Always in His Presence said:

A thread to discuss all the effects of the new Mayor

Parents began planning to take their kids out of NYC schools minutes after Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral win​

Since the results of Tuesday’s election came in, school placement consultant Christopher Rim told The Post he’s had no less than 23 clients reach out to him. They’re looking to relocate — and they want his help getting their kids into elite private high schools and middle schools in other states.

“Within the first 30 minutes of AP announcing Mamdani’s victory, I got three messages from families looking to move,” said Rim, founder and CEO of Command Education.

Click to expand...

Oh no!
.
.
.
Anyway…….

prodromos said:

We do read and believe Genesis 1 as it was meant to be understood.

Click to expand...

Someone claimed that Genesis 1 is poetic, is this true ?

Chesterton said:

Even if I were a pedophile, there's not much I'd be able to do surrounded by a bunch of parents at a football game, you know.

Click to expand...

If a parent even gets a sniff of someone who might be a paedophile they are persona non grata and likely face extra-judicial attention at some point in the future.

Chesterton said:

Was it weird of me to ask to go watch his son play?

Click to expand...

I would think it weird if you said that to me. Yeah, it’s unfair for people to jump to conclusions but that’s how it goes.

Derf said:

According to the account, there were indeed. Because the light that came from the thing made on Day 4 could not have reached the world on Day 1.

Click to expand...

Why not?

Derf said:

The light source from Day 1 might have morphed into the Sun, but the Sun didn't exist before God made is (Day 4)--according to the account.

Click to expand...

The account reads...
14 Then God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall [u]serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and they [v]shall serve as lights in the [w]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light [x]to govern the day, and the lesser light [y]to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the [z]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and [aa]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Here, the scriptures speak of lights being placed in the expanse to govern the day and night, and serve as signs, and to separate the light from the darkness.
In Genesis 1:1, we read that God created the heavens and the earth... The heavens referring to that mentioned at Genesis 2:1, 4; Exodus 20:11; Exodus 31:17 which is all the heavens as mentioned at Proverbs 8:27.

So, we don't have to speculate about an unknown light morphing into the sun, which requires us adding a narrative to the text, since we know that the word made does not necessitate something being newly created, but the reading can be taken as objects already in existence being "placed" or made to appear in the expanse, as visible indicators... to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; to serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years;.

Bear in mind, too, that you said, " the light had to be separated from the dark".
However, that is referring, not to the source of light, but to the light on the earth.
3...“[d]Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
It's important we carefully read the account to get what is happening, because everything being recorded from verse 2 is in relation to the earth.

Let there be light does not mean, let there be a light source.
Rather, let there be light on the watery deep mentioned in verse 2.
Like this:


Further proof this is the case, is seen in the word for light, being used (אוֹר or).
This is different to the word מָאוֹר maor used for light in verse 14, which refers to the light source - a luminous body.

There are problems from a scriptural perspective of reading Genesis 1:14-18 as an origination of the heavenly bodies... not to mention problems with scientific facts.
It's actually saying that God created the earth as the only body in empty space, and then made everything else.
So, the earth is the oldest object in space, according to such a narrative.
That's both scripturally and scientifically inaccurate. Not true?

When God says, "Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath... Isaiah 51:6, what are we seeing?
When David sang, "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork." Psalm 19:1, what was David seeing?
Understanding Genesis 1:1 as God creating the heavens and the earth. Then moving on to work on the earth from verse 2, and then make everything just right, will present us an accurate picture, would it not.

Here is an example of this rock softening technology.


On the other hand it could be Buzz Aldrin's footprint on the moon.

“Defendant Bovino admitted that he lied about whether a rock hit him before he deployed tear gas in Little Village,” Ellis said.

In fact, he was not hit by a rock before lobbing a tear gas canister, without warning, at the crowd, Ellis said, adding that Bovino may have been hit after he threw the tear gas canister. In addition, Bovino fired a second canister at the crowd as people fled the area and posed no threat to anyone, Ellis said.

Ellis pointedly noted that that incident occurred after she ordered agents to issue two warnings before deploying tear gas or other “less lethal” crowd control measures and only when there was a clear threat posed by protesters.

_________

In an interview with the Associated Press published Tuesday, Bovino said “If I had more CS gas, I would have deployed it” during the incident in Little Village.

Ellis said it was actually a flash-bang grenade fired by federal agents, not fireworks thrown by protestors.

In addition, Bovino lied about his conduct outside the Broadview ICE facility, where video shows that he “obviously attacks and tackles” a man, Ellis said.

“But Mr. Bovino, despite watching this video (in his deposition) says that he never used force,” Ellis said.

Hans Blaster said:

No one is rejecting indigenous knowledge of nature. But there is one poster who keeps talking about it and doesn't demonstrate that it has anything to do with the evidence he presents. Instead we get pages of "sources" from people who's ideology goes back through a popular crank author to a book written by a 19th century Minnesota congressman based on a mythical Greek city.

Click to expand...

That's got to be a fallacy in there; appealing to indigenous myths to explain anything is fallacious logic.

Chicken feathers

BCP1928 said:

I don't know about that--there are quite a few people with Christian Nationalist aspirations in the Republican Party. Mike Johnson, for instance, and Pete Hesgeth and many more besides.

Click to expand...

None of them are Christian Nationalists and they don't wish to destroy our country.

peaceful-forest said:

After I was saved, I attended Baptist churches and non-denominational churches. It seems like at the two Baptist churches, whether it was from leadership or other church members, they had this attitude that once you were saved, you didn't matter anymore. What I mean is that the church has too much of a focus on saving lost people. So if a Christian needs something or wants something, it doesn't matter, because "there are more important things to focus on and there's people going to Hell".

Is this anyone else's experience? Are the pastors and/or leadership being taught something in seminary school/Christian colleges/Bible colleges that is encouraging this kind of behavior? Why is it okay to neglect other parts of the church because "people are going to Hell and need to hear the Gospel"?

Click to expand...

What a strange attitude on the part of the church! I have been a Baptist ever since I became a Christian, and have not come across such a thing. Of course a church should be concerned with unsaved people, but church members (including the leaders) should be concerned for their fellow church members. Perhaps you need to discuss how you feel with the leaders.

com7fy8 said:

I think it was Jesus who talked about hypocrites being like tombs full of bones and having white-washed walls.

And Paul had some things to say to hypocritical people. For example > in Romans 2:1-11.

Click to expand...

Yes and I notice this same truth in the Lord prayer when it says "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". As though our disposition is not to be judgemental to begin with.

But to be willing to forgive even our enermies or loved ones which can be very hard as well. Without going all ballistic on them lol. Or even persisting with a gruge. Which is completely against the mentality of the culture wars.

com7fy8 said:

I would say, yes, but first make sure we are calling out how we ourselves are wrong. And use this as an example to encourage others to also seek God for real correction.

Click to expand...

Yes 'take the log out of your own eye before removing the speck in another'. Really a life and psychological truth principle. Petersons mentions the 12 steps to a better life as a psychological principles.

The first being "Clean up your room" or your own house first lol. Then you may have achieved some value in maybe helping another. Then go on to be a productive member of the family and society and help others.

But even more so for Christians who proclaim a different way.

Even then I think the major aspect of Christianity is non verbal. The gospel is quite simple and on that alone we can rationalise as a matter of a testimony and faith claim. The rest is subject to that.

So a simple humble and quite disposition exmpling Christ speaks a 1,000 words. When some does say the little they will say. They will be well respected and listened to. It won't be the same old whitenoise of the culture war.

This to a fair extent was how the church and Christians were. A seperate moral voice that was not mixed up in the world. Sought out as wise counsel in moral matters. Until the two got into bed together and the church just became another corrupted power and identity in the world.

In some ways I think identity and culture wars are Pharisees in mindset as its all about the how to be good to earn salvation rather than the core truth that all are sinners and fall short and its only by the Gospel that we can be transformed in Christ to be the kind of person all these identities are trying to live up to.

So by engaging in the wars we are actually drowning out the simple truth which has no identity but in Christ Himself.

Fervent said:

This is along the lines of the kind of opinions I was hoping would get discussed in this thread. Though I'm not sure it is a lone principle.

In particular, what I was hoping would get focused on is what it is that governments are instituted to preserve/protect...and whether or not the Enlightenment value of protecting individual liberties as the primary function of governments passes Biblical muster.

Click to expand...

God does love justice. He hates when the scales are imbalanced. However, he allows slavery but does not endorse it. I think God would reject free speech at least as far as the USA gives it. Pornography for instance would never be God's will for protected speech. God always seems to support due process. Paul appealing as a citizen of Rome shows that respect. God too has rules of evidence, such as everything being confirmed by two or more witnesses. God does give some criminals and foreigners rights too. I don't see any liberties that Americans would enjoy as being opposed to God, except maybe some exceptions for speech (the right to pornography an exception) and perhaps the right to any religious exercise. To me God gives free will though and while God does not want alternative paths to be worshiped, I think he suppresses that but does not outlaw it in the New Testament period. In the OT, God is quite direct in stamping out some nations that oppose him or are oppressive. In modern times, he allows far more. I think God emphasizes the difference between believers and non-believers, rather than the nations. I have seen some to suggest that God judges the church, not the nations in the New Testament. I lean to the former but there are times when God will judge leaders or groups that warrant this. If I consider the love of money in American society as a likely judgment coming, I have to assume that while everyone is effected those who are balanced in this area could actually fare better. Here I consider the low will be brought high, the high will be brought low as a Godly principle. The same goes for the humble versus the proud. So someone walking in humility without the love of money could fare extremely well.

If I consider a nation that has abortion rights as a major policy. Does God care? absolutely. So that to me is the paradox with Trump. Trump is God's choice because he is a vessel of correction in so many ways. In some things Trump is righteous yet in other things he is a leader in excesses. God is using both parts for America's good. Looking forward to more of your own and other's thoughts on this topic.

fhansen said:

And why would God need to be patient with anyone and with what they may do if He's already predetermined that they'll come.

Click to expand...

Because God's decree does not eliminate means; it establishes them. His patience is not uncertainty about the outcome; it's the ordained space in which the elect are brought to repentance according to His timing.

fhansen said:

If the drawing can fail it's only because while God makes it possible for people to come to Him, He leaves it up to them to assent, or not.

Click to expand...

You're still missing the point. In John 6:44, ἑλκύω modifies δύναται ("is able"), not ἐλθεῖν. The Father's drawing is what effects the ability to come. If the drawing were to fail, God hasn't made it possible. That is precisely what the drawing does: it makes coming to Christ possible.

fhansen said:

Not so. That's like saying I can give...

Click to expand...

Again, you're not paying attention to what the argument is. Your analogy assumes God has already given something. The text says the Father's drawing enables coming: "No one can come to me unless the Father draws them." That drawing is what makes coming possible. So if someone can come, they have been drawn.

How, then, can it makes sense to say it is possible for someone to come, yet the Father's drawing -- the very act that makes it possible -- also fail?

You're wanting to jump ahead and say the Father's drawing doesn't necessitate that people will actually come to Christ. But that's not what we're disputing at this point. What we're concerned with at the moment is that the drawing is an enabling act of the Father that makes salvation possible. So if ἑλκύω can fail, salvation is not obtainable. The argument that the Father's enabling (drawing) activity does bring people effectually to Christ is a different point made from the grammar of the verse, not the meaning of ἑλκύω itself.

fhansen said:

1) The elect will be drawn, of course
2) The elect will come, of course
3) The elect wil be raised up, of course.

Does that mean that all who are drawn will necessarily come? Or that all who come will necessarily remain? No and no.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. But not for any reason discussed above. What necessitates the conclusion that all who are drawn (i.e., all who are enabled) will come and be raised is that the grammar of the verse identifies the same individual in both clauses. The "him" who is drawn is the same "him" who will be raised:

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ

This becomes even clearer when phrased contrapositively:

"If he is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Who will be raised up on the last day? The one who is drawn/enabled. There is no distinction or separate category; the drawing guarantees coming and final resurrection.

That is not good shepherding of the flock from those pastors.

It reminds me of another concept- some churches get do obsessed with serving the community, they forget the Gospel- and partner with secular charities which they shouldn't.

BPPLEE said:

Stolen frozen steaks in a plastic bag upside the head

Click to expand...

Odd if he got a black eye. Steak would be the cause and the treatment. Which, in passing, is the same for methanol poisoning. They put you on a drip containing ethanol. The one alcohol is the cause of your problem and the other the cure as it counteracts the other.

GoldenBoy89 said:

That's where the Islamist part comes in perfect! Just switch between the two as needed.

Click to expand...

I'm sure Sharia law will mentioned soon. It was constantly used against Sadiq Khan when he became mayor of London. Those two guys should get together for a beer* and exchange notes.

* zero alcohol, of course.

lismore said:

That is often true. The church is made up of people from all social backgrounds, all ages, together as one, a new family in Christ. We had some what of a culture war in this country in the 90s, people were more or less expected to be middle class tories to be Christians and that this would bring revival. Instead the number of people attending churches fell off a cliff, as people were pushed into being something they could not be. Someone from a single parent family cannot be a middle class tory anymore than fly to the moon. It can be good for a church to speak out on clear Biblical distinctives, like speaking against abortion, or greed, but aligning to a political movement is to step into a morass.

The Kingdom of God is not of this world as Jesus himself said.

God Bless You

Click to expand...

Yes as the epistemics underlying the culture war is about identity and which groups are oppressors or victims or good or bad. Then through intersectionality, another key principle that people can belong to more than one identity group and the more victim identity groups the better. The more bad identities the worse.

So fighting becomes about how much identity you have aligned with good and bad identity groups. Christianity can then be reduced to other identities dragging down or lifting up the Christianity. Christians become another identity group that may align with good and bad identities.

Of course with that comes all the morals that align with the identities and thus some Christian morals and beliefs are going to come into conflict. Either stand on that differences as a biblical truth. Or find ways to compromise so that it fits with the good identities and the perceived morals or worldview that goes with that.

Its too complicated and full of ideological and moral mindfields that cause divisions and cultivating a culture of war between identities and will turn Christians into just one more identity group at war in the overall culture.

Bradskii said:

Loin?
No, just above it.

Brings a whole new meaning to 'chuck steak'. It's now a command.

Click to expand...

Stolen frozen steaks in a plastic bag upside the head

Just a reminder we’re talking about dudes dressed and equipped like this:

BPPLEE said:

I know an officer who was assaulted with a frozen steak for real

Click to expand...

Loin?
No, just above it.

Brings a whole new meaning to 'chuck steak'. It's now a command.

Stopped_lurking said:

In any objective sense, no. I thought I said that.

Click to expand...

In any sense. If so, what sense?

Stopped_lurking said:

In my feelings about the event.

Click to expand...

Your feelings aren't a location. Your feelings are what I am looking for location.

Stopped_lurking said:

Sense input? What are fishing after?

Click to expand...

Simply trying to get a coherent idea about what "wrong" means to you, since you claim it's just a subjective preference but appear to deny that it's like your feelings about ice cream or sports affiliations.

Stopped_lurking said:

You said magic spell in the post I quoted?

Click to expand...

Yes a one off joke to be ironic. To say I don't know what sort of knowledge they had which may seem magic or beyond what we would think ancients could do. But its all based on reasoning. About tapping into natures forces and not the supernatural.

Stopped_lurking said:

Without any evidence for the use of any stone softening techniques, why should we presume that they even used it. That is what I'm wondering? Even if something is possible, that doesn't mean that is what actually happened.

Click to expand...

First the point was that there may be knowledge and tech that falls outside what we consider tech today that we may be overlooking. Second there is evidence for either stone softening or weakening. The first step is looking at the images and signatures as to what it looks like .

Scans have been done which show certain patterns in the so called pounding marks. As though the pounding is creating a pattern and art itself. Too much like a pattern to be random pounding down of granite. But also the time factor and something more than pounding was used.

As the patterns are so uniform it may be that the signatures are actually showing a uniform tool scooping or scraping out stone. Which implies the stone was either softened or weakened somehow. There are various hypothesis but also tests done have shown this can happen with natural chemistry and physics.





We also so similar stone softening or weakening around the world. Such as in Peru.


On the reddish, glittery mud the Inca used for perfecting their stone masonry

Stopped_lurking said:

I'm fine with people trying out out-of-the-box ideas, but until they have showed that those ideas could actually make whatever they think they were involved in it's just conjecture.

What is indigenous knowledge but a catch-all term for whatever tickles your fancy? The way you use it, it could be anything or nothing.

Click to expand...

That seems a pretty broad and stereotypical label.

Its not so much what exactly is Indigneous knowledge but that there is Indigenous knowledge at all. That there is another way of seeing the world besides scientific materialism or naturalism and that people are open to such knowledge rather than dismiss it as "just another way to tickle your fancy".

Bradskii said:

We'll, he's a democratic socialist. A real difference that will be ignored by the GOP.

Click to expand...

That's where the Islamist part comes in perfect! Just switch between the two as needed.