Jesus said His Church would be built upon the rock solid foundation of God's truth. Man, of course, has other ideas as they built/build their own churches.

Motivated students

Fun activities make me smile

a serious problem.

It’s not as serious…

Freth said:

I agree. We should be holy and without blame before Him in love, which is why I quoted it and underlined it to emphasize that point.

Ephesians 1:4-6 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.​

The adoption of children by Jesus Christ Himself is unto salvation. What is salvation? Being saved by Jesus from this sinful world with the hope of eternal life. So yes, He has chosen us in Him to be holy and without blame; to be saved, to receive eternal life; which is exactly why I quoted John 3:16-17.

John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.​

Paul:

Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.​

I'll go back and edit my conclusion in that post so there is no confusion.

Click to expand...

No the verse does not say predestined us to adoption to salvation. The verse says predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus.

It is not predestination to adoption to sons by The Father or The Holy Spirit, but by Jesus. That is what the predestination is about that believers would be adopted as sons by Jesus and not The Father or The Holy Spirit.

having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

Have you noticed that there is a rising tension and even conflict in a wide range of nations across the world that is homing in on religious belief and specifically Christian.

That religious belief should become an issue for elections. That belonging to the church is a problem politically. That more and more people are specifically mentioning and using religion and specifically Christianity in the context of it being a problem to exist in modern society.

Is this because perhaps Christian belief is being contrasted to world ideologies and dark forces that fundementally hate Christ. Or is this a natural progression of politics or how the world has evolved into identity politics. Or maybe a bit of both.

Or maybe the politics has become personal and thus has to include beliefs. Maybe its always been about beliefs and how the world should be ordered under the various human made ideas. As opposed to God. Its just that now its coming out as a spiritual battle that was always going to happen. People are actually expressing their hate for Christians. When they express hate for opposing beliefs they are actually meaning Christians and Christ.

This is part of the problem. That in a postmodernist culture where everything is rationalised into reality by feelings and subjective experiences that we can no longer declare the truths of the bible. Even objective sciences are being reimagined as just another naarrative rather than objective fact.

We seen this transformation happen in the last generation and even more recently. It was only 20 odd years ago that sex was a biological fact that we all agreed and gender was linked to sex but there was also a gender identity which was a seperate thing and socially constructed based on the biological reality.

Then we seen the change that came along with a bunch of other reimaginings that sex was a social construction and gender the reality.

Just because we are Christians doesn't mean we can defy Gods biological reality. This is a modern day ideological belief and there is no basis. A man cannot become a women nor a women a man.

The problem is that some with good intentions interpret Christianity as totally detached from Gods creation reality. Love becomes love and all accepting and there is no room for sin, judgement and punishment because its confrontational and exclusive and perceieved as hurting people.

But its not. It is true love that we tell the truth to save souls even if that may seem uncomfortable. Christ church stands independent and different to the world. It is a light in the darkness of the world.

If the church is the same as the world then where is that light on the hill. The church is bowing to the world rather than standing seperate and different to the world. Or being pleasing and conforming to the world. Pleasing humans an not God.

rambot said:

Yeah.

"This whole thing with Epstein is going to turn out to be a big nothing". I can't believe what Trump supporters are willing to stoop to.


Honestly,... like...I'm speechless with what people are prepared to reason away.

Click to expand...

rambot said:

...
Lol!
Of all the "left wing hoaxes" to spend ANY time on to make Trump look better, that is a weird one.

Click to expand...

For me it's not about making Trump look better, it's about refuting malarkey that the left makes up. I'll gladly continue doing so long after Trump is enjoying his retirement.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

The ACA is not without its flaws, and some of the commitments made by President Obama during its enactment were arguably optimistic. Nevertheless, it remains the prevailing healthcare option.

Since its passage, congressional Republicans have attempted to repeal the ACA 42 times, yet they have not presented a viable alternative. Over the past 14 years, GOP politicians have consistently highlighted the shortcomings of the ACA; however, no substantive proposals have been offered as a replacement. This pattern suggests a tendency to criticize the system without demonstrating a genuine interest in constructive reform or proposing workable alternatives.

Your argument appears focused primarily on critiquing President Obama's statements from 15 years ago, as well as rising health insurance premiums, rather than offering a good-faith alternative to the ACA. It gives the impression that opposition is driven more by partisanship than by a commitment to seeking effective solutions for American healthcare.

Click to expand...

Seems to me, the GOP's only attempt to reform the health care system was the Heritage Foundation plan from 1989. They tried to introduce a bill proposing that back in 1993, but it failed. Their only objection to the plan came when President Obama decided to implement it. Their problem doesn't seem to be with the plan itself, despite their protestations, but with who implemented it.

I don't think they have any other ideas, they certainly can't seem to come up with any. I suspect the main reason for that is the massive amount of money generated by the for-profit health insurance industry, and how much of that is donated to various political campaigns.

-- A2SG, as the sage Cyndi Lauper once noted, money changes everything....

Richard T said:

Since a Few D.O.'s treat patients similarily with adjustments,

Click to expand...

What are DO’s?

BCP1928 said:

So what was the deal? Those technicians were not just illegal immigrants sneaking in to work. They were here to help build a plant for Americans to work in. Their employer thought they were legal, their government though they were legal and they thought they were legal and when they had finished the plant they intended to go home. They were actually doing us a favor so we shackle them like criminals?

Click to expand...

Look you can question tactics or procedures all you want. I've actually got no issues with that. I dont agree with some of their procedures. But I don't have any issues with them enforcing the laws. Should they have been shackled? Maybe not. I don't know why they were. Should handcuffs been good enough. Maybe so. I'm not going to argue whether or they should have or should have not be shackled or if handcuffed should.have been enough.

stevevw said:

So was the calculations leading up to the reference to microwatts wrong. They explain how using a microwatt as a unit measure to capture the energy from acoustic sounds. Was that explanation and calculation wrong. If so how.

Click to expand...

Watts are energy over time aka power, I'm only saying that they use the wrong units, and that they talk about the unit when they should have talked about the physical quantity. It is at least a language problem. In the results section they use the density of granite as the reference pressure, I can't say that it is wrong but it seems contraintuitive to me.

stevevw said:

I am not the one complaining or objecting to certain words. I read the whole thing and never fixated on specific words that I had to remember them.

The point is I read the whole article and then read the section before the results again to get the context. You did not seem to even mention the context which at least gave a rational for why they used "watts' as a unit measure. You seemed to think it came from nowhere.

Click to expand...

Because watts are not energy flow per area.

stevevw said:

Ok I havn't got that far. Thats just recent. I haven't been keeping up lol. I will go back and look. I was speaking of earlier posts and not just you.

Ok so for example the stone softening or moulding. There is at least peer review and formal tests and analysis laid out in a proper way where the explanation or rational is explained with tests supporting the claim.

Click to expand...

The only peer-reviewed stone softening/weakening I remember is the one were they used the piezoelectric effect to crack stone. I then asked you if that pattern of cracks had been found in Egyptian quarries, did I miss you response?

stevevw said:

So if you claim that the stones are not moulded. Then you need tests on the stone and anaysis that will contradict the claims of the paper. Not picking out a small piece without context or analysis.

Click to expand...

This seems to be from a dialogue with someone else.

stevevw said:

I do and I explained this. I am saying you should have known it if your going to criticise it.

Click to expand...

I did.

stevevw said:

Thats ok and we can do that. But we then have to also acknowledge that what we are doing is not proper science. I mean if people are calling formal articles published online with tests and analysis as psuedoscience.

Click to expand...

If they are not peer-reviewed they are at the same level as our discussions here.

stevevw said:

Then certainly personal unqualified opinion on social media should be regard at least the same or even less credible. I find it ironic that some are claiming their personal opinion holds more weight than a formerly published article. At least they lay out their tests and analysis.

Ok I thought I had. There was the one I linked a few posts back. There was at least another one earlier. Anyway here are some

Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy
Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy

Electromagnetic properties of the Great Pyramid: First multipole resonances and energy concentration

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article-abstract/124/3/034903/156109/Electromagnetic-properties-of-the-Great-Pyramid?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Click to expand...

These two are the same, they are simulation exercises. Nothing have been experimentally verified. Electromagnetic waves are not sound waves.

stevevw said:

The Intentional Use of Sound Design in the Egyptian Temples and the Great Pyramid
https://www.scienceopen.com/documen...-e6f916b4c59a/ScienceOpen/247_Smith_EVA23.pdf

Click to expand...

I get a 503 on this one.

stevevw said:

Historical development of cymatics and kinematics
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384884836_Historical_development_of_cymatics_and_kinematics

Click to expand...

This have nothing to do with energy extraction.

stevevw said:

I read them enough and I will read them again and again if I have to.

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

It's not an issue of my understanding. The issue is you're wanting to force me to argue something I haven't argued. Let's make this very simple.

You have said that the drawing of the Father (in John 6:44) can fail, correct?

The drawing of the Father (in John 6:44) makes salvation possible, correct? It enables one to come to Christ.

How is it possible, then, for one to come to Christ, if the Father's act of enabling them, can fail? You keep saying "God provides the ability to come." That contradicts your earlier argument that God's provision of that ability can fail.

We're not talking about whether or not the drawing is effectual in producing faith. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, my argument that it is has nothing to do with the meaning of ἑλκύω itself. We were talking about the meaning of ἑλκύω. You argued that ἑλκύω in John 6:44 can fail. Yet does not ἑλκύω refer to God's provision of the ability to come? How then is it possible to come, if God's attempt to provide the ability can fail?

I'm not arguing for my point of view right now; I'm critiquing the consistency of yours. I'm trying to show you ἑλκύω means a decisive movement from one position (inability) to another (ability). That does not mean that the movement in view is necessarily from unbelief to irresistible faith. The meaning of ἑλκύω is not the basis of that argument. That is a different argument. What I am focused on right now is trying to show you that your attempt to soften the definition of ἑλκύω does not aid your point of view, nor does it challenge mine.

Click to expand...

I see. You don’t even believe what you’re saying here yourself. No alternative makes any sense. It’s not His attempt to provide the possibility, BTW; He really does provide it.

Fervent said:

Not really "addressing" the point by engaging in whataboutism...it's just defending "your" guy by pointing to something someone else did.

Click to expand...

Could you please point out to me exactly what I said that "defended" the practice of gerrymandering? Quotes would be preferable.

Oh, and just so you're clear, Newsom isn't "my guy." As I've told you before, I do not live in California. Though, it is a nice place to visit.

Fervent said:

The money is a part of it, with millions of dollars spent.

Click to expand...

Why is that a problem? Who paid for those ads?

Fervent said:

The ccontent is another, where the ballot summary did mention the intent the ads that were run did not.

Click to expand...

And that was a lie, somehow? Please point out the falsehood for me. I don't live in California, so I did not see the ads or the ballot summary.

Fervent said:

I disagree that they have the right to vote if they don't do their due diligence, because all they are doing is silencing people who actually understand what is going on. Children are also affected by elections, but they have no right to vote because they lack the understanding.

Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing rights that actually exist with rights you believe should (or should not) exist. The fact is, every adult US citizen, informed on any particular issue or not, has the legal right to vote. Your position seems to be that you don't believe they should have that right. You are, of course, entitled to hold that opinion, but the facts remain: in the US, the right to vote does not depend on how informed you are, nor is it limited by a lack of knowledge.

Fervent said:

Yeah, I tend to stick to local politics and mostly ignore national politics as much as I can since at that level it all just seems like petty gamesmanship with both sides being either inept or corrupt.

Click to expand...

That often happens at every level, but when the stakes are higher, the petty gamesmanship increases. But it can only change if people who refuse to accept it get involved and work to change things, both on the local and national levels.0

Fervent said:

I suppose you could put it that way, though it seems that our current system is far more favorable to oligarchy since it is all money anyway.

Click to expand...

But that seems to be the system you favor over our current one, is that not correct?

Fervent said:

Nope, morality that is subjective isn't morality. It's just opinions.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but there isn't any other kind of morality. Just as an example, try and name even one single moral principle that is applicable to every person, including those who disagree with that moral principle.

Fervent said:

He gave the impression that the current maps were somehow unfair and needed correction.

Click to expand...

Impressions can often be misinterpreted. Exactly what did he say, and was that actual statement false?

Fervent said:

Outside of the ballot summary he made almost no mention of his intent to gerrymander the districts as a response to TX republicans. It was lying by omission.

Click to expand...

I seem to recall hearing him say that was his intent quite a bit, and I don't live in California. Are you sure you didn't just miss the times he mentioned it?

Fervent said:

Depends on how they went about it, as we will soon see whether demographic proxy fits the Supreme Courts ruling.

Click to expand...

We already know the SCOTUS has ruled that gerrymandering isn't illegal or unconstitutional. If there is a legal challenge to Newsom's ballot initiative, I guess we'll have to see how that turns out, but as it stands, without a reversal of the current SCOTUS ruling, gerrymandering isn't illegal or unconstitutional.

Fervent said:

And to call what Newsome did 'acting in a democratic way" is absolutely laughable, especially when what he did was blatant gerrymandering.

Click to expand...

I never said his plan wasn't to gerrymander. What I said was the way he went about it, asking the voters to decide if he should have the ability to do it within a specific time period, was more democratic than simply deciding to do it by fiat, under orders from an authoritarian president.

Keep in mind, per SCOTUS, gerrymandering isn't undemocratic. It's allowable under the law.

Fervent said:

'HEy, let's take away the minorities rights. As long as we vote on it, it's fine."

Click to expand...

Does Newsom's proposed redistricting plan take away anyone's right to vote, whether they're in a minority group or not? Or any other rights, for that matter? If you're going to make accusations, please be specific.

Fervent said:

You are defending gerrymandering, which you claim to be against.

Click to expand...

I have never done that. Not even one single time. And to prove that, I challenge you to find a single quote by me that defends the practice in any way, shape or form.

Keep in mind, just in case you're unclear on the idea, that simply acknowledging that something is legal is not a defense of that act.

Fervent said:

You may not be acting in a way that challenges your integrity because you lack the power, but a lack of power doesn't change the fact that you seem to be defending somehting you claim to be against in principle.

Click to expand...

And there's the problem. You say I "seem to be" defending gerrymandering. Your perception is incorrect. And the fact that you actually seem to acknowledge my continued claims to disagree with it while ignoring them to continue your mischaracterization of me is very telling. Please knock it off.

Fervent said:

Perhaps if you stopped defending it, then I would accept it?

Click to expand...

I'd have to start first, and I'm not going to.

-- A2SG, but feel free to try and quote me defending the act of gerrymandering....it'll be fun to see what you come up with....

172.

BCP1928 said:

A corporate charter is a privilege granted by the state. It can be revoked.

Click to expand...

How does that effect them closing.

ThatRobGuy said:

Well, if it's a loaded question being asked, why not give a loaded answer? lol

If you want to be a major player in US politics, you gotta kiss someone's rear-end and promise favors in return for campaign donations.

Not sure why that's controversial to point out.


Oh...wait?... is this one of those times where we're supposed pretend that Trump is uniquely bad in some regard?

Whoops...I missed the queue. Sorry about that. I'll fall in line and be a good boy.

Allow me to bend a knee and worship at the alter of Philosophy 101 professors:
Orange man bad... He's orange and bad and a man who's also orange and a man who's bad and orange and bad...not to mention a man and bad who's also orange...not to mention racist transphobic and bad, please tax me at 40%.


Phew, that was close...

I almost fell into the grips of the KKK until someone set me on the right path and made me see the light, and convinced that Trump is the worst human in the history of humans who's uniquely bad in every way.

Click to expand...

The problem is, when you say that all politicians are corrupt you just encourage politicians to live down to their reputation.

Trump Organization sought to bring in nearly 200 workers on visas in 2025


President’s family business requested at least 184 foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago, Virginia winery and two golf clubs


---


The Trump Organization sought to bring in at least 184 foreign workers in 2025 for temporary positions at Mar-a-Lago, two golf clubs and a Virginia winery through H-2A and H-2B visas, according to data from the Department of Labor.

The company’s visa requests have risen steadily in recent years, from 121 in 2021 to a record 184 in 2025.

During Trump’s five years in office, the Trump Organization filed to bring in at least 566 foreign workers.

Lady Bug said:

Wow I hadn't seen that one before. Thank you so much. There are times where I am almost too tired to pray the regular routine I have, and I ask myself if I have only one prayer to say on any given day, due to being too tired, what would it be.

Click to expand...

Listen to the contemporary version of it sung below the prayer. I usually recite it every morning and add my prayer intentions to it. But when I’m just so frazzled can’t make a good attempt at it without my mind going all over the place, I’ll pray the version in song. It helps relieve my anxiety as well.

2 mos ago

U.S. sees highest large-company bankruptcies in 15 years with 446 filings


Several familiar American brands from the 1990s and 2000s are among those that have collapsed in 2025. Retailers such as Forever 21, Joann’s, Party City, and Claire’s, along with pharmacy chain Rite Aid, have all filed for bankruptcy this year.


‐-----

Today

US Corporate Bankruptcies Set to Hit 15-Year High Amid Credit Jitters, S&P Data Shows


Total bankruptcy filings reached 655 this year through October, compared with 687 for all of 2024. October alone accounted for 68 filings, following 76 in August — the highest monthly count since at least 2020.

BCP1928 said:

That certainly sounds like more fun. Some of us seem to have forgotten that the Gospel was supposed to be good news

Click to expand...

Carnal Christians sounds menacing...like calling them meat. But I suppose such names are good for looking down the end of our noses at people.

I would say that I'm a mixture of both.

Fundamentalists are very literal in the way that they read and practice the Bible and, yes, many things would be 'forbidden' that are worldly including pop music, certain movies, certain ways of dress, drinking alcohol and/or drinking to excess, piercings, make up, playing cards, rolling dice etc.

Evangelism is also very biblical, as compared to other denominations, but are very heavily focused (IMO) in the way the bible can be practiced in the modern life. The above activities would not be encouraged if they distract from God but I don't see them as heavily discouraged and make up, piercings etc are definitely much more accepted.

I prefer Fundamentalism, because that is how I was raised and I do believe it is biblical, but it is not widely practiced locally so I am currently part of a non-denomination church which is sola scriptura in so much as the mission of Christians, the message of Jesus etc.

partinobodycular said:

Even considering the idol status that human artists can attain?

Click to expand...

Yep. It’s the same with tech or anything. Been going in since the beginning.