Latest activity

BCP1928 · 2025-11-25T10:32:48-0600

stevevw said:
What evidence does a Christian who believes in God use.

None.

stevevw said:
Or a scientists who supports the idea of consciousness beyond brain.

Can't help you there. I suppose you are talking about substance dualism, which is not a fundamental Christian doctrine and not one I have a particular opinion about. So far, the scientific evidence suggests monism will turn out to be sufficient explanation for "mind" but it is not, to me, an important question.

stevevw said:
Because the evidence your talking about (empiricle and naturalistic) or material in nature. Is impossible to use to prove ideas like God or other immaterial beliefs. If it was verifiable by science then it would no longer be immaterial or supernatural. Or imatterially based such as consciousness beyond brain.

Science will relegate consciousness as a physical epiphenomena caused by the physical brain. So how can it possibly even entertain possibilities that are based on immaterial causes that have no physical processes to measure. Or who interpret even miracles as some physical explanation that cannot be explained. Still physical in nature.

Ok so how can it be used if its completely indifferent. It would be like using physics to explain the experience of beauty and love.

You just agreed that "When someone uses material science to refute immaterial possibilities they are imposing a metaphysical belief and not science".

When someone tried to do that, they would be misusing material science. But since no one here is trying to do that you may be should find someone who is and argue with them. But you will have to develop some cogent arguments first.

stevevw said:
So if this is the case when you dismiss ancient or indigenous knowledge as unreal or make believe this is using material science to impose a material metaphysics on those who believe in a immaterial metaphysics as the basis for reality.

I don't dismiss ancient or indigenous knowledge as unreal or make believe. In fact I have, we all have, shown a great deal more respect for it than you do.

stevevw said:
This automatically discounts and dismisses all explainations such as knowledge from belief, spirituality, conscious experiences of nature and reality as unreal and make believe.

Nope.

stevevw said:
This is not science but belief. This is imposing one metaphysical belief over another epistemically and ontologically ie the only true and real reality is a material one and the only way we can know reality is by material sciences or methological naturalism.

Nope. What you are talking about is metaphysical materialism which is a religious opinion, not a scientific one.

stevevw said:
Its only murky if you want to restrict everything to the material and naturalistic worldview. Of course it will be because anything that cannot be measured in material terms will be unknown and unexplained.

Unknown and unexplained by science. That's fine. Explaining or refuting that for which there is no physical evidence is not their particular gig. If you want knowledge of the supernatural you will have to get it in some other way.

stevevw said:
But thats not because its unreal or does not exist. Only that the wrong method or paradigm is being used to understand this. Its like trying to use biology to understand psychology of the mind. Even worse, like using math to work out whether love is real.

Just like you using a science like archaeology to work out your own theology.

Hentenza · 2025-11-25T10:31:18-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
Nope, I can't say that I remember it.

It was a head with a brain showing.

I never agreed with it lol.

rambot · 2025-11-25T10:30:53-0600

Landon Caeli said:
She's also wrong to oppose ME intervention. She does not grasp that support of a Western ally (Israel) helps America. Her priorities and ideas shift back and forth like an adolescent learning for the first time as she goes.

...She's unreliable. Inexperienced.

Her ideas do NOT shift back and forth. As she saw more first hand accounts of Israeli atrocities, she responded by shifting her opinion in on direct.

I am absolutely no MTG fan, but to think that "changing your mind after a preponderance of evidence that contradicts your opinion" is somehow a bad thing, I can't help you.

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-25T10:30:17-0600

For the curious.

Trump to end temporary protected status for Somali immigrants in Minnesota

Move could affect hundreds of Somalis who fled civil war in their home country

www.theguardian.com

Always in His Presence · 2025-11-25T10:29:50-0600

then there is this beauty:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm

Clinton Settles Paula Jones Lawsuit for $850,000

President Clinton reached an out-of-court settlement with Paula Jones yesterday, agreeing to pay her $850,000 to drop the sexual harassment lawsuit that led to the worst political crisis of his career and only the third presidential impeachment inquiry in American history.

After more than 4 1/2 years of scorched-earth legal warfare, Clinton and Jones brought a sudden end to the case with a four-page deal in which he acknowledged no wrongdoing and offered no apology. The agreement, which will be filed with a federal appeals court considering whether the lawsuit should go forward, requires the president to pay within 60 days.

FunkDocktaXXVII · 2025-11-25T10:29:49-0600

Valletta said:
You should definitely speak to the priest at your local parish, but here's my best shot at an overview. A Catholic is supposed to get married by a priest or have special permission by the Church to have a ceremony elsewhere which it sounds like your wife did not. If your wife decides to become a practicing Catholic again, and this is the first marriage for both of you, she goes to confession and then the next step is to get your marriage "convalidated." It's a short private ceremony usually with just a few witnesses to "bring your marriage into the Church." First there's some paperwork, some questions, you would have to agree to raise the children as Catholic and comply with Catholic teaching. They would ask for your baptismal record and your wife's. The children would get baptized. Again, it is essential to talk to a priest because there may be exceptions, but that should give you a rough idea of the kinds of things to expect.

Thank you for all the info!

FunkDocktaXXVII · 2025-11-25T10:28:17-0600

linux.poet said:
Welcome to CF!

I recommend reviewing the information pinned to the top of this subforum: One Bread, One Body - Catholic

You can also ask questions about Catholicism there. However, since you are not Catholic (yet) please use the [posting in fellowship] tag for all posts that are not questions, and do not get into a debate or object to anyone’s theology in that subforum. You are there to learn, not object. (More details about this policy can be found here: Statement of Faith - OBOB Statement of Purpose I strongly suggest reading it - it also contains Catholic information too.)

If you do have objections, concerns, or disagreements with any new Catholic theology you learn, please start a new thread here: Denomination Specific Theology When in doubt, play it safe.

Hopefully these resources will help you on your journey with your new faith.

Thank you for directions so i can read up and digest more info

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-25T10:28:05-0600

Landon Caeli said:
Wow! I never knew the left was so supportive of religious expansion in the U.S.

We are into freedom and diversity, just like the founders who set it up that way.

durangodawood · 2025-11-25T10:27:40-0600

Always in His Presence said:
Brilliant - may I use that?

Why ask?

Just have AI rewrite it for you.

rambot · 2025-11-25T10:25:25-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
I suppose you could, as long as you don't mind basically admitting "I don't like quickly retrievable, cited information that my opponents can use in debates, because that challenges my ability to beat them in 'the court of public opinion' based on factoid memorization exercises and correcting their grammar"

If there are no links or sources given for the information, why should I trust an AI? And frankly, UNCITED AI seems to be the most common type of AI I see on CF. It seems kinda rare to see citations peppered into AI.

I advocated for AI to be cited whenever it is used on this site because it makes sense.

AFAIC, AI has as MUCH crediblity as any other rando on line who does not cite their source and there's no reason for me to think differently.

...not to mention, just in terms of a personal preservation strategy, those who reject AI as a valid tool will likely be unemployed in a few years.

There was ways it is a valid tool and ways it is not a valid tool. There are things AI is doing well and things it is not. IMHO there are also something things AI may never do well but I'm a NOT a computer expert and can't really have that discussion in a meaningful informed way.

Always in His Presence · 2025-11-25T10:20:43-0600

NxNW said:
No they don't.

yes - they do.

Bill Clinton 'rape' victim Juanita Broaddrick tells of lasting trauma of 1978 'attack' and claims another 'victim' has told her: 'There are more of us out there'

Juanita Broaddrick, now a 73-year-old grandmother, claims Bill Clinton, now 69, raped her in a Little Rock hotel room in 1978
Clinton's lawyers have called Broaddrick's claim 'categorically false'
Broaddrick has detailed the trauma she's faced since the alleged attack
The Arkansas woman first made her claim that Clinton had raped her in 1999, more than two decades after it allegedly happened
She says she remembers hoping 'that evil man' would die during his 2004 quadruple heart bypass surgery.
She said she is happy to see Clinton looking 'so terrible, like death warmed over', as he campaigns for his wife

Strong in Him · 2025-11-25T10:19:45-0600

Strong in Him said:
Duplicate post.

Strong in Him · 2025-11-25T10:18:36-0600

Apple Sky said:
Does a flat circle have edges ?

Yes because a circle is a defined shape. The edge is the circumference.
If you pick up a CD you can pick it up by the hole in the middle, or hold it by the edges. You can stand a coin on its edge.
Water doesn't have an edge. If someone talks about going to the water's edge they mean the riverbank or where the sand meets the sea. If they talk about the edge of the pool, they are probably referring to the side of the swimming baths/pool.

Apple Sky said:
How do you know what stars are ?

Whatever they are, they're not attached to the firmament - like they're dangling from it with long pieces of invisible string.

DaisyDay · 2025-11-25T10:18:35-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Have you seen his Truth Social feed? If the shoe fits...

Was his name or office mentioned?

Answer: it is not

Was that said?

Answer: no

The actual president of the United States has called for these people to be hanged. Killed. Executed. I agree with you that this qualifies as "lashing out". :doh:

Landon Caeli · 2025-11-25T10:17:40-0600

rambot said:
And what made her unworthy?
She wants to expose the Epstein list.
That's all.

In all other aspects she was 100% sycophantic to Trump.

I repeat, the MTG episode is exposing the misogynists who support Trump.

She's also wrong to oppose ME intervention. She does not grasp that support of a Western ally (Israel) helps America. Her priorities and ideas shift back and forth like an adolescent learning for the first time as she goes.

...She's unreliable. Inexperienced.

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-11-25T10:16:26-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Especially when the president explicitly threatened to cut off federal money to NYC.

You see the same with how Newsom deals with him. He’s got no problem giving Trump a bit of what he always wants in any interaction with anyone, if it means the president doesn’t take it out on the people of his state.

DaisyDay · 2025-11-25T10:16:15-0600

RDKirk said:
But once again, from Corporal Smith's perspective, an illegal order is an order to break a specific law. In his defense at the court-martial, he will have to cite the specific law being broken. And, surprise, surprise, "the Constitution" is a wrong answer for Corporal Smith because only the judiciary can interpret the Constitution, not minor Executive Branch member Corporal Smith.

Again, isn't that what JAGs are for in part?

RDKirk said:
They didn't even say all that. What they said was very carefully crafted...they said precisely, word for word, what each troop's LOAC training already says.

Right, they didn't talk about sedition. Carefully citing their training is not wrong.

RDKirk said:
That's true and ultimately it would fail--not even "ultimately," but immediately--because Kelly's video does not remotely qualify as sedition under the UCMJ or US code.

So is all this just more distraction from you-know-what/who?

Always in His Presence · 2025-11-25T10:15:57-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
I suppose you could, as long as you don't mind basically admitting "I don't like quickly retrievable, cited information that my opponents can use in debates, because that challenges my ability to beat them in 'the court of public opinion' based on factoid memorization exercises and correcting their grammar"

Brilliant - may I use that?

fhansen · 2025-11-25T10:15:35-0600

Fervent said:
It's not, but the catechisms only create a false picture of unity when there is a great deal of division even within the Catholic church. It's simply that some diversity is tolerated while others are repressed.

I'd only say that catechisms are meant to set down and clarify core beleifs in a manner that is certainly more exhaustive and categorized and perspicuous than the bible often is. And in that way they seek to produce unity. Luther's Small Catechism should reflect that unity of Lutheran beliefs regardless of whether individuals wearing the name "Lutheran" agree with and hold to them or not.

NxNW · 2025-11-25T10:15:28-0600

BPPLEE said:
Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and a dozen other women disagree

No they don't.

Hentenza · 2025-11-25T10:12:32-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
On one side of the argument, I can agree with you that atheism seems to be more of a psychological twist resulting in disbelief than an all out failure to recognize the possibility of a Divine Presence. I say it's a "twist" because all too frequently these days, for the last several decades, those in the U.S. who insist they are atheist are also, coincidentally, former Christians, not simply folks who grew up and were nurtured ideologically in a thoroughly secular household.

On the other hand, atheism can be defined more or less as a philosophical position, one expressing disbelief through what it deems are numerous, tangible, sound arguments rather than via mere existential feelings and fleeting reactions. On this count, if and when a person claims the position of atheism, I 'believe' them when they say, "I ...... don't.......believe ......... in ............. ANY ...... gods." And of course, I'm saddened to hear this when my ears receive that sort of talk, which happens now almost everyone day.

Do you remember the symbol for atheist that CF used to have before we changed platforms?

DaisyDay · 2025-11-25T10:12:30-0600

BPPLEE said:
Why is it okay to copy and paste some article from a source that leans left, or right but it's not okay to use AI?
Either way is dialing it in but I don't see anyone complaining about copy and paste jobs as long as a source is given

The problem is that AI is known for lying and hallucinating. If you do use AI, read the links if it gives them to you; if no links are given, then it is just random flotsam. It's probably better to cite the link(s) rather than AI itself - and most importantly, read the links to check they 1) exist and 2) that they back up what AI says is factual.

Linked articles copy and pasted (within Fair Use) are easily checkable while AI is not. Some people are careful to use sources that are generally highly reliable and factual while others favor sources not so much so.

rambot · 2025-11-25T10:12:05-0600

Landon Caeli said:
That's from the past. Perhaps he was giving her a chance, but she proved unworthy... You won't see Trump say such things today.

And what made her unworthy?
She wants to expose the Epstein list.
That's all.

In all other aspects she was 100% sycophantic to Trump.

I repeat, the MTG episode is exposing the misogynists who support Trump.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Bill Clinton 'rape' victim Juanita Broaddrick tells of lasting trauma of 1978 'attack' and claims another 'victim' has told her: 'There are more of us out there'​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Bill Clinton 'rape' victim Juanita Broaddrick tells of lasting trauma of 1978 'attack' and claims another 'victim' has told her: 'There are more of us out there'