• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

B flat B♭

Well prove to me they are not.
I don't know how I could prove it in a way that you would accept. I could give the results of my Google images search for "satellites", literally hundreds of pictures and not a balloon in sight. I could repeat what others have said here about balloons being subject to winds, and thus of no use where a satellite needs to be stationary in respect of the earth. I doubt you would accept such evidence. For example, you try to insist that satellite television signals do not come from satellites, (and that in spite of domestic satellite dishes pointing to the sky), but through cables or even, you said once, by post. What proof would you accept?

Incidentally, I think I may have come across what your picture might have been, which you said was a satellite attached to a balloon. (I may be completely wrong as I am not an expert on these t9hings.):

"High-altitude balloons (HABs) or stratostats are usually uncrewed balloons typically filled with helium or hydrogen and released into the stratosphere, generally attaining between 18 and 37 km (11 and 23 mi; 59,000 and 121,000 ft) above sea level. In 2013, a balloon named BS 13-08 reached a record altitude of 53.7 km (33.4 mi; 176,000 ft).[1]

The most common type of high-altitude balloons are weather balloons. Other purposes include use as a platform for experiments in the upper atmosphere. Modern balloons generally contain electronic equipment such as radio transmitters, cameras, or satellite navigation systems, such as GPS receivers. Hobbyists frequently purchase weather balloons because of their ease of use, low price point, and widespread commoditisation.

These balloons are launched into what is defined as "near space", defined as the area of Earth's atmosphere between the Armstrong limit (18–19 km (11–12 mi) above sea level), where pressure falls to the point that a human being cannot survive without a pressurised suit, and the Kármán line (100 km (62 mi) above sea level[2]), where astrodynamics must take over from aerodynamics in order to maintain flight."
Upvote 0

The Mandami effect

Nobody is being forced to do anything; they can continue doing EXACTLY what they've been doing and city rents in nyc would not improve?

Nobody is being forced to do anything except pay a tax if their apartment is vacant.

But they can be forced to pay that tax.
This is how the governement forces you to do things. Yes its force. Whats the difference between telling a landlord they have to fix up and rent their apartment or get taxed on it, or telling them they have to do it or face a criminal fine? Not much.

Stating they have a choice is misleading. Because you are forcing someone to do something or else. What would happen if rhe governement told people they had to fly an Ametican flag on their house or be taxed at a higher rate. Hey its a choice right?

Let's admit that anytime the governement tells you you have to do something or else then thats really force.

Besides, the landlords already pay their property taxes on apartment. You are double taxing someone for the same property.

If you are going to do that just be honest and pass a law that says landlords are not allowed to have empty apartments. Be honest with it.
Upvote 0

Newsome pushed back against Democracy to achieve his political goals

I appreciate it, but I don't really see it as connected since it seems to just be a pretext to me.
The pretext given is one thing, but the fact remains: Trump said do it, and Abbott obeyed. If you consider gerrymandering to indicate that a governor "lacks integrity or principles," then the criticism would be the same for Abbott as for Newsom. If you're willing to criticize one, but unwilling to criticize the other, then your issue isn't with integrity, principles or gerrymandering.

I never said I don't have a problem with other states doing it, but if the response to it is "well, let's do it!" then clearly the Democrats don't have a problem with it and only have a problem with it because Republicans are doing it. The judicial rulings on the issue appear to me to be entirely in the wrong, but my issue is with the governor of my state proving he's a partisan hack since he's more concerned with how his party performs than with protecting the voting rights of the citizens of his state.
A criticism that would apply to both governors, then. My point was that you're fully willing to criticize Newsome, but seem unwilling to levy the same criticism toward Abbott. Which would indicate to me your issue isn't entirely with the concept of gerrymandering.

I've since been corrected, he simply bypassed the commission in order to institute blatant gerrymandered districts.
He didn't do that either. He put it up to the voters, and they decided.

Either way, it shows a lack of integrity on his part and those who are defending the move while bemoaning Republican gerrymandering.
As I said before, if there were legislation banning gerrymandering, I'd be fully behind it. But SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, so it remains perfectly legal and within the rights of any state to engineer it. Which means that, if one state doing so, purely for partisan reasons on orders from an authoritarian leader, is entirely legal, then another state doing so with the full consent and support of the voters is also perfectly legal.

Whether or not you like one, but not the other, is entirely your business. But don't try to pretend you're applying the same standard across the board, because you ain't.

-- A2SG, and that's the truthhhpppth....
Upvote 0

Morality without Absolute Morality

That's not how subjective works. There isn't a "god exception".

Something is objective if it can be confirmed or assumed independently of any minds.

not

Something is objective if it can be confirmed or assumed independently of any minds (except God's).

Either a god's perception is subjective or it has no mind.

Your subjective moral opinion is to adopt the subjective moral opinion of your god. That is fine, but it is still subjective.
You're making a category error by comparing God to created things. God isn't simply reducible to a subjective consciousness in the same sense that human minds are. He is mind without limit, and things are true because of Him.
So then how do they exist if they aren't in nature?
"nature" isn't a place. Nor is "exist" an appropriate category for moral statements. They are true to the extent that they are in agreement with God's character. You seem very confused on these issues.
That isn't humanism, but what other agent is fit? Cats? I like cats. They make good friends, but they have very different morals than humans tend to.
THere is only one appropriate agent, otherwise we're just spouting off uninformed opinions that are impossible to properly qualify.
Subjective morality is still morality.
Not really, it's just opinions which are really only the business of the person who holds them.
The divine has an epistemic problem.
Not nearly as much as the "natural"...but this isn't the thread to talk about the diallelus or Munchausen's trilemma.
Upvote 0

Newsome pushed back against Democracy to achieve his political goals

Maybe not, but you admitted you were not "fully informed" on the issue, I thought some information would be beneficial.
I appreciate it, but I don't really see it as connected since it seems to just be a pretext to me.
Hey, if legislation were proposed to eliminate partisan gerrymandering, I'd support it 100%. But no one wants to do that. So, either gerrymandering is legal, or it ain't. If it is, then Texas has every right to do it, as does California. If you have a problem with one state doing it, but not the other, then your problem isn't with the concept of gerrymandering, or its effect.

-- A2SG, playing the "blame game" is just partisan sniping.....
I never said I don't have a problem with other states doing it, but if the response to it is "well, let's do it!" then clearly the Democrats don't have a problem with it and only have a problem with it because Republicans are doing it. The judicial rulings on the issue appear to me to be entirely in the wrong, but my issue is with the governor of my state proving he's a partisan hack since he's more concerned with how his party performs than with protecting the voting rights of the citizens of his state.
He didn't get rid of the commission.

-- A2SG, you may want to research this stuff before you comment.....
I've since been corrected, he simply bypassed the commission in order to institute blatant gerrymandered districts. Either way, it shows a lack of integrity on his part and those who are defending the move while bemoaning Republican gerrymandering.
Upvote 0

Newsome pushed back against Democracy to achieve his political goals

I'm not particularly interested in TX politics.
Maybe not, but you admitted you were not "fully informed" on the issue, I thought some information would be beneficial.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. If the democrats cared about free and fair elections,, they wouldn't be moving to gerrymander an already gerrymandered state. Abbot isn't being punished by Newsom gerrymandering CA, voters in CA whose local issues are going to be drowned out by the inclusion of voter bases whose interests are far removed from the localities are the ones who are going to lose. Saying that Newsom went to the voters doesn't excuse it, because his sole intent in the plan is to make elections in CA less fair.
Hey, if legislation were proposed to eliminate partisan gerrymandering, I'd support it 100%. But no one wants to do that. So, either gerrymandering is legal, or it ain't. If it is, then Texas has every right to do it, as does California. If you have a problem with one state doing it, but not the other, then your problem isn't with the concept of gerrymandering, or its effect.

-- A2SG, playing the "blame game" is just partisan sniping.....
Upvote 0

Newsome pushed back against Democracy to achieve his political goals

Texas fixed a district based on race. Good for them.
Texas redrew the districts to increase the number of Republican representatives, on direct order from Trump. The excuse given doesn't change that.

Is it your contention that gerrymandering is a good thing? Then you shouldn't have a problem with California doing it.

-- A2SG, not sure how race figures into this, but that's your point, not mine....
Upvote 0

Morality without Absolute Morality

All beings are objective. You objectively exist, as do I. If your god exists, then it to is objective. None of that makes any being's moral opinions and preferences as objective. They are ... subjective.
Sure, but God isn't just any subject. The problem with subjective morals isn't the element of subjective agency, it is the fact that no human being has any authority to dictate how others should behave. God, for numerous reasons, possesses such authority.
Where in nature are these moral senses?
In nature? Nope, it's not moral senses either. It's moral character, in God's nature as the perfect moral agent.
So any condemnation is extending beyond the reach of the available options.
I'm not a humanist, but I probably should be. Unfortunately there are a lot of unlikable humans that hold me back.
By humanist, I wasn't marking off a particular position just any position that takes humans as fit moral agents.
You haven't found one here.
Sure, but that's just because you lack the consistency.
Subjective morality exists, it is just not objective.
Nope, subjective opinions lack the force to equal morality. Subjective preferences are no one's business but yours.
That even the believers can't agree to the nature of God, I don't know how you can say that. Said God could clearly demonstrate their nature, but...
You're mistaking the epistemic problem with the metaphysical one.
Upvote 0

Would Jesus Condemn the Rosary? Jesus condemns ‘vain repetition’ in prayer . . . but Catholics also have the rosary.

The rosary also fulfills the command of scripture

Romans 12



1 I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God


We are to sacrifice our time, talent, and treasure. The Rosary is a sacrifice of our time to develop our talent to make Jesus and the Gospel our treasure. For Jesus says, where your treasure is, there will also be your heart.



We are also told in Philippians 4

8- For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline, think on these things 9 The things which you have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, these do ye, and the God of peace shall be with you.

In the Rosary we contemplate the mysteries of our redemption. Are they not holy and lovely? The Rosary is not all there is to think about, but learning it and saying it daily is a way to build discipline.
The mysteries are all in scripture, and when we repetitively contemplate them, the mysteries come alive as we receive our answer from God in prayer. Even the Hail Mary prayer, most objected to by non Catholics, begins with two quotes from scripture in the Gospel of Luke 1:28 and 1:42
Should we not contemplate these until they are planted firmly in our minds?

I can testify that it is true to follow this advice given in Scripture by Paul. I have done what he instructs and the peace of God is with me through the Rosary
Upvote 0

Young earth vs Old earth?

How does it confirm what you are saying?
Did you not say "If God made the Earth, and then He made something else that He called "Earth", that's confusing"?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the what you called mud is the same earth that God created at Genesis 1:1.
When that "mud" rose above the surface of the water, it was the same earth that is taking form - mountains, valleys, etc.
It's like having clay in your hand and shaping it into something. It's still clay.
Am I misunderstanding what you think Gen 1:1 is calling "earth"? Are you saying it is the same thing that later became the dry ground? Most people think that it refers to the whole planet we call "Earth" in Vs 1.
God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of the waters He called “seas” Genesis 1:10
The dry land always existed, but because it was covered with water, it was wet. When it pushed up above the water's surface, it dried,
God called it earth.
The same earth that existed at the beginning.
I think that's not clear from the scripture, though it is a possible interpretation. Would you say the same thing about "Heaven"? IOW, did "Heaven" exist within the water? If not, then what is Vs 1 talking about when it says "Heaven"?
Is that what you said?


Correct.
Wait a minute! Are you saying there were other objects besides earth. What other objects existed?
Is light an object? If not light, then are you asking about other spheres, such as the sun, moon, stars or something like them that came before? All I get from the scripture at that point is that light existed. If I compare that with modern physics, specifically the big bang theory (BBT), there was a period of time called the photon epoch which might correspond to what God did to create light, before there were other (large) objects, although there was something that preceded the light called "waters" and "the deep". In BBT, there is something that precedes the light also. I'm looking at Big Bang Timeline- The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe while writing. It talks about a "photon epoch"

No. The reason God said let there be light, was because the earth was shrouded in darkness.
Genesis 1:2-5
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep
Genesis1-2a.gif

There was no light for God to separate.

Only after light reached the earth, did God call the light "day", and the darkness "night".
Which is a supposition. Maybe true, maybe not. It requires your view to be true, but other views can still be valid without tossing the verse aside. Such as that the light was made to appear without any mist or atmospheric blockage.
Genesis1-3to5.gif


Light from the sun penetrated the dissipating ash and debris that is hanging above earth's atmosphere.
The light is called Day, and the darkness is called Night... Obviously we have night and day on earth. :smile:


We don't ignore context, is true, but neither do we ignore chronology.
Also true.
For example, we do not ignore a statement, run further down, form an idea, then arrange the reading to suit our idea.
I don't think it is wrong to apply the whole chapter's context in our understanding of the first few verses.
There is chronological order, in the reading of Genesis Chapter one.
It begins with... In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
That might not be the first event in the chronology. It might instead be an introduction to the chronology, just as Gen 2:1 is not another creation of heaven and earth, and cannot be considered part of the chronology, but just a summation (a short repeat) of the previous contents.
Your claim however, is this:

You made two claims.
  1. Light was made first, before there was "Earth", and before there was "Heaven(s)"
Yes
  1. I'm trying to read the passage for what it is trying to say, without putting my own ideas
Yes
However, both these claims do not prove to be true, because you just quoted Genesis 1:1, which says very clearly " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
How long did "the beginning" last" And when were "earth" and "heaven" created? I think I'm still within the window of the 6 days.
If you are "trying to read the passage for what it is trying to say, without putting my own ideas", then you must accept that the heavens and earth existed, first.
Not if the text said that they began to exist only after light.
The only way you can dismiss that, is by "putting my own ideas", which is to claim that earth in Genesis 1:1 is not earth,
Or, as stated before, that it was an introductory statement about the narrative that followed.
but like the other poster here is saying, it's not talking about an already created earth.

So, which is it you want me to go with?


Are you saying that the contexts of "the heavens" never relate to the things in the heavens?
Surely "the heavens" didn't mean "and everything the heavens will contain later on" when it was first defined. Are you saying the "the heavens" existed before "the heavens" were created??
Great!
Do you accept that heavens, in some contexts in scripture, do refer to all the things in the heavens combined?
Yes, at least sometimes. But when the narrative says the heavens were created by separating water above from water below, i don't understand how they existed prior to that.
What thing holds the earth water and sky and space?
Can you repeat that in different words?
Could you answer the other questions, please.
What is space, and how did that blackness impress David? Psalm 8:3

Space is where God placed the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. David was looking at stars in the heavens
When you read the phrase such as mentioned at Isaiah 57:16 and Jeremiah 32:19, since you do not just see empty space and mud, what do you see?
[Isa 57:16 NKJV] For I will not contend forever, Nor will I always be angry; For the spirit would fail before Me, And the souls [which] I have made. --I don't see how this relates to our discussion.
[Jer 32:19 NKJV] '[You are] great in counsel and mighty in work, for Your eyes [are] open to all the ways of the sons of men, to give everyone according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings. --nor this.

Please elaborate. I'm missing your point.
I'll repeat the verses again:
[Gen 1:1 KJV] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[Gen 2:1 KJV] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
The last one is not part of the narrative telling how and in what order God created, yet it is part of the section of scripture containing that narrative. That sentence could be termed a summation of what came before.
The first verse is similar--it isn't part of how and when God created, but is a statement of what the text that follows contains...an introduction, we would call it if writing an english paper. Or perhaps a title. Maybe you didn't understand what I was getting at with the story about making a lamp. I started with a statement about what I was about to describe the creation of (a lamp). The initial statement was not part of the story about how I was making a lamp, it was an introduction to the story about how I was making a lamp.

The assumption that the earth exists before the narrative says the earth exists makes the definition of "earth" confusing, because it is not what the verses define it. The verses of the text define "earth" as "dry land", not a planet where you can only see water. Therefore, if water is all you can see in Vs 2, it must not be the same thing as "earth" as defined in Gen 1:10. If Heaven is vs 1 is not something that came to exist only after the waters were separated from the waters, then there must be 2 things, in your view, that "Heaven" refers to. One in vs 1 and another in vs 8 and following. Whereas, if the introduction is telling us what the narrative is about, rather than being part of the narrative, we soon see the objects/foci of the narrative come into being in Gen 1:6-10.
Did you read Genesis 1:1, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20?
What is the expanse?
What is the expanse of the heavens?
I think they are the same thing--Space, extending down to the surface of the earth (dirt). The "face of the expanse" (still part of the expanse) is the sky where birds fly. "The Heavens" is the name God gave the expanse (firmament).
True. I'm interested in what you Derf, get from it.


Therefore, it does not refer to space, where the heavenly hosts... that is planets and stars would exist?
It does. But remember that the statement begins the narrative in which the heavens and the earth are created. It explains what the words mean as the things the words refer to come into being. If dry land existed prior to dry land existing, then the story of creation is confusing, don't you think? Remember that the narrative defines the words it uses for these things. If you then define them a different way, you need to explain where your definitions come from, and why they don't match the definitions in the narrative.
Ah. I see. So, you believe there is no space above the firmament. That's all a myth in science.
Isn't it? Or do scientists actually know what is outside the universe??
Can yo please point out where, or which layer the sun, moon, and stars reside in this diagram?
layers_of_the_atmosphere_withkm.png.webp
None of them. Can you tell me where the waters above the expanse reside?
Also, are you saying there is no space (heavens) above, which God created?
No. But when God made the firmament (expanse) there were a couple parts to it in the narrative. There is the firmament where stars and galaxies are, and there is the "face of the firmament", which is where birds fly.
[Gen 1:20 NKJV] Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens."
Upvote 0

TRUMP "MISSED THE DEADLINE" TO CALL OFF TX GERRYMANDERING; CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE “BEAUTIFUL MAPS”

What an inane thing to say. Why would I just lay on the ground and let someone kick me? Why would I not get up and walk away?

Yeesh. And I realize this has nothing to do with gerrymandering, but I was just responding to the horrible analogy presented to me.
I think you just missed the point of the analogy. Let me try to clarify: The bar is the country, the person kicking you is a political party resorting to unfair or dirty tricks to win an election. In this analogy, your solution, "just get up and walk away," would equate to leaving the country.

Is that your best solution for handling political disagreements or responding to unfair political tactics?

-- A2SG, metaphors can be hard sometimes....
Upvote 0

Trump promises $2000 tariff dividend to all Americans

ROFL!!!!

No way.
You believe that hey?

What happenned to paying down the debt? That has already increased faster than ever before (not counting COVID).
This will also be done with the tariffs. Eventually. It has to get worse before it gets better.
Upvote 0

Morality without Absolute Morality

Again, in passing...this came up in another thread:

From here: The Bible as a Tool · Beyond Supply & Demand: Duke Economics Students Present 100 Years of American Women’s Suffrage · Duke University Library Exhibits

'Women viewed the right to vote as not only a political and social but a moral issue — as did their opponents. The items in this section showcase how pro- and anti-suffragists used God and interpretations of biblical teachings and writings to reinforce their arguments.'

Yeah. Kind of weird. Two groups of Christians using the bible to support diametrically opposed moral views.
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Newsome pushed back against Democracy to achieve his political goals

Morals are real, they just aren't absolute or objective. Let's keep it in the other thread. I just wanted to know what my principles are and that I am judging your anti-democratic statements.
I don't mind being judged, particularly when someone has no real footing to make any kind of judgment. All you're telling me is your personal preference, and your opinion is really none of my business.
Upvote 0

Trump proposes 50-year mortgage


In another attempt to make homebuying more affordable, President Donald Trump floated the idea of a 50-year mortgage in a social media post. In response, Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte, who oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, posted that they are “working on it,” and that it would be, “a complete game-changer.”
I think this is a wonderful idea. You get to save some money per month, and when you die halfway into paying back your mortgage, your legacy lives on.

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,877,978
Messages
65,410,486
Members
276,357
Latest member
thelasttoknow