Say it aint so said:

Musk ran DOGE. DOGE was a disaster. It never cut the amounts of money they said they would, even then they pulled back on those numbers. Recall the Musk political rally where it was announced all these impending arrest....and then crickets. There were more costs to be saved if they just kept the department IGs in place and followed their cost saving assessments. Instead they hired kids who didn't know you know what from apple butter. And now what little savings they found will cost the tax payers all the lawsuit of all those wrongly employees fired.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with his success as a businessman?

Gambling in and of it self isn't a sin. It's a sin if you're using money that you need that needs to go else where (priorities). Like, if you have a family and you're short on cash, you aren't supposed to then go and spend money on gambling. Because you are required to take care of your family and their needs before anything else. Even if you don't have a family, your needs first still applies but I would say you're running a higher risk of God stepping in with corrections with a family due to the fact that family is supposed to be put first and he holds that to a higher standard.

JohnB445 said:

Could a Christian also ever be involved in the gambling business? Although some people move on, for others it destroys lives and they wished they never gambled. or is gambling seen as a legitimate business just like farmers?

Click to expand...

Not a legitimate business. Consider it like this, everything given to us was given to us by God. So essentially, all the money you have is given by God. Using some money for frivolous spending is fine if you can afford it, but using it as a business is not because of what you stated, it can destroy lives. You are gambling your life, your families life and if you have any kids, their life on a regular basis. Gambling has a massive higher probability to fail and like the saying goes, "the house always wins". God prefers people to do an honest work (like farming) and with the stakes being so high, I just can't see anything in scripture that would back up an idea that gambling as a business would be okay but I do see a lot of the contrary due to the priorities that God has already established.

The Liturgist said:

I do realize the subject of AI is a bit complex to take in, because addressing it and understanding it even at a basic level requires us to simultaneously consider computer science and philosophy, since AI does simulate human interactions without being human, and a naive or unwise person might not begin to appreciate the many implications of this simulation, which I would propose are actually so manifold and complex that we have not even identified all of them; far less have we ourselves been able to fully appreciate the impact of AI.

And I will admit my own work on anthropomimetic systems that reproduce using a biomimetic trait exchange process further complicates the matter, since sexually dimorphic reproduction has hitherto only been seen in biological life, which AI is not.

Click to expand...

If AI's think exactly like humans, it will form bad religious cults on their own.

I prefer they don't reason like humans. It would be bad.

ViaCrucis said:

I could have put this in a Christians-only section, but I wanted this open to non-Christians.

Somewhat recently I had an experience at my work; for context I work at a popular retail warehouse store, I don't work for them but I do work in that warehouse, along with vendors of other companies who operate in the same space. A lot of people from different companies all operate within the same space, and naturally we interact with one another on a regular basis. As such I've built up friendly relationships with a lot of people who I interact with regularly.

Over several months I have interacted with a certain individual, it's always casual always friendly, but they work for a different company than I do. However several weeks ago this individual gave me a card, it had a pretty picture of sunflowers on it, and I didn't think much of it, I smiled, thanked them, made a comment about needing more sunshine in my life, that sort of thing. I slipped the card away and didn't really take a look at it until after work. Well, it was a Gospel tract disguised as a card.

Receiving religious material isn't the weirdest thing that's happened to me at my job, but usually it's customers leaving things on a cart, or slipped between food items to be found by a random passerby.

But this particular experience gave me pause and a thought: Has this individual's actions and behavior toward me, their demeaner, their friendliness (etc) been part of an attempt at proselytizing. I mean, I'm a Christian and the card/tract was generically Christian enough that I have no idea what denomination they are part of. I wasn't offended obviously, but it led me to wonder to what degree their interactions with me came from sincere comradery, or whether it is a kind of "missionary" tactic.

I may not have thought this except that, growing up in a particular kind of Christian environment, missionary-friendship and missionary-relationships were considered a valid "tactic" at trying to make converts. So that background does mean that I am aware that this is something that exists. It's not part of my current religious practice, but it was in the background I was raised in.

And I guess here's the point: When I thought about this, I felt a kind of betrayal. As though this person had been insincere in their interactions with me, I felt like a target, or an objective--not a person. And again, I wasn't angry, I wasn't particularly offended, but I felt dehumanized--even if just slightly.

As I was thinking about all of this again this evening, I wanted to open up this topic more broadly. Because I have a feeling many people--especially people outside of my religion--know exactly the feelings I felt, and I thought this could be a good topic of discussion. And ideally, a way for Christians like me to learn more, take feedback, and consider the ethics of religious outreach.

A secondary thought I had in all this: In some ways I feel like I would prefer a total stranger leaving a tract or pamphlet than someone who has been regularly interacting with me. There is a sense in which now I question and doubt the sincerity in friendliness of this person that I didn't before. And that's kind of an awful feeling to have. I'm not angry with them, or offended, but I now doubt their authenticity toward me. And I feel like this experience I had might provide me with a slight amount of insight and empathy with those who experience this more regularly.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Did they stop being friendly after he gave you the tract or is their attitude toward you still the same?

rambot said:

Lol
Why do you think they'd just let you get up and walk away?

Click to expand...

For someone who clearly knows that this has nothing to do with gerrymandering, you sure seem interested in continuing this meaningless discussion.

rambot said:

Expect there to be a fresh new distraction/ controversy that will keep the public preoccupied.

Click to expand...

Oh, of course. Goes without saying.

That all being said, I’m not sure it’s a tactic, but just the reality of the administration we are under. The man is incapable of facilitating unity, acting with prudence, or even being anything other than a bull in a china shop. His baseline is chaos and drama.

Apple Sky said:

I think 'strong in him' mean't satellite dishes, as nope, I have never seen a satellite in the sky.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right; I did.
But just because you have never seen a satellite, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In the same way, just because the sun doesn't look as though it's 93,000,000 miles away, it doesn't mean that it isn't.

A lot of this phenomenon was going around in Al Capone's time.

Lol. It's SOOOOOO hard to take conservatives seriously about fiscal responsibility when I read news articles and threads like this.

rambot said:

And measles vaccine.
and penicillin
and radiation as a cancer treatment
And any medication you put into your body.
And every medical treatment you've ever received.

Click to expand...

No argument there.

fhansen said:

Exactly, that's why a body walking must be born again.

Click to expand...

The body is not born again.
Regeneration is of one's spirit, from eternal death to eternal life by the sovereign will (as unaccounable as the wind, Jn 3:6-8) of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5).

fhansen said:

Well, not to Christ in His conversation with Nicodemus.

Click to expand...

As a Catholic, your understanding of material vs. spiritual in Jn 3:3-8. should be as least as good as that of a Protestant.

fhansen said:

Again,
"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses."

So, now, why would that be?

Click to expand...

Because of the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16) to all those of Adam (Ro 5:18-19). . .and which imputation was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteousness of Christ to all those of Christ (Ro 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 5:18-19, Php 3:9).

So, dispense with Enoch as scriptures because there was not a quote from it...

That would dispense with a lot of books we acknowledge as part of the Bible. Maybe that is not such a good argument as you thought it was. I can dispense with apocrypha being scriptures as I find contradictions to scriptures in them, and internal inconsistencies. What is found for that in 1 Enoch? I am looking at it and yet not finding it myself. And about not being quoted, Enoch was quoted. Certainly by Jude, speaking of it as being from Enoch. And there is more than that passage used in the new testament though without Enoch being named. So why did Jesus even say that angels in heaven do not give themselves in marriage? Where was that from? Just special inside knowledge Jesus chose to use, this time? Where else does Jesus do that... with those not believing anyway? His whole point is that those Sadducees do not know scriptures that they should. Not a great time to mention a concept not from scriptures that would be his very special knowledge exclusively. I am not buying that. If I should, you have much more explaining to do. Let's even look at what is said in 1 Enoch.

I do see the same such arguments that Jesus did not speak the name of God, that was to always be remembered, to his disciples. I'm getting familiar with these ways from others, maybe this is meant for me, to know their ways and recognize them for what they are.

Desk trauma said:

On to the next test case.

Click to expand...

IANAL, but it was my understanding that Davis, being one of the few people 'harmed' by Obergefell, was probably the conservatives' best bet to overturn it. Just saying "I don't like this." does not get you standing.

rjs330 said:

Evey video I have watched regarding ICE and people trying to stop them is horrendous and vile. Filled with hatred and vitriol.

You dont see people doing that to illegal immigrants.

Click to expand...

The pet-eating narco-terrorists?

contratodo said:

Yes, the light source is the sun, the following image shows an approximation of what they experienced and why there is always light at that time of year in that spot.

View attachment 372951
The little gray dot is an approximation of where they are and the orange shows the path of the sun, at different times of year that path widens and moves, thus different parts of the land get different amounts of light.

My drawing is not a perfect representation, and from looking at the videos more closely now, in the 360 view on my phone, the path is more directly over them than what I drew, from what we can see in the videos the sun looks to be pretty much over them the whole time, it really does not look like it is millions of miles away, but rather circling directly above them. For some reason the path of the sun gets close to that spot at certain times of year, then moves back and expands at other times of the year.
The correction my image needs is for the path to be over the grey dot.

Click to expand...

So why do people in the Northern and Southern Polar regions both state that the sun appears in the sky during night time hours at certain periods in the year?

Because that cannot be explained by a flat earth.

Job 33:6 said:

I would say that these verses are about moving things, separating, organizing, structuring. As opposed to material objects simply coming into existence. Light, like darkness, particularly in old testament times, were not viewed as physical objects as we think of them today in terms of photons.

Click to expand...

We don't create the wool we buy and then knit into something, right J?

However, we know the wool we buy wasn't always there.
We know the wool we buy comes from the fleece of sheep and other animals such as goats, rabbits, alpacas, llamas, camels, and even some species of cows.
The manufacturers of the wool created it from existing material.

Would we say the sheep, goats, rabbits, alpacas, llamas, camels, and cows always existed?
No. We wouldn't say that. We know they had a beginning. They came into existence.

Though things can be created from things already in existence, it doesn't mean the thing in existence was not created, or did not come into existence, does it.
Light emitters do come into existence, don't they. We see that in reality.
There is always a source of light.

The Bible says of God, at Psalm 90:2... Before the mountains were born or You brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting You are God.
So, God is everlasting. He has always existed. He is the beginning and the end. Revelation 21:6
Hence God has no beginning, but always is.

Psalm 36:9 says, For with thee is the fountain of life: In thy light shall we see light.
We know David is referring to spiritual light - that is, God's direction, just as he says in Psalm 119:105, because we can see physical light all around us, including the ones God so lovingly made available to us. Genesis 1:14-18

Darkness therefore, is consumed by both God, and the physical lights we see.
That darkness always existed, is a reasonable conclusion, and because we know God always existed, light always existed.
However, sunlight and moonlight did not always exist. They were created, or came into existence.
Do we agree on this?

Job 33:6 said:

Genesis 1:3-4, 6-7, 9-10 ESV
[3] And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. [4] And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.

Click to expand...

Light on the earth from the sun is indeed separated from the darkness on the earth, isn't it.

Job 33:6 said:

[6] And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” [7] And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.

Click to expand...

How refreshing it would be to have water above the expanse - our atmosphere, to cool things down considerably.
Using vertically high resolved satellite observations from radio occultation, we focus on the temperature impact in the stratosphere from the [Hunga volcano] eruption in January 2022 until December 2023. Separating the signals of the Hunga eruption from the broader stratospheric variability reveals a strong persistent radiative cooling of up to –4 K in the tropical and subtropical middle stratosphere from early after the eruption until mid-2023, clearly corresponding to the water vapor distribution. Our results provide new insights from observations into both the localized temperature changes and the persistent stratospheric cooling caused by the Hunga eruption and document this exceptional climatic effect not seen for previous volcanic eruptions.

Job 33:6 said:

[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Click to expand...

I imagine there were many seas when God started moving the land.

Job 33:6 said:

I would say that these verse are more about organizing, separating, ordering things. Rather than ex nihilo creating things. Gathering waters, separating them, separating light from dark.

Click to expand...

My question here is, would you say the waters were created by God, or the water had no beginning?
Would you deny that God created the waters that covered the earth?

Job 33:6 said:

And we see this elsewhere as well:
Psalm 104:2, 5 ESV
[2] covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent.
[5] He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.

Taking the heavens that are already there and stretching them out.

Click to expand...

My question here would be, would you deny that God created the heavens and then stretched them out?
Would you object to that?
Isaiah 44:24
This is what the LORD says, He who is your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb: “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth alone,

Job 33:6 said:

Or here is an interesting one:
Wisdom of Solomon 11:17
For your all-powerful hand, which created the world out of formless matter, did not lack the means to send upon them a multitude of bears or bold lions.

Click to expand...

Sounds like something someone plagiarized and adjusted.
I would not use text like these that are known to be later additions to the existing Canon
Why would you use "deuterocanonical" writings, when they have "myriads of inconsistencies"?

Job 33:6 said:

When we look at old testament texts closely, we see this theme come out again and again. The material, the formless earth. It was already there.

Click to expand...

Remember, Wisdom of Solomon is not an "Old Testament" writing.
It does not belong to the protocanonical writings, and are questionable.
Regardless, though formless does not mean nonexistent, as you acknowledged. Nor does it mean 'was not created'.
Like you said, the pizza needs work even after you slap and roll the dough into shape.
It now need toppings and baking, but it's still your creation, isn't it.

Job 33:6 said:

Wisdom of Solomon was in the 1611 King James Version of the Bible as apocrypha or deuterocononical, but either way, it gives us a window or a reference into the ancient world and how things were viewed back then.

Click to expand...

I'm interested to know... How were things viewed, J.

Valletta said:

The media is starting to get pressure to stop covering up violence by transgenders.

Click to expand...

No it's not. It's reporting all the events that were happenningt bvefore.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the mystery of the Holy Trinity is “the central mystery of Christian faith and life” and “the most fundamental and essential teaching.”1 But how can fallen human beings hope to comprehend “a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone”?2 For those who do not delight in reading theological textbooks, a recently canonized saint offers a practical guide to the truth of Trinitarian theology.

Click to expand...

Pommer said:

Yes, how could we blow up fishing narco-terrorist’s boats with a measly $600B defense budget?

Click to expand...

It can be done, just get in closer to machine gun range.

redraven said:

I agree that he should not have been killed. I also did not pay much attention to him. However, the fact he is now deceased does not change the fact he used Christianity as a cover for his bigoted opinions.

Defending Russia while claiming to be a Christian is basically Satanic.

I feel that Christians ought to be more responsible in condemning someone who used their faith recklessly and irresponsibly.

Silence is a form of complicity.

Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. Here's what I'm hearing from this particular response. Being a Christian or satanic isn't about following Christ, but about your views on Russia? Do I have that right?

concretecamper said:

See post #72

Click to expand...

Feel free to address its refutation in post #86, following:

Are you challenging the statement that Jesus is the "second person" of the Trinity" because it is not stated in the NT?
So where in the Bible do you find the word "Trinity"? . . .or "sovereign," for that matter?
Biblical truth is not necessariy presented in one simple statement.
So, you might start with sorting out what Jesus said:

The Son is subject to the Father, for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name (Jn 5:23, 36, 43).
The Spirit is subject to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (Jn 14:26).
The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (Jn 15:26, 16:7, 14:26, Ac 2:33).

If you can rectify Jesus' above revelation of the Trinity with Jesus being anything but the second person of the Trinity, feel free to show us how.

seeking.IAM said:

So much for draining the swamp, eh?

Click to expand...

Just following Biden's example.

Discussion is an interesting exchange among fellow humans. Debate is pointless.

Tellyontellyon said:

I believe in God.. but I don't know God. I don't know if God corresponds to any particular scriptures. How does one begin to sift through the different ideas to come to the truth.. what is the best way to approach the search?

Click to expand...

You know I was thinking of this very subject. How would a Christian explain Christianity or the message in the gospel or bible today. It seems a big topic and we hear about all the Christian apologetics let alone secular arguements about God and Christianity.

Its like how does anyone get any message out about anything in an age of info and rationalisations about what a Christian is, what is the right way. I mean we have 101 denominations all differing and arguing. No wonder people are bewilded.

Then I thought what happened in the early church. How did they get the message out. What was the message. Did they have appologetics. I mean they did not even have the bible apart from the old testament for much of the first century.

The disciples and especially Paul and others were going out more than ever to spread the message. So it wasn't as if there was no message they all knew to preach.

Then I realised it was so simple. They were witnesses and were being eye witnesses. They were giving an eye witness account of what happened and why. Thats it. The gospel. A simple message that Christ died and was raised again and that He sacrificed His life for us as sinners. That by believing this testimony you are saved.

Its so simple that we can miss it and complicate it. It is just repeating the eye witness testimony that we believe the same. We believe it really happened. From that all else flows.

When Paul speaks of the spirit and flesh you cannot know the spirit and flesh unless you live in Christs spirit. So it is the spirit that opens our eyes as we come closer to God. We can read something one day and then we understand. But the more we live in Christs spirit the more we understand. We will understand like the disciples understand because the spirit is for all and the same spirit.

I don't think its much more complicated than that because there are many people with varying abilities and some uneducated or with setbacks but can still understand. I don't think theres some complicated answer and its really the truth and real life if God is the God of life.

I think most people already know the truth and thats not always some arguement that makes it true according to some philsopher. I think its all contained within the bible. Early Christians did not have all the modern day arguements.

I am not saying comentary or appologetics doesn't help. It helps a lot in perhaps giving a more detailed response to the same basic truth. But I don't think we need that to believe the truth. Its more than that. That is why sometimes people will disagree. I mean how can two Christians disagree lol, they are suppose to be of one mind and spirit. I think keep it simple.

Another aspect to consider is that there are different personalities ie agreeable, assertive, disagreeable, introverted ect. Then you have personal experience. These can all influence the interaction and a confident liar can sometimes outsmart or play a not so sure truth teller.
Yes even in the church. They are the wolves and they are good at it so watch em. Just stay away lol.

But fundementally its about a belief and a sacrifice that have no winning arguement. Its taking on that belief that it renews your mind and you can see what cannot be seen and hear what cannot be heard by the world. I like Psalm 46:10 is fitting "Be still and know that I am God".