The payment situation is being resolved, praise God for that! I should be getting a money order for some of the hours tomorrow, it will take some time to fully resolve, but at least I will be getting my money. Continued prayers!

I’ll let you know when I have some time to go after that computer problem, eh.

Gracious Heavenly Father,
I pray for courage for Jane, that she may be able to address this with her mentor and get to a resolution. Help her to see her mentor as You see her mentor, that she may not be reading cold and distance into places where it is not. Clear them both from hidden faults.
In Christ’s Name,
Amen

Ultimately it comes down to how people prioritize the risk/reward trade-offs.

I've presented this example before.

I'll use the closest "major city" as an example. (Cleveland Ohio)

Based on the statistics, if a person goes to a major city in Ohio
The chances of being the victim of attempted robbery are 1 in 90.
The chances of being the victim of simple assault are 1 in 100.
The chances of being the victim of sexual assault (for women) are 1 in 250.

A person's chance of being murdered by a person with a gun in Ohio is approximately 1 in 22,000

If Ohio adopted England's gun laws (and we pretend it would have the exact same effect), the chances go down to approximately 1 in 102,000. (However, that would be unlikely due to the already high proliferation of firearms)

For many, that's not worth the trade-off to make the already unlikely thing a little more unlikely, at the expense of leaving oneself underprepared for scenarios that are far more likely.


Speaking personally, I'd rather keep my chances at 1 in 22,000, and have something readily available for the 1 in 90 chance someone tries to rob me, as opposed to lowering the odds of that, but having no choice but to comply the criminal in the 1 in 90 chance of a robbery attempt.


Often times estimates on DGU (defensive gun uses) will vary wildly (I've seen estimates as low as 50k, and others as high as 2M), but JAMA just did a report last year.



Approximately 92% of participants with firearm access said they had never used a gun defensively. Approximately 0.7% of participants had told someone that they had a firearm or shown their firearm to a perceived threat within the past year. Approximately 0.3% of participants had fired in the vicinity of a threat, whereas about 0.2% of participants had fired at a perceived threat in the past year. There are approximately 260 million adults in the US, and our results suggest approximately 38% have access to a firearm in the home, cohering with other estimates.19 Taken together, this means approximately 97.8 million US adults have household firearm access, which equates to approximately 195 600 instances of DGU per year in which someone fired at a perceived threat. When including the additional 0.3% of respondents who said they fired in the vicinity of but not at a threat, the annual estimate of DGU in which a gun is fired totals approximately 489 000 events per year.


So even based on this more conservative estimate, DGUs still outnumber gun deaths in the US.

Per the CDC, there were 47,000 gun-related deaths in the US.

Brightfame52 said:

Water Baptism has nothing to do with Jesus giving repentance.

Click to expand...

peace in Jesus name

fhansen said:

Well, I'm not sure what good specificity would do first of all if one is opposed to the idea of social justice at the outset. But, ok, though some of these we're already offered: we specifically oppose slavery first of all as an evil that must be stopped, without regard to any reparations or who may've caused it, etc. Likewise for human trafficking, starvation, genocide, domestic and child abuse, discrimination based on race or gender, and maintain that it's the duty of mankind to fight these issues using whaterever availalble resources might apply to the particular need: churches, religious orders, relief agenceis, sometimes police, military, etc.

Click to expand...

I don't know of any Christian church or organization that is afraid to talk about these things. I want to share my sincere concerns with "social justice" as a modern concept. I would hope that you read this carefully and respond to the concerns. Please do not write it off as a fear of talking about social justice.

My thoughts on social justice
I want to offer a concern—not about justice itself, which Scripture clearly affirms—but about the way “social justice” is often used as a broad, undefined category in Christian discussion.

One of the pitfalls of this language is that it can blur biblical categories. In Scripture, justice is grounded in the character of God and tied closely to righteousness, mercy, repentance, and covenant faithfulness. In modern usage, however, social justice can mean many different things, often shaped more by contemporary political or ideological frameworks than by Scripture. When Christians adopt the term uncritically, biblical concepts like sin, grace, reconciliation, and redemption can quietly be replaced by categories such as power, oppression, and identity.

Another danger is moral reductionism. The Bible recognizes unjust systems, but it never treats injustice as merely structural. Jesus consistently locates the root of evil in the human heart (Mark 7:20–23). When injustice is framed only in systemic terms, personal repentance and the need for grace are minimized, and the gospel can be reduced to activism rather than transformation.

There is also a risk of substituting discipleship with causes. Doing good works is essential to Christian faith, but it is possible to confuse moral action with reconciliation to God. Jesus rebuked those who emphasized certain forms of justice while neglecting faithfulness to God Himself (Matt. 23:23). Justice matters—but it must flow from devotion to Christ, not replace it.

This raises an important question: Is social justice the main thrust of Christ’s mission?
The answer, I believe, is no—though justice is certainly not irrelevant.

Jesus is clear about why He came: to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), to reconcile sinners to God (1 Pet. 3:18), and to inaugurate the kingdom of God through repentance and faith. While His teaching has profound ethical and social implications, He consistently refuses to reduce His mission to political or social reform. His kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36), and lasting justice flows outward from transformed hearts, not imposed structures.

The early church followed this pattern. They proclaimed Christ crucified, practiced generosity and mercy, cared for the poor, and lived as a holy people within a broken society—without attempting to engineer a worldly utopia through power.

A healthier Christian framing may be this: justice is not the gospel, but the fruit of it. We are called to love God and neighbor, to do justice and love mercy, and to walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8). When justice is biblically defined, rooted in the gospel, practiced personally, and held together with mercy and truth, it reflects Christ rather than replacing Him.

Keeping Christ at the center guards both our theology and our witness.

p.s. it was not totally a joke. I do tend to want to "run away" from my problems.

Kathleen30 said:

It’s not a light thing to make such false accusations.. that’s all I say

Click to expand...

Yet you continue to double down on your false accusation that I claimed the Orthodox Church never accepted geocentrism. Perhaps you should remove the beam from your own eye.

rjs330 said:

I am a Bible scholar with a degree in Biblical literature. So, you won't dissuade me from the divine truth contained within its pages. The Bible is the most supported ancient manuscript in the world. And whatever liberal philosophy you may have and use to try and cast doubt on its veracity and authority are useless spitting into tye wind.

I am well aware of all the issues that people love to discuss. And quite often the motive for many is to cast doubt upon its divine truth. Yes understanding some of the culture of the time can be important. And if you really study scripture you can see where even the writers acknowledge cultural issues as such. That does not negate the divine universal truth and teachings within.

Click to expand...

And I'm a rocket scientist. First, since most of the volume of scripture passed off as "support" is late as the church had scribes sit there and make copies of copies of scripture day in and day out for years, doesn't mean much. Second. The scripture you provide proves my point. It's a contextual apologetic from day one because the things promised to come to fruition never occurred. Still hasn't. So given the context of being mocked, a day becomes a thousand years to justify events to never come. It's no different than today with the invention of “double prophecy” because the prophecy as read and understood in context never happened either.

zelosravioli said:

But either way - even those who looked upon the corpses of Daniel 11 did not see corpses that were conscious or withering in torture - the corpses were DEAD

Click to expand...

I mean, if they weren't literally dead, then I just don't see why they would have been referred to as corpses in the first place.

BPPLEE said:

Anti-liberal Democrat?
That's not something I see often.
More power to you

Click to expand...

power = being anti-(liberal Democrat) in life.

They ruined the chaplain corp and made them less about God and more secular. They added lesser known new age and Muslim pastors and others. Less about Jesus and evangelization.

ViaCrucis said:

The way this continues to fly right over your head would be astonishing if it wasn't so predictable at this point.

I don't understand the idea that our moral standards should be established by the worst actions of the worst people. But that seems to be what you are arguing in favor of. "Bad people exist and do bad things, and therefore anything and everything is justified". This kind of barbarism has been condemned, pretty universally, in just about every human society on the planet. Moral anarchy is a terrible idea if the goal is to have a functioning human community. That's why this kind of moral anarchy is condemned, from the Code of Hammurabi to the Torah in the Old Testament. "An eye for an eye" is a stricture against this kind of moral anarchy--of anything goes retributive actions. If you kill my brother, I can't just go murder you and your whole family: there are processes, laws, rules--going through appropriate channels to administer justice for the purpose of setting the situation to rights. A government that is supposed to be of a free and just people ought to conduct itself to a higher standard than mere barbarism.

Click to expand...

That applies to someone who agrees that an atrocity took place and is supporting it. It does not apply to someone who does not at this time accept that interpretation of events.

ViaCrucis said:

Is it too much to ask that, I don't know, we hold our government officials to a reasonable standard of conduct as it pertains to law and justice? Apparently.

Click to expand...

How about we wait until it's been proven in a court of law that immoral conduct, murder and war crimes took place. That is after all what our law and justice system demands.

ViaCrucis said:

Because we both know you're going to dismiss everything I just wrote, and just whip out some trollish response.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's best if I don't reply to you in the future.

‘Don’s Best Friend’: How Epstein and Trump Bonded Over the Pursuit of Women

Oompa Loompa said:

Well, the track record of MAGA have shown that usually the only difference between a conspiracy theory and known fact is about 4 years.

Click to expand...

There is no expiration date for MAGA conspiracy theories. The very sit down between Ericka Kirk, the wife of someone who advanced conspiracy theories, and the MAGA conspiracy theorist she complains about, just resulted in more conspiracy theories.

RamiC said:

I am a High Church Anglican, married for over twenty years to a man who survived severe mistreatment at a Catholic boarding school run by The Society of Jesus in the 1950's. My husband has been offerred an in person apology from the current Provincial Superior, and he is intending to travel to London to meet him on the 19th of December, in order to receive it.

My husband and I would both appreciate the prayers of any Catholic members of Christian Forums regarding this meeting, for his protection (and my own) as we prepare and travel, and especially for his first encounter with any Jesuit since he left school. I will be going to London with him, but he has said that he wishes to actually experience the meeting alone. This is the bravest thing I believe I have ever personally witnessed someone doing for the Christian faith, and I trust that some who are seeing this post can understand how I hope my life partner will feel Jesus' love and see true recognition of past wrongs.

No judgement of your Church is intended by this post, my own has as much to be ashamed of in terms of letting God down over children entrusted to it's care.

Click to expand...

I pray that all goes well for your husband. I’m saddened to once again read about something like this coming from the Catholic faith. Whenever I do,I consider leaving again.

Yarddog said:

Accept for the child sacrifices, you're describing the Europeans that came here.

Click to expand...

Thats partially true. And I have pointed that out. That ALL of mankind has been a conquering group throughout history. It is the way of mankind. The Euopeans conquered a backward savage people. So?

The natives were more uncivilized and savage than the Europeans. That doesn't mean the Europeans did not come and take over the land by force. They did. However the natives were no better. And I. Someways they were worse. Ultimately the European take over of the land we call the USA was a boon to the world. It provided a place where innovation grew and flourished that helped all of mankind.

The natives here had nothing to offer but more savage tribal war and violence.

They had nothing better to offer the world.

#1. ACCORDING AS ///. KATHOS. is an ADVERB

#2 IT IS WITTEN. ///. GRAPHO. is in the PERFECT TENSE , in. the PASSIVE VOICE. , means the HOLY SPIRIT. is speaking in. the

INDICATIVE MOOD and means you better believe. it in the SINGULAR

#3 GOD // THEOS in bb the NOMINATIVE CASE in the SINGULAR

#4 HATH GIVEN // DIDOMI. in. the AORIST TENSE , in. the ACTIVE VOICE , means the HOLY SPIRIT. IS SPEAKING in. the INDICATIVE MOOD

in the SLINGULAR

#5. THEM. ///AUTOS. is a PERSONAL POSSESSEIVE PRONOUN in the DATIVE CASE in. the. PLURAL

#6. THE SPIRIT. //. PNEUMA. in. the ACCUSATIVE CASE in vv the SINGULAR in. the NEUTER and means MALE or FEMALE

#7 OF SLUMBER. /// KATANYXIS. in. the GENITIVE CASE , which INDICATES POSESSIOM. in. the SNGULAR

# 8 EYES. , ///. OPHNALMOS. isa in. the ACCUSATIVE CASE , in. the PLURAL

#9 THAT THEY SHOULD ///. BLEPO. in the PRESENT TENSE , in. the ACTIVE VOICE

# 10 NOT /// ME is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE , mens NEVER will. SEE

# 11. SEE. ///. BLEPO is in. the PRESENT TENSE and means Israel can not yet SEE. , PERIOD

# 12 AND // KAI is a conjuncation

#13. EARS ///. OUS in. the ACCUSATIVE CASE in. the PLURAL imvv the NEUTER meaning MALE and FEMALE

#14 THAT THEY SHOULD. ///. AKOUO. inv the PRESENT TENSE , meaning always

#15. NOT //. ME. is. a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE means. that Israel can NOT HEAR or SEE. that they are impaired

#16 HEAR. ///. AKOUO. is in. the FUTURE TENSEin. the ACTIVE VOICE.

#17 UNTO // HEMERON. is a CONJUNCATION

#18 THIS ///. SEMERO. is a ADVERB

#19 DAY ///. is in the GENITIVE. CASE. in. the SINGULAR


# A This verse show that Israel. DEAF

#B. ISRAEL is BLIND

#C UNTIL Israel and JUDAH become one nation as written in EZE 37.

dan p

"Sorry Santa, your cover has been blown"

"How?"

"Look at the gifts, there is a label, To and from."

The most obvious Christian example was when the so called universal church abandoned the Kingdom (the focus of Jesus' gospel) to align itself with the government and Roman Empire of man, later becoming an empire itself based on the ideals of man's governments rather than the Will/government of God. It accepted what Jesus had rejected in the desert. It was obvious that this alliance did not produce a government or following governments to this day, based upon the two commandments of Jesus. Two opposing ideologies did not become one.

rjs330 said:

The community as a whole wanted this.

Click to expand...

How is that possible? A handful of self-important pecksniffs complained. Just because those squeaky wheels got some grease doesn't mean they represent "the community as a whole".

Part of the Trump administration's energy policy involves energy grants to individual U.S. states. And according to the Washington Post, government lawyers admitted, in a December 15 court filing, that the decision to cut energy grants was based on partisanship.

Post reporters Meryl Kornfield and Hannah Natanson, in an article published on December 17, explain, "The Trump Administration acknowledged, in a court filing this week, that a decision to cut energy grants during the government shutdown was influenced by whether the money would go to a state that tended to elect Democrats statewide or nationally. Government lawyers also wrote in the filing that 'consideration of partisan politics is constitutionally permissible, including because it can serve as a proxy for legitimate policy considerations.'"

The "remarkably candid admission" in the filing, according to Kornfield and Natanson, "echoes" Trump's "frequent vows to punish cities and states that he sees as his enemies, from withholding disaster relief for Southern California to targeting blue cities with National Guard troops."


If we want to split hairs, I guess the Administration is not 'admitting' the fact, but it is not contesting the fact. And the footnote definitely has a whiff of "yeah, we did it, and there's nothing wrong with it."

Another way to threaten/punish the pediatricians

HHS cuts millions in grants to the American Academy of Pediatrics​

The move is an escalation in the agency’s clash with the medical group, which is suing Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over vaccine policy.

The grants supported initiatives aimed at reducing sudden infant deaths, improving teen and young adult health, preventing birth defects, such as fetal alcohol syndrome, and identifying autism early, according to an academy spokesperson.

In an emailed statement, Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, said the grants “were canceled along with a number of other grants to other organizations because they no longer align with the Department’s mission or priorities.”

“The Academy is proud of this work, and of the staff, pediatricians, and partners who were engaged in these important programs,” he said in a statement. “The sudden withdrawal of these funds will directly impact and potentially harm infants, children, youth, and their families in communities across the United States.”

Dorit Reiss, a vaccine policy expert and professor of law at the UC Law San Francisco, said the agency could face legal trouble if it doesn’t provide a reasonable explanation for the grant cuts, adding that the government can’t use funding as a tool to punish free speech.

Good. Hope he wins and wins big. Political prisoners in the US, who would have thought?

A Catechism may be described as a summary of Christian doctrine, of those most necessary truths that God has revealed for our salvation. There are two ‘universal’ Catechisms in the Church, officially approved by the Magisterium: The one following upon the Council of Trent, called the Roman Catechism, promulgated in 1566 by the authority of Pope Saint Pius V. And then there’s the more recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, its first edition promulgated by the authority of Pope Saint John Paul II in 1992, with the official Latin editio typica following in 1997.

Yet, there are innumerable other catechisms in the Church’s history, which complement these two great works.

Click to expand...

Tradivox Master Catechism

Counselors and therapists in Michigan will be allowed to treat children who believe themselves to be the opposite sex, striking down a Michigan law that outlawed such counseling by claiming it constitutes “conversion therapy.”

The Dec. 17 ruling at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit blocked the Michigan law by stating that it “discriminates based on viewpoint” by forbidding therapists from counseling children that they are their own biological sex rather than the opposite sex.

The court noted that the law “expressly” allows therapists to help children commit to a so-called “transition” to the opposite sex. The rule is a “near-certain violation” of the First Amendment, the order said.

The Michigan law was passed on the grounds that steering children away from a transgender identity constitutes “conversion” similar to counseling that seeks to mitigate same-sex attraction. LGBT advocates claim that such “conversion therapy” has been discredited and constitutes a danger to therapy patients.

Continued below.