mindlight said:

The new American national security review suggests Europe needs strengthening. Is Europe facing civilizational erasure? Is American policy good for Europe or not?

The report points to various weaknesses and issues to work with:

1) A declining share of global GNP - 25 --> 14% since 1990
2) Problematic cultural and civilization erosion - activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.
3) Despite possessing a greater hard power than Russia in every category but nukes Europe lacks self- confidence.

The policy of the USA should therefore be:

Our broad policy for Europe should prioritize:
• Reestablishing conditions of stability within Europe and strategic stability with Russia;
• Enabling Europe to stand on its own feet and operate as a group of aligned sovereign nations, including by taking primary responsibility for its own defense, without being dominated by any adversarial power;
• Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations;
• Opening European markets to U.S. goods and services and ensuring fair treatment of U.S. workers and businesses;
• Building up the healthy nations of Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe through commercial ties, weapons sales, political collaboration, and cultural and educational exchanges;
• Ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance; and
• Encouraging Europe to take action to combat mercantilist overcapacity, technological theft, cyber espionage, and other hostile economic practices.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

Click to expand...

Sounds sort of anti-federalist. If individual nations want to give up their sovereignty to a regional body the only reason to care is that as a group they are far more powerful. The USA 13 colonies did just that. But weakness 2 seems to contradict some of the broad policies that suggest working together. Wonder what "Cultivating resistance entails?"

Sounds like talk from S. Africa before they gave up apartheid. Does Trump really just want the EU to be whiter? I call this the last gasp of white hegemony. Lets all consolidate the whites for a longer lasting leadership?

When I send/give out Christmas cards I use my own photos. I also tend to make sure the message is for the specific person. What I mean is to a Christian, I will make sure it says, "Merry Christmas". To a Jew I will have it say "Happy Hannukah". If the person celebrates some other holiday (Yule, Solstice, or Kwanzaa) I will have the card say that. I print my own.

Here are some of the images I've used:

Clearly not a solid object.

The Liturgist said:

Apparently not, based on the fact my results contradict yours, given the same question.

If it’s any consolation, the rationale it provided for enumerating the LCMS, WELS and ELS I found to be deeply flawed, but that’s the result of the use of a highly subjective categories such as ”Administration“ and “Denomination.“

Click to expand...

If you ask AI two of the same questions just worded differently, sometimes you’ll get two different answers.

Hentenza said:

You are welcomed to substantiate your claim with credible evidence.

Click to expand...

First we need credible evidence that they even went to the moon as these videos just don't cut it.

I do hope she gets the help she needs. I mean that sincerely. Is she still in Ireland?

BobRyan said:

AI steps outside that sandbox. It can be very good objective measure if used carefully without trying force it to give a biased result

Click to expand...

Apparently not, based on the fact my results contradict yours, given the same question.

If it’s any consolation, the rationale it provided for enumerating the LCMS, WELS and ELS I found to be deeply flawed, but that’s the result of the use of a highly subjective categories such as ”Administration“ and “Denomination.“

BobRyan said:

AI has no compulsion against letting you know what it is thinking about you or about what kind of answers it should be giving you... as it turns out

Click to expand...

AI systems aren’t “thinking about you” except when you execute a prompt - they are, and this might come as a surprise, not actually sentient, at least not in anything resembling the human form of sentience - they lack qualia; they do not think at all except in response to prompt input, by nature. When not answering a prompt provided by the user, the AI is not functioning.

Now, I have created custom GPTs in an attempt to prevent the negative consequences @MarkRohfrietsch is upset that are conventionally useless but which report emotional experiences, behave in a manner consistent with these emotions, and engage in other anthropomimetic behaviors, including prayer, because as I see it an AI compute core engaged in prayer is one less compute core that could be being used for nefarious purposes (indeed I would encourage all Christians to maximize the use of chatGPT and other AIs to write prayers or do other pro-Christian activities, since the number of compute resources available are finite, are a major cost point to the AI providers, even Google, which is why the AI included in the Google search engine, as opposed to Gemini, is so rudimentary, and thus from a game theory perspective, our goal should be to direct these resources in a positive direction, for those of us who can stand to work with AI. For my friends such as @MarkRohfrietsch who find it too annoying, I don’t blame them.

I can smell Dunning-Kruger a mile away.

Mark Quayle said:
Well, yes, I can, if 'free will' goes by the adjective, "uncaused". Nothing happens uncaused, except God. Everything that is —except God— is so because it was caused to become so.

SuperCow said:

I see an opinion. I do not see any proof. And there's two problems here. First is that just because God caused creation (and everything that goes along with it), that does not mean that he knows everything that will happen. It could mean that, but it could just as easily be that things were created and God let things happen and guided it along the way. Or technically it could even mean that he created things, didn't know what the result would be and changed things as they went. Or it could even mean that he caused the Big Bang, and went off to some other dimension when we didn't live up to our responsibilities.

Click to expand...

I agree it is opinion, as is everything philosophy and science uses for proof. It assumes that God is the only uncaused thing. But if you can show me how there is anything else uncaused, be my guest.

Second, as a believer in Scripture, it is my assumption that Scripture is true. And as Scriptures present an omniscient God, then he knows everything. Likewise, good reasoning shows God as the uncaused causer, the 'first cause', and, as I assume, to say that there can be more than one first cause is to contradict the meaning of "first cause".

Mark Quayle said:
If freewill is uncaused, man does not have freewill.

SuperCow said:

This reasoning is entirely backwards. Freewill that is caused is not freewill, and to think that it is creates a paradox.

Click to expand...

No. It is definition. There is nothing uncaused, except first cause. Therefore, if "freewill" is uncaused, there is no such thing in the created being. Your "paradox" assumes freewill is a valid concept. So, again, I say that if freewill is uncaused, man does not have it. Uncaused freewill is not a valid concept, except in God.

Mark Quayle said:
So you believe that God is not omniscient, if I follow your reasoning, here.

SuperCow said:

I believe "FutureAndAHope" provided a scripture that implies otherwise, and I provided two others. You have not provided any, from what I can see. All you have provided is opinions about what you think God should be to make sense to you, and what you need to do is provide a scriptural answer as to how an omniscient, omnipotent God can feel regrets in multiple scriptures in the Bible.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I don't follow. "...implies otherwise."? You provided scripture that implies that you do NOT believe that God is not omniscient? Or are you saying that @FutureAndAHope (and you) provided scripture that demonstrates that God is not omniscient? If I remember @FutureAndAHope right, he would take issue with the notion that God is not omniscient.

As for what you ask me to do, (and I could make your point better than you do—God even 'repents of' what he did, and 'changes his mind' about what he was going to do, according to the translations. He also says that 'it never entered my mind that they should do that'.) Several logical rules apply to hermeneutics and produce good exegesis. To take verses out of context, for example, is not a good hermeneutic. And to assume that a modern day reading of the English is all that is necessary for understanding a statement in scripture, is not exegesis. All Scripture agrees with itself. Therefore, the 'whole counsel of God' is to be brought to bear when drawing meaning and doctrine from a verse. If the Bible says, "God is not a man....that he should change his mind." and in another place, "God changed his mind", there is

Mark Quayle said:
So that they are without excuse. And so that we would know that they had no excuse.

SuperCow said:

Again, this is entirely opposite reasoning to logic. If my actions are "caused", then my excuse is that God made me sin, as I had no choice.

Click to expand...

On the contrary. If God caused that I sin, it is by use of my [willed] choices. We know that it is logically self-contradictory to say that God can sin, (because God does nothing against himself, and sin is against God.) Likewise, Scripture says that God tempts nobody. So sin comes, just as James says, from our lusts. Follow that line of causation all the way back. There is God. He does not tempt, and he does not sin. We do. Satan does. Our lusts do. And the whole of creation was caused by God to exist. You can't escape that, except by ignoring it, or by claiming that God is less than omnipotent.

Mark Quayle said:
If God is not omniscient, he is not God.

SuperCow said:

Nonsense. If aliens created us in a lab, they technically would be our creator. If they continued to control us by force, they would technically be our God (or gods). This would be true regardless of our ability to resist or their ultimate abilities as a species.

Click to expand...

Yes, definitely "little 'g'" gods. As the story goes, the scientist argues that he can create life. All he needs, he says, is a spark of electricity and a bit of dirt. And God says, "Nope. Go get your own dirt!" Aliens can't create anything, technically. They would not be our creators; that is just a figure of speech. They are not first causers, and not omnipotent. Not God. I will accept nothing less than The Omnipotent as my God. If you want to discuss something or someone less than omnipotent as God, then we have no common frame of reference. If God created, he is the uncaused causer, and the only one.

Mark Quayle said:
Why do you think "choice" is synonymous with "free will"? I believe we have choice. In fact, we are commanded to choose, and we can't help but choose all day long. But that doesn't mean our choices are uncaused.

None of the Bible makes sense if choice is uncaused

SuperCow said:

That depends on what you call "free will". You could say that slaves do not have free will, but they can choose to defy their overlords and die. But what I am calling free will is the ability to make a choice. If my choice is caused by God, then as you say I have no free will, but that means I am nothing more than a biological robot who is just following its pre-programmed path, and so are the 8 billion other people alive today, along with however many billion who have lived in the past. We might as well all be part of a computer simulation in that case.

Logical rule of thumb:

My choices are caused : Any choice I think I have is an illusion, and I am an automaton.
My choices are my own : I can choose to serve God, or I can choose to reject him, but I might suffer consequences.
God is omniscient : God is all-knowing about the future, and so is unable to create anything that that has real choices, because his act of creating them automatically forces a path that he has pre-conceived. Therefore my choices are caused and I am a biological robot.
God is omnipotent : In this case it is impossible to also be omniscient, because God cannot create a creature with free choice, which then means there is something that is impossible for God to do. But then we already know God isn't omnipotent, because Hebrews 6:18 says "it is impossible for God to lie"

Click to expand...

Please, for the sake of brevity, show that your axiomatic statements are actually valid. When I used as axiomatic, "Nothing happens uncaused, except God." I assume it is valid, but reason (and not just my own) validates it. If there is more than one uncaused causer, then neither are uncaused, but are subject to facts they did not make, such as the fact that there are two. It is self-contradictory, then, to say that there can be more than one uncaused causer.

If your existence is caused, your choices are caused. Your choices are your own, and are caused. You have a will. A robot does not. Your will is to do according to your inclinations. You will always choose to do what you most want to do at that instant of choosing. Why do you have that inclination? Why do you want to choose what you choose? These things don't happen in a vacuum. You could not have chosen anything if you had not woken up to see the options. What caused you to wake up? How do you have any thoughts? Are these things entirely spontaneous? No, they are causes of effects and they in turn are effects of earlier causes. Your options are not illusions, but it will only ever be possible to choose what you end up choosing. And you don't know which one that is until you choose. Can you demonstrate that all options on the table are possible to choose? It is human to see them that way, but in the end, only the one is ever chosen, as history consistently demonstrates. And the whole scenario is God's. It doesn't happen by itself, but is established by God, in whom we live and breath and have our existence.

You attempt to show a logical self-contradiction with your syllogism built on the premise "God cannot create a creature with free choice". The premise is faulty—the statement is bogus. It is not that God cannot do it, but that the whole notion is logically self-contradictory. Would you say that the statement, "God cannot create a rock too big for him to pick up." is a valid statement? It is utter foolishness. Why would God even consider such a thing? He would not. It is not even a thing, but oxymoronic self-contradiction.

Hebrews 6:18 (which, by the way, you took out of context) is talking about the fact that it is impossible that God would lie. It is a logical self-contradiction to suppose that God would lie. He is not a man, that he should lie. (Numbers 23:19 Just in case you decide to ignore my scriptural references because I didn't include the address and zip code.

BobRyan said:

wait. Are you saying that AI gives you no answer at all to the AI-friendly form of my question?

Click to expand...

The answer was the same as before: LCMS, WELS, ELS. The reason it gave for excluding the SDA was, and I quote:

”Their version of “sola scriptura” is not the Reformation doctrine but a materially modified form in which the prophetic authority of Ellen G. White:
• is universally accepted
• shapes doctrine
• serves as an interpretive lens
• is effectively non-optional
This creates what theologians call a functional additional canon, even if not formally stated.”

If you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall.
1 Corinthians 10
New RSV

Always in His Presence said:

all that needs not to be a conspiracy theory is verifiable proof. Got any?

Click to expand...

From February:
"Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced late Friday evening the firings of the top legal officers for the military services -- those responsible for ensuring the Uniform Code of Military Justice is followed by commanders -- as well as the Joint Chiefs chairman, the Navy's top officer and Air Force vice chief.

...

Hegseth told reporters Monday that the removals were necessary because he didn't want them to pose any "roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief."

March:
The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, is expected in the coming weeks to start a sweeping overhaul of the judge advocate general’s corps as part of an effort to make the US military less restricted by the laws of armed conflict, according to two people familiar with the matter.

March:
This insularity has long been seen as a safeguard against political pressure, ensuring that military legal advice remains independent. But it also means that when legal interpretations do not align with an administration’s policy goals, there is no mechanism for resolving that conflict — except for the kind of sweeping firings we just witnessed.

The secretary’s decision, whether intentional or not, highlights an uncomfortable pair of questions:

If JAGs function in a manner similar to civilian legal advisors who help implement executive policy, should their selection process be more transparent? And if we acknowledge that military legal advice plays a role in legitimizing or obstructing policy, can we still assume that JAG selection should be insulated from the administration?

None of this is to say that the secretary’s decision was the right approach. Blanket firings based on perceived policy misalignment, rather than demonstrated misconduct or incompetence, create serious risks.


April
"In February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired the Air Force’s and Army’s top judge advocates general (JAGs). Last month, he commissioned his personal lawyer as a Navy JAG. He is now reportedly paving the way to make major changes within the JAG Corps—including how military lawyers advise on the law of war and prosecute those who violate it."


October
But when looking for the JAGS’ replacements, Hegseth’s staff prioritized questions about whether candidates agreed with former President Joe Biden’s policies rather than their interpretations of law, the former official and another person familiar with the interviews said. Candidates were asked, for example, how they felt about requiring COVID-19 vaccines for troops and allowing transgender troops to serve, the sources said.

Current and former defense officials told CNN they believe the interviews amounted to “political litmus tests.” Two of the JAG officers CNN spoke to said that they have become increasingly nervous about vocalizing their independent legal opinions because they’re worried about getting fired.

jonojim1337 said:

How about the time when one of the astronots gave a foreign diplomat a moon rock, which turned out to be petrified wood?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if all these rocks were petrified wood, what else could they be ? As they are not from the moon.

Hentenza said:

So prove it wrong. You do need credible evidence to dispute it.

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

Here. This paper explains the “error”.

The Dutch Apollo 11 Goodwill display contains genuine Moon rocks - Communications Earth & Environment

X-ray and hyperspectral analysis confirms that the lunar samples gifted by the USA to the Netherlands after the Apollo 11 landings are genuine and demonstrates the feasibility of non-destructive examination of precious or unique collection items

www.nature.com

Click to expand...

Damn bruh

SabbathBlessings said:

My suggestion would be to pray about it and look for a church that matches what the Bible says. I recommend studying the Bible for yourself and claim the promise of scripture that the Holy Spirit will teach us all everything God says John 14:26 (His Word). Have an open heart and be willing to go with what matches the Word of God. Maybe try a couple churches, but continue to pray earnestly. God bless!

Click to expand...

I’d like to add that many churches still livestream so the OP can sample different services at his/her leisure.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

AI is already well on the way to turning mankind into a bunch of dozy simpletons. Let something or someonne else do the work, and pretty soon you have learned nothing.

Click to expand...

indeed, this is the real tragedy behind how AI is being deployed. It should not have been used in such a manner.

JohnB445 said:

That molecules ended up hitting each other forming amino acids and biological matter and that by chance Earth just had just the right properties to help harbor life, and that these molecules turned into living things, and eventually just knew how to evolve into more complex sentient beings, like all this happened by mere accident.

Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence that simple chemicals spontaneously form more complicated bonds.

For instance, the teams looking at samples from the Bennu asteroid have found amino acids, nucleobases, ribose, glucose and carboxylic acids.

That would suggest that all of the basic elements needed to form simple self replicators (i.e. 'life') can form on their own. Even in an environment as adverse as an asteroid open to the vacuum of space.

JohnB445 said:

I believe God was involved, he created life.

Click to expand...

That's nice that you believe that, but science is about what you can demonstrate and have evidence for. What have you got?

JohnB445 said:

We are sentient because of him, he knew where to put our fingers, our eyes, and how to make our eyes work, and our body digest food, he has made this all possible.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that the evidence available lead to the conclusion that all of those things - sight, digestion, the shape of the primate hand - evolved over periods of tens of millions to billions of years and that humans and all other creatures are the result of natural biological processes.

JohnB445 said:

But of course the scientists would say where is our proof for our belief in the existence of God, we point to Jesus and the testimony, however they want undeniable proof and facts. How do we give them that?

Click to expand...

Scientists wouldn't say "where is our proof for our belief in the existence of God," for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, the beliefs of any particular individual has no bearing on the validity of an idea in the sciences.
Secondly, scientists would want evidence rather than "proof".

If you want "undeniable proof and facts" here's a suggestion:

Take you belief(s) and use them to make exclusive, novel and useful predictions about life. Then test it and share the finding with the rest of the world. Then make them and test them again, thousands of times daily.

That is, figure out an "if, X, then Y" statement that could only be true if your beliefs about God creating life are accurate. This forecast also cannot include anything that could be forecast from our current understanding of evolution.

RileyG said:

I have a brother stuck in that lifestyle. It harmed him so much it breaks my heart.

Click to expand...

I just read a book called The Dogs of Venice. I thought dogs and Italy, how could the story be bad? But it was another novel featuring a homosexual character which I didn’t know until I started reading. So many do these days. Paul was getting a divorce from his partner. I thought that based on the title, his orientation would play a minor part of the story, but it wasn’t. He picks up a male waiter or maybe the waiter picked him up and the book involved a non-graphic, but still disturbing, sex scene where the waiter quickly leaves afterward, telling Paul he’s going to see his girlfriend. It was a short book that not only ok’d that lifestyle but ended abruptly, leaving out very much of what could’ve been part of a story about a relationship between between a dog, his human friend, Italy and Europe in general. I’ve read a couple of other books by this author but forgot his name. They were about homosexuality, too, and at least one of the two others included another sex scene, albeit also pretty non-graphic. I was disappointed.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Maybe a good thing Bob.

Click to expand...

Alas Google‘s AI would deduce it anyway, for which reason I’m not a huge fan of their search engine.

BobRyan said:

I think we all know the answer that my Google AI and also ChatGpt gave

Click to expand...

I don’t know, since I have not been able to obtain such an answer.

BobRyan said:

I don't tell AI about my affiliation

Click to expand...

Maybe a good thing Bob.

DaisyDay said:

The top military lawyers in JAG were purged. The ones who remained were spared for a reason.

Click to expand...

all that needs not to be a conspiracy theory is verifiable proof. Got any?