So, I have OCD. Please do keep that in mind. However, ive been getting this weird thing for a while now where if I think about certain topics ill get a "prick" on my skin. Like a beesting. Almost like a sharp "No thats not right" or "Thats false". It they will stay consistent to what thoughts they happen with.
IDK if OCD can cause this level of physical control, so now im wondering if its some weird way that God is talking to me. Tbh its really freaking me out because idk if I should listen to it or not. I keep praying for discernment or an answer and I get nothing. Does this sound like a way God would talk to me? They are just SO accurate, and it honestly scares me a little.

Also, please dont say, "Take it to the bible, see if it lines up." because the issue with that, is that most of these things are issues that the bible doesnt even talk about.

For example, rn its really going on about my views of the new earth. Ill be thinking about how I cant wait to explore the new earth, and persue my passions, and stuff like that. And ill get a prick and it starts hinting that we will just sing for eternity and stuff like that. Stuff that makes me dread heaven tbh. IDK IF I SHOULD LISTEN TO IT. Ik I sound crazy, but I really dont know. Im new to God, so Idk how he works.

Muhammad Ali is of my child heroes, having grown up in the seventies. One of my fondest memories is of him visiting my high school in 1984. So, I was very disappointed when I discovered the stupidity of his name change.

He was born Cassius Marcellus Clay. He was named after a Kentucky politician and emancipationist who worked for the abolition of slavery.

Soon after he became Heavyweight boxing champion, he changed his name to Muhammad Ali. Let’s compare the Islamic prophet Muhammad to Cassius Marcellus Clay.

As already stated, Mr. Clay was an abolitionist. Muhammad, on the other hand owned many black slaves, as well as white slaves. In fact, he thought slavery was great. To add insult to injury, Muhammad believed that one white slave was worth two black slaves.

Am I am an Islamaphobe for point out the stupidity of the name change?

Please pray for wisdom and my ability to exercise self control in my marriage. I have an appointment with my attorney Tuesday to commence divorce paperwork. My wife overheard me saying to myself last night that I couldn't stand her. She may be refusing to allow me to shower. I haven't showered for 3 days. She is refusing to sign the divorce paperwork. The situation here is intolerable. She is compelling me to drive at night when I have difficulty seeing and insisting I postpone cataract surgery. There is arguing and many issues that divide us. Please pray.

My husband and I are both white. He and his family are currently, and generally, less religious and more progressive than mine, but his (historically) is MUCH more Southern and slave-owning than mine. In fact, all his family has Southern and slave-owning past, whereas mine doesn't on either paternal or maternal side.

My dad's family are all WASPs and Irish/Scottish from the upper northeast (Massachusetts, Vermont, etc.) who never held or owned slaves. My mom's are all Germans/Norwegians/Hutterites from the upper midwest (Minnesota, South Dakota, etc.) who came to the US in the 1800s and also never had slaves.

In recent years, I've noticed a change from individualistic and historical focus of racism, toward more 'systemic' focus. The idea is, it doesn't really matter that my husband's family was historically slave-owning, whereas mine were in regions where slavery never occurred. The focus now is, both nonetheless benefited from 'white privilege,' so it doesn't matter if one's white families had slaves or not. What matters now is, if they are allies, or at least voting Democrat in greater numbers. In that case, my husband's family is generally more progressive now, even if they have purely Southern and slave-owning roots.

Do you agree with that perspective: is it better to have a family that "currently" is overall more progressive and voting Democrat, even if that family is purely slave-owning and Southern in its past, than it is to come from a family with no slavery, even if that family is currently slightly more third-party or Republican in its voting?

The proposed bill, that is still being negotiated in the Senate, would provide a permanent status for "Dreamers", increase Border Patrol funding and extend Title 42 which expires this month....

A handful of bipartisan senators are working to strike separate 11th-hour immigration deals before Republicans take control of the House in January and make the politically tricky agreements even harder to reach.

Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have outlined a potential immigration proposal that would provide a path to legalization for 2 million undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, known as “dreamers,” in exchange for at least $25 billion in increased funding for the Border Patrol and border security. The bipartisan framework, which is in flux, would also extend Title 42 for at least a year until new “regional processing centers” provided for in the bill could be built, according to a Senate aide. The Trump administration instituted Title 42 during the coronavirus pandemic, arguing that the immediate expulsion of migrants was necessary because of the public health crisis.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/05/congress-working-strike-last-minute-immigration-deals/

Sometimes we get into some heated debates between the left and right on these forums. However, I think it is wrong to believe either side wishes harm on their fellow humans. There are evil people on both sides with evil intentions, but for the most part I believe most people, especially on Christian Forums, have good intentions. We just disagree on how we can achieve good and exactly what “good” is.

Authorities accused most of those arrested of being part of a “terrorist organization,” according to the public prosecutor’s statement, while the remaining three — including a Russian national — were detained on suspicion of being supporters.

A Wednesday statement from the federal public prosecutor said the members of the group, which was founded in November 2021, subscribed to a range of conspiracy theories including █████ and the right-wing extremist Reichsbürger movement, which denies the existence of the modern German state. “The accused are united by a deep rejection of state institutions,” it said.

German news media identified the [head of the organization's central council] as Prince Heinrich XIII, 71, a descendant of the House of Reuss, a royal dynasty from the German state of Thuringia.

The council also had a military arm, which would have been involved in the armed takeover of the state. This body included former members of Germany’s armed forces, and recruitment efforts were targeted toward members of the military and police, the prosecutor said.

The barracks of a unit of Germany’s Special Forces Command, known as the KSK, was among the locations raided, Der Spiegel magazine reported. The German Defense Ministry disbanded one unit of the elite counterterrorism force in 2020 and announced a restructuring due to suspected extreme right-wing ties of its members.


see also from 2020

[better link]

The teaching of Evolution is a 'rationalizing' of world history that was a necessary requirement of post-Enlightenment / modern society.

All of mass society was being organized on the basis of rational social science. 'Reason' was to replace 'Dogma' in every facet of social planning, from the political technology of government, to the economy, social relations, and most importantly public education. The modern world was to be an enlightened scientific society and so all bodies of knowledge and understanding had to be filtered through an epistemological bottleneck of rationalism and empiricism and methodological naturalism. In the Age of Enlightenment, this was the new intellectual order of the day.

What this means is that a teaching form of Evolution was necessarily required as an interpretation of historical origins. It had to be an Evolutionary history and there was simply no room for debate on this issue. This is because the belief in Evolution is essentially applied historical rationalism; the belief that events progress in an orderly way based on uniform laws of nature. Before any of the particulars of Evolution were known, it was already concluded that world history must be a 'rational' history; a history that unfolded in a methodically natural way. Under the philosophical rules of Enlightenment, there was simply no other option.

The other important thing about the teaching of Evolution, is that, like all other aspects of a mass industrial society, it requires the administration and organization of a managerial class of 'experts' to interpret and promote it to mass society. The teaching of Evolution makes an "enlightened" managerial elite the gatekeepers of reality for a modern society. Just as modern society is said to be organized on the highest principles of social-science and enlightened political technology of liberal democracy. Evolution requires the management of a widespread academic, scientific, and media bureaucracy, the same type of bureaucracy necessary for promoting liberal democratic ideology (i.e., the ideology that rejects any source of authority apart from that socio-political bureaucracy)

Evolution, too, meets the needs of a pluralistic secular state. Evolution is a belief that can be syncretized with Christianity, eastern religion, masonic Deism, and Atheism. It is a creation story for all faiths, and thus the best suited historical narrative for an inclusive modern liberal democracy.


As for the actual science of Evolution. These are distantly secondary considerations to the primary political and philosophical *requirement* that Evolution be taught as the official origins story within a modern liberal society. It is a political necessity.


This is why, as one scientist stated:

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!”​

This is because when you question Evolution, you are really tapping into an ideology that lies at the heart of the age of Enlightenment and modern society itself. We are ruled by this ideology and this ideology is hammered into us by a mass media from the cradle to the grave. Like the riot at Ephesus in Acts 19 and the Cult of Artemis , the entire mystical order of society, and especially its elite priesthood class, is threatened when you target its central ideology. This is why so many people seem to go crazy when they detect even the slightest hint of dissent from a belief in Evolution. There is an entire managerial class throughout all sectors of society who instinctively recognize the belief in Evolution as a kind of mystical cornerstone to their entire ideological worldview.

This is also why younger generations will continue to be taught the social myth that Evolution was simply the result of disinterested scientists who only cared about following the facts. We have to be raised up inside the ideology and can never be allowed to see it from the outside. This is why creationists are so particularly loathed in society and in their portrayals in mass media... whether they realize it or not, they are poking at the heart of modern ideology.

Q1: Does Christianity predict that I should be able to have a personal loving relationship with God? Is that something that should be expected to be true if Christianity is true?

Q2: If the answer to Q1 is "yes", is there a standard definition in Christianity of what a "personal loving relationship" between God and a human being looks like? Is this a standard concept, or does each denomination have its own definition (e.g. Pentecostals vs Catholics vs Orthodox vs Baptists, etc.)?

Q3: If God is by definition supernatural, then does a personal loving relationship between God and a human being involve supernatural experiences? Or more generally, if I have a personal loving relationship with God, what should I expect to happen? Can I expect God to speak to me, give me dreams, visions, spiritual gifts, etc.?

Q4: Does having a personal loving relationship with God involve being consciously aware of God's presence? If so, how does one tell the difference between God's presence and God's absence? Is God's presence something that can be consciously experienced?

Q5: How can I have a personal loving relationship with God? Is there a method to achieve this?

I really like the ability to resize an inserted image into the post - with the new program. I make a lot of charts. And sometimes, I feel that they are too big for space. With the new program, click on the image and a little dialogue box comes up with the option to resize. In the first box where it says "auto" for horizontal - just type in the new size such as "500px" then click "update" - and the image will appear resized. Great, great feature.

I am prayerful this will find those widowed that are much further along this walk than I am, but here goes nothing.

I lost my beautiful wife of 15 years in July of this year. I have gone through griefshare, just finished it Monday actually. I know I have a long way to go, but I was hoping maybe there was something I could be doing, actively that would shake off the hollow, empty feeling. I understand what it is, I am numb in some ways. I am neither happy, nor sad, I just am. I pray, I do the grief work stuff from the book, I read my Bible, and I am grateful I am no longer hysterical, but I would almost prefer the hysterical to this feeling, or rather lack of feeling. I have had some moments where I actually was doing, not well, but at least passably okay, and I was able to feel. And maybe this is something my brain is doing to be because of this time of year. Her birthday, Thanksgiving, our anniversary, and Christmas all back to back to back...

Am I missing something or is this just a part I have to slog through until I get to the other side of it?

Incumbent Democrat fends off challenge from Republican Herschel Walker to gain party’s 51st seat

The Democratic incumbent, Raphael Warnock, won the Georgia Senate runoff on Tuesday, securing his first full term and delivering a 51st seat to bolster his party’s majority in the chamber.

The Associated Press called the race about three and a half hours after polls closed in Georgia, as Warnock led the Republican candidate, Herschel Walker, by approximately 40,000 votes.

Raphael Warnock wins Georgia runoff, bolstering Democratic Senate majority

Incumbent Democrat fends off challenge from Republican Herschel Walker to gain party’s 51st seat

www.theguardian.com

'Walker conceded, acknowledging that his campaign had fallen short and expressing gratitude to his team. The Republican explicitly thanked election officials who ensured the runoff was managed effectively, quelling concerns he might refuse to accept the result.

“I don’t want any of you to stop believing in America,” Walker told supporters. “I want you to believe in America and continue to believe in the constitution and believe in our elected officials … Always, always cast your vote no matter whatever is happening.”'

The Senate has a Democraric majority. Another Trump nominee lost.

Contrary to popular opinion, the NC isn't just as simple as saying," I believe," it's a process, as detailed in Romans 8

It starts out with," For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh." The law pointed out what was wrong, but that was just condemnation. Is that bad? Far from it! But the condemnation brought along punishment without salvation.

Jesus then came down to condemn the sin just to the flesh, "thus condemned sin in the flesh."

Now it is those who walk by the flesh that are condemned in the flesh while those who walk in the Spirit are spared," so that the righteous standard of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

Keeping with the Spirit is a process, not a one time deal, "Since we live by the Spirit, let us walk in step with the Spirit," Galatians 5.

So you not only have to say you believe, but you also must keep in step with the Spirit.

This is why," As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." James 2

The shortage of this liquid antibiotic, which is often the first-choice treatment for children’s ear infections and other problems, is expected to last several months.

The FDA placed the medication on its drug shortages list last month, but parents and caregivers are starting to feel the impact, asking for advice on social media over concerns their children may not get the treatment they need. Some are seeking alternatives to help with bronchitis, ear infections, and strep throat, among other illnesses.

The AAP first recommends that pediatricians ensure their patients need antibiotics before prescribing them, given that many infections in children are caused by viruses, not bacteria.

Giving antibiotics to people who don’t really need them can lead to antibiotic resistance: when germs develop the ability to defeat the drugs made to kill them. CDC data released in 2016 showed that at least 30% of antibiotics prescribed in the US are unnecessary, putting patients at risk of allergic reactions and deadly diarrhea in rare cases.

"Talk to your child’s pediatrician if your child is sick, and only give antibiotics if they are definitely indicated," Shu said.

Doctors may recommend “watchful waiting” for some infections, particularly in older children with mild symptoms; research suggests that using pain relievers and monitoring children for two to three days before prescribing antibiotics can result in some bacterial ailments, like ear infections, resolving on their own.



I've seen a few other articles discussing the subject as well attributing the shortages to the factors of
A) Demand increasing due to people wanting to get it prescribed for things like viral infections (in which case there's no point since it doesn't work on those)
B) Certain manufacturers claiming production numbers are still down and not up to pre-covid levels

1 Timothy 2:11-12 has been variously understood. One view I recently heard is that it teaches women to be silent not only in church, as is the case in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, but also in secular matters. After making several contextual arguments for women not to teach with authority, this article concludes:

If we can see I Tim 2:11-12 forbids a woman from teaching a class of men when the topic is the Bible, then we ought to be able to see the non-spiritual parallel: I Tim 2:11-12 also forbids a woman from teaching a class including men when the topic is secular (like a college mathematics class). …
Many decades ago the Biblical view presented in this message was accepted by most every Christian. The woman’s liberation movement squelched it. But the Bible hasn’t changed. I close with this point … If verses 9-10 (dressing modestly) applies at the university and in the workplace, why wouldn’t the very next two verses apply there also?

Click to expand...

This has caused me to wonder how 1 Timothy 2 was understood historically. Has the context of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 historically been understood as referring to the church, or would it apply, as this article contends, in all settings, sacred or secular?

Note: My question does not pertain to how people in modern times have interpreted the passage; neither is it necessarily about what "silence" means. Rather, I am asking whether, historically, the context of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 was understood as being about the church in particular.

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might"


Consider this verse my friends, and consider that it does not simply state that there is one God. But it especially emphasizes that The Lord is ONE

It has been the teaching of ancient Christianity since the very beginning that God is not contingent upon anything. He therefore lacks composition. This means he cannot have parts.

Human beings are composed of flesh, bone, blood, and they are even composed of a soul and a body. God cannot be composed in the same way that human beings are since he is infinite. Therefore, he has no material parts.

Consider these next verses my friends, and see how much further we must understand that God is purely one, with no parts whatsoever.


"I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed."

"God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?"


God by virtue of his eternal nature, is unchanging. God by virtue of his immaterial nature, lacks composition and has no parts.

Therefore, we can conclude that God does not have different thoughts and feelings as human beings do. He does not have different parts or things within himself. But he is purely one within himself, which we call his essence.



A common objection to what I have said come from those who quote the following verse....

"So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people."


They quote this verse to indicate to me that there must be a contradiction in the Bible. But we Christians know that Moses, who is the author of the Holy Law, did not make error when he wrote these things, although on a surface-level they seem to contradict.

But some will also quote this verse and try to say that God does change, and that Numbers 29 is only referring to his unchanging disposition towards goodness...

but we must understand that Moses is referring to the nature of God when he quotes Gods words saying, that he does not change his mind. Likewise the Prophet Malachi quotes Gods words by divine revelation, when he says that God does not change. God, by virtue of being eternal logically cannot change, everything about him is eternal, and he does not possess qualities within himself which change.

What follows from this is the understanding that our conception of God can only be understood through symbols and allegories. Analogies which will never be able to fully describe the indescribable, the incomprehensible and ineffable name of God which is known only to the spirit of God.


So when the Apostle John, who spoke by the hand of God, writes that "God is love", we know that this means God does not possess a quality separate from himself called "the property of love" but that God is perfect infinite love itself, and does not "have" love like you and I have love as a quality or a property.



I hope this helps many. Ask questions and I'll try to answer when I can.

Is it possible for Quirinius to have served as governor of Syria from 3-1 bce while simultaneously serving the first year as duumvir? I've read that following the defeat of the Homonades in Galatia he was appointed as duumvir of Pisidean Antioch and that he served as legate of that province fro 5-3 bce as he was fighting them there. The reason I ask is because some Christian apologists state that he served his first term as governor of Syria from 4-1 bce while he was fighting in Cilicia and that king Herod actually died in 1 bce. The problem is that it would be very difficult to serve two positions simultaneously I'd imagine. I'm also unsure if people ever held two positions at once in ancient Rome. I am aware of other explanations but let's assume this one is right.

please stop the snow,

"The case does not bring to a close the legal challenges facing Trump and his businesses – far from it. Bragg has said that a related investigation he inherited from his predecessor, District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr, is “ongoing”. In that case, investigators are reportedly focused on assessing the integrity of the Trump Organization’s financial statements.

And earlier this year, the New York state attorney general, Letitia James, brought a sweeping civil suit against the former president, three of his adult children and the Trump Organization after a lengthy investigation by her office. That suit, which is still pending, accuses Trump and his children of “staggering” fraud, alleging that they provided fraudulent statements to lenders and insurers that wildly inflated the value of his real estate holdings."

And the second shoe drops:

My confidence in the criminal justice system has been renewed. The system is finally starting to work.

but for some reason, more of these are going unreported.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/fatal-police-shootings-unreported/


My thoughts are simply something I'm repeating from before:
America has a policing problem. Your bar to be come a policeman is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR too low.

"There is no question that SARS CoV 2 (causing Covid-19) is man made, because the virus has a double CGG codon Furin Cleavage site which does not appear in any natural virus. "

"When you consider that Moderna had all 7 of its vaccine patents filed 6 months before the outbreak of the disease, and has the double CGG codon cited in 5 of its patent applications dating from 2013, you realise that they are on the inside of this game and a part of the team"

Russia rejected a European and G7 offer to buy Russian oil for $60/barrel. Russia decided they should not sell any oil for $60/barrel. Currently Russia is selling oil to China, India and Turkey who are not taking part in the oil price cap boycott. The cost of shipping oil by tankers has risen as oil shipping routes have lengthened during the Ukrainian conflict.
Russia rejects $60-a-barrel cap on its oil, warns of cutoffs

There is news of an Arctic air mass moving into Europe where they are already affected by high energy prices. Temperatures in Oslo, Norway are expected to remain in the twenties and teens (Fahrenheit) this week.
Europe Faces Stress Test As Arctic Blast Drives Surge In Power Demand | OilPrice.com

Rep. Andy Biggs, the hard-right Arizona Republican who lost a bid last month for his conference’s nomination to be the next speaker, says he will be a candidate for the speakership on January 3 – a move that will only make it harder for House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy to claim the speaker’s gavel on the first ballot.

If McCarthy can’t win 218 votes on the first ballot, it will go to multiple ballots until someone wins 218 votes – something that hasn’t happened in about a century.

I watched, for years now, many conservatives make worthless relgious arguments against same-sex marriage. I say worthless because non-Christians will never be persuaded eith religious arguments.

However, the left is slso wrong. They have the attituded that to be fair same-sex couples must be permitted to marry. The truth is that the benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples is incidental. The benefits are merely incentives designed to benefite society. In other words, there is a legitimate state interest in encouraging traditional marriage.

This state interest is that society needs children. It us beneficial to society that men take financial and emotional respnsibilty for mothers and their children.

Marriage also has positive effects on society in how it affects men also. In general, marriage makes men mor responsible people. It’s no accident that married men pay lower car insurance rates; they drive more respnsibly.


Now, what legitimate state interest is there in encouraging same-sex marriage? Same-sex couples cannot produce new members of society. Some do go against nature and find ways to have children.

However, it is a fact that children do best with a mother and a father. Not only that but think about what boy who is raised with two mothers learns about himself, as a male. He grows up learning that men are not necessary in the family.

The state has no business in promoting same-sex marriage because society does not benefit.

Why did Jesus in Luke 9:54 not want the disciples to call fire down from heaven to burn those who disrespected Jesus? Why did Jesus not stone the woman caught in adultry(John 8:5) when Lev 20:10 and Det 22:22 says that by law they are to be stoned? Why did Jesus in Luke 23:24 say “ Father forgive them for they know not what they do “ They were killing an innocent man , but Jesus wanted the Father to forgive them. This seems to be a lot closer to the UR camp who sees Yahweh as a loving Father. This does not seem to be a God who is so offended by sin that it’s punishment must be eternal punishment. Is Jesus just Yahwehs good side ?