A Devil's Advocate said:

I understand, because you do not know me beyond a very limited exchanging of words on this sight, it would be easy to come to that possible conclusion.
My walk with God is not going to look like your walk with God or anyone else, for that matter. Being that you and I are unique in who we are as a person, just as everyone else is unique in who they are, our walk with God will be unique to one another. Yes, there will be some commonalities, such as prayer and worship. But even then, my worship will look different than your worship based on talents and gifts.
I've always had a talent for explaining things in a simple to understand manner, mostly because I am just not that smart so my explanations are simple... like me. But my gift has been my capacity, through the Spirit, to see things in scripture that many don't. So in my case, my worship of God is me exercising my talents and gifts for the purpose of building up the church.

I think too many people have been led to believe you can separate the Word from God. That you can know the Word, but still not know God. John 1:1, 14, presence otherwise. You cannot know the Word and not know God. Likewise, you cannot claim to know God, but not know the Word. They are inseparable.

Click to expand...

There is a choice, you can spend all of your time in the written word of GOD and only in prayer asking for things from GOD, or you can spend more of your time in prayer and worship with GOD (Who actually wrote the written word) and have HIM reveal it to you correctly.

As I said, Christianity is a Spiritual walk, not an intellectual one. Jesus didn't just argue and debate with people all the time under the guise of defending The Faith, He was an instrument of righteousness for The FATHER to operate through Him to HIS glory.

He is our example to follow and emulate,.... but I think very few people really realize that nowadays.

Anyways, laters.

Nithavela said:

Good news, everyone.

Click to expand...

We were always at war with eastasia.

boughtwithaprice said:

Then why did you take until 1860 to start preaching? No one, not even Ellen White taught as you did before that

Click to expand...

So instead of addressing any of the Scriptures, which I understand why, it usually goes into personal attacks.


I wasn't around in the 1860 so I wasn't preaching anything in the 1800's. If you mean the SDA church, you're wrong about that too. God has always had a remnant people all throughout the centuries who kept God's commandments the way He said including the Sabbath. God's people will always be a remnant compared to the majority Rev12:17 Mat7:13-14. Not because God does not call on everyone Heb3:7-19, sadly few hear.

Whenever God's people would go away from the word of God, He would always raise up a messenger to bring people back to His word. 2 Chro 36:16 God does not change. God never ordained Sunday, that is a commandment of the Catholic church. They even admit so, based on their authority over God's.

It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.
—Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, NJ ‘News’ on March 18, 1903.

Click to expand...

Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.

Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.
—Rev. Peter Geiermann C.SS.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50

Click to expand...

Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God... The Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.'
—Catholic Record, September 1, 1923.

Click to expand...

The whole nonsense that the CC are the succession from the apostles, if that were true they would have continued on what the apostles did and that was to keep God's Sabbath and obey God and stay faithful to Him. The apostles warned us what would happen after their departure Acts 20:29 which sadly is exactly what happened- men turned to fables instead of staying faithful to God. 2Tim4:3-4

You point back to Catholic doctrine to support your doctrine. You allow the catholic church to define what things mean, instead of allowing God to. God never said we needed a mediator or an earthy priesthood, He did away with both and we can go directly to Him. I would hate to place my faith in my church instead of with Jesus Christ, when He said He is the way John14:6 not the catholic church, that's a lot of trust built on man-made traditions instead of building our rock on Jesus by doing what He says.

Luke 6:46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? 47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was [j]founded on the rock. 49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it [k]fell. And the ruin of that house was great.”

Col 2:8 Beware lest anyone [e]cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

Christ is the one speaking the Ten Commandments. Christ is the one who put them under His mercy seat. Christ is the one who gives sanctified the seventh day and told us to keep it holy and sanctifies us when we follow what He asks Eze20:12. Christ is the one who blesses us when we obey Him Isa56:2 Rev22:14 Keeping the Sabbath comes with the power of Christ- the only God who can create heaven and earth Exo20:11 Rev14:7 the only God who can sanctify Exo20:11 Eze20:12 and without His blessings Isa59:2 Exo20:11 Rev22:14 sadly, we really are nothing, we need Him for everything Eze20:20 I would not trade all the promises God gives of His Sabbath for something that Jesus warned us about following traditions over the commandments of God, laying them aside as to tell them, No god these are not for me and what that does to Him. Mark7:7-13 Mat15:3-14 Eze22:26


Guess it will get sorted out at His soon return.

It was death that came out of the Garden as a result of the fall, not a sinful nature. That nature was built in from the beginning in order for us (and elohim) to have choice..

CoreyD said:

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

Click to expand...

childeye 2 said:
The definition of freewill in Greek that you have given above is an adjective, not a noun. It describes a certain type of action or choice that is uncoerced/voluntary.
----------------------------------------------------

Subjective Semantic Analysis of the op​

Objective Contextual Meaning​

• Will = predisposed intent or desire, shaped by God’s Spirit or sinful desire.
• Free = voluntariness of action.
• These meanings are grounded in the context of Scripture, not abstract philosophy. They arise from how the words function in their passages (John 8:44, James 1:14, Leviticus 1:3, 2 Corinthians 9:7).

Subjective morphing​

When lifted out of their contexts and combined into “free will” or “free‑willed agents,” the terms morph:

• Biblical usage:
  • Will = predisposed intent or desire.
  • Free = voluntariness of action.
  • Together, they describe how choices are made in context (voluntary offerings, desires shaped by influence).
• Philosophical usage:
  • “Free will” = autonomous human faculty of choice.
  • “Free‑willed agents” = beings with innate, independent agency.
  • These are interpretive constructs, not direct lexical meanings.

Mechanics of Morphing​

Here’s how and why the shift happens:

1. Loss of context → In Scripture, will refers to intent/desire, and free refers to voluntariness of action. Once those contexts (offerings, desires, voluntary acts) are stripped away, the words lose their specific grammatical anchors.
2. Fusion into a new phrase → The separate categories (noun vs. adjective/adverb) are merged into a single compound phrase, “free will,” which Scripture itself does not define.
3. Interpretive overlay → Theology and philosophy supply new meaning, treating “free will” as a metaphysical faculty of autonomous choice.

In other words, they become subjective terms, shaped by theological or philosophical interpretation rather than by the objective contextual meaning.

Summary​

• Objective contextual meaning:
  • Will = predisposed intent or desire.
  • Free = voluntariness of action.
• Subjective morphing:
  • Out of context, “free will” becomes a philosophical construct of autonomous choice.
  • The morphing occurs because the terms are lifted from their contextual usage and reinterpreted through theology and philosophy.

CoreyD said:

The record shows you wanted to talk about something that wasn't actually what the OP referred to.

Click to expand...

The op showed the terms were morphing terms taking them out of the syntactical context. The record shows the subsequent disconnect in communication:

CoreyD said:
I referred to the scriptures which refer to man's free will, repeatedly.
Leviticus 1:3;
childeye 2 said:
A "voluntary" or "freewill" choice/decision (an adjective).

CoreyD said:
From your comment, you agree then, that an unforced choice/decision, is an exercising of free will. Yes?
childeye 2 said:
Not really. The context of Jesus saying, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do", implies the character of the father manifests in the fathers children.

CoreyD said:
I don't understand this statement - the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent??
What do you mean? Can you explain. <-- This is a snippet: here is the full sentence: childeye 2 said:
I therefore do not accept the premise that the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent.
CoreyD said:
I don't understand this statement - the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent??
What do you mean? Can you explain.
childeye 2 said:
The Satan is the one that conveyed we have the choice/option to disobey God and not die.

CoreyD said:
You appear to be saying the woman did not have a choice in the matter, and could not exercise her freedom of choice... she had none.
Is that what you are saying?
childeye 2 said:
The scripture is saying she was deceived into doing it. You know that don't you? It's not like she would volunteer to be deceived. Did you know that Jesus came down to destroy the works of the devil?

CoreyD said:

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

Click to expand...

The record shows we're having a communication breakdown, because "will" in scripture is a desire/intent, NOT an ability to choose.​

​

Analysis of Syntactical Disconnection, Term Morphing, and miscommunication​

1. Initial Claim​

• CoreyD: “I referred to the scriptures which refer to man's free will, repeatedly. Leviticus 1:3.”
• Problem: Leviticus 1:3 uses nedābâh (“freewill offering”), which is an adjective describing voluntariness of an act, not a noun establishing a metaphysical faculty.
• Morphing: CoreyD lifts “freewill” out of its syntactical context (adjective modifying “offering”) and morphs it into a noun phrase “man’s free will” (faculty of choice).

2. Response Clarifying Syntax​

• childeye 2: “A ‘voluntary’ or ‘freewill’ choice/decision (an adjective).”
• Point: Correctly identifies that “freewill” in Leviticus is adjectival, describing the manner of the offering.
• Disconnect: CoreyD interprets this as agreement with his philosophical construct, but syntactically it is not the same.

3. Morphing into Faculty​

• CoreyD: “From your comment, you agree then, that an unforced choice/decision, is an exercising of free will. Yes?”
• Problem: He morphs “voluntary” (adjective) into “exercising free will” (noun phrase = faculty).
• Disconnect: He assumes voluntariness = autonomous faculty, which is a semantic leap.

4. Counter with Contextual Meaning​

• childeye 2: “Not really. The context of Jesus saying, ‘Ye are of your father the devil…’ implies the character of the father manifests in the children.”
• Point: Returns to contextual meaning—will = predisposed intent or desire, shaped by spiritual influence.
• Disconnect: CoreyD expects agreement on “faculty of free choice,” but childeye 2 insists on contextual predisposition.

5. Further Miscommunication​

• CoreyD: “I don’t understand this statement—the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent??”
• Problem: CoreyD interprets “choice/option” as evidence of free will (faculty).
• childeye 2: “I therefore do not accept the premise that the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent.”
• Point: Argues that the serpent introduced the illusion of autonomous choice, not Scripture.
• Disconnect: CoreyD reads “choice” as proof of freedom; childeye 2 reads “choice” as deception.

6. Final Breakdown​

• CoreyD: “You appear to be saying the woman did not have a choice… she had none.”
• Morphing: Equates deception with absence of choice, still within the “faculty of free will” framework.
• childeye 2: “The scripture is saying she was deceived into doing it… It’s not like she would volunteer to be deceived.”
• Point: Maintains that her will was predisposed and manipulated, not freely autonomous.
• Disconnect: CoreyD insists on freedom as faculty; childeye 2 insists on predisposition and deception.

Summary of Morphing​

• Lexical context:
  • Free = voluntariness (adjective/adverb).
  • Will = predisposed intent or desire (noun).
• Morphing:
  • CoreyD fuses them into “free will” = autonomous faculty.
  • childeye 2 resists, keeping them in contextual syntax (voluntariness + predisposed desire).
• Syntactical disconnection:
  • CoreyD treats adjectives as nouns (faculty).
  • childeye 2 treats them as modifiers (manner/intent).
  • Result: They talk past each other—one in philosophy, the other in grammar/context.

stevevw said:

What do you think of the Billy Graham crusades. I think this was a time of religious revival. At least in the US. But I think also in my country Australia. Possible across the west.

Click to expand...

The Billy Graham crusades seem different from street preaching, to me, because they were held in a stadium or convention hall, and people chose to attend them. When I think of a street preacher, I think of a guy standing on a sidewalk or street corner holding a sign, or walking up to strangers to interrogate them. Those feel like different activities.

I thought Billy Graham was an excellent preacher, in the classic Southern Baptist tradition. I heard him preach in person several times, and on TV many times.

Benaiah468 said:

This prayer movement will culminate in the return of Jesus, the salvation of all Israel, and the completion of G-d's Kingdom ‘on earth as it is in heaven.’

Click to expand...

The House of Israel, all 12

ThatRobGuy said:

I didn't say they shoved her out, I said they should've made an effort to get her to stay (instead of laughing about the fact that she's leaving)

Click to expand...

And how do you make such an effort when you have no idea she is going to do it?

stevevw said:

No I don't want to disvow its special status as a material that lasts and is obviously the best available to work with if you want quality. I am disagreeing with your assumption that this was the only reason.

Click to expand...

You claimed it lined certain shafts and chambers because of their electrical properties. I was merely pointing out that the prestige and implied wealth of using granite was a better explanation. It as if you said the pyramid was capped with gold because it was a conductor, when ostentatious display of wealth and power would be better. (I've heard the capped with gold claim before, though I don't think it is still thought to be the case.)

stevevw said:

Why, I am simply pointing out the other issue that was discussed on this thread. That I discussed. You forget I am talking to 3 or 4 others and have to keep track. I was merely clarifying which is good. It actually ensures the right topic. You only have one issue to be concerned about. I have several.
Obviously lol.
Thanks for the lesson on batteries lol.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you've learned it. Batteries, like piezoelectric crystals, can't be a power source unless they are wired together. The trunk-load of batteries and the quartz crystals in granite aren't wired together and you can't make an electrical power source out of them.

stevevw said:

So I asked Ai exactly your claim but in reverse (is Granite is a piezoelectric power source) and this was the return.

Yes, granite can be a piezoelectric power source because it contains quartz, which exhibits piezoelectric properties. When subjected to mechanical stress, granite can generate an electric charge. This phenomenon can be used to harvest energy from natural forces like seismic activity or from man-made pressure and vibrations.

Click to expand...

Your "AI" (artificial idiot) is slamming random things together. "quartz has piezoelectric properties" + "granite contains quartz" + your leading question + a dash of your favorite nutters and their "electric pyramid nonsense" in the "training data" and you get responses like this. LLMs (like the "AI chatbots") are useful tools, but they are just that, tools. GIGO or if you don't know how to use it you will get nonsense results.

stevevw said:

What your not acknowledging is that these random jumbled up crystals can be brought into harmony with certain conditions. The papers I linked mention this. Such as acoustics or an electrical charge onto the pyramid.

Click to expand...

How?

stevevw said:

Harnessing geothermal and piezoelectric properties of stone for sustainable electricity generation
Abstract
This study introduces a novel hybrid system in which piezoelectric and geothermal properties are integrated into basalt and quartz stones to generate green electricity. The same is satisfied by the energy conversion capability, high thermal holding capacity, and the strong piezoelectricity of quartz.

Harnessing geothermal and piezoelectric properties of stone for sustainable electricity generation - Scientific Reports

This study introduces a novel hybrid system in which piezoelectric and geothermal properties are integrated into basalt and quartz stones to generate green electricity. The same is satisfied by the energy conversion capability, high thermal holding capacity, and the strong piezoelectricity of...

www.nature.com

When Quartz is squeezed directly, mechanical stress leads to an electric charge, while inversely, an applied electric field causes the material to generate mechanical vibrations. This creates the opportunity for energy harvesting,
It’s On: What do the Fraser River and the Great Pyramid Have In Common? - Science World
I was speaking of the global location. Not within that location. The global and local environments and conditions each have their own independent effects. The glocal effect is associated with the pyramids being globally located where the electromagnetic waves are.

Click to expand...

lol

stevevw said:

The generation of electricity requires the pyramid to vibrate always. Hence the location at which the electromagnetic waves are more on the surface of the globe are chosen to be the perfect sites for the pyramid. The pyramid at Giza is standing on the underwater currents of the river Nile plus on a location where high electromagnetic flux lines can be measured and felt. This provides the vibrations required for the crystals to vibrate at all times.

The Overall Science behind the Pyramid – IJERT

The Overall Science behind the Pyramid - written by K. S. Vishwanath Vashisht published on 2016/11/03 download full article with reference data and citations

www.ijert.org

I said 'what did others say'. Surely you listen to others.

Click to expand...

lol

stevevw said:

So what about the images and testimony under oath. Lying is a serious offense. This is the other kind of evidence which is experiencial in nature. Someone is giving an eye witness testimony. Either they are making it up, deluded or its real. When you get severak very dredible eye witnesses it gives weight to the experiencial evidence. When the belief persists after interegation and analysis then its a qualified belief.

Click to expand...

What "eyewitness testimony"? Pyramids have been there for millennia.

stevevw said:

Sometimes eye witness testimony makes the difference in a case. Its treated seriously enough to be a line of evidence in the legal system. It is the basis of Christ and the bible which has stood the test of time. Tests have been done that show the same brain patterns for real events are utilised in their experiences and not coming for the dream or imagination or emotional area of the brain.

Click to expand...

Though this is not on topic, it is also false. Eye witnesses are *not* good sources. Our knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth is not based on eyewitness testimony anyway. I suggest you go read a proper source on the origins of the Gospels. But there is no need to discuss it here as it is not the topic.

stevevw said:

I don't think we should underestimate experiencial evidence. Then you start to have to undermine the sanity of good people and start creating conspiracies just to discredit them. Without a shred of evidence.

Click to expand...

Which is utterly irrelevant to the principle (ancient, unknown civilizations) and secondary claims (lost ancient rock shaping technology) you have made in this thread.

SabbathBlessings said:

it was his own disobedience that killed him, doing something that God told them not to

Click to expand...

As it does all of us, ever since it was unleashed in the Garden

Lybrah said:

Believe it or not, there are teachers who do not want to teach this to children, and “they should just quit” in not an acceptable response.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this whole debacle puts all kinds of people in difficult positions professionally as well as violations of one’s own moral conscience.

If there is someone I know who I know is not presenting as their biological sex. I avoid pronouns altogether. I have a problem pretending something is true that I know isn’t.

I know a couple of “trans” people and at least the one I know well, has not said anything to me about my lack of pronoun use.

It’s actually a very sad situation. This is a fellow veteran who’s now been in a locked psych unit at a VA facility for almost 3 months now….basically in order to keep her alive.

And I think I’m pretty much the only person who goes to see her? One other vet has been up there. She’s always “happy” to see me.

It kills me though because where’s all the “trans allies” blah blah blah. No it’s the conservative Christian (who voted for Trump on top of it) who’s visiting her basically because I don’t want to see her die!

Last visit, we spent an hour and half listening to Christian music on her phone. She said the songs help her feel better.

❤️‍ So… yeah.

Apple Sky said:

But he does.

Click to expand...

But he doesn't.

zoidar said:

The text does not explain why they listen and learn, why they are God-taught. It simply presents these as qualities of those whom God draws.

Click to expand...

Because the Father draws them

ChubbyCherub said:

You've explained it well here but still..................I have to pray about it. It's a hard thing to understand

Click to expand...

Yes, it can be difficult!

God is a uniplural word
Man is a uniplural word

The whole creation of Man with its billions, upon billions of lives, is still one.

The same as looking at God with Three in the Godhead is still One

A uniplural noun is a word that appears in the plural form but is used for singular and plural subjects alike.

May the Holy Spirit guide your understanding’

Palmfever said:

Yes.
He drew "ALL MEN.'

He did not pick and choose.
'For God so loved the 'world.'

Click to expand...

So it's not about their freewill. It's Christ will and power

partinobodycular said:

This is where you and I disagree, because I don't think that's true. To me mercy isn't about what someone deserves, it's about what we as victims are willing to forgive, in spite of what they deserve. For me, that's what being a Christian is all about... to do justly... to love mercy... and to walk humbly with thy God. And I can't help but believe that that last bit isn't just talking about my God, or your God, but anybody's God. Do those three things, and you're a Christian, simply because of what you do, and not because of what you call yourself. Thus it can say 'agnostic' in my profile and I trust that in God's eyes it really doesn't matter... His mercy will come regardless.

Click to expand...

I think I’m pretty damn merciful.

partinobodycular said:

So who are these people? Who are these Pharisees? It wasn't the Gentiles that Jesus rebuked, or the Samaritans, or the tax collectors, or even the Romans. But there was something about the Pharisees in particular that Jesus disliked. To me it's their strict adherence to the law, and the little room that this left for mercy. Yes, Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more, but only after showing her mercy.

This is why I told you to look in the mirror, because you seem to be someone who's too preoccupied with with every jot and tittle of a book that can actually be reduced down to two simple commandments... 'love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.'

If I've misjudged you, then please accept my apology.

Click to expand...

Back in the day, they did not have fanciful, scientific words like narcissist and psychopath, so in the Biblical universe, they are called Pharisees. In other words, what you would call an archetype.

It’s interesting that in the story about the adulteress, the mob had the intellectual capacity to consider if the law applies to them as well, in a broader sense maybe, and the fear of God enough to change their ways. The Pharisees had neither of those qualities and only used the law for their own end like modern public servant.

I think what is talked about here is relevant as well.

comana said:

https://disneyland.disney.go.com/park-rules/#guest-courtesy-and-attire-policies

Guest Courtesy and Attire Policies​

• Proper attire, including shoes and shirts, must be worn at all times. Clothing that drags on the ground is prohibited in theme parks. Clothing with multiple layers is subject to search. We reserve the right to deny admission to or remove any person wearing attire that we consider inappropriate or attire that could detract from the experience of other Guests. Visible tattoos that could be considered inappropriate, such as those containing objectionable language or designs, are not permitted. There are specific costume guidelines for special events such as Halloween parties; please refer to the additional policies applicable to those events.

Current single day ticket prices range from $104-$224 per person. I guess if they want to spend that kind of money just to “trigger the libs” and also get thrown out of the park, go for it.

---

Click to expand...

Best way to trigger the libs is to self-own.

For example, look at the current state of the economy.

eleos1954 said:

The "rapture" is the first resurrection .... there is no "secrete rapture" ... personally I don't like or use the term. There are two resurrections.

Click to expand...

Not according to the authoritative apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 1:16),

unless the rebirth from eternal death into eternal life by the sovereign will (as unaccountable as the wind, Jn 3:6-8) of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5) is referred to metaphorically as a "resurrection" in the prophetic riddle (Nu 12:6-8) of Rev.

I would consider what my faith community is doing as a whole and consider how to help serve it. If people are being led to the Lord, something must be going right. I’m speaking in broad generalities & realize life circumstances affect how we can do this.

Hentenza said:

The site has a total of 442,000 posts site wide not 140 million,

Click to expand...

Sorry I posted the number wrong.

So you've read through 140,600,000 posts already

Click to expand...

Yarddog said:

Military personnel take an oath to the Constitution. It is also for military operations. Of course, they also have rules of engagement, which are far stricter than what police officers are supposed to follow.

Click to expand...

Military personnel do not have the authority to interpret the Constitution, however.
No military court is going to rule a presidential order as "unconstitutional."
That's never going to happen.
That is out of their jurisdictional wheelhouse.

Yarddog said:

I understand death. What military rule allows the military to kill civilians. There is nothing in the videos supplied to the public which shows any attempt to stop or disable the boats without killing the occupants. It has also not been provided to Congress.

Click to expand...

The military kills civilians all the time. What are you talking about?

Wow….

Login to view embedded media
26 minutes

bling said:

Since God has the power to send the Devil and his messengers to hell, why were they ever allowed to spent time on earth?
What is their purpose for being here?

Click to expand...

See Ro 9:22-23.

BCP1928 said:

What about the enlisted men who followed Calley's orders?

Click to expand...

Some of them faced court-martial, but none of them was convicted.

The Calley case was the specific issue that caused the DoD to greatly enhance its Law of Armed Conflict training as I knew it (and taught it) during my career. Immense emphasis was placed on the soldiers understanding what an "illegal order" specifically is, what an "illegal order" would look like in their specific military specialties, and that they had a duty to disobey an illegal order.

For instance, the specific kinds of things that would be criminal in my task of targeting nuclear weapons in a major command headquarters are different from the kinds of things that would be criminal for an infantry soldier in the field.

The military judicial system has some interesting differences from the civilian judicial system, and one of them is that justifiable ignorance of the law is a defense. That's why military leadership advises troops of their duties "nine ways from Sunday and on every Monday," because if the troop can prove his ignorance or confusion was reasonable, he may walk.

In the case of Calley's soldiers, the military courts realized that there was too much confusion of who did what and who knew what in that moment of "fog of war" to convict anyone else.

BCP1928 said:

I don't think that philosophical judgements are being called for and that for most soldiers the problem does not even arise, but it might, and it puts the soldiers themselves in a difficult position. It's not merely a "philosophical position" that a National Guard soldier should not shoot his own unarmed fellow citizens, even they they have gotten away with it in the past.

Click to expand...

I keep saying: You are posting things for which specific laws already exist. There are already specific laws covering "shooting his own unarmed fellow citizens." So, no, that would call for philosophical judgments. Y'all keep doing that. Everything you think of is already covered by existing laws and would be "illegal orders."

My point continues to be: Trump is never going to issue a clearly "illegal order." His lawyers are smarter than that. They are going to nuance the hell out of his orders, so that they will call for philosophical judgments from Corporal Snuffy Smith.

ChubbyCherub said:

My church really endorses NIV which is contrary to their guest speakers. It is non-denominational.

Click to expand...

Could the guest speakers have been trying to sell other versions of the Bible? If some people at your church might have bought one, that is fine activity, but you do not need to let it prevent you from just using the best one for you.

NIV Bible - New International Version - they have a fine looking website there, with a blog that looks especially helpful for articles about application to life.

What is the New International Version (NIV)? | GotQuestions.org - and here is Got Questions? website on the NIV.

This is an easy summary of different translation styles:

• Formal Translation: A very word-for-word translation that often uses formal, more archaic language (example: the King James Version or NASB);
• Dynamic Translation: A thought-for-thought translation (example: NIV or NLT);
• Paraphrase Translation: An idea-for-idea translation that involves much more interpretation from the translator (example: The Message);

from here.

NIV is a Dynamic translation, so it is formed in English to blend easy readability with what the original languages said. Here is the NIV websites' own answer about which original texts were used "The translators of the NIV have used the Old Testament and New Testament texts that are widely accepted among modern scholars as giving the committee the best possible access to what God inspired in the original documents.

For the Old Testament the Masoretic Text, the standard Hebrew text as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica, has been used throughout. The NIV translators have sometimes used variants of the Hebrew Masoretic tradition or other ancient versions, where these seemed to provide a superior text than the Masoretic tradition. These are all noted in the NIV translator footnotes that appear at the bottom of the page of the text that they reference.

For the New Testament, the translators have used the accepted Greek New Testament text as printed in the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testaments. Here also the translators have occasionally accepted a variant printed in these editions. Footnotes usually indicate the options in each case."