Mark Quayle said:

I'm wondering how you see the philosophical descriptions of his attributes. Particularly Aseity, Simplicity and Immanence/Transcendence.

Click to expand...

See Aseity and time.

I think the concept of Divine Simplicity is a misleading over-simplication of divinity.

God is immanently engaged with his creation. He dwells in our spirits.

God is infinite or transcendent. In contrast, we are finite beings. We will never be the Godhead Divinity. He is unique.

AV1611VET said:

I'm not familiar with a theory "going bad with further research."

I'm under the impression that all research has been exhausted on a hypothesis; then the hypothesis is labeled a "theory."

From there, it would take a "discovery," not "further research," to discard a valid theory.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. Further research may lead to a discovery that falsifies the theory, or may show how the theory explains the hitherto unexplained.

Einstein's theory of General Relativity is still being researched and tested - the idea is to see if it fails somewhere and so get a clue to a deeper understanding of what it explains, which results in a better theory, or to see if it can explain as yet unexplained observations.

In principle, scientific theories cannot be proved but can be falsified (with certain caveats). Falsification doesn't necessarily make them useless, as they may still provide useful results within certain limits, e.g. they may be valuable approximations of a more complete theory.

hislegacy said:

ppssst - the conversation is not about taxes on machine guns, but the readily available weaponry combined with a high poverty rate of the depression that did NOT result in a rise in crime.

Click to expand...

Pssst, the gun wasn't "readily available" because it was so expensive, partly due to the tax imposed by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The $200 tax effectively doubled the already-high purchase price of the weapon itself.

Arguing that Tommy Guns were "readily available" is like arguing that Lamborghinis are readily available. Sure, they might be in some sense, but not a practical one.

Strong in Him said:

I'm not aware that I've met anyone who's been to Antarctica either. But what if I had?
What if I came on here tomorrow/next week and say "yep, I've met someone"? Would you take my word for it; would my knowing someone who's been there be enough to change your mind about things which you "know" are true?

As has been said, even if you won't go there for yourself, there are lots of other ways you could meet someone who's been there - but you won't.
I imagine it might be quite scary knowing that there are people in this world who could disprove your theories.

Click to expand...

Read my post above.

iluvatar5150 said:

Regardless of whether the overall crime rate went up, the nature of certain crimes was a big driver behind the imposition of high taxes on automatic weapons.

Click to expand...

ppssst - the conversation is not about taxes on machine guns, but the readily available weaponry combined with a high poverty rate of the depression that did NOT result in a rise in crime.

Which flies in the face of the claim

Hans Blaster said:

Poverty is the biggest driver of crime.

Click to expand...

trophy33 said:

I doubt you yourself have any idea what you are trying to prove here

Click to expand...

I am trying to prove that the likes of me or you can't go to Antarctica unless you can get permission to go. For permission you need to fill out a form and send it to the 'Office Of Ocean & Polar Affairs'.

Why all the fuss ? Is it really about just protecting the environment or is it about something else ?

@ 1.58
Login to view embedded media

Zao is life said:

BALANCE

I'm on the state we all know as Israel's side, and the side of the Jews in this hatred and evil we see today where evil is being put for good, and good for evil, darkness for light (includes lies for truth) and light for darkness .

God love the Jews who are broken off through unbelief, despite the fact that they are broken off:

Click to expand...

"As far as the election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs." (Ro 11:28)

It is the "election" (Ro 11:28), the part (remnant) who believes, who are not hardened (Ro 11:25), who are loved.

AV1611VET said:

A theory is a belief in something that has been supported to your satisfaction by evidence, and is pending change.

Click to expand...

Wow! The ENTIRE world's definition of theory has to be hinged on whether the evidence is supported to AV1611VET's satisfaction?

Aviel said:

Not a "cult of Mary" member.
Not a "LDS".
Not a "Mormon"

Let me explain something to you, and you can use this quote later and pretend its yours...@studyman

As i notice you post cut and paste, mostly.

Here is the thing..

Man makes denominations.

God makes CHRISTians..

Those are not the same.

Click to expand...

So you are a Calvinist.

That explains a lot.

AV1611VET said:

I see that term "scientific validity" used all the time without the need to clarify

And I don't feel I have to clarify it when I use it either.

Click to expand...

So what do you think they mean by it? Is it what you mean when you use it?

If you're not prepared to explain what you mean by the terms you use, some people might assume you don't know what they mean.

Petros2015 said:

Sounds about right in the event of total infra collapse. And that's not outside the realm of possibility.
Fortunately, I'm told that bullets are edible.

(hunting rifle for actual deer/game hunting would be very useful though; hunters will do well in that situation)

Click to expand...

Years ago I stocked up on bird shot; and I bought a pellet gun, and a slingshot, thinking the same thing. I figured that if there was no government, that I would shoot small birds, skin them, gut them, and boil them with rice.

I figured that it would supplement my rice with protein.

However now I'm better armed with information. According to the experts that I've been listening to, everyone will be competing for food; and there just isn't enough wildlife to feed all of us.

Because we live in such perilous times; and preparedness can be life saving; I'm going to allow any discussion of any facet of preparedness as on topic in this thread.

stevevw said:

No one saying its special. I am saying its our own culture, if your from the west. Sure we have done some bad stuff but its still our culture just like our family. You don't reject your own culture perse because some in the past have done some bad stuff. Its not the fault of the people living today and they are not their ancestors but a new generation who live 100s of years later.

We acknowledge the bad stuff and try to do better. But we also acknowledge the good stuff that made us who we are. Every culture has done bad stuff. Whatever the west has done all other nations have done in their history. That is the human condition.

This new ideology that we must self flagellate for our past sins as though todays generation are guilty and others are innocents is divisive. Telling children their ancestors are evil and they are guilty is not a good idea.

Click to expand...

Nobody does that but Christians. They think they own the idea.

stevevw said:

The west is the first culture in history to attack itself, attack its own identity and reject it. Its not good, its not healthy. Any culture that rejects itself is on a path to self destruction.

Click to expand...

Yes, the culture is changing and rejecting some of your favorite assumptions. Clearly a disaster.

AlexB23 said:

Well, RFK is a conspiracy theorist ( 9/11 stuff: Robert F Kennedy Jr expresses skepticism at official 9/11 account ). I would recommend voting for Nikki Haley or the Green party.

Click to expand...

That's an issue with me, too. I would be far more willing to vote for him otherwise. I researched him recently and wasn't impressed.
I voted for Nikki Haley in my state's primary. She's still getting votes even though she dropped out.

Mark Quayle said:

Well, then, how about, "The last day is at the end of physical time."?

Click to expand...

That is impossible. It is amazing the extent people go to try to claim a day can not be an age or a era. Of course in order to do that they have to ignore abundant and overwhelming evidence for how old or the age of Creation: Heaven & Earth.

The last day means the end of an age or era. In this case the church age or the age of grace is ending and the Kingdom age or the 1,000 year reign of Christ is beginning. There are six dispensations represented by 6 days.

tonychanyt said:

Exodus 21:


Strong's Hebrew: 5769. עוֹלָם (olam or olam) — 438 Occurrences

He would be his slave for a finite amount of time, i.e., the rest of his life.

Genesis 21:


It is the same word here, but now it seems to mean infinite time.

Exodus 30:


The temple was destroyed over 2000 years ago. This statute is not working today. Perhaps H5769 means something like perpetual:


There was another Hebrew word, H5704, which often was translated as "forever". Gen 13:


Strong's Hebrew: 5704. עַד (ad) — 1260 Occurrences

But then, the same word was translated as "till" in Genesis 3:


H5769-forever and H5704-forever are ambiguous. They do not always mean time going on to infinity.

See also Forever vs eternal

Click to expand...

Oooooo....... I think the trees have been observed at the expense of the forest.


The ear-piercing ritual was part of the bond service system God established in His Law. In ancient times God's people did not have penitentiaries where wrongdoers were warehoused at the expense of the assembly. In God's jurisprudence a wrongdoer either worked off his debt or he was killed. Capital crimes had to be decided on the testimony of two or more witnesses. The sanctioned killing was a means fo removing dross and purifying society. Otherwise, God's jurisprudence is restitutional and rehabilitative, not vindictive and retributional. Vengeance is God's (and His alone). We're supposed to love. Love is the fulfillment of the Law.

In modern vernacular what this means is that if I borrow your lawnmowers and break it then I owe you a lawnmower. And because of what we now call "tort" I might bring you a new five-gallon can of gas to fuel your new mower for multiple mows. I do so as an expression of my sincere remorse and amends for any additional lose, suffering or inconvenience you might have experienced losing the mower.

In God's law one of the examples is the loss of a donkey. If I borrowed your donkey and broke your donkey, then I owed you a donkey.... plus five shekels. If, conversely, I borrowed your ox and broke your ox then I owed you an ox..... plus 40 shekels! Why the larger increase in additional penalty? Simply put, the ox was worth more. It can plow more acreage, it can be eaten, and its hide can be used in ways the donkey cannot be used.

Suppose, however, I could not afford to re-pay you the donkey I broke? You would then take me to the priests and have them arbitrate. The value of the donkey would be appraised, and the penalty amount added, and that would be the monetary amount assigned as my debt. I would then be taken to the marketplace where my debt would be sold. Someone with sufficient wealth would purchase those who owed debts for the amount of the debt. This debt-purchaser would repay the one who lost the donkey and then the donkey owner and I would no longer have the division of debt between us. I would now be indebted to the debt-purchaser. The debt-purchaser would appraise the debt because all debts were forgiven every seven years. Would I be able to work off the debt in what remained of the seven-year cycle? A debt of 50 or 100 shekels might easily be worked off in three, five, or seven years, but a much larger debt could not. However, regardless of the debt owed, I would be taken out of the marketplace to work off the debt now owned by the debt-purchaser.

Buying a debt entailed risks other than whether or not the debt would be sufficiently repaid with labor. The debt-purchaser was obligated to assign me labor AND equip me sufficiently to perform those tasks. I purchased to lay brick then I was to be provided with bricks, mortar, and a trowel. Carpentry labor required the provision of wood, nails, and other necessities. A house servant must be provided attire consistent with those duties - all at the expense of the debt-purchaser and all to be repaid by the debtor.

At the point my debt was worked off the debt-purchaser would then take me back to the priests and testify the debt had been repaid and no debt was owed. At this point the record was made public, and I was now reconciled to the originally offended donkey owner, the one who had purchased my debt and the community indirectly but intrinsically damaged by my wrongdoing. Because I had been given a new service, a new trade by my debt-purchaser I was also now in possession of a new profession by which I could make a living and be a contributing member of the community. I need no longer rely on my prior profession (plowing fields) or criminal activity (like thieving were the original offence being my getting caught in thievery). God's Law did not maim. Thieves did not have their hands cut off like the surrounding pagan cultures. God's Law is restitutional and rehabilitative. My debt was repaid by my own hand, and I was now a more-skilled productive member of the community, wholly reconciled to all.

But what happened if I wanted to remain in the employ of the one who purchased my debt. That is where the ritual of the ear piercing occurred. I would pledge my loving faithfulness to the one who had purchased my debt, and I would then be taken to the doorway of his house where the lobe of my ear would be pierced, and a ring put through the lobe. That ring would then be a symbol to everyone that I was a bondservant in perpetuity, a bondservant whose debt had been paid off and still voluntarily worked in service to his master in perpetuity when he no longer otherwise needed to do so.



In other words, the bond service system God instituted among His people was a foreshadowing of the gospel.


Each of us owed a debt we could not repay. Each of us was purchased at a price and none of us are our own any longer. We are the bondservants of Christ. It was with his blood that we were purchased, and that blood was shed by grace. Having been purchased we are to be about the work of our Debt-Purchaser.

Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.


So.... NO! The "forever" associated with the ear-piercing ritual is NOT about "a finite amount of time." It's permanent and eternal.




One more aspect of the bond service system deserve mention. When I broke your donkey you had the power, authority, and privilege to forgive the debt right then. You need not hold me accountable for the broken donkey. That power rested solely with you. No one else could cancel the debt but you. The priests could not usurp someone else's authority and cancel the debt. No judge could do that, either. The Law laid that power to forgive debt only on the one owed the debt. You might take me to the priests to have the debt recorded and then forgive the debt! Why? Because a chronic donkey-breaker should have his wrongdoing made known to the community. Others might not loan donkeys to a person who'd broken more than one donkey. The donkey-breaker, having his chronic practice made known, might look for other work. Regardless of when the one owed forgave the debt he did so by grace out of mercy and he and he alone possessed that power and authority.

The debt of sin is owed God, and God alone. Only He can forgive it. If and when He forgives that debt is it not for a finite period of time.

essentialsaltes said:

OP is Alabama, but similar nonsense is going on in Louisiana. It's more complicated than an episode of Soap, but...

Supreme Court agrees with delay on drawing new Louisiana congressional map​

The Louisiana case is something of a legal quagmire. Last year, U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick found that the map enacted by the Republican-led legislature dilutes the power of the state’s Black voters and probably violates the Voting Rights Act.

The judge directed the legislature to draw a new map. But it did not, and the legal battle was renewed.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court put the case on hold while it considered a similar one from Alabama [the OP]; the 2022 congressional elections took place under the map approved by the legislature.

The Supreme Court also released its hold on the Louisiana case, sending it back to lower courts. [where the original Judge Dick would be trying to sort things out]

But at the state’s request, a different panel of the 5th Circuit stepped in with a command that Dick stop proceedings in the case, in part because she had not given the Louisiana legislature another opportunity to draw a new map.

The legislature imposed its map over a veto from Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) and has not shown interest in creating a new one.

[And now SCOTUS has agreed that the legislature be given an opportunity to do what it's not showing any signs of doing.

Will the legislature be able to run out the clock and use the defective map again in 2024? Stay tuned.]

Click to expand...

I've gotten lost, but...

Federal judges strike down La. congressional map with second Black-majority district​

The ruling is the latest in a broader set of legal challenges to electoral maps across the South. The outcome of these suits is likely to play a crucial role in deciding which party controls the House next year. The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon in a South Carolina case and could get involved in the Louisiana case.

In Tuesday’s 2-1 ruling, thepanel found that the redistricting map approved by the Louisiana legislature, in a measure known as Senate Bill 8, which established a second majority-Black congressional district in the state, “violates the Equal Protection Clause [of the 14th Amendment] as an impermissible racial gerrymander.”

[plot twist: adding a second black district is unfair to non-black people] "Almost immediately after the legislature approved the new district with a Black majority, people who described themselves as “non-African American voters” sued in a different federal court. They argued the new map violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The panel on Tuesday agreed with those voters."]

The panel will convene on May 6 to discuss the remedial process and must decide what maps to put in place for this fall.

The map that was struck down had been approved by the state legislature in January, after a federal court found that the existing map likely illegally diminished Black voting power.

Its ruling puts the state in an untenable spot because one congressional plan has been found to violate the Constitution and another to likely violate the Voting Rights Act

Gary K said:

Then why the veiled accusation?

Click to expand...

It wasn’t veiled. It was a direct scripture quote. I was ensuring that I understood your perspective.

hislegacy said:

Thank you for your unsubstantiated claim.

View attachment 346928

This was the start - followed by police - followed by people living in cities. Regardless - ZERO gun regulations - lots and lots of guns - High poverty rates and no spike in crime.

Click to expand...

The Tommy gun was only in production for 13 years of "zero gun regulations", 1921-1934. It was expensive and sales were modest until the military adopted it in 1938.

Regardless of whether the overall crime rate went up, the nature of certain crimes was a big driver behind the imposition of high taxes on automatic weapons.

First, allow me to apologize. I think I have responded to @Grip Docility, thinking I was responding to you, and I may have done it vica versa.
I didn't realize the difference in the avatars, once Grip started posting.
All I saw was a lion. My apologies.

Semper-Fi said:

I was giving the English definition of breath, that is required
for life to live. I tried showing you the bible definition before.

Click to expand...

Did I forget to thank you for trying? I'm sorry if i did.
However, you were not giving a definition, but rather, quoting scriptures that mentioned the breath of life.

• to destroy all flesh, wherein is [the breath of life]
• of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life
• in whose nostrils was the breath of life

A definition is saying or explaining - defining the actual subject.
Other scriptures usually define a subject in the Bible.

If you had, like @Grip Docility defined the breath of life as, for example, air, then used scripture to show this definition, that would be a way of using scripture to define the breath of life.
Am I incorrect?

Semper-Fi said:

Do you use the English definitions for the word's soul or hell?

Click to expand...

No. I use the definition of the Hebrew and Greek word, based on the scriptural texts.
I do not use the English definitions for the word's soul or hell, because they are usually based on doctrine subsequent to the first century.
Hell, for example, is not a correct English rendering of the ancient words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna.
Where Hell came from, is a different topic altogether.

Semper-Fi said:

Why does English translations change Hebrew creature into soul.
They also combine several words in one [hell], also misleading.

Click to expand...

I think what you are asking is, why do some translations, use creature for the Hebrew word nephesh, for example, at Genesis 2:19.
I really don't know. I'll jot this down as a question for research, and get back to you.
I hadn't noticed that before. thanks for drawing it to my attention.
Perhaps you can throw the question out to others here, and see what they say.
@tonychanyt does some really good research. Perhaps he might be able to give an answer that's helpful.

Semper-Fi said:

The bible says man and animal both have the breath of life.
Once the breath of life leaves in either of them[hypoxia] they die.
All creatures on earth died by flood, they drowned: unless in the ark.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with that.

Semper-Fi said:

Does the breath of life give man something different then animals?

Click to expand...

The breath of life sustains the breathing of every living creature. As stated at Ecclesiastes 3:19, they all have the same spirit - spirit of life.

Semper-Fi said:

If it does, what is it ? , What does it do?,

Click to expand...

The bible does not say it does something different in creatures.

Semper-Fi said:

Where does the breath of life go when it leaves the creature?

Click to expand...

The Bible answers in Ecclesiastes 12:7, Job 34:14, 15, Psalm 104:29, Psalm 146:3, 4, and the text you referenced - Genesis 7:22.
That does not mean, some invisible force travels through the atmosphere into outer space, till it reaches the heavens of the heavens.

It simply means this: The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life. Job 33:4
The spirit from the almighty is what makes us alive. It lies with God to give spirit to those who have died... if he so wishes.

Think of it this way:
The bank loans you money to invest in a home. When you die, the money returns to the bank.
The money does not actually leave you, and go to the bank. The bank owns the value of the property.

Semper-Fi said:

Does God go around breathing into all the creatures the breath of life.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting question. We all know the answer to that, I would hope.
Acts 17:26 - He made from one man every nation of men, to dwell upon all the face of the earth.
Genesis 6:19, 20 - And you are to bring two of every living creature into the ark—male and female—to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird and animal and crawling creature will come to you to be kept alive.

Job understood that the spirit of the almighty made him, because every breathing creature reproduces a breathing creature.
You have never heard of horses, sheep, chickens, fish... borning without breathing, have you?
Why not?
The spirit of God is in the ancestor. Their descendants are not born without the spirit of the almighty.

Semper-Fi said:

The number of all the air breathing creatures is most likely unknow.

Click to expand...

Tremendously huge number - some unknown to man.

Semper-Fi said:

Do you know any creatures that does [not need air] to live?

Click to expand...

Thanks to duckduckgo Google got replaced... I found this:
This is the only known animal that doesn't need oxygen to survive
It’s still unclear how it gets energy

However, I don't think you are trying to find out what animals exist that do not need air, so we'll focus on your point.

Semper-Fi said:

Many people think when The breath of life was blown into Adam,
it was a spirt, or soul, or other.

Click to expand...

I was not aware that many people thought this. I thought few did.
However, the Bible explains that it is the spirit that makes one live, and taking away of that spirit leaves one dead.
So, I would say, those "many people" are using the Bible, which defines the breath of life as spirit of life.
So these "many people" are agreeing with the Bible. It's not their thoughts.

Actually, you can come to this understanding, as well.
Consider Ecclesiastes 3:19. Most translations render the Hebrew word ruach, as breath. It's the same Hebrew word we render spirit.
At Genesis 6:17, the same is true.
It's the Bible that defines breath of life as spirit (ruach).

Semper-Fi said:

The bible says he [became a creature].
See here for a current example, you should ask the poster there.

Noah-Lots of Water in the Oceans and Subterranean Oceans

1 Everything wiped-out “under heaven.” No not everything under heaven it was just everything in A local area. 2 Everything with "the breath of life" died. No it was only air breathing creatures in A local area that died. 3 All flesh destroyed on earth. No only the flesh died that lived in A...

www.christianforums.com

Click to expand...

I can research it.
I just did a quick search, and the reason is nephesh is used literally as a breathing creature.
Strong's #5315: nephesh (pronounced neh'-fesh)
from 5314; properly, a breathing creature

This does not change the meaning of the work. It only enhances it.
A human being, and animal are creatures.
You seem to find it to be a problem. Is that the case? If so, would you mind explaining why?

Apple Sky said:

It's still a no, you've met nobody who's been to Antarctica.

Click to expand...

I'm not aware that I've met anyone who's been to Antarctica either. But what if I had?
What if I came on here tomorrow/next week and say "yep, I've met someone"? Would you take my word for it; would my knowing someone who's been there be enough to change your mind about things which you "know" are true?

As has been said, even if you won't go there for yourself, there are lots of other ways you could meet someone who's been there - but you won't.
I imagine it might be quite scary knowing that there are people in this world who could disprove your theories.

want to skip going to work.

In fact,…

Are modern people significantly different than primitive people?