boughtwithaprice said:

The constitution protects from unreasonable searches and seizures. It is not a blanket protection from law enforcement

Click to expand...

Actually it is. The operative word here is “unreasonable”. There are emergency situations where the safety of the public is at immediate danger were LE can stop people that they deem suspicious. There is nothing immediately dangerous to the public about stopping a truck with a ladder on top unless the ladder is the weapon lol.

boughtwithaprice said:

With over 20,000,000 illegal aliens in the US, now down to probably 18,000,000, the ICE raids are not unreasonable

Click to expand...

Yes the raids are unreasonable. ICE still needs to not trample the constitution in their haste to keep up with the quota.

boughtwithaprice said:

It is your opinion that illegal immigration is not a problem, but our president disagrees.

Click to expand...

Strawman. Never argued that.

boughtwithaprice said:

Article II and current statutes give him the sole discretion to determine what constitutes an invasion, what is a problem and where law enforcement needs to be directed

Click to expand...

Again, it all has to be done within the framework of the constitution. These people are not enemy combatants. Look get rid of the criminals by using proper investigation techniques to identify the criminals. Regular police do this all the time.

boughtwithaprice said:

Latinos can protect themselves by knowing their rights and having proper encounters with law enforcement. If they are citizens, they will enjoy the freedoms that accompany citizenship

Click to expand...

Great but they should not have to be subjected to an illegal search without probable cause. Again, what does an illegal Mexican look like?

boughtwithaprice said:

Your whining about the 4th amendment does not override article II or article I which gave the president statutory authority. Don’t like him? Vote him out

Click to expand...

Not whining at all but it seems like you are because I’m challenging your boy. Article II is subject to the rest of the constitution not in spite of the rest of the constitution.

boughtwithaprice said:

In the current declaration, it is not unreasonable to question anyone’s immigration status.

Click to expand...

Like the Russians used to do? Papers please comrade?

boughtwithaprice said:

Citizens need to be prepared to defend their freedom by supporting law enforcement not fighting them.

Click to expand...

No problem. I have always supported law enforcement .

boughtwithaprice said:

Illegal aliens should live in fear, they are here illegally. Self deport of face law enforcement. They have a choice.

Click to expand...

You are Catholic. Maybe you should listen to your pope.

“Pope Leo has come out in support of a rare special message released by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in recent days that lamented a "climate of fear and anxiety around questions of profiling and immigration enforcement."

"I think we have to look for ways of treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have," he said. "If people are in the United States illegally, there are ways to treat that. There are courts, there's a system of justice."

boughtwithaprice said:

I could see if we were rounding up Latinos and herding them into concentration camps or ghettos, but that it not the case. They are being deported according to the civil penalty that follows their act if they are here illegally.

Click to expand...

So you consider places like Alligator Alcatraz to not be like a concentration camp? You really need to wake up from that dream.

boughtwithaprice said:

It is written that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Click to expand...

That is a biblical concept that relates to casting out demons. Are you equating illegal aliens to casting out demons?

boughtwithaprice said:

Too long we have been subject to agitators who wish to use the constitution against their own country.

Click to expand...

Like who? Are you just venting cause I have no clue how this relates to our conversation.

boughtwithaprice said:

The fourteenth amendment does not confer birthright citizenship ,

Click to expand...

You are joking right? Have you read it?

boughtwithaprice said:

and the fourth amendment does not protect against reasonable searches and seizures,

Click to expand...

They have to be reasonable and stopping someone that is walking down the street or driving a truck with construction tools in it is NOT reasonable.

boughtwithaprice said:

the fifth amendment is only applicable if citizens know how to properly invoke it. If they waive their rights knowingly or unknowingly, they are not protected by the fifth amendment.

Click to expand...

Why would most people even have to get to this point? I’ve lived in the states for over 60 years and never even faced an opportunity to use it.

boughtwithaprice said:

It is only an opinion that people have about the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment that causes our current problem ,

Click to expand...

Like you? Cause if course your opinion would be absolutely right and everyone else would be wrong. I bet you are the best driver out there too.

boughtwithaprice said:

and we had plenty of subversives that wish to use article III against their own country.
Same thing happened to President Lincoln, and he invoked the insurrection act.

Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant to our present situation. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to suppress dissent and maintain public safety during the Civil War by allowing the arrest and detention of suspected traitors and saboteurs without formal charges. This is hardly what is happening now.

boughtwithaprice said:

The Supreme Court will hopefully clarify things soon.

Click to expand...

I hope so.

boughtwithaprice said:

That is constitutional, subversive opinion is not

Click to expand...

Is my opinion subversive?

essentialsaltes said:

NOW WITH MOAR ALL CAPS. I WASN'T KIDDING GUYS!

View attachment 373364

It sounds like if we push him a little more, he'll destroy the insurance industry, so that could be a step in the right direction if we can replace it with a single government soluti

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

NOW WITH MOAR ALL CAPS. I WASN'T KIDDING GUYS!

View attachment 373364

It sounds like if we push him a little more, he'll destroy the insurance industry, so that could be a step in the right direction if we can replace it with a single government solution.

Click to expand...

This proposal has zero to do with healthcare. It is a federal welfare bonus check for those families who make under $100K

I don't see why Democrats would oppose such payments.

I COULD see Trump proposing that support for Medicaid be sent directly to the people rather than to the states or insurance companies.
========
If Trump TRULY want to fight the insurance companies and reduce their profits, he could propose eliminating the employer tax deduction for medical insurance. Companies should NOT be in the business of choosing insurance for their employees,

Hans Blaster said:

I already told you I wasn't interested in a sex-pest competition.

Click to expand...

I was not talking to you - I already told you I don't care what you are interested in. I was responding because others read these posts -

Hans Blaster said:

(And we should note that these are lousy metrics since Trump and Epstein lived about a mile apart in Palm Beach and in Manhattan. Plane trips aren't necessary)

Click to expand...

Clinton used the jet for mutual trips to Europe and Africa - yes, your metrics are lousy. So much for not caring -

Servus said:

Isn't that about the same as saying the Bible is the word of God and thus the Bible is typologically Christ per John 1:1?

Click to expand...

Iconographically speaking, yes, which is why when we Orthodox venerate an icon we either kiss Christ, a Cross or an image of the Evangelion.

Of course this is not Bibliolatry since we are not worshipping the Bible nor are we declaring that the Gospel Book any more than the pulverized tablets in the Ark are the Incarnate Logos by whom all things were made.

Pole dancing

pasifika said:

Yes the answer is Jesus and the choice is also His to make us His slaves to spread the fragrance of the Gospel...

Click to expand...

And without that slavery to righteousness, that good fruit, we won't be seeing Him.

Clare73 said:

In a demcracy, "what is better" is what the voters decide.

Click to expand...

Lol no.

fhansen said:

Yes, and the answer is Jesus Christ!-as vs 25 of Rom 7 proclaims. And Rom 8 is then about the grace, the life and power of the Holy Spirit given us with which to overcome that sin, that slavery depicted in Rom 6, so that we may become slaves to righteousness.

Click to expand...

Yes the answer is Jesus and the choice is also His to make us His slaves to spread the fragrance of the Gospel...

CoreyD said:

Do you see how misunderstandings are created, when one does what Proverbs 18:13 rightly advises against.
The scripture are always correct, and the wisdom of Solomon, in the book of Proverbs are tried and tested. It's God's wisdom, which we do well to listen to.

Click to expand...

What I see is a person that doesn't like the particular kind of responses he would like to receive. Conversations are not mathematical equations and people are not machines that are supposed to spit out desired conclusions to situational input. The Bible says we are brothers and sisters and neighbors to interact with and love each other. (John 13:35)

I gave a cordial response and meant well and I don't know why it bothers you but I can try to elaborate. I simply have encountered Fervent enough that I think he was trying to offer you insight based on his own experience and wisdom and in my opinion the response I alluded to was a good response, even if it wasn't acceptable according to your personal expectations.

CoreyD said:

That's even more difficult for me to understand what is meant, because I don't understand what is meant by "engaging with the truth", and I can't see how any engagement with the truth is necessary to determine it, or how it's even possible to engage with something if one doesn't even know what it is, or how to identify it.

Click to expand...

So to expand on the simple statement, Jesus Christ is the truth (John 14:6). God says in Jeremiah 29:13 that people will find Him when they seek Him with all their heart, and if God the Son is "truth" then seeking the truth leads one to finding Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ is also the Word of God (John 1:1) and so to "engage with the truth" would be to interact with the Scriptures.

If we are to be the Bride of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2) then this whole ordeal is about a relationship. To have a relationship you have to meet and engage with the person in conversation, you have to learn of them, get to know them, and find out who they are. If Christ is the Word of God, and He is also the truth, then to get to know Him is to interact with the Scriptures.

In other words, you can't know the truth anymore than you know a person you haven't met if you haven't met the truth, or engaged with it personally. Just like you didn't know me at all before this encounter, people cannot know the truth until they interact with it, just like you would not have known me if you had not met and interacted with me on this forum. If someone had asked you about me before this conversation, the best response you would have is "I don't know who that is or if he even exists."

A person not knowing that Christ is the truth doesn't mean that Christ isn't the truth, it simply means that person is unaware of something, just like children are unaware of danger at times even if it is right next to them on the playground or a snake is laying in the grass hidden. The truth is in the world, but it does not mean people are aware of it and they can't know it is the truth until they experience it for themselves, just like you now have an experience with conversing with me and know I'm real. Just because you didn't know who I was before you met me, did not make me any less real and it also didn't give you a way to identify me. Only meeting me gives someone a way to identify the truth, otherwise they are still in the stage of needing to "seek" the truth (Jeremiah 29:13 - Matthew 7:7) because they haven't found it yet.

CoreyD said:

Fervent said:
the thread had been ongoing for a while when I jumped in, so my response wasn't directly to the OPAre you saying @Fervent is responding to the OP?

Click to expand...

I'm saying here that Fervent's particular statement was a response to the OP. Fervent was trying to tell you that not everything he said was a direct response to the OP. He is trying to fill in dark areas around the core line of questioning and was trying to offer other insights that were brought up in the conversation. Responding to the OP is good, but when a conversation is being held by a group of people, the OP isn't addressed in every single statement, otherwise the subject would be extremely limited and confined and understanding is then lost and people cannot use analogies or examples. Fervent is a deep thinker and was simply telling you that he was adding to the conversation and trying to make it clear to you that those statements were not directly connected to the OP. They were indirectly connected being related to the subject and responses to other statements in the conversation.

CoreyD said:

Can you specify what statement you are referring to?
There are a lot of statements in the posts. I am lost as to which you are speaking of.

Click to expand...

Sure.

Fervent said:

It takes engaging with it to make a determination

Click to expand...

This is the statement I'm referring to. He is saying "It takes engaging with the truth to make a determination."

In other words, you can't know who or what something is until you interact with it. You can't tell a court I'm a trustworthy person until you have met me and known me for some amount of time. You can't identify the truth, until you experience the truth, otherwise you are still searching and have not found it yet and simply "don't know," just like you didn't know me before this encounter with me.

Clare73 said:

That is precisely what Paul states:

Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived (1 Tim 2:14).
Adam chose to sin with her.

Click to expand...

Doesn't mean they were not misled in their innocence knowing nothing about sin.

RocksInMyHead said:

Do you think he grasps the concept that, if you give people money to buy insurance from "big, fat, rich insurance companies," you are, in fact, giving money to "big, fat, rich insurance companies"?

Click to expand...

He has transcended to another plane of intelligence; a mere mortal such as I cannot fathom the vast ocean of his comprehension.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Indeed. I don’t blame the president for normalizing his bad behavior. I blame his voters and a slight majority of the country for not having better discernment.

Click to expand...

In a demcracy, "what is better" is what the voters decide.

AV1611VET said:

Thanks.

Ya ... let's go with it.

Angelic life aside, I'll say YES to your question then.

You need:

1) Reproduction
2) Metabolism
3) Response to stimuli
4) Heredity
5) Adaptation through evolution
6) Homeostasis
7) Growth and development
8) Cellular organization

... to be classified as "alive and healthy".*

* The reason I added "and healthy" is because of exceptions.

For instance, a person can be comatose (see #3) but still alive.

Click to expand...

OK, we'll go with that. There are some grey areas but we can ignore those.

Now, we agree that we need pretty much all of those characteristics for something to be considered 'living'. But they don't all need to appear at the same time. You could have some initial cellular organisation happening before the ability to reproduce appears. We could have growth before homeostasis. The chances of all of them happening to appear at the same time is astronomically large. A virtual impossibility. So Hovin's example of the frog in the blender isn't valid. You can't immediately reconstitute life from the constituent parts. As he quite rightly says.

It needs to be built up, step by step. So he was asking a question a 6 year old might ask (or maybe he was talking to 6 year olds). And a question that would be ridiculed by a ten year old (I know my grandson would think it nonsensical). It's like saying that you could get a pack of cards and shuffle them (all the constituent parts are there) and then deal A, 2, 3 etc of clubs, diamonds, hearts and spades - all in order. Again, the odds of that happening (I just checked) are 1 in 8.065e+67, which is about the same number as the number of atoms in our galaxy.

So, now you want to know how it happened...

Anything you can do, we can do legaller.
We can do anything legaller than you.

-The people of California

essentialsaltes said:

NOW WITH MOAR ALL CAPS. I WASN'T KIDDING GUYS!

View attachment 373364

It sounds like if we push him a little more, he'll destroy the insurance industry, so that could be a step in the right direction if we can replace it with a single government solution.

Click to expand...

Do you think he grasps the concept that, if you give people money to buy insurance from "big, fat, rich insurance companies," you are, in fact, giving money to "big, fat, rich insurance companies"?

childeye 2 said:

I'd say conscience reflects beliefs. What about addressing my question?

Click to expand...

What question is that?

childeye 2 said:

They learn it. Objective knowledge is dictated by reality. <-facts.

What we think matters, because it matters what we believe, because we reason upon what we believe to be true, because if we reason upon something false as true our reasoning ends in a contradiction.



"Paul made a contrast between one person being deceived, and the other not". <- Look at the context, Paul is making a contrast between the man and the woman with the intention of making the case for why the man should have the greater authority.

"That points out that one person - Adam - made a choice to do what was wrong, without being misled". <-This is inaccurate because (1) it's out of context. (2) Paul did not say Adam made a deliberate choice to do wrong.

Only one of these statements is logical:
(1) The person who distrusts the almighty should have authority.
(2) The person who trusts the almighty should have authority.

What the Text Actually Says​

• Greek syntax: “Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, fell into transgression.”
• The verb ἠπατήθη (“was deceived”) is simply negated for Adam. It does NOT ADD “therefore Adam sinned deliberately.”
• Paul’s statement is descriptive of Genesis: the serpent spoke with Eve, not Adam. Eve was deceived; Adam was not.
• Nowhere in scripture does it explicitly say “Adam sinned deliberately.” That is an interpretive inference, not a textual statement.
• If Paul meant Adam’s sin was deliberate, then the logic collapses:
  • The one who deliberately distrusted God would be more culpable, not less.
  • Authority cannot be grounded in deliberate rebellion. Even a child could see that the one who knowingly disobeys God is less fit for authority than the one misled.

It is wrong to presume Adam and Eve knew what a lie is; It's logical to assume that without any knowledge of good and evil they only knew how to trust.

With the stipulation that when I say, "TEND to take it out of context", I mean some theologians tend to interpret that Paul is inferring that Adam was not misled and subsequently disobeyed of his own initiative; and that interpretation ends in the contradiction of reasoning.<- This would be in contrast to believing Paul is inferring that the man shouldn't be taught by the woman because the man was persuaded by the woman and was misled by the woman. <-- This reasoning does not end in a contradiction of reasoning. To be clear the contradiction is that the one who knowingly distrusts God should be in authority.

Taken out of context: Ellicott: "The argument here is a singular one—Adam and Eve both sinned, but Adam was not deceived. He sinned, quite aware all the while of the magnitude of the sin he was voluntarily committing. Eve, on the other hand, was completely, thoroughly deceived". Ellicott

Here is one taken in context: Chrysostom: "For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband?" (Genesis 3:16.) This had not been said to her before".

"But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, "The serpent beguiled me." But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, "she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as "not deceived." For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he "saw the tree was good for food," but of the woman, and that she "did eat, and gave it to her husband": so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife. The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this?" Chrysostom

We can use the term deceived, or beguiled, or deluded.

(1) The serpent questions God’s command -> “Did God really say…?”
(2) The serpent introduced a doubt to the innocent->The serpent casts suspicion on God’s word, making Eve question whether she understood correctly.
(3) The serpent gives a false assurance -> The serpent assures her she will not die, directly contradicting God’s warning.
(4) The serpent tempts her with gain -> The serpent says she will gain wisdom and godlike knowledge if she eats.

Eve had probably never felt doubt before. I think the serpent introduced doubt into her experience for the first time, and that’s how she was deceived.

Probably because it's probable. Remarkable because one would think it would be corroborated somewhere else in scripture if Adam had not been misled by his wife.

I've already stated that it's speculation. The fact that one interpretation ends in a contradiction of reasoning however is not speculative. And that happens to be the speculation in the OP.

Click to expand...

childeye 2 said:

Are you ignoring other possibilities that conflict with your interpretation?

Click to expand...

What's my interpretation?

childeye 2 said:

The point is that the Op is using a secular humanist philosophical meaning of 'free will' -> a noun. In scripture, we never find 'free will' as a noun -> a thing humans possess. What we find are adverbs like ‘willingly’ or ‘voluntarily,’ describing how an action is done. To import the secular noun ‘free will’ into the Bible is to add a concept that isn’t there.”

Click to expand...

Where does the OP use free will as a noun?

Scare quotes on 'War' and 'By Any Means Necessary' are there for a reason. They are not actual quotes.

Colo Millz said:

Co-Sufferers (Imitatio Christi): Christians are called to participate in the suffering of Christ. Personal suffering is utilized as a means of purification (removing self-will and sin) and spiritual growth. By uniting one's own pain to the Passion, it ceases to be meaningless and becomes a source of grace for oneself and others.

Is this a Biblical understanding?

Click to expand...

Hey Colo Millz, Kiwi in Tokyo here—years of chronic pain have made Phil 3:10 my lifeline. When I choose to unite the ache to Christ’s, it stops feeling pointless and becomes partnership: purging pride, deepening compassion, and reminding me the nails weren’t the worst part—bearing our sin was (Luke 22:44). Biblical, provided we remember our pain participates in, never completes, His finished work (Col 1:24; Rom 8:18). Thanks for putting biblical meat on a hard reality—fellow-partakers, not the punished. Grace to you.

Some HVAC guys came and installed my new furnace today. The fired it up and it was LOUD. I asked, "Is it supposed to be that loud?" The main guy was like, "No. I think I messed something up when I wired it. Let me check the manual."

Looking at the manual. What a novel idea.