Latest activity

Bradskii · Oct 20, 2025

Fervent said:
Nope, it's a very significant difference. Deontological ethics are only one way to frame an objective morality, and in my opinion the weakest.

Then it was a waste of our time in you bringing them up.

Fervent said:
Attacking objective morality based on perceived weaknesses of deontological ethics is attacking a man of straw.

So we'll not mention deontology again. I hope.

Fervent said:
There certainly are significant disagreements, but the fact that human beings come to project their ethical frameworks on the Divine does not discredit the existence of a Divine standard.

Ah, you mean deontology. I thought we weren't going to mention that again...

Fervent said:
I don't see vibrant disagreements and discussions on such matters as a problem, just a fact of seeing through a mirror darkly.

It's the biggest problem that you have. What purpose can an objective morality have if we don't agree on what it is?

Fervent said:
No, I'm not in the business of moral dictates. Search your own heart.

Exactly. Your source is silent on the matter. So I have to make that moral decision myself. Again, thanks for pointing that out.

BCP1928 · Oct 20, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
That is not their stated purpose - from their own mouths - their purpose is to eliminate the Jews.

That may be, but you were referring to their charter, which I quoted.

Herman Hedning · Oct 20, 2025

Apple Sky said:
This article said;
'In the triumph of the day, no one at the tracking stations considered these differences and certainly the public was unaware. The engineers boxed the one-inch telemetry tapes wound onto 14-inch canister reels-which served no other purpose than to provide backup if the live relay failed-and shipped them to the Goddard Space Flight Center. From there, the tapes were sent to the Washington National Records Center (WRNC) in Suitland, Md. The engineers never saw the back-up telemetry tapes again.'

I wander why ? Like I've always said, they are all in cahoots together.

If you read the report you will find out.

gzt · Oct 20, 2025

I'm curious when you say the service is 2.5 hours -- it's normal for the liturgy to be 1.5-1.75 hours, 2 hours tops, and that would be unusual. Are you including matins/orthros in that? I'd really recommend that, if you have a pile of kids just getting used to going to church like this, that you focus on just the liturgy until they're more acclimated. Obviously if the local priest suggests otherwise you should follow his lead, but you have to start by biting off what you can chew.

Strong in Him · Oct 20, 2025

Neogaia777 said:
Exactly, it's not for us to judge, not even for 100% sure in our own individual case, etc. You can maybe feel pretty confident in your own individual case maybe,

No.
John wrote in his letter, "I write this so that you will KNOW".

We were far from God in our sin. Being reconciled to him cost God his Son. Of course he wants us to know that we are his children. The whole of the NT talks of us being "in Christ". We are told to remain in the vine. We are told that we have every spiritual blessing in Christ. We are told there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ.
How can someone be in Christ and live their life in Christ, then meet with God and be afraid in case he might say "you're not mine"?

I guess you can never sing the hymn, "Blessed assurance", then?

Hentenza · Oct 20, 2025

RDKirk said:
No, I'm not arguing free will. I think we have a choice, a single choice, of what will be our master, but that is not "free will." Only Christians even have this debate--secular philosophers have abandoned the concept of free will, asserting instead that every decision is determined in some manner.

And, true, "free will" as some Christians define it, is not given in scripture.

But the parable of the sower does present, if taken by itself, as an assertion that the person has no agency in his salvation. I think Jesus' intent was to make a different point relating to how evangelists should view their success as evangelist, not actually about soteriology at all.

If we interpret this parable strictly as an allegory of salvation, the implication is deterministic: People accept or reject the word based on what kind of “soil” they already are -- a condition they didn’t consciously choose. In other words, the soil is descriptive of spiritual receptivity, not moral decision.

It's not just me picking up on this. Augustine and later Calvin saw in it the evidence of divine election: Only those whose hearts God has prepared (“good soil”) can truly receive the word and bear fruit. Jesus never portrays the soil as having changed itself. The conditions are simply there.

If instead we read it primarily as a lesson to evangelists (which fits the narrative context better), then the lack of human agency among the hearers is not the point. The point shifts to the sower’s duty: to keep scattering seed without assuming responsibility for the soil’s nature.

That interpretation sidesteps the determinism issue entirely. The agency in focus is the evangelist’s, not the hearer’s. It teaches that evangelists will see wildly different results, and they shouldn’t judge themselves by those outcomes.

I would agree with you except that Jesus explains the parable. Each one of the conditions is directly attributable to a person’s choice. You are thinking that the person has no choice on the quality of the soil that the seed lands on but that is not the case.

““Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

[these made the decision to allow the devil to take away the word. It is their choice not the sower’s).

Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and yet these do not have a firm root; they believe for a while, and in a time of temptation they fall away.

[Once again the choice is theirs. For reasons of their own they fall away. The responsibility if creating a firm root is the person as the writer of Hebrews explains in chapter 6]

“And the seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked by worries, riches, and pleasures of this life, and they bring no fruit to maturity.

[This again is a choice and also part of the explanation by the writer of Hebrews in chapter 6]

“But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word with a good and virtuous heart, and hold it firmly, and produce fruit with perseverance.”
‭‭
[This person made the right choices also these could be directed at some of those that are predestined. But again it is a choice.]

‭‭Luke‬ ‭8‬:‭11‬-‭15‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Luke 8:11-15 “Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not belie | New American Standard Bible - NASB

“Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not belie

bible.com

[Annotations mine.]

The sower, however, knows each choice but the choice is still up to the person. Everyone gets a “seed” but what people do with it is a choice.

Always in His Presence · Oct 20, 2025

BCP1928 said:
"Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine"

That is not their stated purpose - from their own mouths - their purpose is to eliminate the Jews.

DaisyDay · Oct 20, 2025

BPPLEE said:
Just tell people to stop taking drugs? You mean hold them accountable for their actions?
Can we apply this across the board?

What are you really asking?

Dale · Oct 20, 2025

Aryeh Jay said:
Why? What's happening on Friday?

He's talking about the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which allows the Vice-President and Cabinet to remove the President. This Amendment was adopted in the late 1960's. It might work if a President had a stroke and was unconscious and unable to perform his duties. It doesn't seem to be working in any other circumstance. Part of the problem is that the Cabinet in the US isn't really a functioning body that meets and makes decisions. They just take orders from above. Also, the process must be initiated by the Vice-President. In Trump's first term, VP Mike Pence ruled out using the 25th Amendment despite Trump's erratic and unpredicable behavior. Apparently party loyalty comes first, or a VP will not act against the President who selected him to be VP. The same goes for the Cabinet, they won't act against the person who appointed them.

FredVB · Oct 20, 2025

Joshua and Jesus are from the same name originally, Jesus being from the short name. In the original manuscripts of the new testament it is still written the same... Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς). Translations could be consistent, but instead they have the name as Jesus for our Lord Christ and the same name as Joshua in other cases. If they are Joshua we could call the Lord by the name Joshua.

The ancient form of the name of God kept in Greek writing originally shows pronunciation very close to it being "Yahweh". It may have been, while varying a little bit, in the past, Iaooeh, or something similar, but it is not so different from this pronunciation now with YHWH.

Strong in Him · Oct 20, 2025

Kathleen30 said:
Strong in him you have this notion in your head that Christians do not lie.

Charles became a Christian, after he went to and walked on, the moon.

Kathleen30 said:
You ask is it not feasible that he’s telling the truth about the moon and what he says about Jesus is true too

Yes. Your answer is .........?

Kathleen30 said:
Stong in him Kenneth Copeland sprouts the same truth about Jesus all the time even if he is a conman like many other televangelists.

Kenneth Copeland believes in Jesus and teaches Jesus.
He is not correct when he teaches the prosperity Gospel, but that does not mean he lies about Jesus being his Saviour.

If Charles Duke is lying when he says "I walked on the moon", then he is also lying when he says that writes about Jesus, his Saviour and says that meeting Jesus was the best part of his life.

Kathleen30 said:
You have to think outside the box .

Why?
Charles either lied about walking in the moon and is lying about Jesus - in which case you'd expect God to punish him.
Or he is telling the truth about both.

Kathleen30 said:
Just because person claims to be a Christian doesn't mean they are so, just because a person is a Christian doesn't mean they can’t lie.

Have you heard Charles' testimony - of how he was going through a difficult time with trouble in his marriage, and then he met Jesus? They had been a "religious" family for a while, but they didn't know Jesus. In 1975 his wife was on the verge of suicide.
Watch it, if you dare.
Login to view embedded media If you can't bear to watch the factual stuff about the moon, start it at 31 minutes in.

Even @Apple Sky has watched it, said that she honestly believed it and it briefly changed her life. (Until she changed her mind again.)

We are not talking about a one time, off the cuff lie to try to impress a friend or get out of a difficult situation. We are talking about a public testimony and Christian preaching ministry. He has been, and maybe still is, invited to churches. It's possible that unbelievers come to Christ when they hear his testimony.

When Charles heard the words, "Jesus said 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by me'," he said to himself, "either that's the truth or the biggest con in history".
What do you say - was he lying?

Apple Sky · Oct 20, 2025

Herman Hedning said:
For anyone interested, here's the official NASA report on what happened to the Apollo 11 telemetry data and why it isn't available anymore (spoiler: the tapes were recycled in the 1970s). https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a11/Apollo_11_TV_Tapes_Report.pdf

This article said;
'In the triumph of the day, no one at the tracking stations considered these differences and certainly the public was unaware. The engineers boxed the one-inch telemetry tapes wound onto 14-inch canister reels-which served no other purpose than to provide backup if the live relay failed-and shipped them to the Goddard Space Flight Center. From there, the tapes were sent to the Washington National Records Center (WRNC) in Suitland, Md. The engineers never saw the back-up telemetry tapes again.'

I wander why ? Like I've always said, they are all in cahoots together.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Oct 20, 2025

rjs330 said:
Hmmm... the protests are still protesting things that aren't happening, rendering them moot. And the fact that rhey are still going to be able to do them, is proof of that, so I don't know. I think I've been clear as well and whatever your claim is, is also moot.

The narratives promoted by these protestors—such as claims of authoritarianism or dictatorship—may not have merit, yet millions of Americans subscribe to these perspectives. In a democracy, we do not have the privilege of disregarding public opinion based on personal beliefs. Within a democratic framework, there are two primary approaches: one can work to change public opinion or choose to align with it. Merely criticizing or dismissing public sentiment is generally considered unwise in a democratic society.

Regardless of one's position on these protesters, it is clear that millions of Americans are participating in this movement and intend to voice their dissatisfaction at the polls in thirteen months. Historical trends suggest that when public sentiment is strongly reflected, significant political shifts can occur. For instance, in 2018, a comparatively smaller protest group contributed to Democrats gaining 40 seats in the U.S. Congress. Similarly, the Tea Party movement in 2010, which was notably smaller than the current No King movement, resulted in a 60-seat shift and led to Republican control of Congress for the 2011 legislative year. In 2006, the anti-war movement—less prominent than the No King movement—also shifted Congressional power toward the Democrats. These events illustrate how changes in public opinion have influenced legislative outcomes in recent American history.

Republicans and the White House might label protesters as anti-American, as Speaker Johnson did, then highlight their policy achievements on Fox News to supporters or adjust policies to increase among some Americans who are not part of MAGA movement so there are more then 40% American vote for republican on mid-term. Ultimately, for Republicans to retain control of Congress, they will need broader support beyond their core MAGA base.

Fervent · Oct 20, 2025

Bradskii said:
I don't need to. I just need to be convinced myself. Your beliefs are a matter for you. I'm not interested in questioning them.

It's not a matter of questioning my beliefs, but seeing if you'll put your money where your mouth is. In my experience atheists make bold statements of epistemic confidence, only to turn around and feign agnosticism when asked to make a demonstration of their knowledge. So are you convinced because you've been presented with solid arguments against the existence of God, or have you simply taken it to be the default and expected others to change your mind?

Bradskii said:
That will apply to your beliefs as well. Whether you have high confidence in them is again up to you.

Of course, which is why I'm a philosophical skeptic. I don't believe we can justifiably claim to know anything, and at some point everything comes down to faith of one sort or another.

Bradskii said:
Lots of things that I believed were wrong. But if you spend a lifetime checking the validity of your beliefs then you gain confidence in a lot of them.

False confidence, since just because they haven't proven wrong yet doesn't mean they will hold. And there is only so much that any individual can check on their own without relying on testimonial reports.

Bradskii said:
I don't know why this is a problem. 'This act IS going to cause someone pain, therefore I OUGHT not to do it'.

So surgeons shouldn't perform surgery? You're inserting an arbitrary value into the mix that need not be there. Just because you don't understand the problem, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Bradskii said:
Then they are not objective. They are relative to the conditions you listed.

No, they're not "relative" because in any given situation there is a limited number of options that are correct;; they just aren't simple or inherent in the act alone.

Bradskii said:
Indeed. Yet you want to declare morality to be objectively right or wrong even when we can't determine whether they are either.

The existence of a objective right and wrong is distinct from our ability to make determinations. Without an objective morality, morals are meaningless and the only moral authority is force.

Bradskii said:
You are making my case for me...

Nope, you're conflating access with existence.

Bradskii said:
No. But that wasn't the question was it. Should I stay in and donate or go out and spend my hard earned on myself? Which is the morally correct answer?

Perhaps you should take the time to understand the relevance, because my answer is in the question.

BCP1928 · Oct 20, 2025

Servus said:
If 'the left wants the left in charge' is a fib, that would mean the left wants the right in chrage.

No, the fib is your implication that AGW is a hoax perpetrated by the Left to get political advantage.

comana · Oct 20, 2025

Servus said:
Was Marco Rubio lying? If so, what are the real numbers?

Login to view embedded media

He provided anecdotal evidence. What are the real numbers is something he should have provided instead of ”trust me”

BCP1928 · Oct 20, 2025

Servus said:
Was Marco Rubio lying? If so, what are the real numbers?

Login to view embedded media

He might be. Have you checked his figures?

comana · Oct 20, 2025

Servus said:
How would they make that happen, and why don't they want to?

Not my area of expertise. What have Republicans ever brought to the table regarding retirement or healthcare other than to cut it.

BCP1928 · Oct 20, 2025

Servus said:
How would they make that happen, and why don't they want to?

It cuts insurance industry profits.

Fervent · Oct 20, 2025

Bradskii said:
It's a difference with no difference.

Nope, it's a very significant difference. Deontological ethics are only one way to frame an objective morality, and in my opinion the weakest. Attacking objective morality based on perceived weaknesses of deontological ethics is attacking a man of straw.

Bradskii said:
You and the other guy are using the same source. Again, how do I know who is right? Let's face it, there are more than enough disagreements between Christians in this forum for you to know, without a shadow of doubt, that this is a problem.

There certainly are significant disagreements, but the fact that human beings come to project their ethical frameworks on the Divine does not discredit the existence of a Divine standard. I don't see vibrant disagreements and discussions on such matters as a problem, just a fact of seeing through a mirror darkly.

Bradskii said:
Are you going to use your source to tell me what I should do tonight?

No, I'm not in the business of moral dictates. Search your own heart.

Apple Sky · Oct 20, 2025

Kathleen said:
Strong in him you have this notion in your head that Christians do not lie. You ask is it not feasible that he’s telling the truth about the moon and what he says about Jesus is true too Stong in him Kenneth Copeland sprouts the same truth about Jesus all the time even if he is a conman like many other televangelists. You have to think outside the box . Just because person claims to be a Christian doesn't mean they are so, just because a person is a Christian doesn't mean they can’t lie. Does it not seem feasible that astronauts can lie too ???

@Kathleen30 & @Strong in Him

Kathleen - For some reason it won't let me reply to to your last post.

You are right in what you say about Kenneth Copeland & just because a person is a Christian doesn't mean they can't lie.
Your post - Very well said. :clap:

Neogaia777 · Oct 20, 2025

Strong in Him said:
Really?

You have no idea whether or not you are a child of God and have to wait for, maybe, another 20 years to find out?
John 1:12.
Romans 8:16-17
1 John 3:1.

WE may not know if someone really is a Christian and child of God - but it's not for us to judge.

Exactly, it's not for us to judge, not even for 100% sure in our own individual case, etc. You can maybe feel pretty confident in your own individual case maybe, but it's ultimately up to God in the very final Judgement, etc. To not give God that, is sin, etc.

Neogaia777 · Oct 20, 2025

Strong in Him said:
Being a child of God is not dependent at all on our good works - but only on whether someone has received Jesus.
A person is born again through the Holy Spirit; not as a reward for good works.

If a person is a true one, then that person will do/fulfill whatever (good) works God the Father has already prepared for him (or her) to do from before the world began, and if they are not, then they won't in their individual case, but you are right about them not saving you though, but then again, I never said they did, etc.

In the judgement, there will be revealed that there were certain works that were prepared for you as a individual that were prepared for you from before the foundation of the world, that if you did them, or chose to do them, will show if you're a true child of God or not, etc. And it will also be revealed that God also did the same thing with some others, but they didn't choose to do them, etc. And this information from these results/judgements will be revealed to us in the very final judgement, separating the false from the true once and for all after that, etc. They don't save you, but they are evidence of a genuine saving faith, etc.

God Bless.

comana · Oct 20, 2025

Servus said:
Why is it necessary for immigrants to immediately get better benefits than retired Americans?

Why can’t we have better retirement and healthcare for everyone? Republicans don’t want to make that happen for anyone.

Fervent · Oct 20, 2025

Stopped_lurking said:
No, the usefulness of an object is in meeting a purpose. I think you're using good differently when talking about moral good(s), and a good hammer (are bad hammers then immoral?) or this pasta is good (bad tasting pasta should be an objective moral failing though, jk).

No, I'm not using good differently. I'm a believer in Nicomacean ethics, which don't see a need to distinguish between ordinary good and a special sense of good for moral good.

Stopped_lurking said:
An object that can accurately drive nails is a useful hammer.

Maybe useful, but it is only a good hammer if it was intended to drive nails.

Stopped_lurking said:
Someone that is promoting, acting or otherwise making some of kind goal more probable is a useful man in the working toward that goal. But even then I still don't feel like that makes that person more or less moral.

Since when are feelings an argument?

Stopped_lurking said:
Why, even if there are a Creator there is no logical necessity for any purpose. And why couldn't the Creator not know the purpose a priori, even if there was one (in some kind of meta-world)? Or why couldn't it be known to all if the Creator wills it and has the ability to make its will known? Basically, invoking a Creator does what for the argument?

Necessity? I suppose a Creator may have no intent with His creation, but that doesn't negate that the good of the creation is to meet the purpose that it was intended for.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page