Latest activity

Apple Sky · 2025-12-03T03:21:44-0600

reBoot said:
You'll also notice that there are 33 grid sections covering the plain.

Yes the number 33 is very significant for them, not sure why.

Apple Sky · 2025-12-03T03:16:56-0600

Strong in Him said:
I'm so glad you're feeling better.
That must have felt quite scary.

Yes it was, I couldn't get my breath & I could hardly walk & felt so weak but I prayed & prayed and fortunately I'm here to fight another day.
Thank you all.

stevevw · 2025-12-03T03:10:26-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Part Ib opens with our discussion using abortion as an example...

I think you are confusing the correlation with causation. Legalization of birth control, abortion, and easier divorce all occurs in the US in a narrow window starting in the mid-1960s. I am well aware The Church (of Rome) consideres sex outside marriage to be a sin and abortion to be murder. I have heard many a homily on the subjects. That was not the point I was addressing. Rather I was addressing the false assumption that women having abortions are unmarried and not in relationships.

I never made that assumption. That is your assumption on my thinking. Your creating an either/or. I am not placing any stipulations on why abortions happen. Only that they increased dramatically after those laws were changed. Its the combinations of all factors that led to the increase.

Its more about the fundemental ideology or belief basis for those laws which was that abortion and divorce were ok now. Or at least compromised from the biblical standard. That is what opened the gates.

Even a Christian within a marriage sees abortion murder and certainly unmarriage relationships and bearing kids is anti bible. So two wrongs don't make a right. But part of the problem is the devaluing of marriage so that sex is now acceptable outside marriage. Which then opens the door for unwanted preganacies.

Hans Blaster said:
This is not the case, then or now. Churches push this false impression all the time. Both birth control and abortions are used by married women because they don't want another child or one at the current time.

This is begging the question. You can be married today and not be a Christian. But if a couple are married under God as Christians then abortion is a sin. So you are conflating secular marriage with Christian marriage which is part of the problem and shows how secular norms and Christians norms are so different.

Hans Blaster said:
Since these things have occurred, unwanted pregnancy rates are down, abortion rates have fallen and so have divorce rates. (I suspect domestic violence is also down, but I don't have recollections of reading those statistics.)

You literally just told me I was conflating correlations with causes.

Hans Blaster said:
That's not what I said. I mentioned that "baby killing" was the other primary bit of propaganda used by anti-abortion Christians.

Why, is it propaganda when its a biblical truth. Stating truth is not propaganda. This is a good example of how Christian beliefs are now seen as hateful and in this case propaganda or some false belief that is being pushed.

Simply stating as Christians have always said that abortion and marriage outside biblical marriage is a sin is not hate or propaganda. Its simply expressing a belief and people have a right to express that belief.

Hans Blaster said:
What are non-biblical Christians? If that's the kind that never read the bible, then we were definitely them.

Ok Christians who reject the bible. If you can call them Christians. Christians who not only reject the bible but promote unbiblical ideas. You can't sit on both sides of the fense.

Hans Blaster said:
While churches certainly hold the position that "abortion is murder" that concept does not appear in any passage of the Bible. It is constructed by stacking conclusions upon on conclusions through theology. (That's they way theology is done it seems.) Other groups using the same sacred texts do not reach the same conclusions.

Yes this is part of the very ideology that supports progressive ideas. They have to undermine the bible to do so. By questioning the truth that abortion is wrong they open the door for abortion.

Are you saying there is no biblical determination that even erring on the side of caution as to Gods creation and the divine act of procreation in recreation Gods creation can be just terminated based on some relative justification. At the very least we should stop 99% of abortions.

Hans Blaster said:
No. Again, you didn't read carefully. You used two terms straight from Mao's revolution: "The Long March"

Then you don't know history. I explained this in the previous post. So perhaps you should be reading my posts more carefully.

Antonio Gramsci’s long march through history

Antonio Gramsci’s long march through history

The emergence of identity politics in Western Europe has come swiftly and aggressively. One key figure in the mainstreaming of Marxism in Europe, who enjoys little popular recognition for his success, is Antonio Francesco Gramsci. Gramsci, an Italian philosopher and politician who was imprisoned...

www.acton.org

Hans Blaster said:
and the "Cultural Revolution". Both are well known epoch in Chinese communist history and neither was relevant to your discussion from why I could tell, so I was trying to figure out why you kept using CCP terminology.

Well the4y also have meaning in the west. You should not have assumed and I did explain this as the Long March through the Institutions. Its was a new strategy coined by Gramsci that instead of armed conflict in taking over the establishment. They could infiltrate the institutions and and take over that way.

Which is Marxism and instead of being about Class thanks to the same academic ideologues Critical theories it became Cultural Marxism and about every percieved oppressed identity and not just class.

Hense gender, race, sex, religion and a growing number of newly created identities. Hense a Cultural revolution rather than an armed revolution. Though it seems now people are willing to use violence and arms because the Long March has not succeeded.

But then this type of political ideology was always going to decend into violence and armed conflict because thats how it was birthed in the first place. A oppressor and victim worldview so at some point violence will be needed to free the victims if all else fails.

Hans Blaster said:
Probably because I happen to thing the outcomes of the "sexual revolution" were good things.

But surely thats a subjective belief. So those who believe that it caused a lot of damage to people and society have an equal say. If a bible believing Christian tells their belief that sex outside marriage is a sin or SSM is a sin then this is not hate and wrong but just the right to express a belief by conscience. The same with those who believe sex outside marriage is good.

So how do we sort that out as to what public policy should be based on. You can't have both. Is it majority rules. Or maybe whoever can get into a position of influence. Maybe have more money behind them to market their morals lol.

Hans Blaster said:
The US was not a "Christian nation", then or ever, nor was it "Muslim" or "pagan". It was and is *secular*. (your country may be different, but I am not prepared or inclined to discuss your country.)

Then what did the Colonies base their morals on. What morals did the Federation base it morals on. Was it the majority social norms. What was the majority social norms based on.

Hans Blaster said:
In your house, perhaps, not in mine.

OK so does every house have an equal say. Which house holds the truth on what is moral so that we can make a determination over which house we should use as the basis for social policies and laws.

Hans Blaster said:
and built in part on false premises

What was the false premise. That abortion was wrong or that society was wrong about thinking abortion was wrong.

Hans Blaster said:
As I noted above, I agree with less influence of moralistic Christianity on sex and marriage.

So if we have less influence from Christianity then what influence do we use instead for social norms on sex and marriage.

Hans Blaster said:
This is an ongoing conflation of the mores of the 1950s with all periods before then. It just wasn't the case.

Its not a conflation because what the 1950s were using as their basis was the bible which was the same basis for every other time in history. Including back to the early church right up until today. It has not changed. That we can only find certain times where society aligned with those biblical truths is irrelevant as to their truth.

It is those never changing truths that are the basis and what is being used to compare with other beliefs and ideologies on social moral issues. I am saying for the times when society lived up to those truths compared to the alternatives and especially modern progressive norms the differece is stark and conflicting.

That conflict is being played out in the culture wars we see where these norm differences come into contact.

Hans Blaster said:
Nah, it's just evidence for an strongly anti-modernist strain of Christianity.

What is a modernist strain of Christianity. You are not even a Christian. How can you know what Christianity is fullstop.

Hans Blaster said:
An extreme claim! LOL! It is a literal fact that "laws" and "social norms" are not the same things.

I never said they were the same thing. I said laws are often based off social norms. How did SSM come about. It happened because society had changed and were more open to SSM.

Its a self evident fact that you could not legalise homosexuality within a pro Christian norm lol. The society has to evolve to change to then accept that change in law. They go hand in hand.

I mean even speeding laws have a moral basis. Why is speeding wrong. Because it causes accidents. Why are accidents wrong. Because they can harm and kill people. Is that not a moral basis.

Hans Blaster said:
Not sure what that means.

Have you not heard the famous quote "the personal is political which was part of 2nd wave feminism and set the stage for bringing the political into the private sphere.

The famous slogan is "the personal is political," popularized by feminist Carol Hanisch in a 1969 essay. The phrase argues that personal experiences, particularly those of women, are not just private matters but are often rooted in systemic political issues and power structures, such as gender inequality. It served as a rallying cry for second-wave feminism to challenge the idea that public and private life were separate.

Now after decades of such ideologies as Critical theories which build on this politics has moved into every part of our lives. The State is the Father, Mother, Priest, Therapist, Educator and Moral arbitor over everyone.

Now the "the personal is political," this has brought in belief and morality because this is a part of personal. Its all intertwined. So now State policies and laws are not seperated from religion, belief and morals. Thats why we had PC and Woke and all the other radical moralising ideologies like Extinction Rebellions and BLM ect ect ect. Thats why people are fighting in the streets of politics and religion.

You need to do some research. I know you are knowledgable on physics but please don't pretend your a psychologist and sociologist as well.

Hans Blaster said:
I suggest you learn more of the early history of your relgion then. In the early decades what we now call Christianity (sometimes called in these contexts the "Jesus movement" or "The Way") was a sect of Judaism. Importantly for my point in inclusion is that Judaism is from outside western culture.

I have studied extensively the early churh. Yes Christianity came from basically a Jewish sect and there were a number. But the important destinction is that it became the only sect or even religion as far as Islam that opened up to non natives or sect members.

When it opened to the Gentiles it opened to western civilisation. Because this is what the Gentiles became, the Western civilisation that was the only civilisation that brought Christianity from that Jewish sect to all nations.

But this makes it even more relevant. Because a a belief from outside the west became the west. Making it even more universal which was the whole point. Its a plus not a negative that this supports its truth.

Hans Blaster said:
I am not kidding and do you really need to ask? (I know you know.)

Surely this is your personal opinion and a belief. If Christ is truely the saviour of all humankind then surely this is the greatest thing. Your begging the question that what you believe is the greatest good.

OK so if everything came from the Greeks and Romans what exactly is the good of Christianity in the west. Why did we change history based on Christ in BC and AD. What about universities and hospitals and science itself which was first initiated by Christian scientists trying to discover Gods creation.

Hans Blaster said:
It didn't and no one said it did. Certainly not me. What I said is that the things from ancient western culture that *I* find most valuable or important are most certainly not Christian -- democracy, mathematics, the early stages of science, as is the case for the best things of the Enlightenment.

I think its an assumption that these things did not actually come from Christian values. Like democracy was used in the early church that the congregation was to affirm the leaders and the leaders were servants to the people. Or that all are equal in Christ as the basis for equality and human rights.

Remembering that apart from this in the GrecoRoman pagan world there was no such rights. I think you underestimate Christianity and the bibles influence.

In fact the bible is the foundational book for all western literature and canons. It was literally the only book and all other books on truth stem from this. The bible to the west is not just truth but the pre-requisite for truth. I don't any other phenomena has had as much impact on the west as Christianity and the bible.

Anyway it does not matter. Its a fact its a prominent belief and moral code in western nations and one of the options we can use to base society on. As opposed to Islam or Woke or HUmanism or Feminism or any other ideology.

Hans Blaster said:
Finally the Romans were quite tolerant of other religions, but the did expect everyone to make the appropriate supplications to the civic and imperial cult. Jews (including Christians) being by then monotheists refused to do so and this cause some trouble.

Which is another way of saying they were intolerant of the Jews and Christians in the end.

Hans Blaster said:
Roman philosophers wrote on sexual morality and family without any input from Christianity. This is reality, not some "bias view".

Wrote about what moral basis for sex and family. Which set of morals were they referring to. Was it Venus. Or was this just some personal opinion of a philosopher.

If Roman beliefs about gods are puralistic then it will inherently have to accommodate paga ideas around sex ie sex outside marriage and between any consenting adults. Men could have more than one wife ect as this was a status symbol for me who were the greater sex.

Hans Blaster said:
"neither slave nor free" was about salvation through the death of Jesus -- anyone could be saved. It didn't change actual social status of anyone, slave, woman, or Jew.

Actually it means exactly what it says. This verse includes 'neither Jew or Gentile'. It was that all were equal in Christ when it came to salvation. The free were no more better than the slave or the Jew to the Gentile. The Jews were regarded as special to Judaism and the frre were seen as higher status than the slaves. But all were the same in Christ.

But this was not the case for the Romans who went by status and class.

Hans Blaster said:
You're going to ask Mr. Morrison for that. Perhaps it was ironic "best"ness given that in the same song he sings of wanting to kill his own mother.

Well the west also brought psychodelic drugs. Maybe thats why he thought the west was the best lol.

Hans Blaster said:
We're going to need a part Ic as I have other things to do...

Fair enough

prodromos · 2025-12-03T03:05:18-0600

Apple Sky said:
@David Lamb @Strong in Him @prodromos & to who ever it may concern.

Just to let you know I am feeling a lot better now thanks to the Lord, thank you for all your kind concerns, I thought I were dying. You are really terrific people on here.

Many blessing

Apple

Glory to God!
I'm very happy to hear you are feeling better.

Strong in Him · 2025-12-03T03:03:55-0600

Apple Sky said:
@David Lamb @Strong in Him @prodromos & to who ever it may concern.

Just to let you know I am feeling a lot better now thanks to the Lord, thank you for all your kind concerns, I thought I were dying. You are really terrific people on here.

Many blessing

Apple

I'm so glad you're feeling better.
That must have felt quite scary.

Apple Sky · 2025-12-03T03:01:37-0600

@David Lamb @Strong in Him @prodromos & to who ever it may concern.

Just to let you know I am feeling a lot better now thanks to the Lord, thank you for all your kind concerns, I thought I were dying. You are really terrific people on here.

Many blessing

Apple

Dan1988 · 2025-12-03T03:00:12-0600

BobRyan said:
Ezek 28:

15 “You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
16 “By the abundance of your trade
You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.
17 “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
I put you before kings,
That they may see you.
18 “By the multitude of your iniquities,
In the unrighteousness of your trade
You profaned your sanctuaries.
Therefore I have brought fire from the midst of you;
It has consumed you,
And I have turned you to ashes on the earth
In the eyes of all who see you.
19 “All who know you among the peoples
Are appalled at you;
You have become terrified
And you will cease to be forever.”’”

========================

Malachi 4:
“For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,” says the Lord of hosts, “so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.” 2 “But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. 3 You will tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says the Lord of hosts.

I find your logic illusive just then

"cease to be forever"
"wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life"
destroyed as in "by reducing them to ashes" 2 Peter 2

No doubt the second death of Rev 20 does involve a great deal of suffering and torment but it ends just as Ezek 28 states even for the devil himself

You failed to understand that Ezek 28 is not speaking about the devil. It's actually about Lucifer, who was not created as a devil, but became "the Devil" or Satan, after He rebelled against God and sinned.

It would really help your cause if you did a bit of a study to understand the surrounding context of the scriptures, you refer to. It's not profitable to just pluck them out of their intended context and misapply them to support your unbiblical opinion.

Yes God will burn the whole earth and every living thing in it, with fervent heat and the elements such as rocks will melt away. But nothing will be annihilated, because He will restore everything and everyone back to their proper estate again. Lucifer was destroyed, so He doesn't exist anymore as Lucifer. Now He exists as Satan or the Devil.

No man will exist in his current form, in the life to come. Some will be resurrected to glory and others to their damnation. But there's no escaping into annihilationism, it's simply not an option.

Larniavc · 2025-12-03T02:59:42-0600

rjs330 said:
No, because the pronoun police demand that certain pronouns be used by others. No one here has made that demand. Are you?

One would have thought no demand was required if people just went with what was preferred by the person.

Is using the non-preferred pronoun really so hard for you to do?

Larniavc · 2025-12-03T02:54:19-0600

Adhering to the law in America is the REAL surprise.

Dan1988 · 2025-12-03T02:34:16-0600

eleos1954 said:
Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 is cited to support the belief that the dead "know nothing" and have no activity or knowledge in the grave (Sheol).

Psalm 146:4 states that when a person dies, their thoughts perish.

Psalm 115:17 indicates that the dead do not praise the Lord.

Job 14:10-12 describes death as a state of lying down until a future resurrection.

Genesis 3:19, concerning returning to dust, is seen as the punishment for sin, rather than eternal torment.

John 11:11-14, where Jesus describes Lazarus' death as a "sleep," is interpreted as a metaphor for the unconscious state of death before resurrection.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 should be interpreted as Solomons "under the sun" perspective, meaning it describes life and death from a purely earthly, human point of view, without the full revelation of the afterlife found in the New Testament. The passage serves to highlight the vanity and futility of seeking meaning and fulfillment only in worldly accomplishments and pleasures.

The understanding of the afterlife was limited in the Old Testament compared to the clear teachings of Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament (e.g., Jesus' resurrection and the promise of eternal life).

The statement that "the dead know nothing" (Ecclesiastes 9:5) is saying, the dead have no further activity or share in earthly affairs. It does not contradict the New Testament teaching that the soul/spirit lives on and returns to God.

All of the other verses you referred to support the Bible doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment in hell.

MotoToTheMax · 2025-12-03T02:28:24-0600

Nithavela said:
Well, there we have it. Comitting the textbook example of a war crime is "bold and brave". Extreme solutions are needed to save the lives of your people. You just have to be keep being brutal to solve the problem.

This kind of reasoning has been used to rationalise the worst atrocities of mankind. But with an army as strong as yours and the world too fractured to oppose you, perhaps this time you can kill your way to utopia.

According to this post you sound awfully pro-terrorist. Shame!

rjs330 · 2025-12-03T02:25:46-0600

rambot said:
What's different between you and me is that I don't consider a female body "weird looking".

A man cannot have a female body. A man can have surgeries in order to try and look like a female, but they do not have a female body.

A2SG · 2025-12-03T02:22:19-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
So you are saying that you could not answer the question because you could not determine if it was a cat, or a representation of a cat?

No, I said I answered the question. Exactly as I intended.

Oompa Loompa said:
You are not helping your argument at all.

What argument do you think I'm making, exactly?

Oompa Loompa said:
In fact, you are making it much worse. The fact that we are even having this discussion proves there is an ideological barrier preventing discernment of reality.

Actually, the fact that we are even having this discussion proves both of us have too much time on our hands.

-- A2SG, the internet really makes distracting yourself a heck of a lot easier...

Ophiolite · 2025-12-03T02:18:16-0600

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Nothings being hid, because people have repeatedly gone to the North Pole.

You can even go yourself.

And I still do not get your line of argument. Posting screenshots of Google searches is... nothing except posting screenshots of Google searches.

When one has no training in, or seemingly no awareness of, the skill of critical thinking and the application of logic, it very easy to confuse assertions with evidence and beliefs with proof. If one is raised in such an enviroment I imagine it is very difficult to break free from the clutches of mindless nonsense.

lismore said:
When I was in primary school I remember being given a school book about evolution, diagrams of a fish like creature crawling onto land an artist's impression of ape men sitting round a camp fire having a jolly, based on a single tooth. The people who produce such drivel for children were evidently ideologically driven blinkered zealots, but I have even encountered people in the church who would irrationally defend this stuff.

If your exposure to evolutionary theory is based on a book for primary school children it is hardly surprising you have such a distorted understanding. Perhaps if you were to dip into a handful of the thousands of textbooks on evolution, or the millions of research papers, then the scales on your eyes would fall away and you could view the magnificence of the bioshphere and celebrate the means by which your God created the diversity of life on the planet.

rjs330 · 2025-12-03T02:16:22-0600

BCP1928 said:
We were just exploring various forms of non standard gender expression.

Why? It has nothing to do with being transgendered or whether or not a person is a boy or a girl.

Nithavela · 2025-12-03T02:13:43-0600

stevevw said:
And once upon a time it would have been considered mass murder and horrific that boat loads of drugs were killing a million people in a generation. More than all the major wars in the 20th century.

Once upon a time we were tough on drugs and crime. Now more people are dying than in wars because we allowed drugs and crime to get out of hand. Its all subjective and depends on what you think is the greater wrong.

Actually once upon a time Christians and most people supported the death penalty and supported a war on evil. Understoof that sometimes evil is met with bad consequences.

Now there's an adversion to even acknowledge there is such a thing called sin. That wrong doing cannot be helped because someone has been oppressed and never had enough love. So we have to go soft on crime and wrong doing. Let people steal as they are disadvantaged, give them 20 chances before we jail them because they are misunderstood.

I think its time reality came back and part of that is there are consequences for bad behaviour and let those consequences happen and stop protecting people from them. It just makes it far worse.

No just a couple of boats and suddenly the drug trade stops and we are saving 1,00s of lives. No one dares try that again. Its easy. Rather than all this compromise and cotton wooling that just covers up the bad and lets it continue.

Otherwise whats your solution. Some diplomatic talks, yeah sure when the government has their finger in the pie. What about reeductaing the Narcos. Nah don't think thats going to work.

So your alternative is also "Kill 'em all, right?" except in this case its allowing the drugs to come in and kill and destroy another million people over the next generation.

So we have a situation where a few Narcos are killed or a few more million Americans are killed. An ethical dilemma. So lets just stick our heads in the sand and let it continue.

I actually think its a bold and brave move. But also one where you have to be ready to backup the words if its going to work. But it will work and save millions and change the course of societies future for the better if even half the drug trade would stop.

I guarentee if this was something Biden or Obama did everyone would be supporting it. But because its Trump it must be bad.

Well, there we have it. Comitting the textbook example of a war crime is "bold and brave". Extreme solutions are needed to save the lives of your people. You just have to be keep being brutal to solve the problem.

This kind of reasoning has been used to rationalise the worst atrocities of mankind. But with an army as strong as yours and the world too fractured to oppose you, perhaps this time you can kill your way to utopia.

Oompa Loompa · 2025-12-03T02:06:38-0600

A2SG said:
What's this?

View attachment 373940

Thanks for your opinion. Next time a trans person requires your approval before living their life however they wish to, I'll refer them to you.

-- A2SG, in the meantime, I'll try not to tell you any such thing....

So you are saying that you could not answer the question because you could not determine if it was a cat, or a representation of a cat? You are not helping your argument at all. In fact, you are making it much worse. The fact that we are even having this discussion proves there is an ideological barrier preventing discernment of reality.

Dan1988 · 2025-12-03T02:01:23-0600

JulieB67 said:
It would seem like you still need to educate yourself some more. Oh that's right, you have teachers for whom you look to for that.

But angels do have bodies. So much so that they are often called men in the bible. They can wash, eat and so on. We can even be sustained by their food. So the description in Ezekiel is exactly on point. As well as the Malachi verses which you continually ignore. A fire consumes, plain and simple and those verses prove it. If you believe otherwise, by all means break down the Malachi verses.

And the rich man and Lazarus just proves there is a gulf at this point. No one has been thrown into the Lake of Fire yet. That's the consuming fire -the second death at Judgement Day.

No, that's not true. The Bible confirms that Angels and Fallen Angels are both Spiritual Beings, just as God Himself is. God is a Spirit and the entire Spiritual Ream is made up of Spiritual beings only.

There is nothing in the Bible to support your opinion that Angels are flesh and blood men. I think you have failed to consider the fact that Angels have a God given power to perform miracles, and we know miracles are supernatural acts which don't conform to natural laws.

We know that a single Angel killed 186,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night, so we know that Angel didn't take on a flesh and blood body to achieve such a feat. He killed fully armed elite soldiers, without using any weapons, so lets not limit Angels to flesh and blood weak vessels, like men.

Angels can take on any form, depending on the task at hand. If what you're suggesting was true then Satan should have ceased to exist 6000 years ago when He took on the form of a Serpent. But no, Satan is alive and well to this day, because there is no such thing as cessation of existence.

rjs330 · 2025-12-03T01:55:15-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
The unfortunate reality is that many Cuban Americans who immigrated illegally and benefited from American generosity now strongly oppose immigration reform for others in similar situations.

I dont think its unfortunate at all. Things have changed. People are realizing what its doing to America and the problems it is causing.

A2SG · 2025-12-03T01:49:20-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
"Yeah. Probably." That was your answer. When the obvious answer was, "Yes! That is absolutely a human being. Or at least, definitely not a cat." But you couldn't say that, could you?

What's this?

Oompa Loompa said:
Back to my point. To tell me that a man can become a woman though any type of surgery or "gender affirming" care, and to enable their delusion by going along with it out of fear of making them uncomfortable with their delusion, is to do more harm to them, and all those currently being groomed and deceived by those claiming to be their "allies."

Thanks for your opinion. Next time a trans person requires your approval before living their life however they wish to, I'll refer them to you.

-- A2SG, in the meantime, I'll try not to tell you any such thing....

Perpetual Student · 2025-12-03T01:44:45-0600

rambot said:
Release Honduran President found guilty of importing millions of dollars of drugs into the country: It doesn't matter. Trump did it so he's keeping us safe.

After the Clean Coal we will have the Healthy Drugs.

Dan1988 · 2025-12-03T01:44:16-0600

Maria Billingsley said:
This has been debated for centuries so naturally there are several interpretations. Never the less, all of Jesus Christ's parables hold a spiritual message whether its based on real people or not.It is typically still treated as a parable because it shares the same structure and teaching style as the others.
In my opinion, it is a parable revealing the path towards the afterlife just like many of His teachings.
Thanks for sharing!

Even if it was a parable, it confirms the awful truth about hell. The rich man was only awaiting the coming final sentencing, when he will be cast into the lake of fire, where there will be no talking, only gnashing f teeth and wailing.

Death row prisoners still experience torment, but it's nothing compared to what comes at the final judgement.

Many Christians try to spiritualise the bible doctrine of eternal concise torment in hell. But there's no getting around the fact that the Lord Jesus confirmed that un believers are cast into the lake of fire, in their resurrected bodies and their worm dies not. They all wish they could cease to exist but that option is not available and they are condemned to suffer eternal torment, without any hope of escape or parole.

Oompa Loompa · 2025-12-03T01:42:40-0600

A2SG said:
I've already given my answer.

-- A2SG, asked and answered....

"Yeah. Probably." That was your answer. When the obvious answer was, "Yes! That is absolutely a human being. Or at least, definitely not a cat." But you couldn't say that, could you?

Back to my point. To tell me that a man can become a woman though any type of surgery or "gender affirming" care, and to enable their delusion by going along with it out of fear of making them uncomfortable with their delusion, is to do more harm to them, and all those currently being groomed and deceived by those claiming to be their "allies."

A2SG · 2025-12-03T01:31:57-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
Stalking Cat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now. Is it a human or a cat?

I've already given my answer.

-- A2SG, asked and answered....

prodromos · 2025-12-03T01:31:03-0600

reBoot said:
You'll also notice that there are 33 grid sections covering the plain.

So, is it supposed to somehow link to Christ who was 33 when He was crucified?

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page