Latest activity

rjs330 · 2025-11-25T01:28:51-0600

iluvatar5150 said:
If you read my post as claiming that, then it would seem that the other guy wasn’t the only one struggling to comprehend what I understood to be something pretty basic.

I gave up. Since you can't get the idea that if something is more expensive after you were told it would be cheaper then I don't know what to say.

If I was buying a car and the cost was 20 grand and the car salesman told me, I'm going to save you 5 grand in this car, if you just sign this deal. And I did and he handed me a bill for 30 grand, I would know I had just been bamboozled by a used car salesman.

Dan1988 · 2025-11-25T01:28:05-0600

timothyu said:
All are free to make the choice. Jesus didn't say my people over here and repent, the rest over there and never mind understanding the Gospel of the Kingdom that says God will overcome all adversity and take government away from both elohim and mankind. That's like saying voters don't have a choice in who they side with. But yes, God does not deal with closed minds. It is these who seek division, while God seeks to reunite. But yes, Jesus was thankful for those whom the father had given him.

I don't follow your narrative here, I referred to scriptures which confirm that mankind is not free to make a choice at all. That's just wishful thinking, you won't find a single verse in the Bible to support your theory.

Now for a dose of the bitter medicine, also known as the awful truth. Here are some verses describing your free choice movement. >>>

Biblical Verses on the Fallen State (Total Depravity) these support the idea that sin has corrupted every aspect of human nature.

Genesis 6:5 emphasizing the continuous evil intentions of the human heart.
Psalm 14:1-3 (and repeated in Psalm 53:1-3, quoted in Romans 3:10-12) stating that "there is none who does good".
Psalm 51:5 on being conceived in sin.
Jeremiah 17:9 describing the heart as deceitful and sick.
Romans 3:10-12, 23 which asserts that no one is righteous or seeks God, and all have sinned.
Romans 8:7-8 stating the depraved mind is hostile to God and cannot please Him.
Ephesians 2:1-3 describing individuals as dead in sin and children of wrath by nature.

Biblical Verses on the Inability to Believe (Total Inability)
Verses cited to show that a person cannot initiate a relationship with God or believe without God's intervention include:

John 3:3 indicating one must be born again to see God's kingdom.
John 6:44, 65 stating no one can come to Jesus unless drawn by the Father.
John 8:43-44 where Jesus questions why people cannot hear his word.
Romans 9:16 attributing salvation to God's mercy, not human will.
1 Corinthians 2:14 noting the natural person cannot understand spiritual truths.
Ephesians 2:4-5 highlighting God's role in making those dead in sin alive with Christ.
Philippians 2:13 crediting God with working in believers to will and act according to His pleasure.

rjs330 · 2025-11-25T01:21:00-0600

iluvatar5150 said:
Yeah, I know, arithmetic makes my head spin sometimes, too.

Let's say that, hypothetically, 10 years ago, your premiums were $100/mo and, if the trends at the time had continued unabated, then after 10 years (i.e. today), your premiums would have increased to $1000/mo.

Now let's say there was a piece of legislation (call it IluvaCare) that cause your premiums today to only be $500/mo.

Did that legislation lower your costs?

I see, so if Trump lowers the rate of inflation, but prices are still higher then he has lowered our costs. By that factor he has already done equal to Biden since I believe inflation is the same as when Biden left office.

rjs330 · 2025-11-25T01:15:53-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
You mean things have improved today. The media now more frequently criticize the administration, which is appropriate in a democracy.

You mean the media frequently criticizes THIS administration. We saw little of that with Obama and Biden.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Members of Congress also speak out and share their views more often than they did 25 years ago.

Do they?

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
I love America! This is the way it should be. Media, citizen, and elected official speak up!

People have always spoken up. What we see today though is the proliferation of something along the lines of, "well, since someone spoke up, it must be a sign that the administration is doing something wrong". Its a ridiculous point of view. As I pointed out just because some speak up it doesn't mean anything is wrong. In fact it very well could mean, the speaker is completely wrong on the subject. Just like they were in WWII.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
The only un-American and undemocratic act in this story is threatening the lives of those who criticize the administration.

Who threatened the lives of anyone. Surely you aren't referring to the president are you? I don't recall him saying he was going to kill anyone.

He was rightfully ticked off for the Democrats pulling such a stupid stunt. Intimating illegal orders are being given. But I dont recall him saying he was going to kill them for it.

Dan1988 · 2025-11-25T01:13:49-0600

Fervent said:
there is only one name given, though there are numerous titles. And your list left off the most important attribute contained within God's name: Aseity.

I'm not sure where you got that from, but there is only One true and proper Name for God and that is "The LORD" nobody can argue against that fact.

Philip_B · 2025-11-25T01:11:30-0600

Have you run out of words yet?

Dan1988 · 2025-11-25T01:09:17-0600

Hentenza said:
I’m well aware. Thanks.

Glad to hear it, just wanted to be sure, cheers

Dan1988 · 2025-11-25T01:06:47-0600

RamiC said:
"34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments." Luke 23:34 ESV

"9 However, as it is written:

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”[b]—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—
10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us." 1 Corinthians 2

"31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32 ESV

It's one thing to pluck verses of scripture out of their intended context and then apply your unbiblical interpretation to them. You quote "Father forgive them", but you don't tell us who the "them" are so you leave us confused.

You then go on to quote other verses about what God has revealed to us by His Spirit, but again you give us no clue as to what those things are, leaving us even more confused.

You even quote a verse which confirms what I stated, without even knowing you shot yourself in the foot. >>>> "In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God".

As you can see, nobody knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. So please stop pretending that you're an exception to the rule.

stevevw · 2025-11-25T00:56:11-0600

Hans Blaster said:
How can you not get this. I've said it about a dozen times now. Nothing in this thread is a conspiracy. No one is calling anything that you have posted "conspiracy". You keep bringing "conspiracy" up as if the rest of us are accusing you or your principle source of "conspiracy thinking". We have not.

On the other hand, we have definitely called you and them out for pseudoscience. There is pseudoscience (some of it veiled) all over this thread. (And on a similar note, very little of what you bring up could be called "woo woo", but this recent discussion of "alternative knowledge" is getting close. I know how you like to accuse me of demeaning your content as "woo woo".)

Hum, then I am getting mixed messages. It seems just about every link the authors were made out as quacks. For example a couple of academics linked to Karoly (who was also labelled a quack) were said to be amateurs and did not know what they were talking about.

Christ King a 50 year veteran in engineering and precision tooling was made out to be a simple bike maker who did not know anything about machining. Dunn's idea of the pyramid having some ability to generate energy into pseudoscience.

Even Petrie was turned into outdated opinion.

If every person and article is tarred as being some sort of pseudoscience then thats more or less making the thread into being all pseudoscience. Or at least fixating on the credibility of the sources rather than the content and whether its supported by evidence or good arguements.

By fixating so much on the credibility of sources its taken time and energy away from the actuial content. In fact its prevented this thread from looking at the content they actually are supporting.

biblelesson · 2025-11-25T00:55:06-0600

BelieveItOarKnot said:
But you see none of these observations are even accurate. What is accurate is that the package of Adam and Eve came PREPACKAGED with FAULTS.

Paul outlined this clearly in 1 Cor. 15:42-46 showing us exactly the conditions that
Adam and “all” natural people are planted in. These 3 things also correlate to Eve’s built in flaws:

Planted in corruption
Planted in dishonor
Planted in weakness

Is there supposed to be some surprise if outcome of making decisions with those pre-existing conditions is not and can never be moral? We make every decision from those planted conditions. Basically being seeded in dung, within the darkness of earth, our own dust body.

There were no preexisting conditions in Adam and Eve. They were two pure beings that had free will. The sin came from the serpent.

Before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve were perfect beings, and had the right to eat from the tree of life. If there was any corruption in them, they would not have been given the right to eat from the tree of life.

But, when they exercised their free will, and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were filled with the wrong spirit. The spirit was Satan’s spirit that became apart of man.

As far as Planted in corruption, Planted in dishonor, Planted in weakness - this is speaking of man after Adam - man from the point of Adam sin, is born into corruption, etc. Through Adam, creation became corrupted.

If Eve had only eaten from the wrong tree, nothing would have happened to creation, because God created man; woman was made from man. It’s the man’s seed that became corrupt, therefore children born from the corrupted man’s seed is born into sin. Not the woman.

That’s why Jesus had to be born without the male seed, yet he still could be born through an untainted pure virgin and the Holy Ghost - God’s Holy Seed was placed in her.

That’s why the Bible tells us Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh - Likeness - He was born without man’s corrupted seed.

Dan1988 · 2025-11-25T00:44:00-0600

JulieB67 said:
Your doctrine makes no sense and is totally unbiblical.

II Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

If it were all laid out in stone as you suggest, than God would not have to be so long suffering. If he's already giving them the gift of repentance, why is he so long suffering?

Another unbiblical statement. But yes, let's continue to redefine,-death, perish, destroy, etc..

This verse will always ring true-

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

To state anything other than what this verse plainly states would be a lie. Only one person gets life in that equation. The other perishes.

So he created some people he chose to burn for an eternity? Are you actually hearing yourself?

You are confusing certain elect with other Christians. But that's another subject for another day.....

Wow, says the person that posts this-

Romans 3:25 "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

Where's the present and future in that?

So you are basically stating this verse isn't true?

Romans 12:2 "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

We will always fall short and sin in the flesh but to say that verse is not possible is untrue. One can always mature as a Christian and then it becomes easier to put God's will over our own. When we fall, we get back on path. But to say it doesn't matter, we cant change is unbiblical. Repentance is a change of heart and mind. To think differently So your doctrine does not come from the Word of God.

Christ would state something very different to the Christian churches that had fallen away. Only those that overcome from what where they had fallen would not have their names blotted out. Those that overcome would not be in danger of the second death. Christ is telling people to repent over and over. He's not giving them the gift of repentance. Upon belief in him and true repentance we are given the gift of eternal life. Where are you getting this stuff? The ones he's telling to repent are Christian churches. Why is he telling them to repent if he's already given them the gift of repentance? You make no sense and yet continually insult others on their beliefs.

I John 1:6 "If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:"

If you continue to walk in darkness the truth is not even in you.

It sounds like you're just making up things as you go along because what you are stating is not biblical. Indoctrinated it sounds like. I was once there as well. But the truth can really set us free.

You have placed your faith in Jacob Arminius, but you will never find a single verse in the bible to support your "saved by works" version of the gospel.
I see you have taken every verse out of it's intended context and twisted it's to change it's meaning to suit your works based version of the gospel.

I have presented the gospel, as it is in the Bible but you reject it because it offends you, and here's why IO believe you are offended.
This is speaking about the two kinds of people responding to the gospel. >>2 Cor 2:16 To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things?

To me the gospel is the aroma of life, so I love it. You reject it because you can't stand the fact that God has the right to do what ever He wants with His creation. God said He elected some for honour and some for dishonour but you reject what God has said.

I praise God for tormenting sinners in hell for all eternity, just as I praise Him for everything else He does. You can't praise Him if you don't agree with what He does.

The gospel confirms that Christ has atoned for all of the past, present and future sins of Gods people. We are dead to sin, and death ha lost it's power over us. We already have eternal life, we are already saved, we're not working to earn our salvation as you and all the followers of Jacob Arminius are.

Gene2memE · 2025-11-25T00:41:49-0600

Landon Caeli said:
Do you think that it matters in the reality of the world, which nations participate in that?

No, but it matters for that graph. It's measuring poverty rates between OECD peers. That's only capable because they have an agreement that ensures there is data sharing on a like for like basis.

Landon Caeli said:
The comment was made that socialistic economies are better for the poor than capitalist ones, while excluding a huge number of countries in the data set. That's not useful.

No, the comment was that "democratic socialist" countries populate the low end of child poverty rates.

Democratic socialist is a subset of socalist countries.

They - generally speaking - combine democratic representative governments with substantial state involvement in the economy with universal social safety nets. Typical features include state-owned monopoly corporations which act according to a charter rather than purely financial considerations, some form of state-led economic planning and strong regulatory controls, particularly around labour.

Some may seek socialist reformation of the economy, while others are more concerned with market socialism as a way to curb the 'race to the bottom' excesses of unregulated capitalism. Generally that's a social democracy vs democratic socialism distinction, but time and popular usage has blurred those lines.

another_lost_guy · 2025-11-25T00:14:51-0600

I never had a girlfriend in my 22 years of life until I met the love of my life in 2024. She passed away earlier this year. She wasn't perfect but was closer to it than anyone I've ever met. Witty, innocent, gorgeous, thoughtful, forgiving, the whole 9 yards. We were waiting until marriage to have sex, both of us were virgins. She told me she didn't know what she would do if I died first, and that she would probably become a nun. I told her I would never remarry if anything were to happen to her. We didn't get a chance to get married to begin with, but sure enough, something did happen to her. I intend to honor the spirit of what I promised, I know there is no Biblical obligation, but I find it to be romantic to do so. But it has been and will be difficult for me. It's been 6 months since she passed now. I don't know why the Lord took her from this earth so early. She was just 19. I know that there's no marriage in heaven, but I really want to see her again. Without getting too graphic, we were not 100% innocent. We never had sex, but we definitely had very intimate moments together. Have I already defiled the marriage bed with her? Were/are we one flesh? Does that even matter when it comes to seeing her again? How can I find the resolve to honor what I promised to her? I don't mean to spark any played-out gender war nonsense but I am generally unimpressed with the American dating pool. I'm not necessarily longing for another woman, but I always envisioned myself having a family one day. Has anybody else been in a similar situation?

David Lamb · 2025-11-25T00:02:33-0600

Palmfever said:
Horse pucky

Sorry, but I have no idea what "horse pucky" means, or how it answers what I posted.

rambot · 2025-11-25T00:01:00-0600

BPPLEE said:
Why is it okay to copy and paste some article from a source that leans left, or right but it's not okay to use AI?

Because you don't know what source the AI got it from. How do you know hte AI source is good?

This should be basic stuff here.

BPPLEE said:
Either way is dialing it in but I don't see anyone complaining about copy and paste jobs as long as a source is given

Yes. Because. source is given.

AI is not a source. AI is like a slave that finds you the information that it wants on the topic you ask it to. But it doesn't tell you where it found it all. So. The slave is not the source; where the slave gets it; that's the source.

It should not be a hidden trinket of knowledge to understand that knowing the source of information is going to add legitimacy to a piece of information.

rambot · 2025-11-24T23:57:26-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Trying to pretend that members of one party have a monopoly on that abhorrent behavior is just absurd.

Calm your jets. He was referring to one person not a party.

rambot · 2025-11-24T23:55:17-0600

PloverWing said:
Last I heard, this was an urban legend. What school was this, when did it happen, and what is your source?

a billion percent.
One of my....very simple students came up to me last year saying she didn't want to go to her new high school cause "my dad heard they let kids be cats in there".

It is never ever true. And they never ever admit it. And they never ever stop listening to the liars. And so they never learn.

durangodawood · 2025-11-24T23:51:42-0600

RDKirk said:
Nobody will be charged under the AI overview.

Not yet.....

rambot · 2025-11-24T23:47:16-0600

Hentenza said:
You are discounting the problem of the social pressures to conform that kids are experiencing today in both their school environment and social media to the point that some studies are even calling it a normal part of exploration. Its sad really.

Honestly, and I mean no disrespect, all that's happenning is that we disagree not that I am not discounting "the problem of social pressures".

I teach in a junior high. Before that I worked in a youth treatment centre. My kids are 16 and 11. My 16 year old daughter is a drama nerd. I am RIGHT in the scope of it all. As mentioned in another thread, my daughter even went through it (seems to be coming out the other side).
I'm not sure how I could be MORE aware of the social pressures.
I am not catastrophizing and reacting out of fear; reacting like that is too "reptilian brained" for me. I am acting out of the love and knowledge I have that my kid will figure out where she is at when she is ready. With our numerous long conversations and recent ones, I've been blessed that she's been comfortable enough to keep in the the loop as she talks and thinks about it.

Frankly, I'm inclined to think that I actually have a fanTASTIC accounting of how robust the social pressure is. And I also know about what the affect that positive parents has on those kids. I know that present decent parents will be able to manage this just fine.

I would appreciate the things you say when, if you include the phrase "studies" says or anything of the sort, that you include the research in a link.

Landon Caeli · 2025-11-24T23:42:28-0600

comana said:
Does that principle also apply to conservatives triggered by Gay Days?

My kids are triggered by pride rainbows, even though I'm not. They immediately start complaining about it, but they've never said anything about MAGA gear.

I guess maybe they're little conservatives? So the answer to your question seems to be yes for some?

stevevw · 2025-11-24T23:29:43-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Then what is it about???

Well for one when the OP says theres giant flaw in the mainstream narrative of human history. This relates more to philosophy than science overall. Though it can include science as a method within the philosophy of epistemic and metaphysics compared to other ways to see human history and knowledge.

But it certainly is not a cold, hard factual thread of just objective science but also of philsophy of science. Otherwise all it would be doing in doubling down on the idea that it is the material science that is partly to blame for creating the flaw in the narrative by pushing this worldview over all else in this thread. It becomes another situation dominated by one methodology and epistemics in how we should see the world.

Hans Blaster said:
Which is determined by examining the things they made and the things they wrote.

Partly. Like I said you could look at the things they made and if the ancients did use say chemistry and messing around with the physics of material nature. If the ancients knowledge came from their belief and experiences how would you prove this.

We could perhaps prove the out of place signature is real and was caused by some sort of machining. We could prove the ancients purposely designed the pyramids to generate some sort of energy they used.

But you will not ever believe that this was the result of some transcedent knowledge.

So it is better to prove that there is transcedent knoewledge before trying to show in in specific examples that your never going to believe and will always want a material and scientific explanation for.

Hans Blaster said:
What in the Local Group is this? Your OP was about whether there were settled civilizations earlier than claimed in the "mainstream narratives". What about the this whatever it is had a thing to do with if we can find permanent settlements?

(Feel free to not try, as there is none.)

I can't even understand what you wrote. Whats the local group. What does "What about the this whatever it is had a thing to do with if we can find permanent settlements?" even mean.

The OP is not just about "whether there were settled civilizations earlier than claimed in the mainstream narratives". Its about why and how this is the case. Its about the out of place works which show a level of knowledge that the mainstream cannot account for. Its about how the orthodoxy is promoted over alternative explanations and why.

Which is all about philosophy, epistemics and metaphysics. Really its more about the clash of worldviews as to which narrative should be told about human history.

Hans Blaster said:
I prefer Euclidean geometry in a spherical coordinate system, but the natural geometry is a bendy spacetime. (Lousy nature.)

There it is the belief poopping out again. This is a beliefs, a metaphysical belief. When you call ancient knowledge lousy this is a belief and not science.

Hans Blaster said:
Clearly I am not in charge of of the natural geometry of reality. Sigh. Not sure what this would have to do with ancient civilizations. It was only "discovered/invented" in the 19th century by Riemann and ID'd with reality in the early 20th.

Ah then you have not done your research. Its been around for millenia. In fact natural or sacred geometry, astronomy, and tracking other natural phenomena in nature was the form of communication that played the role or what we would use language and writing or mathmatics today.

It was symbolic and rather than just a 2D equation on paper they actually embodies the maths, and astronomy into their reality. Just as nature does.

We can even see this at Gobekli Tepe and the symbolism and geometry reflecting nature used 11,000 years ago.

A2SG · 2025-11-24T23:29:28-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
On a certain humanist, philosophical, psycho-social level, I agree with you that children should get a say in expressing how they feel about themselves and their relation to the world they live in. However, this becomes a problem when the powers that be decide to create and push a social, legal agenda that co-opts the children's struggles for the promotion of their own political paradigm and legislative policy.

Like if a certain school district requires that children only be called by the name on their birth certificate?

I knew a girl in school way back when named Priscilla. She hated that name, especially since her family had for a long time shortened it to Prissy. In school, she insisted everyone call her Chuck. We did, as did her teachers. The parents didn't need to be informed at that time. I ran into her a while back, and she still goes by Chuck, but otherwise has no other gender issues.

-- A2SG, she's married now, and has a couple of kids of her own, and lets them be called whatever they want to be called....

FunkDocktaXXVII · 2025-11-24T23:27:40-0600

Thank you very much!

Couple quick questions, would a or The Catholic Church recognize my marriage? (We just went to the courthouse 4 yrs ago, legal and all, but not in a church of any sort) and how do they handle baptism? My 4 yr old and 2 yr old have not been baptized yet and I would like them to be.

durangodawood · 2025-11-24T23:27:07-0600

BPPLEE said:
Why is it okay to copy and paste some article from a source that leans left, or right but it's not okay to use AI?
Either way is dialing it in but I don't see anyone complaining about copy and paste jobs as long as a source is given

Whos this "AI". Where did it get it facts from? Whos agenda does it serve, if any?

You can ask similar questions of journalists and get answers one way or anther. Not so with AI "stuff" as typically presented. Its just pure assertion pulled out of..... where exactly?

christianlloydteegardin · 2025-11-24T23:23:17-0600

timothyu said:
Understood. We sometimes assume things are not what they are.

The Devil loves it when we assume things are neutral when they're not.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page