your wants. Not their wants above your needs, but their needs above your wants. And we should all be that way toward everyone. Philippians 2:3. Also on mutual submission, remember that while Sarah was praised for her submission to Abraham, God also told Abraham to listen to Sarah and do as she asked of him. Genesis 21:12.

Agreed!

And the account you mention is a good example of how the husband is to submit to God, and seek his will in the matter, not his own desires. Abraham and Sarah placed themselves in a difficult situation by pursuing a child through their own wisdom.

It is also a reminder to husbands to listen to what wives say, as they may also be discerning the will of God,or propose a course of action in line with the will of God

It also shows Sarah's submissiveness, in that she appeals to Abraham to act on her behalf.

We can all acknowledge that Hagar was poorly treated, as even the text says she was harshly treated by Sarah, (which Abraham signed off on, without asking God) causing her to try to run away the first time.

And it even shows an extreme example of submission on the part of Hagar, who was caught in the middle, was mistreated by Sarah, and yet Hagar was asked to go back and submit, and the Lord blessed her.

Genesis 16:6-13

6 So Abram said to Sarai, “Indeed your maid is in your hand; do to her as you please.” And when Sarai dealt harshly with her, she fled from her presence.

7 Now the Angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur. 8 And He said, “Hagar, Sarai’s maid, where have you come from, and where are you going?”

She said, “I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai.”

9 The Angel of the LORD said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hand.” 10 Then the Angel of the LORD said to her, “I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude.” And the Angel of the LORD said to her:

“Behold, you are with child,

And you shall bear a son.

You shall call his name Ishmael,

Because the LORD has heard your affliction.

12 He shall be a wild man;

His hand shall be against every man,

And every man’s hand against him.

And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.”

13 Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, You-Are-the-God-Who-Sees; for she said, “Have I also here seen Him who sees me?” (NKJV)

Note: I am not citing this to say that women should return to an abusive situation. This is a unique revelation from God to her in this difficult situation.

But in this case God did call Hagar to submit to that. And He is God. She did so, and He did watch over her and bless her.

LovebirdsFlying said:
We can't isolate the submission of wives and separate it from the love of husbands. They're a package deal. Ephesians 5:25-29.

Very much agreed.

Love isn't merely having warm fuzzy feelings toward somebody. If a husband hurls demands at his wife, doesn't listen to her input, criticizes and mocks her, makes personal decisions for her such as how she may dress and whether or not she may wear makeup, burdens her with rules and restrictions until she's caged in and miserable and feels more like his servant than his wife, he isn't loving her as Christ loves the church. He broke his end of the deal, and I don't think she owes him submission in that case.

This is the sort of situation where appeal to the church could be helpful--if the church is understanding that headship is to look like Christ's love. The husband may need correction from spiritual leadership in the church. Potentially both could, depending on the situation.

And being open to that is also submission on the husband and wife's part.

Hammster · 2024-05-22T06:27:53-0500

BNR32FAN said:
It’s not MY claim it’s YOUR claim so YOU should be the one providing the quote to support it NOT ME. Why should I be the one to provide evidence to support your theology when I’m not the one who believes in it, you are?

BNR32FAN said:
But according to Calvin’s theology no one can repent unless God has enabled them to and if God has enabled them to then they are equally incapable of failing to repent

That’s your claim.

Jeffrey Bowden · 2024-05-22T06:24:08-0500

keras said:
The four types of Gods helpers on earth were here from the beginning, Zechariah mentions them and Revelation tells how they become empowered to cause mayhem and death during the Christian age. They are not, of course; actual men or horses.
Your unsupported opinions count for nothing.

Thinking the Fifth Seal is not open yet, shows your inability to see how Prophecy can be and is fulfilled. Do you really believe the Christian martyrs have no special treatment from God?

The proof of the Sixth Seal being the next Prophesied event, is in Isaiah 51:2, where Jesus stopped His quote just before 'and a Day of vengeance of our God.
Neither you nor anyone will escape this testing of our faith.

The Zech horses and spirits don’t ever match the Rev horses and riders in any way,

Thr Zech’s are always peaceful and the Rev’s are always destructive. Those are the basic truths that you can’t overcome.

They don’t match so they can’t be the same. Your theory about open seals is destroyed.

KevinT · 2024-05-22T06:23:34-0500

sparow said:
Jesus said Satan can change himself into an angel of light. I believe Satan changed himself int an angel of light and met Paul on the road to Damascus and sent him forth as the deception that can deceive the very elect. For that reason, I do not use Paul as an authority.

This belief is certainly quite different from mainline Christianity. I have my own issues with Paul, but to say that he is an ambassador of Satan is quite a striking assertion. I have never heard this theory before. Are you the only one with this idea, or is there a group that believes this?

Do you think the True God has played any role in shepherding the Bible through the ages? It is true that anything written down could have secret errors introduced to lead us all astray. It is possible that you are not a human, but are instead an AI bot. But at some point, doubting everything just leaves one with nothing.

GreatLakes4Ever · 2024-05-22T06:22:42-0500

MrMoe said:
I'm sure you've also heard the saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

“…that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”

That’s the rest of the quote that for some reason, anyone who uses it seems to forget to say.

Postvieww · 2024-05-22T06:05:14-0500

Hans Blaster said:
. I was referring to his prior lies (including under oath) before this case. He admitted to many of those on the stand.

So you admit he was not a credible witness! Or do you feel he is a reformed convicted liar who now puts forth nothing but truth?

Tuur · 2024-05-22T06:03:38-0500

Postvieww said:
Fake news. I am surprised someone hasn’t claimed he was the Antichrist. Or even satan himself.

People have claimed various leaders were the antichrist for millennia. Can't remember the minister who basically said "Knock it off. No one will know the Antichrist until he's revealed." That was maybe around 300 AD, maybe before. And here we are in 2024 doing the same old thing.

And, of course, we have "Trump is Hitler." Odd it's never "Trump is Stalin" or "Trump is Mao." Somehow I don't think Hitler would have moved his nation's embassy to Jerusalem had Israel existed then. You know, like the US did during the Trump administration. Oh, the US was supposed to have done so before Trump, but somehow never got around to it. Funny thing, that.

What I hope people really mean is "Trump is a political strongman." I'd agree with that assessment. Such things have been known in history, including the US. But again, it's odd that it's always Hitler that springs to mind. What? Stalin gets a pass on Nazino? For Holodomor? 5.7 to 7 million people died in that one. The Purges? And Mao, the 40 to 80 million who died don't deserve a mention? We can't call a politician a Mao? It's as though Stalin and Mao are somehow excused. Surely that's not the intent. Surely their politics has nothing to do with that. Does it?

fide · 2024-05-22T06:01:57-0500

joymercy said:
Hey guys,

There is supposed to be a divine revelation experienced by Mary of Agreda, where Blessed Mother took her veil and asked a roman guard to wrap it around his loins to cover it and provide some decency and give her son some dignity in dying.

Jesus was truly covered on the cross. I do believe Blessed Mother stepped up and asked the guard. That is so like our Mother!

It can be found in her work called "City of God" a voluminous work, and here is shared in a PDF form City of God

Yes, that is so like our Blessed Mother!

This is the beautiful and relevant Novena Prayer to Our Lady, in the "darkness and sin which ever more envelop the world and menace the Church":

O Virgin Mother of God, we fly to your protection and beg your intercession against the darkness and sin which ever more envelop the world and menace the Church. Your Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, gave you to us as our mother as He died on the Cross for our salvation. So too, in 1531, when darkness and sin beset us, He sent you, as Our Lady of Guadalupe, on Tepeyac to lead us to Him Who alone is our light and our salvation.

Through your apparitions on Tepeyac and your abiding presence with us on the miraculous mantle of your messenger, Saint Juan Diego, millions of souls converted to faith in your Divine Son. Through this novena and our consecration to you, we humbly implore your intercession for our daily conversion of life to Him and the conversion of millions more who do not yet believe in Him. In our homes and in our nation, lead us to Him Who alone wins the victory over sin and darkness in us and in the world.

Unite our hearts to your Immaculate Heart so that they may find their true and lasting home in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. Ever guide us along the pilgrimage of life to our eternal home with Him. So may our hearts, one with yours, always trust in God's promise of salvation, in His never-failing mercy toward all who turn to Him with a humble and contrite heart. Through this novena and our consecration to you, O Virgin of Guadalupe, lead all souls in America and throughout the world to your Divine Son in Whose name we pray. Amen.

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke

New Posts

New Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page