Latest activity

Fervent · 2025-11-06T17:18:11-0600

partinobodycular said:
Correct. It was an economic catalyst that manifested itself as morals.

Not quite, it has always been challenged morally but economic necessity perpetuated it.

partinobodycular said:
His preferences are objective in the sense that they align... not just with his preferences, but with what works to maintain a stable functioning 21st century society. You're free to try another set of morals if you want to, but they probably won't work out very well, and we'll rapidly return to what seems intuitively to be the correct set.

'correct set'? If they are just subjective preferences, how can there be a correct set?

Hentenza · 2025-11-06T17:18:04-0600

HARK! said:
Renewed covenant.

Been through this before. A new covenant.

“For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second. When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭8‬:‭7‬, ‭13‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Hebrews 8:7-13 For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second. For in finding fault with the people, He says, “BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I | New American Standard Bible - NA

For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second. For in finding fault with the people, He says, “BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I

bible.com

Hentenza · 2025-11-06T17:15:29-0600

HARK! said:
Are you trolling your own thread?

Nah. Just some levity.

Bradskii · 2025-11-06T17:14:40-0600

The guy is a vet. Served with the Air force and did time in Afghanistan. He worked at the DOJ and was fired by Bondi for this.

Brings a new meaning to the term 'petty'. These people are truly beneath contempt.

probinson · 2025-11-06T17:14:01-0600

essentialsaltes said:
There are (or were) many limitations on who could use the system, including that it was only available in 25 states. But 100% growth in a year for a new product is pretty good.

Maybe so, but it still only accounted for about 1 of every 500 tax returns filed.

The opinion included at the end of the article is pretty misleading.

Adam Ruben, a vice president at the liberal-leaning Economic Security Project, said “it’s not surprising” that the program was eliminated.

“Trump’s billionaire friends get favors while honest, hardworking Americans will pay more to file their taxes,” he said.

This fails to acknowledge that there are many tax preparation companies out there that offer "honest, hardworking Americans" free tax filing services. It would be one thing if ending IRS Direct File meant people would now have to pay for their tax filing. But that's not the case for the vast majority of that 0.2% of tax fillers that used the service last year. Those people will still have multiple options to have their taxes done at no cost to them.

Hentenza · 2025-11-06T17:13:05-0600

HARK! said:
Ephesians 2

11 Wherefore, remember that once you, the nations (Gentiles) in flesh - who are termed 'Uncircumcision' by those termed 'Circumcision,' in flesh, made by hands -"

Not anymore!

12 that you were, in that era, apart from Christ, being alienated from the citizenship of Israel, and guests of the promise covenants, having no expectation, and without God in the world."

Not anymore! Hmmm...covenants, plural.

13 Yet now, in Christ Jesus, you, who once are far off, are become near by the blood of Christ."

Citizens of Israel.

Nothing in those verses teach that the Christians are Jews.

During the council in Jerusalem (acts 15) the apostles determined that the Christian did not have to convert to Judaism or keep the law. This had been an ongoing argument and one that both Paul and the writer of Hebrews addressed extensively.

HARK! · 2025-11-06T17:11:42-0600

Hentenza said:
Until He ushered in a new covenant.

Renewed covenant.

(CLV) Jer 31:33
For this is the covenant which I shall contract with the house of Israel after those days, averring is Yahweh: I will put My law within them, And I shall write it on their heart; I will become their Elohim, And they shall become My people.

Is Yah's Torah written on your heart?

Bradskii · 2025-11-06T17:07:58-0600

Meanwhile, the White House signage now has gilded letters to go with all the gold trimmings Trump is adding, the Lincoln bedroom is an excess of marble, the demolishing of the East Wing for the new King's ballroom is apace and they're still cleaning up after his Great Gatsby party. Where is he this weekend? Playing golf again? Or setting up a new AI vid of him jetting around in a gold crown dumping on Americans?

As I read earlier somewhere, if the Dems had used AI to publish stories like this to try to show how out of touch Trump is then the GOP would be apoplectic.

Let them eat cake!

christianlloydteegardin · 2025-11-06T17:07:44-0600

Delvianna said:
I'm going to quote you what I said about verse 15:

The use of περιβολαιˊον for the hair's covering is a different word than the one for the veil, suggesting that the principle of gender distinction, regardless of the cultural practice.

It's not a veil, it's just showing gender distinction vs a woman having shorter hair but again culture applies to this as men were supposed to grow out their hair if you took a Nazirite vow. So essentially if you take this principle literally, that Paul taking a Nazirite vow would be seen as wrong because he grew out his hair which would have been the same and not distinct vs a woman.

Fascinating. I'll pose the idea to my pastors and see what they think.

HARK! · 2025-11-06T17:06:34-0600

Hentenza said:
Have glasses for sale cheap.

Are you trolling your own thread?

ralliann · 2025-11-06T17:06:16-0600

DaisyDay said:
So you can't actually say what words of his condoned murder? You've seen and quoted his words at least twice, but you seem to be unable to point to the exact phrase because they don't exist.

First Amendment rights can be violated and it appears that Dowd's have been by the government punishing him for private, protected speech.

That doesn't follow. You lack a good understanding of the issue: for instance, in an at will employment state, an employer can fire you for no reason, but not for an illegal reason such as race, sex, ethnicity or religion. Public employees can be fired for many reasons including insubordination but not for their speech off the job (with certain exceptions).

Maybe try to understand the point being made before dismissing it out of hand?

It is obvious. Done with this game.

Fervent · 2025-11-06T17:05:35-0600

partinobodycular said:
Yeah, ain't it funny how the puddle always manages to fit the hole?

So you say.

partinobodycular said:
Well lets take a trip back to the ancient Middle East, wherein slavery was perfectly moral. A perfect example of the puddle fitting the hole.

Slavery is an economic issue, the moral aspects cannot be separated from the economics. Regulations don't imply agreement, just an acceptance of a reality.

partinobodycular said:
As you wish. I wouldn't want to stress you out with fallacious ideas.

When you come up with ideas that aren't fallacious, go ahead and get back to me.

Chesterton · 2025-11-06T17:05:21-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
She was talking about a supposed person with a supposed abnormal condition. I am only bringing that up because I am told that if it cannot be proven or disproven, it cannot be argued and is therefore not worth discussing.

I know, but sometimes I like to play along if I'm bored or something. In this case, that scenario only made it worse.

Delvianna · 2025-11-06T17:04:54-0600

christianlloydteegardin said:
Check my edit. Verse 15 seems to provide an exception.

I'm going to quote you what I said about verse 15:

The use of περιβολαιˊον for the hair's covering is a different word than the one for the veil, suggesting that the principle of gender distinction, regardless of the cultural practice.

It's not a veil, it's just showing gender distinction vs a woman having shorter hair but again culture applies to this as men were supposed to grow out their hair if you took a Nazirite vow. So essentially if you take this principle literally, that Paul taking a Nazirite vow would be seen as wrong because he grew out his hair which would have been the same and not distinct vs a woman.

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-06T17:04:17-0600

probinson said:
According to the article, for the 2025 tax season, 296,531 taxpayers used IRS Direct File. Given that there were roughly 145 million tax returns, that means that just 0.2% of taxpayers used IRS Direct File last season. I think most people would agree that could be classified as not being used "very much".

There are (or were) many limitations on who could use the system, including that it was only available in 25 states. But 100% growth in a year for a new product is pretty good.

Hentenza · 2025-11-06T17:04:08-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
You're the one who said the 4th commandment wasn't there. Either was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd.

Find it.

SabbathBlessings said:
Doesn't mean we can break any of them.

If it’s not there then there is nothing to break. The Christian is not required to keep the 4th commandment. Find a post crucifixion verse that requires the Christian to keep the 4th commandment.

SabbathBlessings said:
We can, but I do not think it’s the way we serve and worship God. Mark7:7-13 Mat15:3-14 Isa56:6

You can have your sabbath if you so desire and I won’t judge you for it. I will rest on Jesus.

HARK! · 2025-11-06T17:03:21-0600

(CLV) Num 15:15
As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the sojourner sojourning with you. It shall be an eonian statute throughout your generations. Like you so shall the sojourner be before Yahweh.

Chesterton · 2025-11-06T17:02:22-0600

Desecrating the foul, putrid bodies of the barbarous, villainous enemies of our Realm whom we've so gallantly slain in righteous, valiant battle?

(Ooh, sorry. Got a little carried away with my Realm patriotism there. :sorry:

)

HARK! · 2025-11-06T17:00:46-0600

Hentenza said:
For the Jew not for the Christian and Christians are not Jews.

Ephesians 2

11 Wherefore, remember that once you, the nations (Gentiles) in flesh - who are termed 'Uncircumcision' by those termed 'Circumcision,' in flesh, made by hands -"

Not anymore!

12 that you were, in that era, apart from Christ, being alienated from the citizenship of Israel, and guests of the promise covenants, having no expectation, and without God in the world."

Not anymore! Hmmm...covenants, plural.

13 Yet now, in Christ Jesus, you, who once are far off, are become near by the blood of Christ."

Citizens of Israel.

(CLV) Hb 8:10
"For this is the covenant which I shall be covenanting with the house of Israel after those days," the Lord is saying: "Imparting My laws to their comprehension, On their hearts, also, shall I be inscribing them, And I shall be to them for a God, And they shall be to Me for a people.

14 For He is our Peace, Who makes both one, and razes the central wall of the barrier"

No difference between those who were born into the false dogma of Judaism, and those who were born into the false teaching of Paganism. All of those in Yahshua are in the truth of YHWH's perfect Torah.

15 (the enmity in His flesh), nullifying the law of precepts in decrees, (dogma, Talmud) that He should be creating the two, in Himself, into one new humanity, making peace;"

Israel!

(CLV) Mt 15:24
Now He, answering, said, "I was not commissioned except for the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

16 and should be reconciling both in one body to God through the cross, killing the enmity in it."

(CLV) Num 15:15
As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the sojourner sojourning with you. It shall be an eonian (FOREVER) statute throughout your generations. Like you so shall the sojourner be before Yahweh.

17 And, coming, He brings the evangel of peace to you, those afar, and peace to those near, 18 for through Him we both have had access, in one spirit, to the Father." 19 Consequently, then, no longer are you guests and sojourners, but are fellow-citizens of the saints and belong to God's family,

jacorian · 2025-11-06T17:00:38-0600

You can take all your millionaires & their assets & it would equal the budget for 1 year-6 trillion dollars. The money would be exhausted in no time by the people with their hand in the cookie jar-Congress-you know the people that get to insider trade. I frankly view taxes as evil but am willing to say some is necessary. But the fact is our govt has outcompeted us for the available monies in society. We prop it up & it rarely reaches us & it never cures anything. So frankly I would not give Congress more license to spend. Very recently the tax code has had some reform but it still has a long way to go. I think our reps are totally oblivious to how the tax rates & the brackets are set up. The code is too complex. Frankly it's the middle class that is deteriorating because of the big bills that now burden us. You cannot have a healthy society if you think govt should control our lives as if govt is God & looking out for us. No human being is that good so don't canonize these people. We do need structural changes--in spending, in the Pentagon, the tax code, etc. The last 3 decades I have observed that a single party has been trying to train with good success our population to be lazy & not develop a work ethic. This arises from people who are generally insecure & they want to do something miraculous & cure all the world's ills. They want to be liked so they seek to take from Peter to pay Paul. This has left us with only 50% of the population working & carrying the tax load. How fair is that? Not very. It dehumanizes individuals to allow such a society to develop just because a bunch of people want to be viewed as benevolent. They are anything but. Arguably there is waste & govt & no accountability for the dollars. We are a bottomless pit. There still can be some tweaks on the tax code. But to give approval for a govt to take away all a person's assets I find quite alarming & immoral. Where in the Bible does it justify that theft. We would hope that successful people can contribute more voluntarily & I am sure some do. But perhaps greed still remains one of those deadly sins. Relative to the problem of healthcare & I have administered the medicaid program which is our socialized version for poor people. We do need reform on all levels. Each party is too extreme. Problem with medicaid is it confines you to permanent poverty in order to stay qualified (means tested). It does not offer the best care because the reimbursement rate is poor. Private insurance is better but also costly. Here the other party thinks insurance should only be for catastrophic stuff. So if you suspect you have a stress fracture in the foot, that does not warrant any radiography. The bill is on you. As you can see neither party lives in the real world. Remember there is more than healthcare in the federal budget so you will never raise enough money to pay for everyone's whim. We are far too large & far too unhealthy a country to cover every expense. Maybe some people think doctors should work for $30k a year so I guess that puts nurses at $20k. Does not anyone know what Petscans & MRIs cost, dialysis, stem cell infusions, chemotherapy, brain surgery, ALS, cystic fibrosis. This is a lot of ailments & a lot of money. We do need to be more proactive in preventative behavior. Lifelong fitness skills, mental health, shutting the border once & for all against fentanyl, stemming alcoholism, better workplace conditions, crime reduction, canning junk food, & banning smoking products.

christianlloydteegardin · 2025-11-06T17:00:27-0600

Delvianna said:
Like I said, I don't agree with your summation and that its a spiritual principle at all. But if you do, then sit down with your church leaders.

Check my edit. Verse 15 seems to provide an exception.

Hentenza · 2025-11-06T17:00:02-0600

HARK! said:
(CLV) Col 2:14
erasing the handwriting of the decrees (δογμασιν dogmasin G1378 dogma) against us, which was hostile to us, and has taken it away out of the midst, -nailing it to the cross,

Again the Torah was not nailed to the pale.

The legal document containing decrees is referring to the law. The law was nailed to the cross.

χειρόγραφον cheirógraphon, khi-rog'-raf-on; neuter of a compound of G5495 and G1125; something hand-written ("chirograph"), i.e. a manuscript (specially, a legal document or bond (figuratively)):—handwriting.

“For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the Law, to do them.” Now, that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “the righteous one will live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “The person who performs them will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3‬:‭10‬-‭14‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Galatians 3:10-14 For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written: “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THE THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO DO THEM.” Now, that no one is just | New American Standard Bible -

For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written: “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THE THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO DO THEM.” Now, that no one is just

bible.com

Again, is crystal clear.

Delvianna · 2025-11-06T16:59:38-0600

christianlloydteegardin said:
I think, at least, wearing a little cowl on top of one's head would be enough to satisfy the spiritual submission principle in 1 Cor 11. It's less of an explicitly modesty-oriented principle and more of a spiritual one, a reflection of one's role in the divine headship of Christ. Men wear no hats/long hair due to their covering being Christ, and women wear head coverings as part of their role in submission to men. That's what I get anyways.

Like I said, I don't agree with your summation and that its a spiritual principle at all. But if you do, then sit down with your church leaders.

Oompa Loompa · 2025-11-06T16:58:50-0600

Tropical Wilds said:
Read the thread, hon.

I have read everything you posted. Have you read it?

Oompa Loompa · 2025-11-06T16:58:07-0600

Chesterton said:
Honestly, I've seen funner facts.

You're talking about a person with an abnormal condition. The vast majority of people are happy to eat food.

She was talking about a supposed person with a supposed abnormal condition. I am only bringing that up because I am told that if it cannot be proven or disproven, it cannot be argued and is therefore not worth discussing.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page