Rescued One said:

I fell in the yard and couldn't get up. A stranger from one street over helped me get up. That was encouraging! It's too bad he's moving away.

Click to expand...

I hope you’re doing ok! God bless!

Stopped_lurking said:

How would we know if there is any good science, if they refuse to interact with other experts (through publishing it in the appropriate journals)?

Click to expand...

Because publishing work in appropriate journals does not make it science or good science. This can happen without publishing in particular journals. Are you saying the tests done were not good science. If you think so then show how. Don't just reject it because it doesn't meet some gatekeepers criteria.

Thats why I link the images. This is the most fundemental science of observation. The first step in science is to observe and record what is seen, heard, felt ect lol. You don't need a journal for that. I am asking you to be the scientist. To give your initial assessment. You cannot dent the observations.

If someone claims the observations are not from human made softening or melting then they need to explain why this is not the case. Someone mentioned it was natural, caused by lightening or some natural cause. Then they need to explain this and not just claim it.

I linked clear images of vitrified stones within the Temple and on walls. Close up images of melted stone. Tests showed it contained minieral unnatural to the stone. If those tests are wrong then this has to be shown with additional tests. Not just demand journals.

This may be the preliminary work to create the paper. How is the tests and analysis in the paper verified before it is made into a paper. They have to do the preliminary work first. This is it. Why can't you comment on that.

Stopped_lurking said:

Can you quote it? It is different to say "I'm not convinced by what you have presented me" and to say "what you have presented me is false, this is what happened instead".

Click to expand...

But when you claim your not convinced and then leave it at that this comes across as a dismissal. Because you are offering nothing. No explanation or evidence why your not convinced.

I could just say "I am not convinced that you are not convinced" lol and also offer nothing. Then where do we stand lol.

Stopped_lurking said:

It is not.

Click to expand...

I literally just pointed out an example above. I could ask, why are you not convinced. What is it that causes you to not be convinced and yet allows others to be convinced by the same evidence.

Is it a matter of epistemics that you believe that the evidence is not convincing. That the evidence must be within a certain paradigm to be convincing.

What about those who believe, who operate from a different epistemics and paradigm and think your worldview is unreal. Is only a surface level knowledge and not true knowledge. How does science refute this lol. By demanding physical evidence and peer review. Yeah sure. It won't even get through the front door as its rejected out of hand based on an epistemic belief and not science.

Stopped_lurking said:

Stop with the self-victimizing, no one is forcing you to post anything.

Click to expand...

You literally just did lol. I don't think you realise that this is what you are doing when you demand the evidence and methology for the evidence has to fall within a certain paradigm (worldview) and can only be known by naturalism.

Have you ever heard of phenomenal belief.

PloverWing said:

Suppose Netflix (and similar streaming services) had a more detailed rating system, so instead of just an age, there was some content description, and there was a way to select/screen based on some of these descriptions. "Contains LGBTQ content." "Contains depictions of smoking." "Contains depictions of religious observance" (maybe listing which religion). "Contains teenage romance", etc. Then parents could select for or screen out topics they want their children to be able to see. Would that solution satisfy the CWA folks?

I note that the content that one family might seek out is content that another family might wish to avoid. Surely a computer program could be written to let viewers select content in this way.

Click to expand...

Sounds perfectly good to me! After all we have warnings on games, cds, movies, and other content. That way people can choose what media they want to consume or not! Eh?

PloverWing said:

I'd support adding a note about LGBTQ content to the rating system, and then viewers could make more informed choices.

Click to expand...

I’m all for free choice and that’s fair.

Sort of like how older Disney movies had racist undertones, instead of deleting them completely, a “warning” would suffice.

(not that I’m competing the two. Parents can make their own informed decision for their children).

lismore said:

If a group are 1.5% of the population and yet have 41% of air time on Netflix, it isn't a representation it's an agenda. God Bless.

Click to expand...

Agreed. What’s the point anyway? Most children don’t even know their sexuality yet!

Not surprising, sadly.

I will have to watch this later!

Hey! I’m all for it! As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango

AvilaSurfer said:

I’m no theologian, but to me this borders on blasphemy. The Nativity is sacred, not a political poster.

Click to expand...

Amen!

JSRG said:

Lindsay Halligan didn't replace an AG (attorney general), of which there's only one, which is currently Pam Bodi. Halligan was brought in to replace the Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, a lower position. Maybe this is pedantic, but I think it's worth noting.

However, I do not believe the second and third indictments were brought by Halligan. She brought the first, which got dismissed because (correctly, according to my understanding) a judge ruled she hadn't been properly appointed, and since she was the only one who signed onto the indictment, it couldn't fall to another prosecutor. So it wouldn't make any sense to have her go and do it a second time.

This article (by Andrew McCarthy, which argues that both James's case against Trump and Trump's case against James are absurd and partisan) says that the second was brought by a guy named Roger Keller, who unlike Halligan actually has prosecuted cases before. A bit odd that the newbie managed to get an indictment while the actual prosecutor failed, but Halligan might've just lucked out on the grand jury selection. I don't think we know who brought the third indictment--we don't actually have a formal record of any rejection, the information about it is just from "anonymous sources familiar with the proceedings". If it was rejected we'll find out soon enough, but for now we don't know who it was. But it probably wasn't Halligan given, again, that would most likely just get it dismissed again by a judge, so they need someone else to do it.

Click to expand...

Short hand for the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Too long to write.

JimR-OCDS said:

The pastor should be removed from the parish by his bishop.

Click to expand...

Hmmm….i think it depends. They might not have enough priests. Maybe a public apology to his parishioners? I dunno.

Wolseley said:

50% of all new marriages end in divorce. 80% of all divorces are initiated by the women. 75% of all suicides annually are committed by men. And society has become "feminized" to the point where male roles are not recognized any more, or if they are such roles are..

Click to expand...

survival of the fittest.

embrace it.

Mark Quayle said:

No. If he caused it, and that is reality, then whatever is real within that reality is caused by God. To characterize something within that reality as uncaused is therefore logically self-contradictory.

Click to expand...

Only if God is unable to make a person or agent who can also be a causer. But if God can cause a causer, one who can affect the cosmos like God can, even if only on a tiny scale, then everything is NOT caused by God.

And if God causes all real things within the reality you speak of, then God is wholly to blame for any real sin. There is no one else to blame. And if blaming God for sin is sinful in itself, blame God for causing me to do it--I can only do what God causes me to do.

Hans Blaster said:

No, I picked the one that made the biggest mockery of your list. I said nothing of them being "fly-by-night". (Why is reading so hard.) I'm sure they'd be fine for a new WH ExOffPres office building on site built to architects standards. Nothing on your list demonstrates that they are appropriate for a free floating building of the planned type with high-quality craftsmanship involved (OK, who am I kidding, trump doesn't know craftsmanship). Even more so integration with historic buildings with 200+ year old *renovations*. If you'd told me they'd done sensitive historical renovations or additions like the Capitol Vistors Center, that would be a different story.

Click to expand...

But they arent doing a sensitive historical renovation. The are building a yuge box with some wedding cake ornament plastered on. With decent plans this builder could certainly erect Bellagio II in Las Vegas. So they can manage this.

keras said:

This phenomena is Prophesied several times. Joel 2:30, Amos 8:9, Acts 2:20, Psalms 18:7-15but the one which tells us when it will happen is Revelation 6:12.

Click to expand...

You jump around between verses like a hyperactive grasshopper - without slowing down and considering the context of each author.

This is a great example of eisegesis.

Eisegesis​

Eisegesis is the practice of interpreting a text by reading one's own ideas, biases, or agenda into it, rather than drawing out the author's intended meaning, essentially "leading in" instead of "leading out".

It's a subjective approach where the interpreter forces the text to support a pre-existing belief, often by ignoring context, language, and cultural background, leading to misinterpretation and distorted understanding, especially when applied to scripture.

Biblical Theology must be done​

Biblical Theology must be done when reading the Old Testament. We need to slow down, and see what each book actually has to say in the context of the author’s culture, historical concerns of the period, and where we are in the broader unfolding plan of God?

EACH ERA has its own concerns

Have the first humans just sinned? Has the world been ‘uncreated’ and ‘recreated’ in the chiastic structure of Noah’s flood? Is it before God’s promises to Abraham that God’s people would live God’s way in God’s land?
Is it after - during the time of slavery in Egypt?
Is it before or after the great Passover rescue?
Is it when Moses is giving his pep talk to Israel in Deuteronomy - warning them before they even enter the land about how they will be exiled and taken OUT of the land if they ever abandon God? But even then - there is hope of a small remnant returning!
Is it during the period of the judges?
The downward spiralling into sin of the period of the Kings?
Is it before or after the building of the temple?
Is it before the Assyrians cart off Israel into captivity?
Before the Babylonians do the same to Judah - and horrifically - sack and destroy the temple?
Is it just after the Persian Empire let any Israelite or Jew who wanted to go home return to rebuild the temple?
Is it before Jesus?
Is it after Jesus?
Before or after Pentecost?

EACH BOOK has its own structure.
What is the structure of the book? How do different sections of the book fit together, and relate to each other and the historical concerns of the era?
What would the original audience have made of the text?
Was it encouraging or rebuking or a bit of both?
Was it new information, or reminding them of existing prophesies of the past?
What was in the surrounding literature of the time?

Only after investigating all these questions of Biblical Era and Each Book’s Structure can we begin to see how the promises of God are viewed by each author.

EACH TESTAMENT has its own concerns and structures.
Then we have to as, how does the New Testament address this issue in any way?
Are they borrowing the images and symbols of the past to remind us of something?
Or are they informing us of the fulfilment of something from the past to challenge our assumptions?
(Jesus did this A LOT - as did Paul!)
Are they using Hebrew apocalyptic symbols from the past in new ways to challenge our thinking about our present reality this side of the gospel, between Jesus Resurrection and his Return?
John did THIS a lot!

Only after we have investigated ALL these questions do we get to ask, “How might this Old Testament message speak to us today, through the lens of the New Testament?”

Just going "That sounds to me like... blah blah blah…” is utterly unacceptable.

I fell in the yard and couldn't get up. A stranger from one street over helped me get up. That was encouraging! It's too bad he's moving away.

I hope it went well. Prayers.

1Tonne said:

This might help you with you misunderstanding.
Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

I don't watch videos. The idea that everybody has eternal life by default is rubbish.

This one sentence in the article stood out for me: "Men are (rightfully) exhausted by feminism and eager to reclaim their role."

From everything that I have been reading---about the corporate culture, about the dating/relationship culture, about the marriage/divorce situation, men are indeed exhausted. They're tired of the constant drama, the mind games, the snarkiness, the psychological tests, the entitlement, the chaos, and the "nothing is ever good enough" vibe that they get from modern women. Most men do not want to come home to a boss babe with a chip on her shoulder and a belligerent attitude; they get enough of that at work. Men just want to come home to a safe space, and calm, soothing refuge from the workaday grind. They don't get that from far too many 3rd-wave feminist women these days; instead, what they get is arguments, accusations, and perpetual battles over some chaos or other, and if there's no chaos to be had, some women will manufacture it.

So, yes; men are tired. But they don't seem to "eager to reclaim their role". From what I have been seeing, men have simply given up, and disengaged not only from women and relationships, but from society as a whole. Women used the "#metoo" movement as a weapon to beat men over the head with, to the point where now women complain that men in corporate settings won't come anywhere near them. Women with inflated senses of their own desirability---driven by online dating apps---are now complaining that men refuse to go to singles clubs events; they don't ask women out on dates any more; they don't even approach women in bars. Women give men the "come hither" glance and all sorts of subtle hints to show they're interested, and the men just turn away and keep chatting with their male friends, which leaves the women confused.

If you ask men about this, they will simply shrug and say that pursuing relationships with women is just not worth it. They'd rather hang out with their guy friends, and go home every night to a solitary existence that has no romance----but it does have peace, quiet, and a chance to recuperate from life at the end of the day. They will relay how unbelievably expensive it is to go out on dates, especially if the woman is a feminist princess who believes that nothing is too good for her. They will cite the stunningly unrealistic expectations that many women have: "He has to be six feet tall, have six-pack abs, and make at least $800,000 a year." They will cite the criminally-unjust divorce system in the US today; a woman can cheat on her husband, then accuse him of neglect or abuse, and the courts will always---always---take the woman's side, and the man ends up losing his house, his car, his pension, his income, and access to his children, even if he's done nothing wrong. He ends up living in a lousy three-room efficiency apartment and working three jobs to keep up on alimony and child-support payments, battling bankruptcy on a daily basis, and existing in what for all intents and purposes amounts to a court-mandated state of indentured servitude.

50% of all new marriages end in divorce. 80% of all divorces are initiated by the women. 75% of all suicides annually are committed by men. And society has become "feminized" to the point where male roles are not recognized any more, or if they are such roles are denigrated. Yet men are under societal pressure to marry and support a household, just as they did in 1950, even though women now pull down more money than most men, and there are far more female college graduates than males. The woman is not expected to share in the expenses of the family; it's the man's job to do that, even if he has to work extra hours. The woman's paycheck is for her alone---and after not seeing hubby five nights out of seven every week, because he's trying to keep up, one day she announces she's "bored" and the marriage goes splat.

Faced with all this, is it any wonder that men have just walked away from marriage, family life, and even the employment system? What's the sense in getting a "good-paying job" if you're just going to lose that income anyway when your wife decides to run off to Aruba with Carlos, the fitness trainer from the gym? Why have children if they're going to be taken away from you and you can only see them every other weekend---if ever? (Besides, raising children is prohibitively expensive.) Above all, why get involved with a woman when all she's going to do is make your life incredibly miserable, demand things you can't provide, and then betray you three, six, ten, eighteen years down the road? Who needs it?

"Oh, but all women are not like that!", you say; and you're right---they're not. Not all snakes are poisonous, either, but if you can't tell one from the other, you tend to avoid them all. The only way to win this game is to not play at all.

Eggs.

samaus123456789 said:

If you want more info about Mary, and Jesus childhood (..)

Click to expand...

Why not, thanks. i shall have a try. Actually, i, lastly and above all, wondered whether the intention of protecting Jesus was relevant, not from Jesus chilhood or Mary's motherhood.
Rather,
as regards God's centered reasons or plan to let him die on the cross :
Was it God's will to use the protecting feelings of Mary and Joseph to spare the baby Jesus life, or did they both flee to Egypt without caring for such feelings, but already at that moment, and may be they as well, being concerned by God's centered care about Jesus' doom on the cross ?

Prospector said:

Your not the only person to think that ASL is not a legitimate language. All that i know is sign language has lifted millions of the deaf out of a lifetime of isolation.

Click to expand...

As well as literacy.

Granted, it's more difficult for the deaf to learn to read, especially if one has been deaf since birth, but it can be accomplished.

Strong in Him said:

It was your post; you should know where it is.
It's only two pages back; post #2,835.

Click to expand...

Strong in Him I had a look at Apples post 2835. All Apple writes is ( it depends who they are ) Apple then goes on to use a ( AI OVERVIEW ) meaning not her words. The reason Apple used the AI Overview was to merely point out the connection between Masonry & NASA. and was in no way agreeing with the claim of the AI post that astronauts landed on the moon.. masonry was the topic of discussion and not so much the claim of the astronauts landing on the moon. And we all know that Apple doesn’t believe that astronauts landed on the moon . In your post 2839 you fail to include that it’s a AI overview or you probably missed that it was a AI post from Apples post 2835. Therein probably lies the misunderstanding. It’s a AI overview and the connection to NASA & masonry was what Apple was pointing to, and not so much to what the AI overview said about the alleged moon landings

com7fy8 said:

In the Law is commanded stoning of a woman who lies about being a virgin, in order to get a man to marry her > Deuteronomy 22:20-21.

This is in the Torah. How do you fulfill this?

Click to expand...

The words of Yeshua have to be the go-by, or there is no reason for any further discussion. Various expositors and Jewish Rabbis down through the centuries have tried to encapsulate a summary of the Torah with a core principle including Hillel the Elder, as we know, who emphasized loving your neighbor as the fundamental teaching. Yeshua finally ties it all together, starting on the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:17-18, and approaches the pinnacle, so to speak, when he answers the lawyer regarding which was the great commandment of the Law in Matthew 23:36-40. Basically he gives him (2) commandments will fulfill the entire Torah: Love God and Love your Neighbor as Yourself. On these two commandments hangs (suspends) all the law and the prophets. The final pinnacle is in John 13: 34: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Remember that Yeshua's references to keeping the Torah were mainly focused on the moral law or 10 commandments, including the adultery, stealing, lying, murder, honoring your parents, etc., per Matthew 19:16-19. He corrects previous areas, i.e., "Ye have heard it has been said", reversing the eye for eye and tooth for tooth thought process, and emphasizing loving our enemies, if you look at Matthew 5:38-44. In answer to your question, in our day and age it is no longer our responsibility to stone a woman, or actions similar to the account of John 8:1-11 where a woman was caught in the act of adultery and brought to Yeshua and the accusers rehearsed the commandment in the Law to stone her. Per Yeshua, there was no one worthy or sinless enough to stone her, and that point was made clear. So to my understanding, the commandment still exists, but we are not in the position to execute that form of judgement. If you look at the events that will transpire at the end of this age in Revelation 19:11-16, Yeshua himself will judge sin and evil, and the armies in heaven, (believers), will follow him on white horses, but Yeshua himself will execute the judgement on wicked and ungodly people. This relieves us to fulfill the Law of Love in purity and in so doing we have an accurate understanding of sin and evil when confronted by it, but no responsibility to actually engage in the final judgement of sins and wickedness. Thanks and I hope this helps to answer this important question. Bob

rjs330 said:

We Americans decide what is American just like the Irish get to decide what is Irish or the French get decide what is French. Not sure what you don’t understand about that.

Click to expand...

Which Americans get to decide who is an American? Because "We Americans" have a pretty bad track record.

Here are some people who "We Americans" have historically decided weren't American:

Black people
Irish people
Italians
Jews
Chinese people
Hispanic people
Muslims