New Posts

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-22T21:56:31-0600

Sam266 said:
My conclusion is that we do survive the death of the body with our identity intact. So, there is an afterlife, but you have to read the book to get the full impact of the argument. It's not an easy read for people. I'll give some of the argument later in another thread.

That is not an evaluation of NDEs. It is a claim about an afterlife.

Apple Sky · 2025-11-22T21:53:39-0600

prodromos said:
The Bristol Channel is no more than 40 miles wide below Swansea

I'm not facing the Bristol Channel.

Vambram · 2025-11-22T21:49:06-0600

Yarddog said:
He doesn't care what the article says. He saw LGTBQ+ and the rest doesn't matter.

You are incorrect.

Clare73 · 2025-11-22T21:44:32-0600

concretecamper said:
Thank you for demonstrating your incorrect notion of philosophy as well as Theology

It falls to you to show the philosophical error, as well as the Scriptural basis regarding "free will,"
keeping in mind that man's will is not free to live sinlessly, at best his "free will" is only partial or limited.

Jipsah · 2025-11-22T21:36:26-0600

RDKirk said:
We know about the sight reading fiasco that the education industry hasn't given up yet.

Yeah, teaching a (pretty much) phoneticly written language as though it was Chinese characters was less than brilliant. There was a reason why the design for written Korean (Hangul) is purely phonetic. It's just inherently easier to learn

RDKirk said:
But in the 80s the "new math" concept is also a disaster.

AFAIK, Asians all teach columnar arithmetic, although I could be wrong. But I know they emphasize the "drill and kill" method of teaching maths, where you do the various operations in various forms and levels of complexity until they're as ingrained as the alphabet. They also requite the memorization of the multiplication table and various rules of operations, and beat them into the students heads by repetition. They prove the truth of the old axioms that "practice makes perfect" and "use makes mastery". But ask any "academic" why we don't use their proven effective methods as opposed to our succession of proven ineffective methods, and they'll give you a scholarly recitation of "reasons " why the Asian Paradign Just Won't Work Here. Apparently American kids are just genetically unable to understand methods that actually work everywhere tjhey're used.

RDKirk said:
I have to quickly point out that a change from the columnar arithmetic we learned up until the 80s to the relational arithmetic used in most of the rest of the world

I've never seen that one in use. The Korean kids I've turored all seem to their ciphering the same way I was taught back in the stone age, with some minor variations. Then again I don't tutor in Maths. Too many years as an engineer rendered me unable to add 2+2 without grabbing a calculator or writing a fortran function.

Tom D · 2025-11-22T21:30:52-0600

rebornfree · 2025-11-22T21:28:13-0600

RileyG said:
Thanks for sharing.

I thought in the UK it was normal to have prayer in public schools because they had a state religion? The more you know!

It was normal, in England, back in the sixties, when I was at school. We had a religious assembly before lessons with a hymn and prayer. Those of other religions (not many in those days) could opt out. Some students and teachers who didn’t believe just sat quietly but most of us joined in. At some point, between then and now, it stopped happening but I'm not sure when that was. Northern Ireland has always been more religious than the rest of the UK and, having it's own parliament, presumably kept the practise going for longer.

Btw what you call public schools is what we call state schools. I just mention that to prevent confusion. (Our public schools are expensive fee paying ones, like Eton and Harrow.)

rebornfree · 2025-11-22T21:19:40-0600

Franklin Graham is right and praise God for Jesus!

Dan Perez · 2025-11-22T21:15:12-0600

Hentenza said:
Actually it refers to the blood of Christ who provided the ultimate blood sacrifice for the redemption of our sins.

“And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood. | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.

bible.com

And in. MTT 26;29. BUT I will NOT / ME is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE. AND THAT. MEANS He will not ever

drink the fruit of the VINE WITH YOU IN MY FATHERS KINGDOM. and WAS SPEAKING TO JEWS and not too

the BODY OF CHRIST !!

And check Heb 9:18 and read SLOWLY. !!
dan p

CLEEB · 2025-11-22T21:11:48-0600

Akita Suggagaki said:
So we can renounce and shun any responsibility for this world?

How can you or I be responsible for a world that we have been called out of ? James 4:4 John 15:19 John 7:7 We had better renounce and shun responsibility for this world as we have been cleansed from being a part of it. Once cleansed don’t go back to wallowing in the mire.

FreeinChrist · 2025-11-22T21:04:14-0600

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a small clean up. Please avoid flaming.

FreeinChrist · 2025-11-22T20:51:43-0600

This is from Nate Silver's site

How popular is Donald Trump?

Silver Bulletin approval ratings for President Trump — and all presidents since Truman.

www.natesilver.net

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-22T20:45:25-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
There's two different strategic moves that can be played... Once I again, I see some the progressive wing of the Democratic party playing the wrong one (just like the did with Joe Manchin).

Mocking, laughing, and saying "good riddance". (while not having the foresight to see that given the demographics and political make-up for her region, she's certainly not going to be replaced by anyone left of center)

When the smart play now (just like it would've been the smart play with Joe Manchin) would be to say "hey, here's someone who we can actually work with on a few issues that could be a thorn in the side of some of Trump's agenda, even if we can get someone who's with us on 20% of the issues, that's outkicking our coverage compared to anything else we'll ever get from the GA-14 district, let's encourage her to stick around"

What do they think? She'll get replaced by an AOC-type progressive or a moderate republican who's less loyal to Trump? Fat chance...

Just like Manchin got replaced by Jim Justice (after the dems celebrated running him out of town), Marjorie will be most certainly be replaced an ever further right Trump loyalist who dems hate even worse, who will work with them 0% of the time instead of 20% of the time.

A prominent Democrat once said
"It's better to have a few big elephants inside our tent peeing out, than having all of the elephants outside the tent peeing in" (yes I know, it wasn't originally "peeing", I had to change it, the original sounds catchier lol)

Good grief, Rob.

The Dems didn't shove her out. They didn't try to primary her, etc. The Dems had nothing to do with this.

No one (and I mean no one) had any idea she would do this. There was talk of her running for higher office next year instead of for reelection next year, and she may yet do that, but there was no hit of this.

As for MTG, good riddance.

concretecamper · 2025-11-22T20:45:15-0600

Of course Truth can be known. Christ promised that the Paraclete will be with His Church forever.

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:
14:17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you.

DamianWarS · 2025-11-22T20:43:42-0600

Studyman said:
This is why, in my understanding, so many people argue with you sir. Because of foolish and untrue statement such as the one above. You can find not one word in any of my posts, where I defended the practice of cutting the loose skin off a penis for salvation, and it is my stated position that God doesn't care about the loose skin on a man's penis, contrary to the Pharisees assertion that HE did in the OT. He has always only cared about the heart of man. When HE commanded "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn" this was a command about the heart of man, not oxen. When HE speaks about cutting off the loose skin of a penis, it is a command concerning the fleshy heart of man, not the penis for crying out load. When Jesus said to drink His Blood and Eat His Flesh, it is a command about the heart of man, not sifting through the rubble in Jerusalem trying to find a piece of His flesh to eat.

Some men must feed the lust of an uncircumcised heart, to become a talebearer among the brethren, by accusing others of defending the Pharisees version of circumcision. You have free will to do so, But it isn't true. I was simply pointing out that Paul wasn't as obsessed as many are, with the physical practice. And that many times his reference to the word "circumcision" was concerning Moses teaching regarding the heart. And many times it was a reference to Jew or non-Jew, such as the case in 1Cor. 7. And sometimes it was a reference to the Literal practice. Like the verse below.

Rom. 2: 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles "through you", as it is written. 25 For circumcision verily profiteth, "if thou keep the law": but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

You are free to disagree, but please be honest about the words others post.

Sorry, your were a bit cryptic in your post, I couldn't figure out what your point was only that you seem to disagree with me and I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I should have clarified with you first. My motivation however was not trying to falsly accuse you or make something up that isn't true, but it's still my error.

David Hunter · 2025-11-22T20:41:57-0600

Are you asking but not receiving? On today's Devotional Saturday we'll go over what Jesus says about asking, seeking and knocking and what does it really mean!
Login to view embedded media

concretecamper · 2025-11-22T20:36:57-0600

JohnB445 said:
For example, a young man just starting college is murdered. He didn't get to live a long life, while someone else becomes a believer in their 40's.

The person in their 40's had more time to accept Jesus, yet the young man didn't. It seems unfair, but what does the Bible say?

Was the young man probably never would have been a believer anyway? Are we sometimes saved not only because we accepted Jesus, but by chance we survived long enough to accept Jesus as our God? Or does this not make any sense?

The bare minimum is the Sacrament of Baptism. If he ran out of time, too bad for him.

Paul4JC · 2025-11-22T20:35:46-0600

God bless you @ LoricaLady!

concretecamper · 2025-11-22T20:34:07-0600

Tom D · 2025-11-22T20:33:02-0600

Upon seeing Fred, the old man called out, "Young man, could you lend me a hand with this burden?" Fred hesitated, feeling the press of time on his shoulders. But seeing the old man's struggle, he decided to help. He nodded and approached the man. "Of course, sir," he replied, taking hold of the bag.

Together, they entered the old house. Fred saw that the house looked as if nobody had been living there for a long time.

The old man led Fred and Enzo through a hall and up a winding staircase. "We need to take this to the top floor," he explained. The house was four stories high, and the climb was arduous. The weight of the bag pressed heavily on Fred's shoulders.

As they ascended, Fred couldn't shake the feeling that something was off. The old man's eyes seemed to glint with a strange light, and his movements were almost too fluid, too graceful for someone of his apparent age. Fred wondered whether the old man was truly who he appeared to be.

Finally, they reached the top floor. The old man opened a door, revealing a room filled with strange, bubbling concoctions and mysterious equipment. Fred set the bag down with a sigh of relief, his muscles aching from the effort.

"Thank you, young man," the old man said. "Would you care to stay for lunch? I've prepared a meal that I'm sure you'll find delightful."

Fred hesitated. He was due for an appointment and knew he shouldn't be late. "I'm sorry, but I really must be going," he replied.

But the old man insisted, his eyes narrowing slightly. "Please, I insist. It would be a shame for you to leave without tasting my cooking." He gestured to a table laden with food.

Fred was tempted and hesitated. The food smelled wonderful, and his stomach growled in response. But then, his father's teachings rose up in his mind, reminding him of the importance of punctuality. He realized that he should not be late for his appointment.

"I'm sorry, but I must go," Fred said firmly, stepping back from the table. The old man's expression darkened, and for a moment, Fred thought he saw a flicker of anger in his eyes.

As Fred turned to leave, the old man's demeanour changed abruptly. With a swift motion, he pulled out a hidden bag of soporific powder and threw its contents at Fred. He stumbled backward, narrowly avoiding the powder. The old man's face twisted into a malicious grin.

Fred's heart pounded in his chest as he scrambled to find an escape. Just then, Enzo, sensing the danger, leaped at Ruggero, barking fiercely. The sudden attack caught Ruggero off guard, and he stumbled, giving Fred a precious moment to run.

Fred ran down the winding staircase. He could hear the old man chasing behind him.

Reaching the ground floor, Fred spotted an open window and made a split-second decision. He leaped through it, landing on the grass outside. Ignoring the pain, he scrambled to his feet and ran, with Enzo close on his heels.

Fred didn't stop running until he was far from the house. Then Fred resumed his journey.

The road ahead was blocked by a fallen tree, and a sign indicated that the path was closed to pedestrians. Fred sighed, realizing they would need to find yet another way. Consulting his map, he decided to take a longer route via a hill road that meandered up and around the forest.

The hill road was steep and rocky. Fred and Enzo trudged onward, their pace slowing as the sun climbed higher in the sky. Both Fred and Enzo became very tired and hungry.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Suddenly, a food hawker appeared, carrying two plates filled with wonderfully fragrant food. It seemed as though he was offering it to them. Driven by instinct, Enzo leapt forward without hesitation and began eating from one of the plates. Animals act on instinct, but humans are different—they can make conscious choices based on reason and emotion.

Unlike Enzo, Fred hesitated. His father’s teachings echoed in his mind, urging caution. He faced a dilemma where reason and emotion battled for control. Torn between his hunger and his father’s lessons, he struggled to decide. In a moment of prudence, he chose not to eat. The food, as it turned out, was soporific, and the hawker was none other than Ruggero in disguise. To Fred’s horror, Enzo collapsed and lay motionless. Only now did Fred realize—it had all been part of Ruggero’s sinister plot.

PTW · 2025-11-22T20:28:46-0600

Hercules

Angeleyes7715 · 2025-11-22T20:27:54-0600

Dave G. said:
Start by praying that God bring someone into your life who can lead you to or through what you need to be resolved. If they can't, they may know the one who can.

This happened to me actually, in 2013 or so.. The start of answered prayer started 3 days later .

I don't feel like I can pray right anymore. I'm scared I'm going to hell. I hallucinated audible demons. I have diagnosed schizophrenia but it felt so real.

Fervent · 2025-11-22T20:24:01-0600

Reluctant Theologian said:
The Quran was standardised twice; by Utman (around 650 CE) when he ordered any other deviating copies around to be burned, and later again in 1924 in Egypt. After 650 CE vowel symbols and pronunciation markers were added in the 8th century CE; originally the Quran was written without those markers. The 1924 standardisation also mainly deals with these markers, not the actual words themselves.

Interestingly it's highly likely the Hebrew TNK/OT Masoretic text with the pronunciation/vowel markers was produced after they noticed how succesful the Quranic addition of pronunciation markers was ... so it seems the Masoretes copied the method from the Islamic world even though the meaning of the markers in the Hebrew text is different from those in the Quran.

But still . .when comparing the earliest versions of Quran manuscripts available with the latest texts - the stability is higher (but please feel free to correct/show me otherwise). Another interesting bit is that printing was used for the Bible from the 15th century CE, but for the Quran printing only started in the 18th century CE (!!) - that's a lot later. When manually copying, the Bible is just much harder to copy (2 different languages and 10 times the volume in characters) - so naturally the fault rate per whole volume is expected to be higher.

Perhaps in a sense there is a higher fidelity, though that is at least a product of survivorship bias given the penchant for destruction of variants. But as far as I am aware, there isn't as open of a process for critical scholarship regarding the manuscripts that do exist. Also, there is the issue of what constitutes a variant given the dialect variance that exists within the manuscripts and the tolerance for at least seven distinct Arabic dialects or "readings". And in addition to the issues you mentioned, there is the unity of the text that is also in play given the relatively late collection into a single codex for the Bible compared to the Qu'ran. My minor quibble with what you had said was simply because it appeared to express a confidence in the Qu'ranic texts that the comparitive interest in critical scholarship creates a slight bias. There is also the issue of the oldest extant manuscript displaying a massive amount of variance from the later standardized texts from chapter order, number, and variant readings beyond the recognized "acceptable" variations.

sovereigngrace · 2025-11-22T20:19:56-0600

Marilyn C said:
Hi Daniel,

Have you ever considered that `Jerusalem` above is made up of two parts - Mount Zion and the city, the New Jerusalem.

`But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,...` (Heb. 12: 22)

Mount Zion is where the Lord Jesus rules from His own throne. His Father has set Him there.

`I have set my King on my holy hill of Zion.` (Ps. 2: 6) `...a throne set in heaven, and one sat on the throne..` (Rev. 4: 2)

The city part is for the Old Testament Saints.

`But they desire a better, that is a heavenly country. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.` (Heb. 11: 16)

So...Mount Zion is the seat of the Lord`s rule and in the highest, with His Body of believers.

`To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with me on my throne...` (Rev. 3: 21)

Then the city part comes down out of the highest heaven to the universe realm and is the rule over the earth.

`Then I, John, saw the holy city, new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,...` (Rev. 21: 2)

Dispies make it up as they go. Your diversion is another erroneous theological invention.

New Posts

New Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page