Latest activity

Pommer · Sep 7, 2025

DaisyDay said:
At least the Civil War hat is Union....

GoldenBoy89 said:
Does an AI image count as stolen valor?

Hans Blaster said:
Yes.

…meeehhh
Agree if Trump made this (or Trump caused this to be made).

Otherwise it’s fan-art.

RDKirk · Sep 7, 2025

Pommer said:
Wait, I thought the argument was that the Constitution covers any person, regardless of their nation-of-origin, and though citizens get a few more “perks”, most people are accorded the (most of the) same First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections.

Only if they're within US borders or are "US persons." The Constitution doesn't cover non-US persons outside US borders.

Pommer said:
(The government can’t just decide who’s an “enemy”, based upon the “enemies” desire to sell our citizens product that is fallen out of favor (or been illegal since Methuselah)).

Sure, the US government can, and has done so many times. It's called "war," and the US government gets to make up the reasons.

The question here is whether the President can do it in this instance all by himself. But the US government certainly can.

Pommer said:
Setting a policy that allows the government to commit piracy (or worse?), to get what we want, is the very definition of terrorism!
“Are we the baddies?”

Maybe?

That wouldn't be the definition of the US government. Call it...war.

Pommer · Sep 7, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
View attachment 369620

Robert Duvall is still kicking!

Pommer · Sep 7, 2025

A New Dawn said:
And Trump reminded Musk that his job was to find the fraud, redundancies, etc. and pass that on to the dept. heads.

We already had the Office of the Inspectors General that was purged, (probably so that Musk could ferret out which of the fired Inspectors General was working for the “deep state”), to do continuous investigations and audits to minimize waste, fraud and abuse.

“Waste, fraud and abuse” are the “weapons-of-mass-destruction” of our time; they ain’t “there”, (in anywhere near the amounts that would have to be realized that would have a significant effect.

We do spend a lot and most of it is necessary and accounted for, “WF&A”?, a bogeyman made out of money.

1Tonne · Sep 7, 2025

Servus said:
Keep this in mind. When you look at the churches in Acts, relatively few members were sent out to evangelize. The church of Antioch sent out Paul and Barnabas, and later Paul and Silas and then Barnabas and Mark. So that's three small teams out of a large church, that's considered to be the main missionary church in the book of Acts. We don't read of the 3000 coverts going out and preaching the gospel to every creature. Scripture records that the Holy Spirit sent out relatively few. The rest carried out the other gifts they had been given, while those given the gift of evangelizing went out into the mission field. So the idea that Mark 16:15 applies to everyone, each individual, doesn't sound biblically accurate. Now if one feels called by the Holy Spirit to go out and evangelize like Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and Mark were, and they resist that calling then that's a problem. Is someone not called to be an evangelist not going out and evangelizing a problem? I don't see why it should be.

Acts shows certain individuals being specifically sent out as missionaries (Paul, Barnabas, Silas, etc.). Not everyone in the early church was called to leave their city and travel abroad.
But we also see clearly that the gospel was spread by ordinary believers in their everyday lives. Acts 8:1–4 says that after the persecution in Jerusalem, all except the apostles were scattered, and those who were scattered went about preaching the word. It wasn’t just missionaries or apostles; it was the believers themselves who shared Christ wherever they went.

Also, the gift of evangelism is not the ability to share the gospel; we are all called to do that. The gift of evangelism is an ability given to a person to equip and train others in the church in evangelism, so that the whole church can be effective in witnessing and increase.
"And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, so the body of Christ may be built up." Ephesians 4:11

So yes, the Spirit gives different gifts, but the command to make disciples applies to the body as a whole. Those with the gift of evangelism will teach others to share the Gospel, and some may go far; most of us will go near, but all of us are called to go.

rambot · Sep 7, 2025

rjs330 said:
In this case however, terrorists were killed in International waters. No principles were violated since evil men were on their way to help kill millions of Americans

Really? Proof that Americans were LITERALLY going to die from that delivery?
Of course not.

Maybe it would have just ended up powering a Don Jr and Friends bender weekend in Foet Lauderdale.

Pommer · Sep 7, 2025

FaithT said:
Even if he didn’t say that, the Cult of Trump would still probably follow him anyway. I just don’t get it.

I don’t agree that there is a “cult”, yet.

The flat-Earthers have taught me (at least) one thing: people can believe kooky things and have a political worldview and outlook diametrically opposed to what I believe; and them still be good, decent, people.

Constant belittling of other’s beliefs only entrenches them in further.

But do as ye please.

NBB · Sep 7, 2025

You may not be called to evangelize, but what about your close ones, is not our responsability somehow to tell them and pray for them?

Manuel1983 · Sep 7, 2025

Shalom

This and next weekend, evangelistic meetings will be held again here in Salzburg, Austria.

In addition, the brothers and sisters here regularly hold book tables and distribute evangelistic literature.

We ask for your support in prayer in Jesus' name.

And may God continue to draw the people we have already reached to Himself in Jesus' name, Amen (John 6:44; 1 Corinthians 3:6).

Thank you very much, and may the Lord bless you abundantly (Luke 6:38; Job 42:10), in Jesus' name, Amen!

Soli Deo Gloria

Pommer · Sep 7, 2025

durangodawood said:
Pathetic. Compared to exports, import curves are slightly exaggerated. Another poster might say eggsaggerated. I would never do that.

I’ve heard tell the the hottest place in heck is reserved for punsters, so, see you there!?

Manuel1983 · Sep 7, 2025

Holy Father, thank you for all brothers and sisters in Christ!

Please bless everybody who prayed for sister Ulli in Jesus name Amen.

Pommer · Sep 7, 2025

durangodawood said:
"table egg"

I didnt know that was a thing.

I didn’t have “the international-egg-market” on my political-bingo card, yet here we are!

PTW · Sep 7, 2025

Ozzy & Drix

Pommer · Sep 7, 2025

Valletta said:
It's the neo-Marxist leaders of the Democratic Party that have been pushing that line, whites are supposedly the oppressors. Could you imagine if the media reversed that and gave the numbers of murders committed by blacks (last time I saw stats the majority were committed by blacks) and also stated their relatively small percentage of the population? The left would be outraged since they preach "systemic racism" and that blacks are the oppressed.

The Nation emerged from the Civil War still a racist nation, (we were actively hunting down indigenous peoples), that stain didn’t just “disappear”, it’s followed the generations to where it’s still better for BIPOC (and/or the societally-marginalized) than ever before; but that not by that much.

Everyone is free to hold the opinion that white-society has given non-white-society a great place to live…even though it’s not “theirs” to give, no, rather it is all of ours’ responsibility to value everyone, or what are we even doing here!?

rockytopva · Sep 7, 2025

ViaCrucis · Sep 7, 2025

Hentenza said:
No. You do because of your misguided Mariology.

Christology.

Hentenza said:
She is a regular human being. Only a human being can give birth to the Jesus that emptied himself and took the form of a bond servant. Jesus had to be fully human to fulfill the law and die on the cross for our sins.

Of course she's a regular human being. A regular human being that gave birth to God. She's the mother of God.

Hentenza said:
Which heresy would that be?

At the moment it's looking a lot like Nestorianism.

-CryptoLutheran

Pommer · Sep 7, 2025

Chesterton said:
I know what the law says, and I know I made a mistake, but I wasn't correcting another poster's post, so the law doesn't apply.

I still pronounce it in my head as hyper-bole.
We all misspeak, sometimes in front of large gatherings; getting called out for it, 15 years later, is priceless.

bbbbbbb · Sep 7, 2025

Rough and Ready

Trace Adkins - Rough & Ready

Official video of Trace Adkins's Rough & Ready from the album Comin' On Strong. Buy It Here: http://smarturl.it/u55d79 Directed by Michael Salomon; featuring NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt, Jr and Jennifer Lee Wiggins as Kate. "Rough & Ready" was the second and final single released from Adkins'...

ok.ru

ViaCrucis · Sep 7, 2025

Hentenza said:
You denigrate other Protestant churches but hold yours blameless. That is indeed rich.

I have done no such thing. Perhaps you should read what I wrote again.

-CryptoLutheran

bbbbbbb · Sep 7, 2025

who complicates life for everyone.

Complications are rarely . . .

ViaCrucis · Sep 7, 2025

Hentenza said:
Your first question and your second statement fo not follow. Jusus has to be both fully human and fully God. Mary is therefore the mother of both.

It absolutely does.

When we speak of the Hypostasis and Prosopon of Jesus Christ, we are talking about the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

We are talking about the Person of the Son. He is a Divine Person, He's the Son.

That is the Person who came down and dwelt in Mary's womb, that's the Person Mary gave birth to.

Mary is the mother of God because Mary gave birth to the Divine Person of the Son.

This is not about Mary giving birth to "the divine nature", no more than it is about Mary giving birth to "the human nature". This is about the Person Mary conceived and gave birth to.

Hentenza said:
One. The one that is fully God and the Jesus that emptied himself and took the form of a bond servant. Do you deny scripture?

Again, read scripture.

“who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross.”
‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2‬:‭6‬-‭8‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Philippians 2:6-8 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of me | New American Standard Bible -

who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of me

bible.com

Which Jesus is Paul describing here?

The one undivided Jesus.

But you have introduced a Christologically erroneous element in speaking of a "human person" or a "human Jesus" as though there is a human other than the Divine Person. There isn't. The Divine Person assumed, took upon Himself, human nature.

Jesus is not a quilt of two pieces of cloth knit together and the resulting product is "Jesus". Jesus is the Eternal God, the Son of the Father. This one and same Person of the Son took on flesh, united to Himself humanity, becoming man. That is why He "though already in the form of God did not regard equality with God something to be exploited, but emptied Himself taking on the form of a slave, being born in human likeness".

God took on human nature. The Word became flesh.

A Divine Person became human. It is the Divine Person who hypostasizes the humanity. There is no Personhood, no Hypostasis, other than the Divine Person of the Son here; He is the Person who has humanity united to Him, which He has assumed and brought into Himself. Thus the Divine Person has not ceased to be what He always was and is; but in addition to what He has always been is now, also, man. Thus the Divine Person is conceived and born of Mary, as a man.

Mary is, therefore, the mother of God.

"God" here is not "divine nature" in some abstract sense. "God" here means the Divine Person of the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Logos.

-CryptoLutheran

Landon Caeli · Sep 7, 2025

Pommer said:
Setting a policy that allows the government to commit piracy (or worse?), to get what we want, is the very definition of terrorism!
“Are we the baddies?”

Maybe?

No, it's not about getting "what we want"... It's *evil* to transport deadly narcotics, such as fentanyl.

...The United States is acting morally responsible with this. The 11 on board were immoral.

River Jordan · Sep 7, 2025

Sir Joseph said:
River Jordon, your inquiries are fair, respectful, non-antagonistic, and worthy of a response unlike some others on this website that I choose not to debate. Here goes:

Let me start with a preamble.

I was taught evolutionary theory in high school and went along with it for decades, even as a Christan, despite its deviation from the obvious Genesis account reading. I reconciled it as all theists do - by massaging the Bible's text with additions or misinterpretations. In my 40's, I started studying Christan apologetics, and that soon led me to the creation/evolution debate. Once I read material from creationists, it took me very little time to learn and realize 3 things: that neo-Darwinian evolution has little to no scientific evidence supporting it, that it actually conflicts with our strongest laws of science (biology, physics, and geology specifically), and that creationism is fully compatible with the scientific evidence and laws of science. I can't prove those findings in a paragraph here, but studying the subject over the past 25 years has solidified my views. In short, even if I was an atheist, I could not believe in the current, popular evolutionary world view because it counters (nearly) all scientific evidence and mathematical probabilities.

The second thing I've learned from the past 25 years of studying Christian apologetics is that the Bible is completely authoritative, meaning that its inerrant, historically accurate, and literally true - even in scientific matters. I don't take that on blind faith either; there's an abundance of scientific, archaeological, historical, prophetic, and manuscript textual criticism evidence to support that conclusion - as well as affirmation from Jesus, Paul, and Peter.

Thus, the Bible and scientific evidence both support creationism over evolution - as it should since God created the universe and the scientific laws that govern it. Now, on to your questions:

"But if you don't know much about biology how do you decide which biologists are right?"

Can we agree that most biologists aren't actively engaged on projects that are critically affected by this issue? Thus, their work is valid even if their personal views are wrong? But for those individuals, be they biologist, other scientist, or anyone speaking out or writing books on the subject: only those recognizing the Bible's Genesis (literal YE) creation account and preponderance of evidence for a supernatural creation get my academic respect. Others don't.

"The supernatural isn't included in science because it's not testable."

Actually, that's not true. For example, if there's only 3 possibilities for explaining the origin of life and science disproves 2 of those options, logic would dictate that the third option must be true. An open minded, unbiased scientist would understand and respect this, but a person with a philosophical objection to the third option will rule it out. Such is the case of evolutionists whom are mandated to exclude any supernatural process, even if the evidence excludes a naturalistic solution.

Further, evolution is entirely faith based with untestable presuppositions like uniformitarianism and biological macroevolution - none of which has been observed or can be tested in a lab.

"What you wrote above comes across as you saying all the biologists who are "evolutionists" are very wrong. Is that really what you think?"

Yes - definitely, terribly wrong, along with the masses of people around the world that have been duped on a Satanic theory that not only undermines the Bible and robs God the glory for his creation, but denies both scientific evidence and common sense.

"If you came to my workplace (I'm a biologist) do you think you would be able to do our work better than we do?"

Of course not, unless you're making natural history museum signs and displays.

"If you believe creationists do better science than all the biologists who work under the ToE, where are their results? Where are the breakthroughs, new discoveries, new fields of science, and increases in our understanding from creationist organizations?"

Really, did you not read my original post? Do you not know or believe that many of our greatest scientists in history were Bible believing creationists who accepted the Genesis account and rejected evolutionary theory? Truth is there are great scientists on both sides of the issue doing productive work regardless of their faith, but society is being shaped by the current evolutionary world view.

"The ToE has all sorts of practical applications. Where is anyone applying creationism to do anything productive?

Personally, I'm not sure what practical applications you might be referring to, so I'd question that presumption. As for creationists doing anything productive, I'd suggest that doing science is more productive and beneficial to society if the right conclusions are drawn vs wrong ones. Why would anyone oppose drawing conclusions from the available evidence except to protect a certain preferred, biased view?

OK, that's all I have time for this day and week. I'll check back in next Sunday but don't want to turn this thread into a creation/evolution debate. I've found that arguing with any firm evolutionist (not branding you necessarily) is endless and unproductive. I believe that anyone receptive to God and the existing supernatural world can be influenced with evidence, but those committed to a secular world view will not. The heart has to be in the right place before the evidence will be properly interpreted.

I appreciate you sharing your story with me. Instead of doing the line by line reply style and since you said you don't want to get into a back and forth debate, I'll just summarize my reaction to your post.

You said you've done this for a long time so I assume you understand the gravity of what you claimed. From my perspective, you've effectively said that not only are my co-workers and I reaching the wrong conclusions, we're even working under an improper/mistaken framework and completely botching our understanding of life (its history, how it behaves). You seem to sincerely believe that if you were given a chance, you would have no problem coming into my office, or one of any similar offices, and basically telling all of us just how astoundingly and historically wrong we are.

If you are correct, we are all horrible, terrible, awful scientists. We will go down as the biggest bunch of dopes in human history.

That's how your post comes across to me. I pray you also understand how it's very difficult to see someone make extraordinary boasts like that but also say they can't prove any of it and don't really want to be put in a position where you'd have to support them. To me, it's like if we were at a professional soccer game and you started boasting about how they're playing the game all wrong and you could do so much better, but you don't really want to right now.

So while I understand now how you see things and how strongly your feel about them, I honestly don't understand the boasting and elaborate claims. It seems a bit much to me. But then I suppose this is when I have to check my own pride and remind myself that this is just an internet forum and put it all in that context. People say all kinds of things all the time in these places and not one bit of it will ever affect how we do our work. If you and other creationists truly believe we're doing our jobs completely wrong and you can do better, then please go do it and show the world. Bragging about it in forums doesn't accomplish anything.

Pommer · Sep 7, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
We're not only wealthier than average, but also much better looking.

My avatar’s from the time I buffed my revereWare’s copper bottom to a mirror-like finish and am still spry enough to consider myself a handsome fella, fer Steeler’s Country, and that’s fine with me.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page