Latest activity

BPPLEE · Oct 31, 2025

JSRG said:
Which isn't evidence. It's just saying they'll lose money, and then (without explaining what kind of calculations arrived at this) that this will cost the government more money than it's saving. If that is going to cause the government to lose more than it saves, what is the evidence of this? One can't simply throw out an alleged amount of loss for corporations, you have to show how that converts to a loss for the government and the actual amount lost by the government (because obviously, the government isn't going to suddenly lose $8 billion even if companies overall do).

I'm not arguing on his behalf I just made the observation that if his calculations are correct that means shoppers will save $8 billion.

JSRG · Oct 31, 2025

BPPLEE said:
He said the cost to corporations will be $8 billion and the government will lose taxes on that money

Which isn't evidence. It's just saying they'll lose money, and then (without explaining what kind of calculations arrived at this) that this will cost the government more money than it's saving. If that is going to cause the government to lose more than it saves, what is the evidence of this? One can't simply throw out an alleged amount of loss for corporations, you have to show how that converts to a loss for the government and the actual amount lost by the government (because obviously, the government isn't going to suddenly lose $8 billion even if companies overall do).

bbbbbbb · Oct 31, 2025

building collapse

SavedByGrace3 · Oct 31, 2025

Link to the book from 50 years ago! If you decide to purchase the book, be sure it includes the images which are on separte cards. 1 card per chapter. The book is useless without the cards.

Amazon.com

lucypevensie · Oct 31, 2025

Economic collapse

SavedByGrace3 · Oct 31, 2025

Another versionof the image:

lucypevensie · Oct 31, 2025

Apple soup tastes interesting.

SOUP

SavedByGrace3 · Oct 31, 2025

I am in the process of developing graphic tools to assist in memorizing scripture. I may collect said graphics into a book form.
The concept of graphic memorization tools began, to the best of my knowledge, when Jerry Lucas wrote a book back in the 75: "Remember the Word: Vol. 1, The Gospels: A Bible Memorization System." Lucas got a graphic artist to create pictographs that would assit the reader to memorize scritpure books, chapters, passages, and verses. The pictures use the association principle to lock subject matter into the memory of the student.
Here is one picture that I have created using Gemini AI.
The image is simple, silly, and should be easy to memorize. Silly is the key phrase here.
In the sky, there is the word "THe".
Below is a "JeeP".
Also in the jeep is a anthropomorphic "LoG."
Kamala Harris is driving = "VP". (Kamala was the VP when I first created this concept.)

So the motion of the picture (as displayed at the bottom) is "THe JeeP LoG VP".
Note the capitalization. This is just to remind you of a key principle. We do not use vowels in this memory tool.

So the functional letters would only be consonants:

TH
JP
LG
VP

In this case, each letter is the first letter in our memory verse:
True
Honest
Just
Pure
Lovely
Good report
Virtue
Praise.

You can probably guess the verse:

Philippians 4:8 KJV
8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are True, whatsoever things are Honest, whatsoever things are Just, whatsoever things are Pure, whatsoever things are Lovely, whatsoever things are of Good report; if there be any Virtue, and if there be any Praise, think on these things.

Study the picture until you have it in your memory. Then, remember to only use the consonants of the words. Associate the letters with the words in the verse, and you will have the framework for memorizing this scripture.

Vambram · Oct 31, 2025

Fantine said:
He's demolishing the White House and blasting Venezuelan fishermen out of their boats and he can't figure out how to give out Snap from a contingency fund.
Oh, I get it. He is unable to do good.

Nothing what you posted there is factually accurate.

rusmeister · Oct 31, 2025

The Liturgist said:
There’s an app being developed (see the Ponomar Project), and additionally I’m starting a project to write a library to make the development of more such apps easier - basically what we need is something where we can select our specific jurisdiction and various parameters within that and get the services according to the specific Typikon we are using (since many jurisdictions use more than one; there are for example in the OCA various typikons in use by the Russian parishes, the American parishes, the Albanian parishes, the Romanian parishes, the Bulgarian parishes and monasteries some with divergent rules, like New Skete, and in ROCOR they have for instance the Western Rite Vicarate and the Old Rite parishes such as The Church of the Nativity.

In this thread I will be focusing primarily on the variable parts of the services, especially those members might not otherwise encounter because they’re in parts of the Typikon usually abbreviated.

By the way @gurneyhalleck1 is a Serbian Orthodox convert if I recall.

Yes, thank you!
The Ponomar project, however, has been around for twenty years, and I have seen no progress beyond the appsthat are out there now, doing pretty much what the site was doing twenty years ago. No help for the changing parts of services.

Studyman · Oct 31, 2025

HIM said:
David said it of himself and of Christ. Ps 40:8 Then Paul said it of himself and Christ in Heb 10, He said, lo I come in the volume of the Book it is written of me, to do thy will oh God. There for we can, For God has said, He will put His Law into our hearts and in our minds. As He has said before in Deut. 29:1-30:14 A New Covenant I will make with you. Not like the one that was made in Horeb. For the Lord our God will circumcise our hearts and the hearts of thy seed. For the Word, the commandments and statutes contained in the Book of the Law are in our hearts and in our mouths that we do them. That is the word of faith in which we preach. The faith that makes us righteous, justifies and establishes the Law. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. They who walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh that the righteousness of the LAW be fulfilled. For they do not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God

This is such a great study. The phrase, "but a body hast thou prepared me" isn't written in the KJV of David's Psalms. Instead, it is written " mine ears hast thou opened". The former, quoted by the Hebrew's author was translated from the Septuagint Text, whereas the KJV and most English Bibles were translated from the Massoretic text.

The Spiritual meaning can certainly mean the same. But you are absolute correct about the "Body" being us. Because of the Christ's Offering of His perfect mortal human body to God to reconcile us to God, we are able to strive for the same perfection. This is what the Gospel of Christ is. The Good News. This is the purpose of our Exodus from Sin. To become, "The Body of Christ". Consider the Scriptures posted below which promote this Journey.

Gen 4: 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Gen. 6: 9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Gen. 17: 1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

Ex. 19: 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Lev. 11: 44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

IS. 1: 10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

I could post a hundred verses saying the same thing from the OT, now lets hear from the NT.

Matt. 4: 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (You already included this one.)

Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, "even as your Father which is in heaven" is perfect.

John 8: 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Matt. 19: 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

And this was Paul's Gospel as well.

Rom. 2: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Rom. 2 :13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Eph, 2: 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Rom. 11: 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in "his" goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Rom. 12: 1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that "ye present your bodies" a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your "reasonable service".

2 And be not conformed to this world: (Including its religions) 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.

I could go on and on. Every one of these Scriptures and hundreds more speak to "A Body though has prepared me". The Body of Christ. That is our goal.

Eph. 4: 23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, "which after God" is created in righteousness and true holiness.

That has always been the Gospel of Christ.

Ez. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Paul taught to "Press Towards the mark" of this perfection that was in Christ Jesus. "Body of Christ".

David did as well.

Ps. 40: 8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. 9 "I have preached righteousness" in the great congregation: lo, "I have not" refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest. 10 "I have not" hid thy righteousness within my heart; "I have declared" thy faithfulness and thy salvation: "I have not concealed" thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation. 11 Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me, O LORD: let thy lovingkindness and thy truth continually preserve me.

What a great study. "Not I, but Christ in me", But one I fear will not be well received.

John 17: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

1 John 2: 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that "saith" he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Phil. 2: 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

"but a body hast thou prepared me:"

Great Study, Great Topic.

BPPLEE · Oct 31, 2025

JSRG said:
What is your evidence that the loss would be higher than savings? I don't think you've posted any evidence on that, unless I missed it.

He said the cost to corporations will be $8 billion and the government will lose taxes on that money

Fervent · Oct 31, 2025

Bradskii said:
You don't agree with me so '...the two errors must be taking place...'

Yes, because it depends on covert variables. Either you're smuggling in a prior moral value, thereby begging the question. or there is no clear relationhip between premises and conclusion. Given your latest post, it seems non-sequitor is the more likely error.

Bradskii said:
I think that sums it. You've just said that you think I'm wrong, so there must be a mistake in my argument somewhere. Followed by an 'It's either this one or that one'.

Nope, again you're not understanding the point. Given your argument there is no clear relationship between premises and conclusion. But whether it is a hidden premise that is begging the question, or simply a non-sequitor depends on your understanding.

Bradskii said:
I can't decide if that sounds desperate or just plaintive.

"Sounds"...because you don't understand the criticism, or else you do and are simply arguing in bad faith.

Bradskii said:
Be specific. Where is the moral promise in the premises? Quote it.

There is no explicit moral premise, which is why it is either a non-sequitor or covertly begging the question. As stated, how you got from feeling to moral conclusion is a mystery. So what's the connection? What bridges the gap?

Bradskii · Oct 31, 2025

Fervent said:
I've stated the two errors that must be taking place, because either his argument is frontloaded by assigning moral character or the premises do not lead to the conclusion. Either his argument is covertly frontloaded with an unspoken moral premise, or there is no relationship between the state of affairs and the conclusion that is being drawn.

You don't agree with me so '...the two errors must be taking place...'

I think that sums it. You've just said that you think I'm wrong, so there must be a mistake in my argument somewhere. Followed by an 'It's either this one or that one'.

I can't decide if that sounds desperate or just plaintive.

Be specific. Where is the moral promise in the premises? Quote it.

Fervent · Oct 31, 2025

Bradskii said:
No, it's not a feeling. It's the ability to understand what others are feeling.

It's a feeling, an feeling of emotional connection. But still nothing more than a feeling.

Bradskii said:
No, I haven't. As I have the ability to empathise I know what you will feel if I smack you in the mouth. I haven't decided if it's acceptable or not at that point. I might enjoy it or I might not. It may be acceptable or maybe not. The morality of the act at that point has not been decided.

So what bridges the gap?

Bradskii said:
So there is no moral evalution snuck into the premises at all.

Then the premises are not connected to the conclusion.

Bradskii said:
Well, it's obvious you haven't at this point. Just repeating that it's invalid all the time gets you nowhere. As we keep seeing.

Your lack of understanding of the is-ought problem is not a failing on my end.

Bradskii said:
And this is a forum. For exchanging ideas. 'I think you're wrong and this is how I think morality is determined...' should be a requirement for you to put your case.

Why do I need to put forward a case? Mine's simple, God determines what is an isn't moral. You think you can establish morality without God, so the only discussion I need is to point out your ersatz morality doesn't measure up.

Bradskii said:
All we've had so far is the equivalent of a schoolyard 'Shan't. Don't have to!'

I've pointed out the errors, you simply seem to be too dense to understand.

Bradskii said:
Good grief, man. Make an effort to present your case for heaven's sake...

God said it, case closed.

mark46 · Oct 31, 2025

stevevw said:
I find this strange that once again people are choosing to highlight certain situations about Isreal and the Jews over many, many other issues. I am not saying that the Isrealis do stuff wrong.

But its the hypocracy of the moral outrage against one people when there are glaringly much worse situations which we don't here one word about. Or which are minimized against what is happening in Isreal.

For example as mentioned Hamas are executing Palestinians in the streets. People talk about the injustice of Isreal making the men help defend their nation. But then never mention the long list of injustices Hamas has done to its own people for decades.

IMagine if the US or my nation Australia where the government built bomb shelters and amunitions wharehouses under hospitals. Where US citizens were used as shields to save the government. Or where if your gay, trans or happen to believe in the wrong religion your either submitted to being a slave or thrown off a building. Which by the way is happening right now.

Yet there has never been a protest. Not before the conflict or after. If there were protests against Hamas before the conflict then perhaps we would not be in this situation.

But certainly there is a very, very imbalanced reporting and protesting of all this. To me when this happens. When theres a bias like this it clearly shows ideological belief and not facts or a true concern for justice for all. Its selective according to which people they think deserve more attention for ideological reasons.

Now this situation may be a real injustice. But we see these injustices even in the west and even then we don't fixate as much on one group.

But we also clearly see injustices happening of a much worse scale and stuff the west has moved on from for 100 years or more. That people don't even mention this of some groups and would rather highlight and make more of an issue of one group or nation.

You begin to see the pattern and really it makes everything that the protesters claim and get outraged about as nothing. Meaning absolutely nothing. Because they have already done that themselves. They have made real evil nothing so everything is nothing. Its just words, Its like the Boy who cried wolf.

There is a media slogan for this phenomenon "no Jews, no news"

No one cares how many folks are killed every day in the various wars in Africa and Asia, and in their autocracies. Christians and homosexuals are both being ethnically cleansed in Africa regularly.

I don't support the methods used by the IDF in Gaza or by the Israeli government in the West Bank. However, in the media and universities of the US, that's all we hear about. How many have been killed in the various wars in Africa and Asia? Americans neither know nor care. The media and universities get it wrong because they don't understand the Middle East. But, at least, there are sometimes open discussions in some media and on some campuses. About Africa and Asia: almost nothing unless Trump interferes to help end a conflict.

Bradskii · Oct 31, 2025

Fervent said:
Empathy is a feeling, not a moral issue.

No, it's not a feeling. It's the ability to understand what others are feeling.

Fervent said:
You are sneaking a moral evaluation into the premises of your "argument" when none need be present.

No, I haven't. As I have the ability to empathise I know what you will feel if I smack you in the mouth. I haven't decided if it's acceptable or not at that point. I might enjoy it or I might not. It may be acceptable or maybe not. The morality of the act at that point has not been decided.

So there is no moral evalution snuck into the premises at all.

Fervent said:
And my criticism of your position doesn't require me to put forward my own argument. I just have to point out that what you think passes for an argument is structurally invalid.

Well, it's obvious you haven't at this point. Just repeating that it's invalid all the time gets you nowhere. As we keep seeing.

And this is a forum. For exchanging ideas. 'I think you're wrong and this is how I think morality is determined...' should be a requirement for you to put your case.

All we've had so far is the equivalent of a schoolyard 'Shan't. Don't have to!'

Good grief, man. Make an effort to present your case for heaven's sake...

JSRG · Oct 31, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
I have done no such thing. You have inserted this red herring into the conversation.

The alleged motivation for eliminating the penny is that it costs the government money to make.

But the loss in government revenue seems very likely to be much larger than the cost savings.

What is your evidence that the loss would be higher than savings? I don't think you've posted any evidence on that, unless I missed it.

Tuur · Oct 31, 2025

Just got the printer going. Painlessly setting up a printer in Linux? Who knew?

Fervent · Oct 31, 2025

partinobodycular said:
Well, you asserted that @Bradskii's argument was flawed in one of two ways.

Either:

That is in fact a reasonable assertion to make, but you need to follow it up by showing us where exactly he did that. Otherwise it's just an assertion.

It's not simply an assertion, it's a statement of fact because he shifts from a feeling to aa moral value, the connection of the two is a mystery.

partinobodycular said:
Or:

Another reasonable assertion to make, but you failed to follow it up by explaining exactly why the relationship between the premises and the conclusion amounts to a non-sequitur. Thus it's just another assertion.

It may appear an assertion, but it's a statement of fact because he has failed to bridge the gap between things that are, including his particular feelings, and how things ought to be. His empathy may motivate him, but it says nothing about what ought to be the case.

partinobodycular said:
So you see, it really wasn't a rebuttal at all. Just two unsupported claims, with nary an argument between them.

No, it was a rebuttal. His argument only works if we put the moral evaluation into the premises, or the link between the statements of fact and the moral conclusion is a mystery.

partinobodycular said:
Now I'm not trying to pick on you, but @Bradskii is right, you can't just assert that his argument is flawed without actually showing us where.

I've stated the two errors that must be taking place, because either his argument is frontloaded by assigning moral character or the premises do not lead to the conclusion. Either his argument is covertly frontloaded with an unspoken moral premise, or there is no relationship between the state of affairs and the conclusion that is being drawn.

Richard T · Oct 31, 2025

Valletta said:
The day before the start of the latest shutdown drama, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declared that Republicans were “lying” about the Democrats’ hostage demands to turn the lights back on. No, the left’s spending plan would not pay for health care for illegal immigrants, the New York Democrat said. Doing so would require a change in federal law that bars such a thing, echoed Jeffries’ pals in corporate media.
“Nowhere have Democrats suggested that we’re interested in changing federal law,” he told NBC News for a story under the misleading headline, “GOP misleads with claim that Democrats shut down to give health care to ‘illegal immigrants.’” The story, like a lot of reporting from the corporate media, hasn’t aged well.
Hakeem and his team are lying to the American people. The truth is, hundreds of millions of dollars in direct and indirect spending is going to pick up the tab for the explosion of illegal aliens in this country.

Exclusive: Report Tracks $200M Spent On Health Care For Illegals

'When elected officials argue that taxpayer dollars aren't going to illegal immigrants that just isn't true,' Open The Books' John Hart said.

thefederalist.com

Indeed, the wording in the law the Democrats are demanding be removed was intended to stop taxpayer money ending up paying for health care for illegals.

The 200 million in funding is nothing as the USA spends 4.9 trillion on health care. Historical | CMS
The Federalist does report far more indirect spending on medicaid. I wonder though if this is from the liberal states?
As to the billions spent on education? It would be interesting to know what percentage of illegals actually are In the USA, legal or not for at least 20 years of their working life. Also it is true that Illegals pay billions into social security and medicare and pay more in than they give back.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265288246_Illegal_Immigrants_Are_Bolstering_Social_Security_With_Billions

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20250122/117827/HHRG-119-JU01-20250122-SD003.pdf

Too bad the Federalist is not balanced enough to note this.

JosephZ · Oct 31, 2025

Valletta said:
People should not suffer because of a political stunt.

SNAP benefits can, and always have, continued during a government shutdown. It should have never been an issue. It's a shame that the Trump administration had to be sued in order to keep people in this country from going without food.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page