Michie said:

GRAPEVINE, Texas — Jenn Nizza still remembers the moment the door first opened.

She was 13 years old, growing up on Long Island in a culturally Catholic family, when her mother, a hairdresser, hosted a psychic party in their home.

“It was in a little beauty parlor setting. Everyone got a 15-minute tarot reading,” Nizza told The Christian Post.

Hers, like her sister’s, left an impression that would last for decades.

The cards told her things that were true, facts about her past that felt impossible for a stranger to know. “That’s the hook,” she said. “Demons can see the past. They can’t tell the future — only God can — but they make good guesses. And that’s all it takes to get you in.”

What followed was a descent that, in retrospect, she describes as both seductive and sinister. “It was daily. Multiple times a day,” she said of the tarot readings she and her sister performed on each other. From there, she pursued numerology, astrology and eventually psychic mediumship. At one point, a professional medium told her she, too, had “the gift.”

Continued below.

Former medium warns Christians against the occult: ‘No such thing as a good witch’

After spending over two decades as a professional psychic deeply entrenched in the New Age movement, Jenn Nizza experienced a dramatic spiritual transformation after crying out to Jesus

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

I dabbled in New Age many years ago. Read about healing crystals and other books. I even bought and used crystals for a while. I read about Scientology and astrology. I even had an ouija board as a kid. I never got into New Age too deeply but was searching for something but was agnostic/athiest at the time and thought New Age could solve my problems. Yet at the same time I was playing Contemporary Christian Amy Grant’s music over and over. I eventually got out of New Age and began a very long journey back to Christianity, and finally back to Catholicism.

BCP1928 said:

ICE didn't do much of anything, hasn't really done all that much in the last twenty years or so since they were founded. Visa overstays are one of their primary responsibilities, and visa overstays have accounted for around half of the illegal aliens in the country all that time. It's something of a joke. Did you ever wonder why responsible and competent local LEOs put up with the "sanctuary city" silliness? It's because they generally have no respect for ICE and don't like dealing with them. Now ICE is being used as a Tough Cop travelling circus for the amusement of Trump's base. Enjoy the show,

Click to expand...

This is an answer to a complete different question I never asked and doesn’t answer the question I actually asked.

People are complaining they don’t like the tactics ICE is using to capture illegal immigrants. So how did ICE capture illegal immigrants under the Deporter in Chief Barack Obama’s presidency? I assume they were different since left wingers weren’t complaining about their tactics back then.

ozso said:

Just like the old saying goes, if Trump cured cancer the left would denounce him for it.

Click to expand...

I dont think so. They would just criticize how he did it or that he didnt cure dementia too.

A2SG said:

If the action is unconstitutional, absolutely. And if the ruling of that single judge is incorrect, it can be appealed and, if found to be so, overturned.

Executive branch overreach is too important, and too significant to our democratic system, to not be fervently opposed.

Click to expand...

Nothing about this ruling stops judges from making rulings about the constitutionality of executive actions, it simply prevents a single district judge from having an undue influence over the entire system. Judicial overreach is no less of a significant issue than executive overreach.

A2SG said:

If you feel it's a serious problem, then feel free to work with the legislature to enact legislation preventing it.

Click to expand...

Curbing the power of district judges reduces the overall threat that such practices present

A2SG said:

While I will grant you I do not trust Donald Trump as far as I can throw him, I wouldn't want the power he seems intent on wielding to be used by anyone, even a president whose politics I agree with.

Click to expand...

While I find the expansion of executive powers that has happened over the last 40 years troubling, it's not as if Trump initiated the problem. But that doesn't justify granting undue influence to single judges that can be selectively picked by anyone with an axe to grind, so it's neither here nor there on this particular ruling.

A2SG said:

Yup, their ability to be a bulwark against a dictatorial executive branch has been curtailed, at the time we need it more than ever.

-- A2SG, and yeah, I fully admit and acknowledge that is my personal opinion.....

Click to expand...

You're simply being dramatic, judges can still make rulings about constitutionality and the judiciary as a whole remains in its oversite capacity. It simply requires a more comprehensive contingent of judges to operate at a national level, not allowing for rogue judges to wield undue influence over the political process.

healingsongprayers said:

I actually had one just a few weeks ago.

In the dream, I was sitting on the floor in the living room, and my little brother was right there next to me, handing me a controller like he always used to. We were playing some silly co-op game, the kind he would usually make fun of me for, but this time he wasn’t teasing me. He was just smiling. We didn’t talk much, but I remember feeling so calm. Like he was really there.

And I knew. Even in the dream, I knew he was gone. But instead of waking up heartbroken, I woke up with this strange peace. Like God let me borrow a moment with him.

I still miss him every day. But that dream reminded me that love doesn’t just stop. It stays with you.

Magdalena

Click to expand...

nm just clomsy

Well, Vatican II said that the plan of salvation includes the Muslims, though what that phrase meant, no one seems to know for certain.

Hans Blaster said:

The problem is that actual historians (as opposed to "biblical scholars") have almost nothing to work with. There are no records of Jesus from the time he was alive. If it weren't for the fact that he is claimed to be a rather minor figure in an unimportant region in a time when comprehensive record keeping did not exist. (No articles in the Decapolis Times, no court records, etc.). If we had no records of Joseph Smith before stories of him were told in Utah, I'd be inclined to think he was made up by Brigham Young. Since those kinds of records that clearly demonstrate the "career" of Joseph Smith did not exist in the 1st century we can't infer anything from Jesus failing to make a contemporary impression. This is the only thing that brings me to the "more likely an actual person" position.

Click to expand...

This seems to misunderstand the types of evidence that is typical in history, because there is more evidence of Jesus in more contemporaneous form than a number of historical figures. The objections and aspersions about whether Jesus existed are purely the result of bias, and not based in an understanding of the types of historical evidences that are typically found. Atheist scholars have produced lists of historical figures whose existence is less secure than Jesus', which nobody would seriously entertain questioning. To claim "there are no records of Jesus from the time he was alive" is a specious objection because such documents are vanishingly rare for most historical figures, particularly ones in antiquity. So if such a thing is a problem for Jesus, then its a problem for history in general. That you express questions is more demonstrative of your bias than anything else.

Hans Blaster said:

Mythicists also tend to have an alternative story about what/who Jesus was in the early Christianity. I certainly don't find any of those claims particularly compelling.

Click to expand...

You may not, but that poster confirmed they were a mythicist

Hans Blaster said:

Perhaps you should stop trying to evaluate my positions or motivations. You keep getting them wrong. It isn't apathy, nor even a lack of interest. I just said that I likely hadn't studied the subject as much as NxNW. I have not read any specialized books on the topic, perhaps he has. As to these "non-historical considerations" my position on the divinity does not influence my assessment of existence. Certainly not as much as it would for a believer who can't contemplate the "non-existence" position.

Click to expand...

It certainly appears as much, given the fringe nature that questioning the existence of Jesus tends to be regarded with by scholars both atheist and Christian. There is no serious reason to question the existence of Jesus, and typically the non-existence position is built on false pretenses such as your objection about a lack of documentation while he was alive. That we have documents within 30 years of his life is more than we have on a number of far more prominent(historically speaking) figures.

Hans Blaster said:

This isn't about everything. It is about a scientific theory (Darwinian evolution and successors), questions of supernaturalism are irrelevant to the discussion of scientific theories.

Click to expand...

So you say, but if it were purely a matter of scientific theories I suspect you wouldn't be spending your time on a website called Christian forums to discuss such things.

Hello Jim (@Jim24Sharp24), WELCOME TO CF I'm glad that you found us and joined in the discussions with us

God bless you!!

--David

.

shooting star

Laeomis said:

Well, we disagree. For these reasons there was a BREXIT. You want a Nordic system, while the UK and US want an Anglo-American system.

Click to expand...

I think you like making claims which are nonsensical and of course without evidence. For example, the UK and the US health care systems are very different. There is no "Anglo-American" system.

And both systems are bad compared to the most of the developed countries. Interestingly, it correlates also with the health of the population, the US and the UK are very unhealthy countries.

Laeomis said:

We just don't see it in our best interest to partner with you.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean by that, as I said, your words seem nonsensical, frequently. But if you mean that you do not want to be inspired to fix your system based on the the example from better countries, then it is fine. Stay behind. We cannot force you to have a better life if you do not want to.

Gregory Thompson said:

Sure, invent phrases when there's no argument, everyone's doing it.

Click to expand...

No argument? Why on earth would someone argue with over the top claims of coronations LOL.
The sky is always falling with you guys. Geesh

keras said:

And what He requires of us during that time.

Click to expand...

The same as He requires of us now. He takes care of the rest.

ThatRobGuy said:

...but in reality, is there any group (majority, minority, marginalized, or otherwise) that would be better off if this was 1950-1980?

I'm having a hard time thinking of a group apart from perhaps people in the asbestos industry.

Click to expand...

Financially, I do believe the American middle class would be better off during, at least the majority, of that time period.

Michie said:

Long before T. rex, the Earth was dominated by super-carnivores stranger and more terrifying than anything dreamed up by Hollywood.

The two animals circled each other, both assessing their rival's robust, hairless body. With sabre-teeth like steak knives, piercing claws and skin as thick as a rhino's, they snapped their jaws open nearly 90 degrees – and launched into battle. From the right-hand side of one animal, the other's teeth crunched down from above. In a split second, it was over.

Sinking its five-inch (12.7cm) canines into its opponent's boxy snout, like hot needles through wax, the attacker claimed victory. This actually happened – or something like it.

Around a quarter of a billion years later, on a sunny day in March 2021, Julien Benoit was handed a rather unpromising container and invited to take a look. He was working in a pleasantly cool office at Iziko Museum of Natural History in Cape Town, South Africa, where he had been invited to visit the university's fossil collections. The vessel was a very old, simple cardboard box.

"It hadn't been opened for at least 30 years," says Benoit, an associate professor of evolutionary studies at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. Inside was a jumble of bones, including countless skulls, many of which had been mislabelled. As he was sorting through and re-classifying them – assigning them to long-extinct species – he noticed a small, shiny surface.

Continued below.

The blood-curdling Permian monsters that ruled the Earth before dinosaurs

Long before T. rex, the Earth was dominated by super-carnivores stranger and more terrifying than anything dreamed up by Hollywood.

www.bbc.com

Click to expand...

This is off topic but I love how this article acknowledges that the earth is billions of years old.

7thKeeper said:

I love that the Alaskan senator (can't remember her name right now), who voted for it, is now saying she doesn't like what she voted for and wants the House to send it back to the Senate.

Click to expand...

She might get her wish, though Speaker Johnson is letting the vote stay open in the hope they can still change some votes (the voting has been open for 3 hours and is approaching 1 am in DC). Currently there are 5 Republican "Nay" votes, with another 8 Republicans that have not voted yet. They need the 8 to vote "Yea" and at least 2 of the "Nay" votes to flip.

"let God be true, but every man a liar" Some saying, in some old book, that doesn't end up applying to all humans, just all except the person speaking. If this were a card game, I'd win ....

However, we're all wrong, and God is right .. when there are centuries and millennia of traditions at stake, who can accept this saying?

It is now past midnight on the East Coast, and the House voting started 3 hours ago. Currently, there are 5 Republican Nay votes, and they can't have more than 3 if the bill is going to pass, as well as 8 who have not voted who will all need to vote Yea. It will be interesting to see how long Speaker Johnson keeps voting open and if he can get those that haven't voted and those that voted Nay to vote Yea.

Zceptre said:

You still gave him a heads up that the poking at you affected you, if he is poking at you of course. lol

Click to expand...

If it really affected me, I would have used words other than "funny".

rjs330 said:

Whats funny is that most of them will vote for him. Then some of them will pach up and leave after he really puts into place things that actually affect them.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're right. It goes on like that all over the country. People don't like how things are going, so they keep on voting for the same types of "leaders", and they even pick more extreme versions of the people that were voted out. Chicago is a good example of that, as is the State of Illinois in general. And of course California.

A helmet.

Zceptre said:

I conceded, maybe not to standards, but nevertheless. lol

Given, I was speaking for myself and a percentage of well intended individuals... not everyone.

Click to expand...

I suppose, though I still find the implication that child-like faith refers to an uncritical accceptance of a particular textual understanding unpalatable.

Zceptre said:

There is a massive portion of those, like I said, who just "slap on" a Christian label and go to town. The protestant world is overrun with this in a general sense, I think more so than we really know. I wouldn't be as aware of other factions.

Click to expand...

Yeah,, for sure. Though I think we can set pretty clear borders of when one has stepped outside of the bounds through recognition of the ecumenical anathemas and historic creeds and definitions such counsels produced. None of which required acceptance of literalistically reading the Genesis narratives.

Zceptre said:

This is true, yet there is still only one reality in God's mind when writing. What God intends is correct, whether I line up to it or not. Just like the intent of the discussion is to the subverting of the hearers, otherwise the debate is fruitless and void. (2 Timothy 2:14) (2 Corinthians 13:2) + 2 Commandments Matthew 37. The subverting is in essence the expression of Christ who lives in us to the point a seed is planted and grows in the soil of their heart.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.

Zceptre said:

A writer has one message they intend to convey, and while I think doctrine is important, and even historicity, they don't sideline the primary factor God requires. 1 John 4:7 - 1 John 4:8 - John 13:34 - John 13:35 - Matthew 7:16 - Etc --- Whatever we believe, if we become hateful, then we didn't follow the example given by Christ on the cross. Luke 23:34 - The goal is Christ-like, regardless the view on historicity. Romans 8:29

Click to expand...

I agree, but now we're starting to wade into theories of inspiration and the relationship between human authors and the underlying Divine intentions of texts.

Zceptre said:

If I feel confident in the narrative the Bible has presented to me that it is actually literal, and I don't defend that as truth being convicted in myself that it is, I think that makes me a coward. (me personally) Doing it wrong is fine, we can learn and grow. But for me, if the opportunity to express the opinion is welcome or there is a domain of common idea transfer and debate, people can freely engage or avoid. In these cases I think standing on what a person believes is true is the good fight of faith. If no one shared the truth with me, the truth that was their own, I could likely have been a person who does not know the Lord Jesus personally today.

Click to expand...

If you're confident, I wouldn't attempt to dissuade you. I find literalism unconvincing, and object to it on historic grounds in addition to hermeneutic as my understanding of the doctrinal history is that it developed and ossified as a reaction to atheist polemics centered on developing geologic and biologic sciences in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Zceptre said:

Ultimately, if the discussion turns into agree to disagree about non-salvation issues, well ok then, no harm no fowl moving on. But if it leads to an immaterial Messiah who did not come in the flesh and literally died on the cross, I'll push harder because I care about them. It might even hurt and they may throw some hate my way, but I take what God says very seriously pertaining to particular subjects. 1 John2:22 - 2 John 1:7 - John 3:36

Click to expand...

Yeah, fair enough. And I believe this is the thread I stated this in, but it's worth repeating, the historical existence of Adam and Eve is a distinct question from how literally we can understand the narratives found in Genesis 1-11.

dlamberth said:

The Earth tells the story very clearly that there is no evidence of a a Biblical flood.

Click to expand...

According to the earth, what happened to that evidence?