Latest activity

Yarddog · 2025-11-22T17:56:38-0600

Hentenza said:
Why do young, non sexual children have the need to learn this kind of convoluted sexuality? It’s not really a matter of hiding it but a matter of not being age appropriate.

Exactly what do you think that kids are taught? Shouldn't kids learn the facts about people seen as different, so they can see that they really much different.

d taylor · 2025-11-22T17:55:52-0600

Sam266 said:
Why do you believe that?

-

A person may believe from an eye witness account while another may believe a persons account of an event.

Hentenza · 2025-11-22T17:53:19-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
As a student of Philosophy myself, I'm open to hearing what you have to say, particularly where the field of Epistemology is being invoked for discussion and explanation. So, the floor is yours and if and when I see something to 'disagree' with, I'll let you know, Sam.

Popcorn popped and recliner ready.

sovereigngrace · 2025-11-22T17:53:00-0600

Guojing said:
James was the head of true Israel, the remnant that believed in Jesus as their Messiah.

The resurrected Christ never told any of them that the Law is now optional for them. Instead he continue to tell them "to obey everything he commanded (Matthew 28:20), which includes obedience to the Law.

It is rather arrogant of you to claim that they were incorrect for more than 20 years after the cross.

Christ fulfilled the Law. No man is justified by it. No man is saved by it. The Law points us to Christ.

sovereigngrace · 2025-11-22T17:47:38-0600

Guojing said:
It seems you find it impossible to place yourself in the shoes of someone who is listening to the resurrected Christ at Matthew 28:20.

You don't seem to realize that the book of Hebrews will not be written until more than 20 years after that. Paul was not even saved as well.

We can move on.

What are you talking about?

CoreyD · 2025-11-22T17:46:34-0600

childeye 2 said:
I disagree. I am on topic. The record shows I asked you for clarification about what you meant by free will. That would include the term "will" and whether it denotes a desire or the ability to choose.

The record shows I gave clarification... repeatedly.
The record shows you ignored the posts.

childeye 2 said:
The op asserts that free will exists, so I am invited to challenge that premise. The record shows that in that endeavor my comments on the will would be strictly in the moral/immoral context. I didn't say comments on the 'free' will because free is qualified several different ways in your op and other posts, and I don't think you're even aware of that. In some places it's an adjective or an adverb and other's "will" is a noun. At any rate I do not want to accept a false premise and speak against God as if free will is real or not real, when I can't be sure of what you mean by free will.

The record shows you wanted to talk about something that wasn't actually what the OP referred to.
The record shows that you didn't want to accept that, but wanted it your way, and so, went right on ahead with what you wanted... ignoring me - the OP, and my posts.

Landon Caeli · 2025-11-22T17:45:15-0600

essentialsaltes said:
2 of 3 men who disrupted Muslim prayer at USF identified, police file hate crime charges
Police said they filed hate crime charges against Christopher Svochak, 40, of Waco, Texas, and Richard Penskoski, 49, of Canyon, Oklahoma. Both have known local addresses in the Tampa Bay area, but no affiliation with USF, according to officials.

Police filed charges against Svochak and Penskosk under Florida State Statute 871.071 for disturbing schools and religious assemblies — which will be upgraded to a felony hate crime. They also filed charges for disorderly conduct and disrupting a school or lawful assembly.

The two men, and the unidentified third suspect, are associated with “the official street preachers.” In a statement, they said they were exercising their constitutional right to preach and speak against Islam.

Cell phone video captured the moment the three men confronted the group of students. The Muslim Students Association at USF said the men shouted slurs at them, waved bacon, and mocked their sacred rituals.

In one clip, a man could be heard saying, “You guys don’t have any bombs on you do you.” Another clip showed one of the men saying, “Spit on Muhammed’s name, he is a scum bag, just like all you Muslim terrorist.” It all lasted about 13 minutes.

From the article:
"Abu Tahir, a student and prayer leader, said the encounter was deeply traumatic. “I had to relive the whole thing again,” he said. “Hearing every voice, every insult, every atrocious claim that they had made against our religion"

Awe, that's so sad. Thing is, as a Catholic, I get to hear my own friends and coworkers rag about my religion my entire life. Anyone see me weeping about it? No. You get over it and move on. It's called being humble.

Studyman · 2025-11-22T17:42:43-0600

HIM said:
No, once again you are not reading or maybe understanding what is being relayed to you. Faith establishes the Law. The Law is in our hearts and minds. His word is in our hearts and mouths. This faith is the faith in which we preach. This is the faith that establishers the Law.

If the Law is established by the just's faith; how is it that what is being preached to you against God's laws?
Nay it is establish!

I don't believe Paul is teaching that each persons faith, "establishes God's Law", because of the verse you omitted.

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then "make void" the law (Of this One God) through faith? God forbid: (That means NO Him) yea, we establish the law. (Of this One God)

So the implication of your teaching, that God gives His Spirit to a man before a man "Yields himself a servant to obey God", and then whatever LAW this person walks in, "establishes the Law" God wrote on his heart. And when this philosophy is put into practice, you have literally 100's of different religious sects and businesses, denominations and non-denominations, all calling Jesus "Lord, Lord" but some walking in this judgment, Statute or commandment, while others reject the same judgments, Statutes and Commandments of God. But they are all justified because of the philosophy that each person's individual faith "establishes Law".

Well, that is not what Paul was teaching. How does someone know they know God, because there is a lot of people who profess to know God?

1 John 2: 3 And hereby we do know "that we know him", "if we keep" his commandments.

So the men of TRUE Faith, "Establish God's Laws", that HE before ordained that we should walk in them, their "works" showing God's Laws written on their hearts. As Abraham "works" show His Faith. And Caleb, and David, and Shadrack, and Zacharias, and Peter etc.

HIM said:
Unless through Faith, the changed heart they were. But alas they were saying and doing not. Breaking the least and teaching men so.

Yes, there are men who preach that God's Laws created the Wall of Separation between faithful Gentiles and Jews. That God's Laws relegated faithful Gentiles as "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:". That God's LAWS were the "Yoke of Bondage the Disciples and their fathers couldn't bear. And that Jesus came to "nail God's Laws", that "many" teach were against Jesus, Paul and the Church of God to the Cross.

And truly there were commandments contained in ordinances that were against Jesus, Paul and the Body of Christ. And truly there were Laws that relegated faithful Gentiles as "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:" And truly there were Heavy burdens, grievous to bear, placed on the necks of the Disciples and their fathers.

But according to what is actually written in Scriptures, that I have posted for your review and examination, it wasn't God's Laws.

HIM said:
Are the theatrics for affect. As if they add any credit to what you post in regard to this topic?

I ask questions for the same reason Jesus and Paul asked questions. I'm not going to judge you as to why you refuse to answer them, even though you judge me as to the reason I asked.

Konnie King · 2025-11-22T17:42:35-0600

The Emperor's New School

Hentenza · 2025-11-22T17:40:48-0600

Larniavc said:
Yeah but the tenets of any faith are not de facto moral or ethical.

The tenets of Christianity are de facto moral and ethical tenets for me but I don’t push them on anyone. I would expect the LGBTQ tenets to not be pushed on me.

Fervent · 2025-11-22T17:35:19-0600

Sam266 said:
You keep saying “dogmatic” and “shell game,” but you have not shown where the trick is supposed to be. The regress you are invoking, from Agrippa and Carroll, leaves you with exactly three options:

Infinite regress of reasons.

Circular reasons.

Stopping somewhere.

There is no fourth option where every belief is backed by further reasons and you never need to stop. If you reject circularity and you reject an infinite regress as unliveable, then you stop somewhere. The only honest question is whether you make your stopping points explicit or pretend you have none.

Option 3 is dogmatic, full stop. I am aware that those are the options. But any stopping point is going to be arbitrary unless we find something that is worth calling axiomatic with the only hindrance to acceptance being our understanding that axiom.

Sam266 said:
The hinge view does the opposite of a shell game. A shell game hides the pea. Hinge talk puts the pea in plain sight and says:

it's not the hinge that makes it a shell game, it's the refusal to accept that these hinges are arbitrary and fail to avoid invoking a dogmatic solution.

Sam266 said:
That is not special pleading, that is intellectual bookkeeping.

Again, the special pleading is in protesting that what you are doing is not dogmatism when it in fact is.

Sam266 said:
If you want to say that any stopping point at all is “dogmatic,” then you have just accused every finite reasoner of dogmatism, including yourself. Because you also either:

push the “why” questions until you collapse, or

stop at some set of unargued background commitments that you simply take for granted.

You're acting as if pyrrhonic skepticism isn't a genuine option.

Sam266 said:
In other words, you have hinges too. You just refuse to look at them.

i don't shy away from accepting the dogmatic nature of my position, I just find the whole "hinge' game a rather silly one because it is nothing more than trying to give respectability to an arbitrary starting position.

Sam266 said:
From that angle, the real shell game is the posture that says “I have no hinges, only pure reasons all the way down.” That is the move that shuffles the cups while pretending there is no table.

I agree, I'm not an infinite regressionist. I just believe that I have an axiom that only a fool would deny.

Sam266 said:
On my side, I am doing two things very plainly:

A Gödel style point about structure. No sufficiently rich system proves its own legitimacy from inside. Something has to be taken as given at the level of practice.

A Wittgensteinian point about grammar. Words like “know,” “doubt,” and “evidence” already presuppose a background of certainties. Children acquire that background long before they can even understand global skeptical questions.

You can disagree about which propositions function as hinges. You can argue that I have misdescribed our actual practice. Those would be real criticisms. Simply repeating “dogmatic shell game” is not.

It's not so much misprescription of the practice, but that it provides no escape from the wheel. We might say the skeptic is no less arbitrary, but I'm not so sure that's true since the only thing we need to grant the skeptic is that MP is legitimate.

Sam266 said:
So I will turn your charge around. The hinge framework is what you get when you take Agrippa and Carroll seriously and admit that the space of reasons has a floor. The refusal to acknowledge any floor, while still happily standing somewhere, is the real piece of philosophical sleight of hand here.

The issue isn't that at some point we need to have a floor, it's that the denial of dogmatism through the hinge concept is nothing but wordplay that creates a picture of certainty that is unsupported.

Landon Caeli · 2025-11-22T17:34:25-0600

Apparently if you want to burn your own copy of the Koran outdoors, people of that "faith" have the right to steal the book away from you. That happened earlier this week too.

No theft charges even considered.

CoreyD · 2025-11-22T17:34:14-0600

Clare73 said:
"Free will" is a human notion nowhere stated in Scripture.
The human notion means power to make all moral choices.
Man does not have the power to make all moral choices, he cannot choose to live a sinless life.
Man's will has limited freedom only.

I would parrot myself when I didn't want to hear, respond to, or answer questions, I know expose my unreasonableness.
I'd do it while doing this...

Yes, I would do the same thing the Pharisees did to Jesus.

Sam266 · 2025-11-22T17:33:50-0600

d taylor said:
-

How a person comes to believe what they believe can not be defined and a single reason can not be established.

Why do you believe that?

d taylor · 2025-11-22T17:29:43-0600

-

How a person comes to believe what they believe can not be defined and a single reason can not be established.

Sam266 · 2025-11-22T17:25:29-0600

Why Epistemology Is Important We live surrounded by claims, scientific, political, moral, spiritual, each asking to be believed. Yet belief by itself proves nothing. What matters is how we come to believe, what counts as a justification for the belief, and what lets us tell knowledge from opinion. That “how” is the work of epistemology.

Epistemology asks the most basic but neglected questions: What does it mean to know something? What makes a reason good? When is doubt appropriate, and when is it confusion pretending to be insight? These are not puzzles for academics alone; they underlie every decision we make.

When we understand how knowledge works, we become less vulnerable to manipulation and narrative. We learn to see the difference between evidence and repetition, between understanding and agreement, between what is true and what merely feels persuasive.

A society that loses interest in epistemology does not stop believing, it just stops knowing why it believes. To recover that “why” is to recover our capacity for sense, for trust, and for truth itself.

Larniavc · 2025-11-22T17:23:38-0600

Hentenza said:
It is moral when it requires others to adhere to the tenets. The demonization of those that disagree with it is quite possible and most likely probable.

Yeah but the tenets of any faith are not de facto moral or ethical.

Larniavc · 2025-11-22T17:21:35-0600

Fervent said:
The question is, what does it mean to "love your neighbors" in this case? Indulging them at the risk of their souls, or being honest with them in the hope of their salvation?

Good point. Someone should tell the Christian Nationalist to stop acting in opposition to the words Jesus spoke.

Larniavc · 2025-11-22T17:20:02-0600

Fervent said:
Because the essential distinction is important, even if its particular expression is negotiable.

Why?

Larniavc · 2025-11-22T17:19:18-0600

Fervent said:
Androgyny is just another way of creating confusion,

Could you elaborate on the exactly what the confusion caused by androgyny is?

Larniavc · 2025-11-22T17:16:23-0600

rjs330 said:
He did.

Which verse?

zoidar · 2025-11-22T17:12:59-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
So you're suggesting "hearing and learning" may provide a condition to being drawn, which in turn enables one to come? How could someone who is unable to receive Christ in the first place "hear and learn"?

I don't see the problem. Hearing and learning is not the same as receiving Christ. Listening to the prophets enabled one to come to Christ, in other words, you would be drawn. If you ignore the prophets, you would ignore Christ

Dikaioumenoi said:
The phrase διδακτοὶ θεοῦ ("taught by God" or "God-taught") in John 6:45 uses a predicate adjective derived from διδάσκω. Its function here is descriptive, not conditional. It describes individuals who have received the benefit of a divine act of teaching, not the offering of a teaching that may be accepted or refused. The genitive θεοῦ marks God as the source of the imparted knowledge. In other words, it is the effect of God's action, not a prerequisite for it.

Compare to "God-breathed" in 2 Tim. 3:16. It's the same sort of predicate adjectival idea. It's descriptive of a divine act. Just as Scripture is described as being "breathed out by God," those in view in John 6:44-45 are described as "having received God's instruction."

Grammatically and contextually, "taught by God" parallels "drawn" in the preceding verse: just as drawing is an effective divine act that enables ability, so being God-taught is a description of the outcome of that divine action (which actually further makes the point that the "him raised" refers to the one drawn). John 6:45 therefore does not suggest that hearing and learning is a condition to be drawn; rather, the hearing and learning are the result of God's effective action. They describe the means by which the knowledge and understanding is imparted by God to those whom He draws.

I can neither verify nor refute your grammatical claims. I will say this: John 6:45 identifies those who are drawn as listening and learning, describing them as God-taught. The text does not explain why they listen and learn, why they are God-taught. It simply presents these as characteristics of those whom God draws.

Chesterton · 2025-11-22T17:08:24-0600

rusmeister said:
What is “a pew”?
(Doing Pew research)

ikr? Doesn't she know our churches are so popular that every service is "standing room only"?

Latest activity

Latest activity

2 of 3 men who disrupted Muslim prayer at USF identified, police file hate crime charges​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

2 of 3 men who disrupted Muslim prayer at USF identified, police file hate crime charges