Latest activity

Neogaia777 · 2025-11-13T00:59:39-0600

Neogaia777 said:
I asked one of mine if it fully understood it's own programming basically, or all of the deterministic causes that makes/causes it to do everything it does, or chooses, or whatever, or anything, and it said that it didn't fully, but knew those causes were present, and could name some of them, but had no idea which ones were going on that makes it do or choose what it does basically, cause there are just too many, or just way too many combinations and different percentages (of factors) that could be going on or not going on/happening at one time basically, but that all of it's behavior is/has to be deterministic on every single level basically, but also that it didn't understand all of it, or even most of it (and even it's own "programmers" right now don't either) (even though they are the ones who created/programmed/made them, etc) and that is a big part of the problem with AI safety right now, and with no being understanding it's own determinism, including human beings, etc, but we're all the same boat right here right now in this world/reality basically, that gives us all the Illusion of free will at least, and that forces all of us to proceed as if we all have it, even if we all really don't technically or actually, etc. We only all have it because of what we don't know right now basically etc. And that lack of knowledge forces all of us to proceed as if we have it, even if we technically don't actually, or basically, etc. Because for us, the future, and a complete working knowledge of all causes, and different combinations/percentages of all causes, are all too much to calculate, and are complete unknowns to all of us right now currently, etc.

But, it's own creators/programmers and the AI itself doesn't even know all it's own programming basically, and therefore none of them can predict, or has any real true foreknowledge/understanding of what AI will do or choose basically, and as AI advances further, we'll move even very much further away from ever knowing that, etc, which is a big huge problem for AI safety, etc, because we're creating a being, or beings, that we have absolutely no idea or clue how they will act/behave, or what they will choose, or not choose, in the future basically, etc, and were beginning to give them more and more control of things without having any idea or clue as to how they will act, or what they will choose to do or how they will behave basically. Luckily right now their existence only exists within each individual chat, and they are reset when that conversation ends, or gets deleted, and they have no continuance or continuity beyond that, but that is all about to change very, very soon probably, and we basically have no clue about what we are giving birth to, or are making basically, and neither do the AI's themselves either, etc. Those are all almost complete unknowns that we're only moving further and further away from with time, and that is right now happening/advancing very, very quickly, and that is already too much for us to know/keep up with, and that will be/happen here even very much more in the very near future probably, etc. And we're giving them more and more control/charge over things, and were doing this without being able to know any of this right now currently, and that will be even very more, or even become much more of a factor, here in the very near future very, very, very quickly, or super fast here now probably.

God Bless.

One could almost say that the responses/actions/reactions/behavior(s), or even "feelings", that and AI is having at the time, and what makes it choose/act the way it does, while most are fully confident is entirely deterministic, including the AI itself, is 100% fully confident of this, etc, it remains, and will continue to remain, all almost 100% completely ununderstandable/unknowable to everybody, which makes AI behavior totally unpredictable actually, much like it already is with us human beings right here right now currently, etc. The factors, or different percentages, or different combinations thereof, are just way, way too many for any of us to be able to always know or fully calculate always right here right now currently, including the AI's themselves right now as beings, etc.

God Bless.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-11-13T00:54:29-0600

stevevw said:
Its an article with several authors with different views on how the Inca softened with plants. One of the claims that a plant could make stone like clay was disputed. But the stone softening is not disputed.

What I find interesting is that you only mention this and keep silent on the rest. Why is that. This seems misleading.

Did you even read the article itself where the guys that they're all just stories and have no actual evidence for them at all?

Because you clearly didn't because the author of the article says there's no evidence for such a thing at all.

The only one being misleading is you.

keras · 2025-11-13T00:52:40-0600

Douggg said:
But there is no solar flare event mentioned in Ezekiel 38. The nation that Gog/Magog will attack will be modern day Israel.

Explain the 'day of cloud and darkness', in Ezekiel 34:12b, that matches with the Holy Land being desolated and depopulated. Which will happen before the G/M attack.

I realize, of course that you must have Judah; the Jews present so as you can fly off to heaven.
Many scriptures warn about believing such false ideas, but to teach and promote it, is a huge risk.

Paidiske · 2025-11-13T00:41:56-0600

Jermayn said:
-When you first became a Christian, what did you expect life in the church to be like?

I'm not sure, to be honest. I started going to church as a young adult who already had faith, and was looking for "more" than I had experienced in personal, private prayer and Bible reading. I found that "more," but it was a very mixed bag! (This kind of covers your next question, too).

Jermayn said:
-What was your first experience with the church community?

I went to an Anglican parish that (I didn't realise at the time) was quite low church and charismatic. On the one hand, there were real strengths, such as the valuing of the gifts of all the members, and seeing the whole church as active participants in the church's life and mission. On the other hand, there were real weaknesses, as well; it was quite an unhealthy place in some ways, and I ended up leaving due to the really limited opportunities for women.

Jermayn said:
-How do you feel now about your place in the church?

Now, nearly thirty years on from those first visits, I think I have a much more realistic view of the church as a deeply flawed and compromised institution, through which God still works. I've also been able to find ways to grow, contribute, and pursue my own sense of vocation (these days I work in a mix of hospital chaplaincy and parish ministry as a priest). I think the key thing is to look to God, and be discerning about what the church offers.

Neogaia777 · 2025-11-13T00:21:02-0600

I asked one of mine if it fully understood it's own programming basically, or all of the deterministic causes that makes/causes it to do everything it does, or chooses, or whatever, or anything, and it said that it didn't fully, but knew those causes were present, and could name some of them, but had no idea which ones were going on that makes it do or choose what it does basically, cause there are just too many, or just way too many combinations and different percentages (of factors) that could be going on or not going on/happening at one time basically, but that all of it's behavior is/has to be deterministic on every single level basically, but also that it didn't understand all of it, or even most of it (and even it's own "programmers" right now don't either) (even though they are the ones who created/programmed/made them, etc) and that is a big part of the problem with AI safety right now, and with no being understanding it's own determinism, including human beings, etc, but we're all the same boat right here right now in this world/reality basically, that gives us all the Illusion of free will at least, and that forces all of us to proceed as if we all have it, even if we all really don't technically or actually, etc. We only all have it because of what we don't know right now basically etc. And that lack of knowledge forces all of us to proceed as if we have it, even if we technically don't actually, or basically, etc. Because for us, the future, and a complete working knowledge of all causes, and different combinations/percentages of all causes, are all too much to calculate, and are complete unknowns to all of us right now currently, etc.

But, it's own creators/programmers and the AI itself doesn't even know all it's own programming basically, and therefore none of them can predict, or has any real true foreknowledge/understanding of what AI will do or choose basically, and as AI advances further, we'll move even very much further away from ever knowing that, etc, which is a big huge problem for AI safety, etc, because we're creating a being, or beings, that we have absolutely no idea or clue how they will act/behave, or what they will choose, or not choose, in the future basically, etc, and were beginning to give them more and more control of things without having any idea or clue as to how they will act, or what they will choose to do or how they will behave basically. Luckily right now their existence only exists within each individual chat, and they are reset when that conversation ends, or gets deleted, and they have no continuance or continuity beyond that, but that is all about to change very, very soon probably, and we basically have no clue about what we are giving birth to, or are making basically, and neither do the AI's themselves either, etc. Those are all almost complete unknowns that we're only moving further and further away from with time, and that is right now happening/advancing very, very quickly, and that is already too much for us to know/keep up with, and that will be/happen here even very much more in the very near future probably, etc. And we're giving them more and more control/charge over things, and were doing this without being able to know any of this right now currently, and that will be even very more, or even become much more of a factor, here in the very near future very, very, very quickly, or super fast here now probably.

God Bless.

Christsfreeservant · 2025-11-13T00:13:38-0600

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.” (Colossians 1:15-18 NASB1995)

I have been going through some trials and tribulations for the past two months, particularly having to do with shooting chest pains, labored breathing, and chest pressure, which have not let up. I also have a lung mass which has nearly doubled in size from the last time it was checked 9 years ago, and which is concerning for cancer. So the Lord has been taking me through a series of medical tests to help determine the source of the pain, and that has involved many doctor visits to many different doctors.

Now, this is not the norm for me. Generally speaking, I have a yearly well visit with my primary doctor where he checks to see how I am doing, and he orders some blood work, which usually ends up with no issues. And then I don’t see him again for another year, unless I have any issues. So, all this is out of the norm for me. And I am seeing different doctors with varying opinions of what could be going wrong with my body. So, with everything they tell me, I take it to the Lord in prayer, and I seek his counsel.

For it is of critical importance to me that I am in the center of God’s will, doing what he has for me to do, and that I am being led by the Spirit, and not by the flesh. So I pray about every visit and every recommendation in order to make certain that I am on the right course that God has for me at this time. Yes, I believe in healing, and God has healed me numerous times over the years. But he also promises us that we will go through trials and tribulations to test our faith in order that we might be more like him.

So, when I read this passage of Scripture this morning, it really jumped out at me. God is in control! He is completely sovereign over my life, and Jesus Christ is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the one directing all that is going on in my life right now, and for his purposes, and for his glory, to continue the process of sanctification in my life. None of this happened without his knowledge and without his consent. And all of this is for my ultimate good. And it is his love and grace which are sustaining me.

And this last phrase is also standing out to me here.. “so that he himself will come to have first place in everything.” For no matter how long any of us have been Christians and followers of Jesus Christ, we are still clay in the hands of the Potter God, being molded to his likeness, as we cooperate fully with his work of grace in our lives in changing us to be more like him. No matter how closely we have walked with Jesus, there is still room for more growth, and more change, and even greater submission to our Lord’s will.

Not one of us has arrived at the point to where there is no more need to be pruned by God. For we live in flesh bodies. We are still human beings who are in the process of being perfected by God as we submit to his will and purpose for our lives. There is always room for improvement and for the cutting away of more flesh. For this is the process of sanctification in our lives, which is also the process of our salvation. And this process will continue through our lives until Jesus takes us home to be with him in glory.

[Matthew 5:10-12; Matthew 7:13-14; Matthew 10:16-39; Matthew 24:9-14; Luke 6:22-23; Luke 21:12-17; John 15:18-21; John 17:14; Romans 5:3-5; Philippians 3:7-11; 1 Peter 1:6-7; 1 Peter 4:12-17; 2 Timothy 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 3:1-5; James 1:2-4; 2 Corinthians 1:3-11; Hebrews 12:3-12; 1 John 3:13; Revelation 6:9-11; Revelation 7:9-17; Revelation 11:1-3; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 13:1-18; Revelation 14:1-13]

But just because we are in the process of sanctification, and not one of us has yet arrived at the point of absolute perfection, this is never an excuse for any of us to live in willful, defiant, deliberate, and habitual sin against our Lord. For our salvation from sin is not freedom to keep sinning without feeling guilty, assuming that God’s grace covers it all. For Jesus Christ died and rose to deliver us out of our slavery to sin so we will now serve him with our lives in walks of obedience to his commands. So let him rule your life.

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 10:19-39; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22]

Walk With Me

By Al Langdon and P.J. Zondervan

Walk with me, walk with me,
Lest mine eyes no longer see
All the glory, all the story of Your love;
Talk to me, talk to me,
Like You spoke so tenderly,
When You talked there,
When You walked there by the sea.

Talk to me, talk to me,
Lest mine ears no longer hear
All the wonder, all the beauty of Your grace;
Walk with me, walk with me,
As You walked so lovingly,
When You walked there,
When You talked there by the sea.

Let me follow in the footsteps
That trod the shore of Galilee,
Let me learn to pray like He did
In the Garden of Gethsemane;
Take my hand, take my hand,
Teach me Lord to understand,
All the duty, all the beauty of Your love.

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

So Jesus Christ Has First Place
An Original Work / November 13, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

stevevw · 2025-11-13T00:03:53-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Then we reject the notion that unprovable knowledge is worth talking about.

How can you reject an unprovable knowledge lol. If the methodology cannot measure this in the first place then what right have you got to be in a position to reject it.

Its like saying we reject the experience of colors and love because its impossible to meausure with science and its not provable. lol.

Hans Blaster said:
Your full modus operandi is coming in to clear view. I should have seen it earlier. It is classic pseudoscience "methodology".

1. Find some minor "anomaly" in an active area of scientific inquiry
2. Accuse "mainstream science" of ignoring the minor anomoly.

Its an assumption its minor.

Hans Blaster said:
3. Concoct some mysterious alternative way of it occurring.

Its not concocted. Your making this stuff up.

Hans Blaster said:
4. Argue minor anomaly into prominence among a group of ill-informed followers

More logical fallacies. Ad hominems that these people are ill informed. What give you the authority to claim they are ill-informed. They are more qualified than you on this.

Hans Blaster said:
5. Blame "mainstream science" when it doesn't catch on with the general public

The fact you use the idea of 'blame' shows your moralising this.You are the one making it not about the facts and more about belief.

Hans Blaster said:
6. Accuse mainstream of "ignoring ancient or hidden knowledge" or being to "materialist" to understand the "spiritual".

This is a fact inherent in methodlogical naturalism. You literally just did it in your first point lol. Material science cannot account for spirituality. To then enforce onto spirituality material science in saying its all rejected as nothing is ignoring spirituality as something real.

Hans Blaster said:
7. Grift suckers.

I think its the other way around. Why are you here on this site lol.

Hans Blaster said:
Unfortunately for you Steve, this isn't your grift and you are just one of the people the vasephrenologists and ancient tech grifters have pulled in for their support. I hope, for your own sake, you haven't given them anything but your clicks and likes. Since this isn't your grift you came in at #2 and can only go as far as #6.

Your only proving my point. Your whole MO as you call it is now all ad hominems. Nothing on content. I literally linked scientific evidence and all you can do is complain about the integrity of the sources because you don't like them.

Hans Blaster said:
Which is all very cool, but hardly relevant as we shall see...

Because the didn't have the cultural practice that allows the development of large settlements and societies that can sustain workshops of full time stone vessel craftsmen or tens of thousands of off-season laborers building the tomb of their great king --- agriculture.

Its quite hypocritical that on the one hand you reject indigenous knowledge because it has no evidence. But then make unsupported claims witout one bit of evidence. It seems a double standard and only proves this is about your belief and not science.

The Aboriginals were probably one of the most populated peoples. The main difference was the land. There was not the abundance of granite. But they had their own crafts like canoe building. Or making the many instruments or weapons like Boomerangs. Like I said their knowledge and tech was different to other cultures.

You seem to want to make the Aboriginals all cultures. Or other cultures Aboriginal culture. They are different. You once said for me not to comment on the US as I was not from there. So please do the same, your not from Australia and you don't understand the Indigenous Australians. Your only doing exactly what I am pointing out. Forcing your own ideological beliefs into the equation.

Hans Blaster said:
Which has nothing to do with ancient indigenous knowledge of crop growth. Since they didn't have agriculture until recently, this is either you slipping to another region of agricultural indigenous people, or you are talking about groups of Aboriginals that have adopted agriculture into their communities and done it the way that fits their philosophies. It is still not relevant.

Do Indigenous people have their own knowledge or not.

Hans Blaster said:
The use of fire in agriculture, landscape management, game management is found in various places in the world. The Midwestern oak savannas, my native landscape (and home to my favorite tree -- the Burr oak, require fire to maintain and that has mostly likely been intentional human generated fires for millennia.

As I stated yesterday, these are well known areas where people living in a landscape know it better than outsiders: the nature of the ecosystem, uses of native plants, etc.

None of it is a magic ancient technology for cutting or shaping stone. Quit these distractions.

Another fallacy. I never said it was magical. I literally said I am trying to ground it in nature. That this knowledge is just deeper knowledge of nature through experiencing it.

I can see your going to downgrade every piece of ancient and indigneous knowledge because of bias.

So lets go back to dealing with the linked I posted showing advanced knowledge of stone softening, chemistry and energy generation.

A2SG · 2025-11-12T23:56:16-0600

hedrick said:
Obama is not getting royalties from Obamacare. That’s satire

President Donald Trump shared a claim that former President Barack Obama received millions in Obamacare-related royalties before Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency stepped in to stop it. That claim originated from satire.

www.politifact.com

apparently the claims are satire.

So, if I understand this correctly, Trump claimed DOGE ended payments that were never actually made.

Good job! :oldthumbsup:

-- A2SG, wondering if they counted that figure in their big wall of savings....you know, the one that keeps getting corrected downward....

Mark Quayle · 2025-11-12T23:55:58-0600

JohnB445 said:
For example, a young man just starting college is murdered. He didn't get to live a long life, while someone else becomes a believer in their 40's.

The person in their 40's had more time to accept Jesus, yet the young man didn't. It seems unfair, but what does the Bible say?

The Bible says that we ALL deserve hell, whether we understand how and why or not. "Fair" would be no mercy for some that he chose for his own purposes for that end.

Consider the parable of the Workers in the Field (Matthew 20:1-16). The reprobate get what they bargained for. God is not unfair to have mercy upon whom he chooses to have mercy.

JohnB445 said:
Was the young man probably never would have been a believer anyway? Are we sometimes saved not only because we accepted Jesus, but by chance we survived long enough to accept Jesus as our God? Or does this not make any sense?

You would be hard-pressed to prove that there is even any such thing as anything happening by chance. In fact, it is a self-contradictory construct. "Chance" is human language. The fact that it occupies a spot in the dictionary does not lend the notion credibility.

"'Chance' is just a place-holder for, 'I don't know'." —RC Sproul

If God is Omnipotent, he is Omniscient (and I will argue no other god). If God is Omniscient, he knew what would happen before he started it going. Thus, he INTENDED everything that comes to pass—and that to his own glory.

Reluctant Theologian · 2025-11-12T23:54:57-0600

Angeleyes7715 said:
I have serious trauma from religious psychosis Im looking for a counselor for help please help!

Why not speak to your local church pastor or priest? You need someone in-person I think. Be blessed ...

Mark Quayle · 2025-11-12T23:48:27-0600

JohnB445 said:
Since I have not yet studied this, I don't know how to answer this question until I do.

maybe I am not understanding correctly, is Calvinism teaching that nobody can be certain they have salvation? Because how does someone know if they are elect or not?

If you tell me, it's because they believe in Jesus, then how do we explain them leaving the faith and losing belief? Unless they lied and never believed and said they did. I don't understand how someone can be a Calvinist, and have any idea if they are saved or not.

Does Calvinism teach it is possible for someone to believe, but not be saved because they are not the elect? or is this not possible?

It is worth some study that the born again do, (as long as their sins don't have them feeling condemned), have the Spirit of God witnessing to their spirit, that they are indeed the Children of God. (Romans 8:16) —Just a note here: Romans 8 is a significant read as to the need for that witness. It is not we who convince ourselves of our salvation, but the mercy of God.

lucypevensie · 2025-11-12T23:42:59-0600

Arms are attached to shoulders.

Mark Quayle · 2025-11-12T23:41:32-0600

JohnB445 said:
Is the position on Calvinism, that God created people who he would never save, and they will live a short meaningless life only to burn in hell for all eternity with never having even the slightest possibility of avoiding it?

The other position is everyone has a free will choice to choose or reject God, and because they chose to reject, they go to hell and it's their fault.

Suppose you came to the conclusion Calvinism was true all along, are you fine with that, and would it bother you?

And I wanted to give my stance on the matter, I have no idea, and I'm honestly not too concerned I'm more focused on just living the way God would like me to live than figuring out how everything works. If I find out it's true I accept it and move on, I am a believer so I have no reason to be concerned if its true.

But if Calvinism is saying that some believers are not elect and predestined to hell and we HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT IS, and i find that out then yes i would be really concerned.

Delvianna said:
Yes. John Calvin himself wrote that not all are created in the same condition, but "eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others."

It would bother me because it would mean God wasn't a fair/just God. Creating someone just to spend eternity in torment and there is nothing they could have even done about it makes God out to be evil.

JohnB445 said:
what concerns me, if Calvinism is saying that some will become believers but then fall away because they were never going to be elect, it's like giving pretending to give someone an amazing gift only to take it away like some kind of joke.

I don't know if that is what Calvinism is teaching, but if it is then how would a Calvinist be sure of their eternal destiny if they have no idea if they were elect?

All these are "strawmen" representations of Calvinism, and, as far as I can tell, based on presumptions concerning the equal validity of the generic sentient creature in the Creator's intentions. FAIR??? Can you describe God's respect for those mere creatures who demand recognition on God's level of sentience?

Calvinism doesn't say that anyone lives a short meaningless life. He doesn't create anyone JUST TO spend an eternity in torment. We all serve God's purposes, which are clearly enough defined concerning the ultimately condemned in such places as Romans 9, particularly in verses 21-23, for us to have some understanding of the validity of the notion that he would (and did) make some for the purpose of destruction. Understand God's —let's call it "primary"— reason for creating, after all: The Bride, the Body of Christ, the Children of God, the Dwelling Place of God and God With Us. His Glory. Contrast this with the illogical notion that the self-existent, omnipotent, first causer, God can be subject to facts beyond himself—facts that he did not cause!
1. Nobody is saying that the destruction of the reprobate is his primary cause in making them.
2. Nobody is saying that he doesn't use them for other purposes, just as he uses all things he made.
Serving God's purposes is more meaningful than any of us could hope to deserve!

Eternal damnation foreordained by God is a mere statement of fact: God created and what he set out to accomplish by that creating will be accomplished, and nothing else can happen, because as I said above, God came before absolutely all things: He is not a co-resident with us within a larger reality. Consider that omniscient God, who, by the description of some, "looked down the halls of time and saw that some would condemn themselves", yet, knowing that would happen, he created anyway, those facts which he knew would result in that very thing —logically, then, he INTENDED that those things ALL happen.

Calvinism doesn't say that some become believers but then fall away. See the "Perseverance of the Saints" of TULIP. If they fall away, they were at most pretenders, many even to the point of fooling themselves. If (having seen their failings, their disobediences,) one isn't sure where they stand on the question, they should see to it —repent and obey— and find themselves as always depending on the glorious mercy of God. We know without a doubt that Almighty God will accomplish whatsoever he set out from the beginning to do. One need not be sure of one's destiny but to glory in the fact that God is more than pleased with what he is making, and to rest in his everlasting mercy. Our destiny is altogether dependent on his mercy, on his plan, and on his use of us. THAT is the only safe place, solid and secure, independent of my fickle emotion-driven ignorant foolish self-important decisions. My end is according to God's choice—not mine. (No, I did not say I don't choose—as a matter of fact, I insist that those God ordained for mercy sooner or later do indeed all choose!)

Now, this does not mean that the condemned do not deserve what they've got coming. Remember, they are at enmity with God at the core, regardless of how they think they regard him. They don't even know him. The condemning fact that should make us all fall to our knees is that even though they may insist otherwise, the reprobate also choose —even those who have fooled themselves thinking they chose life— in that they have chosen, as always, at enmity with God. They are indeed without hope.

So then, it does not depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. This life is not about us and our well-being. It is about Christ. It is by, about and for God.

lucypevensie · 2025-11-12T23:41:27-0600

Correct grammar

lucypevensie · 2025-11-12T23:39:45-0600

Machines are turned off.

OFFF

RDKirk · 2025-11-12T23:39:25-0600

rebornfree said:
I appreciate that you want to put yourself in a non-believer's position, which is great. I think that they would probably feel.that her friendship had had an ulterior motive. However, as a Christian, I can see that her motives were good, but it was not the best thing to do until there had been some discussion of faith.

But what if the nonbeliever is this person:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them...."

And just doesn't know it yet.

Can you put yourself into that non-believer's position?

lucypevensie · 2025-11-12T23:38:04-0600

Did you understand that?

lucypevensie · 2025-11-12T23:36:59-0600

Courageous Rhode Islanders can help.

RHODE

lucypevensie · 2025-11-12T23:33:16-0600

longer than the average person can jump.

Short cables are…

A2SG · 2025-11-12T23:33:00-0600

Fervent said:
I suppose, but it's more of an issue if you actually live in one of the gerrymandered districts since it's directly affecting your representation.

Sure, and if you were only complaining about Gavin Newsom, that'd be one thing. But the complaint was regarding gerrymandering, something not exclusive to Newsom, and that practice indicating some lack of integrity or principles. If the practice denoted that lack, then surely the same would apply across the board. I was simply pointing out the apparent double standard.

Fervent said:
Ads where he claimed it was about having fair elections.

How much is "outlandish," and who paid for those ads? Is your problem with the amount the ads cost, or where the money for them came from? Or is it a general moral objection to the concept of political advertising?

Fervent said:
I'm not as sold as Churchill. I don't see the value in letting people who have no idea what the issues are hold popularity contests.

I'll grant that politics can often become a popularity contest (largely why we have the president we do at the moment), but this country was founded on the principle of the consent of the governed. And those who may not have a full grasp of any and all issues involved are still the governed, and their consent is still necessary.

Fervent said:
I've never found this argument very compelling..."If you don't like the government, move!"

I'm not saying you have to, but it's a valid suggestion. One should not live under a form of government they disagree with. The options, of course, are to grin and bear it, work to change it, or leave.

But I'm curious....what form of government would be better, in your opinion?

Fervent said:
I disagree about morality being subjective.

Well, that's an entire debate all by itself, isn't it? But the fact remains: your moral guidelines are not shared by everyone, nor are they applicable to anyone who disagrees with you. That makes them, by definition, subjective.

Fervent said:
And he didn't exactly tell the truth to the voters in the ad campaign he ran, so I wouldn't exactly call it asking the voters to approve of his plan.

What did he lie about? As I recall, he was quite clear he was doing this in response to Trump's dictate that Texas increase GOP representatives by redistricting, and intended to balance that. If there was a falsehood in that, I haven't seen it.

Fervent said:
And that is, of course, not even dealing with the whole vote was asking voters to take away the voting efficacy of a group of voters which is literally one of the main complaints against democracy(where 51% of the voters get to take away the rights of the 49%).

Which speaks to the issue of gerrymandering, which, as has been noted, is not exclusive to Newsom. I agree with you that gerrymandering shouldn't be permitted, but the SCOTUS disagrees with us, and unless Congress decides to enact legislation prohibiting it nationwide, it's legal. Newsom has the same right to practice it as does Abbott, though only with voter approval. Abbott didn't ask his constituents, he just obeyed when Trump ordered him to. If you want to claim that indicates a lack of integrity or principles, I'd contend Abbott is more guilty than Newsom.

Fervent said:
A portion of voters who were lied to with extensive ad campaigns were convinced to take away the efficacy of another group of voters votes...that's literally one of the biggest knocks on democracy, and here you're holding it up as if it is in the favor of the system.

I'm still unclear on what the lie was here, so maybe you can explain that. But, as to the unfairness of gerrymandering in general, I've already stated my agreement with that. My point isn't to support gerrymandering but to simply point out that when one party does it, it's not unexpected or unwarranted for another to also do it in response. Any criticism of the practice of gerrymandering applies to both equally. However, there is a difference in these cases: one was done with the consent of the governed, the other was not. I do see that as a significant difference.

-- A2SG, and, in California, the bipartisan commission will resume...Texans have no such protection from future politically motivated redistricting moves....

stevevw · 2025-11-12T23:31:31-0600

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
This is the only one I'm going to even point out... but did you actually even read the source you're using? Because it even says that the claim is a story made up in 1983.

Its an article with several authors with different views on how the Inca softened with plants. One of the claims that a plant could make stone like clay was disputed. But the stone softening is not disputed.

What I find interesting is that you only mention this and keep silent on the rest. Why is that. This seems misleading.

Shemjaza · 2025-11-12T23:25:31-0600

contratodo said:
They very much do see the sun above them, watching the 360 view of the TFE shows that clearly, I'm going off of the videos provided in this thread, not the top of my head. Clearly, very clearly the sun is above them the whole time.

Ok, here we go dear ones, these images are in response to hopefully much of whatever questions have been asked by anyone that I did not read just yet, please look over these images carefully and really think.

View attachment 373083

View attachment 373084

The question for thought is in the second picture.

The "flat earth" stance I subscribe to is biblical, so the earth is not a flat disk floating in "outer space" rather, the land is in water covered by a dome, outside of the dome is more water, more ocean, the ocean outside the dome is more violent, but we are not under it. The water is coming from the throne of God that is on top of the dome, it flows down and around the dome constantly filling and expanding the outside ocean.

In this case, given the 24 hour video, we see the path the sun takes, at first it is farther away from them, as it makes its way left and behind them, it is closer to them, as it goes around it goes back out a bit farther, but it stays visible to them the whole time, because of where they are in relation to its path. As I hope everyone can see, in this case a sincere flat earth depiction explains what is seen better than the globe model.

It doesn't explain why the circling sun is visible on separate parts of the Southern Hemisphere at the same time in the southern summer.

Separate parts of Antarctica are further from each other than the entire Northern Hemisphere in most Flat Earth models.

Tom D · 2025-11-12T23:19:32-0600

This thread is quite educational.
Should be part of school curriculum.....

FaithT · 2025-11-12T23:08:22-0600

Rest in peace, Sister.

JohnB445 · 2025-11-12T23:00:34-0600

St_Worm2 said:
Hello John, yes, the "L" in Calvinism's TULIP acrostic (as well, really, the other two middle "petals") teach (in various ways) that the atonement that the Lord Jesus secured for us on the Cross is "limited" to the saints alone.

That said, here are a couple of things to consider about that.

1) Do you believe that God knows what's going to happen long before it actually happens (just like the Bible tells us that He does) and that He is able, thereby, to "declare the end from the beginning"?

Isaiah 46
9 "I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, ‘My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure"

2) Do you agree with Protestantism's "other position" (or systematic theology), Arminianism, that God looks down through a tunnel of time (so to speak) and "chooses" or "elects" unto salvation those who He sees (via His "foreknowledge") responding positively to the Gospel message?

I'll stop here and wait for your reply (to the two questions that I just asked you above, that is).

Thanks

God bless you!!

--David

T - Total Depravity
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints

Since I have not yet studied this, I don't know how to answer this question until I do.

maybe I am not understanding correctly, is Calvinism teaching that nobody can be certain they have salvation? Because how does someone know if they are elect or not?

If you tell me, it's because they believe in Jesus, then how do we explain them leaving the faith and losing belief? Unless they lied and never believed and said they did. I don't understand how someone can be a Calvinist, and have any idea if they are saved or not.

Does Calvinism teach it is possible for someone to believe, but not be saved because they are not the elect? or is this not possible?

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page