Latest activity

Gene2memE · 2025-07-02T01:18:11-0500

dlamberth said:
What struck me as interesting from the article is how wide spread early human species were on this Earth.

They keep turning up all over the place, and in more and more variations.

I think there have been three new Homo species discovered in just the last decade (juluensis, bodoenesis and nadeli) and another couple of earlier discoveries that have been formally type classified as Homo. That would make the last 10 years the most productive when it comes to archaic human discoveries since the 1970s.

sjastro · 2025-07-02T01:17:36-0500

AACJ said:
Typical of such works, the article you linked to uncritically promotes evolutionary assumptions and ignores biblical creationism. The 140,000-year dating relies on flawed luminescence techniques and presupposes uniformitarian geology, rejecting the global flood evidence (Genesis 6-9). Homo erectus fossils likely represent post-Babel human variation, not evolutionary ancestors. The scavenging/hunting claims are speculation--broken bones could stem from catastrophic burial. The article’s naturalism filter ignores God’s creative acts (Exodus 20:11) and distorts human origins.

Typical creationist nonsense.
Firstly "The 140,000-year dating relies on flawed luminescence techniques..........."
OSL in this not a flawed technique where possible it is used it conjunction with other methods and their error bar values are found to overlap. Of course it would an amazing coincidence if they are all wrong to a similar degree of magnitude.

Site / Find	Location	Dating Techniques Used	Material Dated	Reported Dates	Reference
Lake Ulaan	Mongolia	OSL, Radiocarbon (^14C)	Lacustrine sediments	- OSL: ~16,000 to >50,000 years BP - ^14C: Clustered around 40,000–50,000 years BP	Springer Link
Suheol-ri Paleosols	Cheonan, Korea	OSL, Radiocarbon (^14C)	Paleosol layers with archaeological finds	- OSL: ~30,000 to 40,000 years BP - ^14C: ~30,000 to 40,000 years BP (good agreement)	MAA Journal
Clark Emu Egg	Australia	OSL, Radiocarbon (^14C), U-Series, AAR	Fossilized emu egg	All methods yielded ~25,000 to 35,000 years BP	ScienceDirect
Lower Moulouya River	Morocco	OSL, ESR, Palaeomagnetism	Fluvial terrace sediments	- All methods (OSL, ESR, paleomag): ~1.5 million to 1.1 million years BP	ScienceDirect
Ksar Akil Rock Shelter	Lebanon	OSL, Thermoluminescence (TL), Radiocarbon (^14C)	Sediments and burnt flints	- ^14C: ~45,900 to 39,200 years BP - TL & OSL support ^14C framework for early modern humans	Wikipedia

Secondly "......rejecting the global flood evidence (Genesis 6-9)."
To the south of Indonesia is the Australian continent inhabited by the oldest existing culture on the planet where their rich oral traditions survive. Once such tradition are flood stories which is supported by geological evidence such as sedimentation and indicates floods were local not global and occurred at different times. In other regions such as Tasmania where there were no flood stories is supported by the lack of sedimentation.

Thirdly "Homo erectus fossils likely represent post-Babel human variation, not evolutionary ancestors. The scavenging/hunting claims are speculation--broken bones could stem from catastrophic burial."

Since this a a science forum support your assertion with evidence, opinions do not count and the Bible is not a source of evidence.

Christsfreeservant · 2025-07-02T00:57:41-0500

Jeremiah 17:9-10 ESV

“The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?
‘I the Lord search the heart
and test the mind,
to give every man according to his ways,
according to the fruit of his deeds.’”

I sometimes hear other people and some pastors quote verse nine here and apply it to all people, including to Christians, and that always bothers me. Why? Because, as Christians we should have hearts which are now surrendered to God. Our hearts shouldn’t be deceitful and desperately sick (wicked). Now I would agree that our fleshly hearts are like this before we have changed hearts, and prior to the Spirit living within us, but shouldn’t we have changed hearts, renewed of the Spirit of God?

For, we read in Matthew 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” And we read in Matthew 6:20-21 that we are to lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven.. for where our treasure is, there our heart will be also. And in Matthew 12:34-35 we read, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.”

And in Matthew 22:37 we read, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” But how can we do that if we all have deceitful and wicked hearts? And in Luke 8:15 we read, “As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience.” So, some people have honest and good hearts.

And in John 7:38 we read, “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” And in Acts 2:46 we read about “glad and generous hearts.” And in Acts 4:32 we read, “Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul,” and that was a heart surrendered to God. And in Acts 13:22 we read, “I have found in David the son of Jesse a man after my heart, who will do all my will.”

And in Acts 15:9 we read, “having cleansed their hearts by faith.” And in Romans 5:5 we read, “because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.” So, we can, by faith in Jesus, have cleansed and pure hearts. And in Romans 6:17 we read, “have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed.” So, we can have obedient hearts to God.

And in Romans 10:1 we read, “My heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.” And 2 Corinthians 4:6 says, “For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” In Galatians 4:6 we read, “And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’”

And Ephesians 3:17 says, “so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love.” And Ephesians 6:6 says, “not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.” And in Colossians 3:15, “compassionate hearts.” We read in 2 Thessalonians 3:5, “May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ.”

And in 1 Timothy 1:5, “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” And in 2 Timothy 2:22 we read, “So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.” So, if we believe in Jesus Christ with God-given faith in him, we can have pure hearts, good and honest hearts, and we can love God with our whole heart.

We can have glad and generous hearts, and hearts which are surrendered to Jesus Christ, and we can be people after God’s own heart, and have cleansed hearts, and hearts filled with the love of God. And we can have obedient hearts and hearts which desire good for others. We can have hearts filled with the light of truth, and Spirit-filled hearts, hearts that are committed to doing the will of God, compassionate hearts, and hearts which are directed to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ.

So, yes, in our sin nature, we have deceitful and wicked hearts. But once we have been transformed in heart and mind of the Spirit of God, and our hearts have been cleansed and made new by God-given faith in Jesus Christ, and God is living within our hearts, by faith in him, our hearts shouldn’t be deceitful and desperately wicked. Now they should be pure, honest, good, moral, upright, godly, generous, and hearts filled with the love of God.

But this doesn’t mean that everyone who professes faith in Jesus Christ has a pure, honest, upright, and godly heart committed to obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ. This comes through us daily dying to sin and to self and us daily surrendering our hearts to the Lord and walking in his ways and in his truth. But it is the Lord who tests our hearts, and he will give to each one of us according to our ways (see Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 6:7-8).

So, just know that not all of us have deceitful and desperately wicked hearts, not if our hearts have been cleansed and renewed of the Holy Spirit. But we still live in flesh bodies, and so we still have the ability to return to wicked and deceitful hearts if we cease to surrender our hearts to the Lord, and if we stop obeying the Lord, in practice, and if we go back to living in sin and for self. So, we need to guard our hearts so we keep having pure hearts.

My Sheep

Based off John 10:1-18 NIV
An Original Work / June 24, 2012
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

My sheep hear me. They know me.
They listen to my voice and obey.
I call them and lead them.
They know my voice, so they follow me.
They will never follow strangers.
They will run away from them.
The voice of a stranger they know not;
They do not follow him.

So, I tell you the truth that
I am the gate, so you enter in.
Whoever does enter
Will find forgiveness and will be saved.
Nonetheless whoever enters
Not by the gate; other way,
He is the thief and a robber.
Listen not, the sheep to him.

Oh, I am the Good Shepherd,
Who laid his own life down for the sheep.
I know them. They know me.
They will live with me eternally.
The thief only comes to steal and
Kill and to destroy the church.
I have come to give you life that
You may have it to the full…

They know my voice, so they follow me.

Login to view embedded media
The Pure in Heart
An Original Work / July 2, 2023
Originally posted on July 2, 2023 / Reposted on July 2, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Fervent · 2025-07-02T00:55:43-0500

I find a common Orthodox view compelling, that hell is not somewhere that God sends the wicked but that suffering is how the wicked experience being in God's presence because of their refusing to let go of their sin. It is not that God is active in punishing them, but a consequence of their constitution.

Muhan · 2025-07-02T00:47:54-0500

I'm going to tell you
One thing
That if you will do it
Will bring you
The blessings of God
To the point that
You will not be able
To contain them all

Obedience
To all the commandments
Jesus Christ

if you want blessings
That chase you
And overtake you
And overflow
To the point you give them away
You have so many

You only have to do one thing

Obey all the
commandments
Of Jesus Christ.

Fervent · 2025-07-02T00:43:04-0500

No wonder my hair dresser won't allow me to book an appointment in Oct 2040.

PloverWing · 2025-07-02T00:24:44-0500

I found the article thought-provoking, but I didn't want to intrude on OBOB, so I've started a thread over in Traditional Theology to discuss the article, if you're interested: Thoughts on Confirmation

PloverWing · 2025-07-02T00:23:22-0500

@Michie recently posted an article in OBOB in which the author recommends lowering the recommended Confirmation age to 9 or 10. This is exactly the opposite advice from what I've been thinking lately. I thought it might be interesting to explore this in the Traditional Theology forum, to see how other folks felt about it. What do we envision Confirmation as being, and what role is it playing in practice (as distinct from what we envision in our theology books) in the spiritual lives of young Christians?

Original OBOB thread: Strengthening the Seal: Yet Another Diocese Returns Confirmation to Younger Children, Where It Belongs...

Article referenced in that thread: Understanding the Reality of the Sacrament of Confirmation | Knowing Is Doing

---

A couple of weeks ago, I had a conversation with a fellow-Episcopalian friend of mine. They're in their 20s, and I'm a generation older. Both of us had the experience of exploring and questioning faith in our late teens and early 20s, and then coming to a point in our 20s where we were ready to commit to continuing in the Christian faith despite all the doubts and questions. I suspect that's a common experience, and it feels like there should be a sacramental rite that marks that adult commitment. Both of us thought of Confirmation as the natural candidate for this, which made us lean toward an older recommended age for Confirmation, something like 25 or 30.

So when I encountered the above article this evening, it surprised me by recommending a much younger Confirmation age of 9 or 10.

I suppose that's similar to the age at which many young Baptists express a desire for believer's baptism, so perhaps the author's idea is for Confirmation to be linked to the child's first ability to understand and commit to the faith. I can see this as plausible. But it still leaves us without a rite to mark the passage into informed adult faith.

Some questions to invite thought:

1) What role does Confirmation play in your tradition? It's laying on of hands by the bishop, and it's a means of grace (I assume we all agree on those points), but what transition or commitment or stage of spiritual growth does it mark for the young people in your church?

2) I've overheard conversations in my town that went something like this: "Yeah, I went to church until I was Confirmed, and then that was all done, so I didn't have to go back any more." Is that just people in my town, or do you encounter this too? Is there something different we should be doing with Confirmation, if it's viewed like that?

3) Does your church have a rite that marks entrance into informed adult faith? A person goes to college and reads the philosophers and learns about world religions and the Enlightenment and higher criticism and whatever other intellectual challenges are out there, and like Jacob wrestles with it all until they extract a blessing -- and decides to continue being a Christian. Is there a rite for that? Should there be?

A2SG · 2025-07-02T00:19:13-0500

RileyG said:
Again, I do not accept that radical ideology.

Nothing radical about acknowledging the difference between gender and sex.

RileyG said:
A so called trans woman is still a man regardless of his identity. Every cell in his body says so.

So identity means nothing? You are just the cells in your body, nothing more?

Not sure you want to go down that road, my friend.

RileyG said:
How would they know other than based on stereotypes? They simply don’t.

There's a lot more than stereotypes that goes into how a person sees their gender. I might suggest reading up on the subject, there's a ton of research done in the field.

-- A2SG, you may want to consider checking out a wide variety of views, just to get a better picture....

Fervent · 2025-07-02T00:16:17-0500

caffeinated.hermit said:
@Fervent : Something I think *needs* to be put out there more often is the distinction between attraction and physical sin. Friendship and emotional closeness vs. the physical stuff. If zero distinction is made, you get a lot of people who are very, very constricted beyond what is reasonable, who may mistakenly believe that they are now straight, and wind up far more ruined than they would have been had "pray the gay away" not been presented as an option.

Yes, sometimes people are miraculously delivered from ssa. That's wonderful, but not everyone gets the experience. And if your only church options are "affirm and embrace everything" or "gay people are automatically going to Hell", it just feels weird to have two flavors of "yeah, no..." to choose from. You're right, the path is quite narrow.

Yes...and as that article you linked mentions, it's an issue that needs to be dealt with through humility. I think one of the bigger struggles the Western church is having, which is finding expression in the debate over homosexuality, is that it is no longer viewed as the moral foundation for society and so there is a great deal of reactionism towards the most obvious battle grounds. If the church is to regain social relevance, we collectively need to take some humble pie and recognize that we can't simply cry foul and expect respect. We have to engage the world where it is, and not where we would like it to be. Have a little interest in the point of view of people who don't share our convictions, even if we know that ultimately we aren't going to see eye to eye. We can have conversations and provide advice to Christians who are struggling with ssa, but remembering the words of Paul leave those outside the church to God and focus on preaching the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ while we were still sinners.

A2SG · 2025-07-02T00:08:21-0500

GoldenBoy89 said:
Well it seems obsessive at this point. Like my goodness, find another group to pick on.

Oh, they will.

-- A2SG, wanna take bets on which boogeyman is next?

A2SG · 2025-07-02T00:00:32-0500

Always in His Presence said:
No - it is not better, because it is not true - the courts have ruled against Trump a number of times - There no dictatorship forming except in some fertile imaginations

️ Major Supreme Court Losses for Trump

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)
In 2020, the Court ruled 5–4 that the Trump administration’s attempt to end DACA was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act. This was a major setback for Trump’s immigration agenda.

Census Citizenship Question
Also in 2019, the Court blocked the administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, citing that the rationale provided was contrived and not credible.

Trump v. Vance (2020)
The Court ruled 7–2 that the President is not immune from a state criminal subpoena, allowing the Manhattan District Attorney to obtain Trump’s tax records.

Trump v. Mazars (2020)
In a related case, the Court sent congressional subpoenas for Trump’s financial records back to lower courts for further review, rejecting Trump’s blanket immunity claims.

As I said, sometimes, enough of the other justices side with Trump, occasionally they don't.

But I still maintain that certain SCOTUS justices seem more than willing to aid Trump's attempts to wield dictator-like powers.

-- A2SG, you are, of course, free to disagree.....

Fervent · 2025-07-01T23:53:19-0500

caffeinated.hermit said:
So... something that I wish there was more room for is a capacity for Christians to simultaneously be ok with experiencing same-sex attraction and yet also be ok with celibacy for the sake of Christ. Out-yet-celibate, at least as far as the ssa goes. And yes, I know our identities are to be found in Christ, not our Kinsey Scale numbers, but for those walking in both worlds, even invisibly, it can be a bit alienating.

There are some of us out there who still love Subarus, Edward Gorey, plaid, and Provincetown and yet have left the physical side of that world for a community that just does not understand. It's an absolutely insane yet wonderful experience to actually meet a fellow "Side B" Christian in real life.

Thought this article was quite good and was kind of shocked to see the opinion. It's subtle.

With all of the political posturing, one thing that is easily lost in the mix is the humanity of people who are struggling to find their way in such apparently diametrically opposed self-understandings. It's easy to wax poetic about love when we're not confronted with the challenge of properly demonstrating love for those struggling with trying to find acceptance from two groups that are likely to reject them for not pledging their uncompromised loyalty to moral systems and ideas about what it means to love. Too often I hear Christians make glib statements about love the sinner, hate the sin with little recognition that there's no functional way to separate the two neatly. There's a narrow path, and walking it requires us to constantly remember that in all the showmanship and brazen displays of licentiousness that operate in the world today there are people who are hurting deeply and are seeking solace for their pain in a world that ultimately does not care about them. We're supposed to be the light of the world, but so often we miss that mark because we're concerned with policing the morality of a world that belongs to Satan.

BCP1928 · 2025-07-01T23:45:23-0500

MrMoe said:
Okay, so how did ICE do it under Obama? I’m guessing they didn’t “kidnap” people or use unmarked vehicles, since I never heard any uproar about it during his presidency.

ICE didn't do much of anything, hasn't really done all that much in the last twenty years or so since they were founded. Visa overstays are one of their primary responsibilities, and visa overstays have accounted for around half of the illegal aliens in the country all that time. It's something of a joke. Did you ever wonder why responsible and competent local LEOs put up with the "sanctuary city" silliness? It's because they generally have no respect for ICE and don't like dealing with them. Now ICE is being used as a Tough Cop travelling circus for the amusement of Trump's base. Enjoy the show,

RileyG · 2025-07-01T23:43:39-0500

A2SG said:
As far as they're concerned, the correct one is the one that corresponds to their gender.

-- A2SG, simple as that....

How would they know other than based on stereotypes? They simply don’t.

RileyG · 2025-07-01T23:43:10-0500

A2SG said:
We're talking gender here, not biology. And there's more to reality than biology.

Nor should it. But you equated this to something that requires proof; if that's irrelevant, what was the point to your comparison?

And the only way to prove someone's biology is to check their genitalia. It's far less intrusive than checking their internal organs or chromosomes.

-- A2SG, though it does need to be said, genitalia isn't always a completely accurate determination of one's sex anyway, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms...

Again, I do not accept that radical ideology. A so called trans woman is still a man regardless of his identity. Every cell in his body says so.

A2SG · 2025-07-01T23:41:54-0500

RileyG said:
They are like anyone else. If they want to go to the restroom, go to the correct one. Males in men, females in women. Simple.

As far as they're concerned, the correct one is the one that corresponds to their gender.

-- A2SG, simple as that....

A2SG · 2025-07-01T23:40:36-0500

RileyG said:
I don’t care what he considers himself as. Reality and biology says otherwise.

We're talking gender here, not biology. And there's more to reality than biology.

RileyG said:
This has nothing to do with checking anyone’s genitalia, good grief.

Nor should it. But you equated this to something that requires proof; if that's irrelevant, what was the point to your comparison?

And the only way to prove someone's biology is to check their genitalia. It's far less intrusive than checking their internal organs or chromosomes.

-- A2SG, though it does need to be said, genitalia isn't always a completely accurate determination of one's sex anyway, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms...

dlamberth · 2025-07-01T23:36:45-0500

AACJ said:
Typical of such works, the article you linked to uncritically promotes evolutionary assumptions and ignores biblical creationism. The 140,000-year dating relies on flawed luminescence techniques and presupposes uniformitarian geology, rejecting the global flood evidence (Genesis 6-9). Homo erectus fossils likely represent post-Babel human variation, not evolutionary ancestors. The scavenging/hunting claims are speculation--broken bones could stem from catastrophic burial. The article’s naturalism filter ignores God’s creative acts (Exodus 20:11) and distorts human origins.

It just makes sense that the article does not include biblical creation. The article in the OP is from a science journal. Science looks at what the Earth is showing us and not religious beliefs. And that's a good thing.

BCP1928 · 2025-07-01T23:33:32-0500

AACJ said:
Your're right. Supernatural causes can and do leave detectable effects (e.g., fine-tuning, irreducible complexity, documented before and after pics, etc.,). But it remains true that methodological naturalism presupposes only natural explanations, arbitrarily excluding design. This has been conceded by popular and influential thinkers, like Antony Flew.

Methodoligcal naturalism investigates any causes which hsve detectable effects in the natural world. It is Metaphiscal naturalism which presumes that none of them are supernatural.

A2SG · 2025-07-01T23:32:17-0500

BPPLEE said:
You are catering to the comfort of trans people at the expense of women.

No one is required to make other people comfortable. Your personal discomfort is not my responsibility, nor is mine yours. Take, as an example, a person who is uncomfortable around Christians. Does that discomfort require the Christian to remove religious jewelry, or even disavow their god in order to cater to that other person's comfort level? Of course not.

So why should trans people be required to accommodate the comfort level of other people and have their rights limited just because those other people have a prejudicial view of trans people, and feel uncomfortable about their existence?

Seems to me there used to be an expression about dealing with people's feelings. Can't quite recall it just now, though.

BPPLEE said:
Your argument is no different than me saying so what if trans people are uncomfortable in the bathroom or locker rooms with people of their own biological sex?
The other people have done nothing to make them uncomfortable except to exist

But that trans person is not limiting the rights of anyone else, or demanding that they act any differently. They just want to go to the bathroom.

-- A2SG, when ya gotta go, ya gotta go....

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page