WHY? What agenda do they push forward with this?

I am sure Disney will have extra security on that day and will be escorting them out if they act out too much. I really don't understand how making themselves look stupid brings people to their side.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

The only bit I'll agree with. And you didn't need the "Oh, "trust the science" has lost all credibility" spiel from yourself to say that.

Click to expand...

Well that all anyone is doing here, is trusting the science.

jonojim1337 said:

View attachment 373528

The same way your line of sight increases as you go higher even on a flat surface.

Click to expand...

A drone shows this exactly.

d taylor said:

-
​

Biblical Cosmology

Click to expand...

That doesnt work. If the moon is just above the horizon then everyone should see it exactly the same. Maybe you have another explanation that makes sense?

Apple Sky said:

How can flat straight road curve over the horizon without going up or down ? Absolute rubbish.

Click to expand...

It's the longest straight road. Without any bends. It actually rises over some very gentle inclines so it's not flat. But I can see more of the road the higher the drone went.

If I point it out to sea at eye level there maybe no ships visible. But if I fly it up a few hundred metres then the ships which were over the horizon at eye level come into view. How do you explain that?

essentialsaltes said:

Government employees asked a federal judge Wednesday to block the Trump administration from encouraging job applicants to demonstrate their loyalty to the president’s agenda.
In a lawsuit filed earlier this month, a group of federal labor unions argues that the White House’s “merit hiring plan” violates applicants’ First Amendment rights. The plan, put forth by the Office of Personnel Management, includes the following short essay question:

Click to expand...

The "Merit Hiring Plan" looks great, long overdue!

MAGA Vance/Trump 2028

Clare73 said:

See Ro 9:22-23.

Click to expand...

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.



The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!



This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).



Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?



If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?



This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.



Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”



Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual (this “letter” is written to Christians and not non-Christians)?



Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?



Is it really significant when it comes to what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in first century Rome?



Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?



The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).



How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.



Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.



Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!



The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.



If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potter’s signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

2 Tim. 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

Important to note is the fact: the dishonorable vessel can cleanse themselves and become vessels of honor.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

jonojim1337 said:

So, vanishing point is a fact, curvature is not.

Click to expand...

Curvature is indeed a fact. The earth is a sphere so a curvature is par for the course.

jonojim1337 said:

So, vanishing point is a fact, curvature is not.

Click to expand...

But curvature IS a fact. A well attested fact in fact.

You cannot explain this sequence of photos, at the Strait of Magellan in Chile, with a flat Earth. It's impossible.

Mark Quayle said:

Mark Quayle said:
Can you demonstrate that anything can happen besides what does happen? Can you demonstrate the actual possibility of other options? Or is that only in our thinking? When God demands that we choose, do we not always only choose the one option? Was God not aware of those decisions before creating, but went ahead and created anyway? Well, then! He INTENDED it to be decided the way it was

CORRECT enough! That's why I asked it. Can you do it? Can you prove that "apparent" free will choices (or any other choice) could have gone a different way? You will say, "of course!", but you can't do it. You will provide some statement you consider axiomatic, but is not, like, "God would not demand what you cannot obey".

Mark Quayle said:
Otherwise, you need to demonstrate that {actual "chance" can determine outcomes}. The notion is by definition self-contradictory. But your whole construction depends on it.

You are defining justice according to the creature's ability to do what he is commanded to do. Sorry, but the command does not imply the ability to obey— it only implies the responsibility to obey. God is not unjust to create beings who will pay for their rebellion, as intended. He is making use of them for his Glory, to demonstrate his love and mercy to the objects of his mercy—us.

Can you demonstrate that actual "chance" can determine outcomes? Or do you first need me to demonstrate how your notion of free will implies chance determining outcomes?

Click to expand...

Sorry Mark, but my computer or CF website was having problems when I posted and posted just one line.
Everything can be understood by man's earthly objective which should drive everything for humans.
As far as God having perfect knowledge of our free will choice before, in our time frame, our making those choices we need an understanding of time.


Lots of things are predestined by God since that is what He will do and sometimes when He will do it.

For over 100 years now scientists have been trying to disproof the relativity of time and have only shown time to be relative. Since science is also saying: space, time and matter came into exist, something outside of space, time and matter had to create them.

If God’s omnipresence includes not only man’s present time, but also man’s past and man’s future time, then God is outside of time and not limited by time.

God expressing himself in anthropomorphically to humans shows why God would use our understanding of time in communicating with us. We know the results of God’s miracles but not how the miracle was done. God would not have to talk about the relativity of time or his existence outside of our time and would keep it simple and with excellent communication, talk about time from a human perspective. Time in heaven might also have their own time separate from man’s time.

If you know today historically a free will choice, I made yesterday, that choice cannot be changed, since history cannot be changed even by God (it happened). The fact you historically know a free will choice does not mean it was not a free will choice.

If God is outside of human time then God at the end of time knows perfectly historically (history cannot be changed) every autonomous free will choice man made at any and all times. God at the end of time would be able to send that information to Himself at the beginning of time before there was a known universe.

If God at the end of time knows what Adam and Eve did in the Garden, He can provide thatinformation to Himself before Adam and Eve were created, so God knows exactly what Adam and Eve are “going to do”, since they have “already done” it (God is in both places at the same “human” time).

It is difficult to think about what it is like to be outside of time and existing throughout time.

My theory would have this:

1. God perfectly knows all human future from some beginning point or before time began.

2. God knows all possible scenarios for the future that would result from His actions and man’s autonomous free will choices.

3. God has predestined in detail most of what man will experience, but this predestined set up scenario by God is to assure every mature adult has a truly independent autonomous free will choice to accept or reject His pure charity as charity, which is the individual’s choice.

4. God predestining the scenarios of man to make this free will choice would be limited to the point an individual could still chose to accept and not harden his/her heart to the point there is nothing more God could do to help that individual.

5. God knows perfectly from the beginning of time what choice every mature adult made throughout man’s history from God’s presence throughout time, but God did not make the choice for the person.

6. God predestined “before” anything was decided to be made that those humans who accepted His charity He would save.

God exists throughout human time at the same time, so there really is no past or future for God, so when we talk about the future, it is only future for us and not God.

It is not that God knows what future you will chose in the future (suggesting the future, is also God’s future), but God knows the free will choices you did make in the future (it is history for God).

The free will choice to humbly accept God's Love as pure undeserved charity and complete the transaction is need or we are nothing more hen robots programmed to accept charity and be charitable, without it being our choice.

jonojim1337 said:

Says so multiple times.

Click to expand...

Alright you are gong to have to stop being cryptic. No where in the NT or OT does it state that God was born. Jesus was born a man but His deity has always been. He is the alpha and the omega. Are you still claiming that God was born?

jonojim1337 said:

It doesn’t. We have a vanishing line due optics.

Click to expand...

If that was true then we would be able to see further by using optical aids like telescopes and zoom lenses. Fact is it just makes the horizon look closer. You still can't see beyond the curve of the earth.

Landon Caeli said:

Yes. They do.

Click to expand...

Those were your friends and coworkers! Wow!

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

The two are not the same thing. A vanishing point on a long road is the same as a horizon at all. They are two completely different things.

Click to expand...

So, vanishing point is a fact, curvature is not.

Nebraskans lament Tyson decision to close Lexington plant with 3,200 workers


In a blow to the local economy of Lexington, Nebraska, Tyson Foods announced that it is closing the town’s longtime Tyson beef plant that employed about 3,200 people.


The Arkansas-based Tyson said in a statement that changes were designed to “right-size” its beef business and position it for long-term success.


The Lexington plant is to close on or around Jan. 20. The statement did not elaborate on why the plant in the town of about 11,500 people was targeted.

jonojim1337 said:

It doesn’t. We have a vanishing line due optics.

Click to expand...

The two are not the same thing. A vanishing point on a long road is the same as a horizon at all. They are two completely different things.

concretecamper said:

Ok, so you've conducted personal experiments that prove the earth is round? Or are you accepting what others are telling you because it makes sense to you.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, both of those can coexist very peacefully and peaceably with each other. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, using personal observations, then asking the question of what they mean and finding what they mean is how anyone learns anything.

I even say it in the part of the post that you refused to acknowledge:

"In the matter of the Earth being a round globe, I don't need to 'trust' science but I accept what science says along with what I see with my own eyes.

I live on the North Wales coast, and the Isle of Man is a smidge over 70 miles in a straight line away from where I live, and whereas I am at sea-level, the Isle of Man stands 48 metres above sea-level. If the Earth was flat as is claimed, I would have no problem seeing the portion of the Isle of Man that faces me. Yet I cannot, which is what we would expect to see on Earth if it was a round globe, and not what we would see if the Earth was flat.

Observation shows the fact that the Earth is not flat. Very simple."

concretecamper said:

Listen I'm not arguing against a round earth, but all everyone has done here is parrot the EVIDENCE provided by other scientific entities. And all I've stated is that "trust the science" doesn't mean what it used to mean.

Click to expand...

And that's just a comment that does not need to be stated, unprompted as it was from you. You say people 'parrot the evidence', but you have no reason for claiming that. Also, as is said above, not a single person said "Trust the science". You and only you came in and said that, and again that was you putting words in people's mouths, which is very unbecoming of a Christian.

concretecamper said:

It comes down to this, flat earthers are crazy because they don't accept what we are told. That doesn't make sense to me any more

Click to expand...

The only bit I'll agree with. And you didn't need the "Oh, "trust the science" has lost all credibility" spiel from yourself to say that.

concretecamper said:

Really, read through the post again

Click to expand...

Really. No one is saying "trust the science"

BCP1928 said:

Believe it or not, there are teachers who want to teach that the world is 6000 years old. Maybe they should just quit, too.

Click to expand...

That’s better than teaching there’s 6000 genders.

I think it’s a fuzzy issue. I believe as far as icons, it must be the Son of God. As far as scripture ( Daniel 7) & tradition ( for example. attested to in Enoch) the understanding is more towards the Father. The account in Enoch seems to conform to & help explain Daniel 7 so it seems sound.

Desk trauma said:

Don’t care.

Click to expand...

It’s hard to kick against the pricks.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Doesn't prove that the world is flat though. A flat Earth wouldn't have a horizon.

Click to expand...

It doesn’t. We have a vanishing line due optics.