"The number of people who believe their faith does not depend on attending Mass has increased as more Catholics are cultivating a personal relationship with Jesus, according to a recent survey of U.S. Catholic beliefs."

So, this is bad?

Consider a parish that embraces LGBTQ+ ideology and works to drive conservatives away?

fhansen said:

Either way, grace give us the means to choose good thoughts, and acts, over evil ones.

Click to expand...

Evil thoughts defile all regardless of choices, the general point of our Lord in Matt. 7:21-23

There is no escaping that fact by acting good and thinking that eliminates God's Facts

partinobodycular said:

Normally I wouldn't go off topic like this, especially to respond to something as inconsequential as insults. But I thought that in this singular case I'd make an exception. Don't be surprised if I don't make a habit of it.

As to my solipsism, perhaps I should've been clearer, I'm an epistemological solipsist. Which simply holds that nothing can be known to exist outside of one's own mind. To me this term simply reminds me to be humble about just how much it is that I simply don't know. My profile says 'Agnostic', but that's simply because 'Solipsist' isn't one of the available choices, and to be honest, to me that's all that epistemological solipsism is... agnosticism pushed to its logical conclusion.

You also must've missed the post where I referred to myself as a Christian. Perhaps this post will better explain this seeming dichotomy:

Click to expand...

Ah...I appreciate the explanation, and I'm in a similar camp though I find the terminology suspect and prefer the more conventional Pyrrhonist/Pyrrhonian skeptic. Though I prefer to stick to epistemological confidences rather than speaking in terms of knowledge, as I don't believe that such skepticism is liveable outside of philosophical speculations.

My approach can come across as harsh, but that's because a lot of my interactions are patterned after Jeremiah and Elijah in their dealings with pagan prophets. And i don't think we're as off topic as it might seem, because these epistemic and metaphysical issues are necessarily involved when we discuss objectivity of ethics.

Robban said:

What claim do you mean?

The article I quoted from is from Chabad.org, I could not see any author, probably because it is so well known.

Under the article were comments, one recieved a reply from Rabbi Shmary Brownstein.

So it is not my claim, it just is.

Click to expand...

The claim about, the second temple being destroyed. It’s not destroyed. The first one suffered an attack. But it’s not in Palestine.

Arcangl86 said:

So they could have. They just didn't want to because they feared future consequences.

They also needed the Republicans to support the bill. That part was likely, but not guaranteed. So of the two parties, one had the power to unilaterally pass the legislation, albeit by doing something politically risky, and the other could only require that politically risky move but not actually block the legislation. Yet you are blaming the party with no power to actually stop the bill. It's like if I shot somebody for not giving up their wallet and you blamed the victim for dying by not doing what I said.

Actually they didn't. They voted on a similar bill with several concessions. In other words, they negotiated, which is how this is supposed to work. But Republicans were so opposed to doing so at the being that the House passed the CR with a single Democratic vote, and then left town until after the funding was due to expire, ensuring only the bill they had passed could be signed into effect. Apparently there were secret discussion that happened at some point to come to a compromise, but who knows when they actually started to happen. And even those appeared to not be with Democratic le

True, because they disagreed with it. That could have been avoided by the GOP being open to negotiation at the start or having the political courage to restrict the filibuster.

Sure, there was discussion of doing so, but it wasn't supported by leadership. Biden openly opposed the idea and the one bill that was introduced was instantly sent to go die in committee in both houses. That's what I mean was not a serious effort.

The House passes plenty of bills they know won't pass cloture in the Senate. But they pass it anyway because they think it's important or powerful political messaging, like the For the People Act, which ended up not passing because of the filibuster. That's a bit different because they didn't have the votes to pass it in the first place, but I still think it's worth bringing up. Especially since the Democrats cared enough about it and the related John Lewis Voting Rights Act to try and change the cloture rules. That attempt failed, but it's instructive because it shows how far the Democrats were willing to go for a bill that had broad party support, unlike the Judiciary Act of 2021 which never got a vote.

Click to expand...

To vote for the nuke option would've changed the senate for future issues. There was no choice but to oppose changing the filibuster.

Uhm, the Republicans in the House and Senate already voted for the CR bill. The Democrats voted no 14 times and even voted no on the
proposal bill to fund SNAP, military and federal workers pay.

Delvianna said:

I think you're missing the point. If someone has God, then God will lead/guide them. Since Jesus is the Shepard and we form our covenant with him, then we trust in his guidance. Can God use people and scripture to back up the truth? Yes, but without God's guidance, we can fall way off the road. Jesus is the "way, the truth and the light", all you technically need is God and he will guide/direct. When you start adding other things as a "requirement", you're essentially saying God can't guide correctly to truth without other stuff. If he really needs to, he'll show up himself. Loads of testimonies of God showing up in dreams and such, for people in other religions or even atheists. All you NEED is God, but scripture does help. As I said, it's an aid, but it shouldn't ever replace your walk/relationship with him on a personal basis.

Click to expand...

The word of God is more than an "aid," it is
the source of spiritual regeneration (1 Pe 1:23),
spirit and life (Jn 6:63),
living and active. . .dividing soul and spirit. . .judging thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Heb 4:12).

Freth said:

Also, consuming fire:

Deuteronomy 4:24 For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 9:3 Understand therefore this day, that the Lord thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the Lord hath said unto thee.

Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Click to expand...

Be aware that the Lord does NOT Return in a consuming fire, but in glory, as described in 1Thess 4:16 and Revelation 19:11-14

He SENDS fire, Psalms 11:4-6, to destroy His enemies in the Holy Land, Zephaniah 1:14-18, and to commence the Prophesied end time events.

pasifika said:

It's everywhere in Scriptures you just don't see it. In fact Scripture is about Faith!

There is a law which requires Faith (in case of Abraham) and law requires works (OC followers ie Pharisees etc and Sabbatarian ) Romans 3

Click to expand...

Says nowhere in scripture and you know it. Otherwise you would have posted it and not try to state Rom 3 says it.

Uh, we do grow those things here. It's accurate to say that we can't meet our demand internally, but those are not the same thing.

Always in His Presence said:

As for Canada - when the Canadian dollar is worth only 73 cents American - how could they afford to come to begin with.

Click to expand...

I'm Canadian....sorry but you do need to do some homework.....The Canadian dollar has hovered around 73 cents USD in multiple different years, including 2004, 2015–2016, 2019–2020, and again in 2023–2025. In all other years that never stopped us from visiting in great numbers.

Studyman said:

God said Isaac was blessed, "Because" that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Click to expand...

The obeying the voice of God is of the hearing of faith that Paul speaks of in Galatians 3. We know this to be true because verse 6 starts with the words “even as” when the spirit speaks of Abraham believing God. And all this is being said in respect to Paul speaking of us being dead but alive, yet not us but the Christ living in us. And the life we now live in the flesh we live by the faith OF the Son of God who gave himself for us. And this Faith is how we are justified. Because we Know that a man is not justified by the works of the law, if not (except) by the faith of Jesus Christ, as verse 2:16 says

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, if not (except) by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Galatians 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Galatians 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Galatians 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

pasifika said:

Yes, Jesus and Isaiah teach and promoting the Gospel.

The Pharisees on the other hand were teachers of the law of Moses or old covenant law.

You see the difference of the Gospel and the Law (OC) by comparing Jesus and Isaiah to the Pharisees?

Click to expand...

I know that you are preaching that the Pharisees were promoting the Law of Moses, and that Jesus and Isaiah, and Stephen and many others in the Holy scriptures teach me that they were not promoting the Law of Moses. In fact, the only people in the entire Bible that teaches that the Pharisees were promoting the Law of Moses, was the Pharisees themselves, who Jesus called "children of the devil".

But what else can I say. If you want to promote the teaching that the Pharisees were promoting God's Laws, you are free to do so. I have already shown you what the Jesus "of the bible" teaches about them.

Time for me to move on.

JimR-OCDS said:

No, they could not remove nor modify the filibuster, without major consequences in the future.

Click to expand...

So they could have. They just didn't want to because they feared future consequences.

JimR-OCDS said:

All the democrats had to do is vote for the clean Continuing Resolution,

Click to expand...

They also needed the Republicans to support the bill. That part was likely, but not guaranteed. So of the two parties, one had the power to unilaterally pass the legislation, albeit by doing something politically risky, and the other could only require that politically risky move but not actually block the legislation. Yet you are blaming the party with no power to actually stop the bill. It's like if I shot somebody for not giving up their wallet and you blamed the victim for dying by not doing what I said.

JimR-OCDS said:

which they eventually did and the government reopened.

Click to expand...

Actually they didn't. They voted on a similar bill with several concessions. In other words, they negotiated, which is how this is supposed to work. But Republicans were so opposed to doing so at the being that the House passed the CR with a single Democratic vote, and then left town until after the funding was due to expire, ensuring only the bill they had passed could be signed into effect. Apparently there were secret discussion that happened at some point to come to a compromise, but who knows when they actually started to happen. And even those appeared to not be with Democratic le

JimR-OCDS said:

It was the democrats who refused to vote for the CR.

Click to expand...

True, because they disagreed with it. That could have been avoided by the GOP being open to negotiation at the start or having the political courage to restrict the filibuster.

JimR-OCDS said:

When Biden was president, they talked of stacking the Supreme Court

Click to expand...

Sure, there was discussion of doing so, but it wasn't supported by leadership. Biden openly opposed the idea and the one bill that was introduced was instantly sent to go die in committee in both houses. That's what I mean was not a serious effort.

JimR-OCDS said:

, but again, it would require 60 votes in the senate and
they knew unless they got control of both the House and the Senate, it could not be done.

Click to expand...

The House passes plenty of bills they know won't pass cloture in the Senate. But they pass it anyway because they think it's important or powerful political messaging, like the For the People Act, which ended up not passing because of the filibuster. That's a bit different because they didn't have the votes to pass it in the first place, but I still think it's worth bringing up. Especially since the Democrats cared enough about it and the related John Lewis Voting Rights Act to try and change the cloture rules. That attempt failed, but it's instructive because it shows how far the Democrats were willing to go for a bill that had broad party support, unlike the Judiciary Act of 2021 which never got a vote.

Hans Blaster said:

then applies them to countries that don't even meet his own criteria

Click to expand...

Or even... exist, in some cases.

Also, consuming fire:

Deuteronomy 4:24 For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 9:3 Understand therefore this day, that the Lord thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the Lord hath said unto thee.

Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

I bet these numbers would change if we counted politics as a religion.

This would seem a fortuitous time for the rise of a third party like American Solidarity Party. But it would take prominent leaders.

Someone, somewhere in the administration realized the climate in the US is not suited for growing some things the American public wants (coffee, bananas, etc) in the quantity needed.

In these cases it was clear all the tariffs were doing is raising prices for American shoppers because we can't grow that stuff here. Also, its not like say expensive French wine where the consumers are in the minority. A ton of people buy coffee and bananas.

I generally support Trump. But, in this case its just fixing an issue he caused by placing a tariff on mass consumed goods we can't produce here.