Latest activity

BCP1928 · 2025-12-09T15:06:18-0600

BPPLEE said:
I guess you didn’t see post #28.

I guess you didn't read it.

Shane R · 2025-12-09T15:05:27-0600

RamiC said:
If you are still in Germany, find Black Forest Gateaux, and eat it.

I have been back in the US since Saturday.

BPPLEE · 2025-12-09T15:02:17-0600

BCP1928 said:
Not only is it unsustainable, it's a dumb idea to start with. You need to pay attention to what "liberals" here really want to do, instead of just making it up.

I guess you didn’t see post #28.

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-12-09T15:01:26-0600

Sounds like someone with the requisite experience :oldthumbsup:

essentialsaltes · 2025-12-09T15:01:25-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Death panel ---> Death bots

Death bots with a financial incentive

Starting Jan. 1, traditional Medicare recipients in Washington state will face a new hurdle to get certain procedures covered — private AI companies that get paid based on how many claims they deny.

Washington is one of six states selected to take part in a federal pilot program called Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction, which aims to reduce fraud and waste by requiring prior authorization for about a dozen outpatient procedures deemed “low-value services.”

AI companies will be paid a portion of the savings from claims they deny or, as the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction plan puts it, “compensated based on a share of averted expenditures.”

durangodawood · 2025-12-09T14:58:01-0600

7thKeeper said:
Yes, Congress used a AUMF declaration for Iraq instead of formally declaring war, but it was still authorised by Congress. But yeah, it's essentially to just avoid the scrutiny that comes with being officially at war with someone, as stupid as that sounds.

Yes and that weak "authorization" is still better than nothing.

Likewise, the President better get a specific authorization if we're going to do war on South American criminal organizations. Roiling it in to GWOT where the pres declares who the enemy du jour is at his sole discretion is the end of a critical constitutional limitation. Some people prefer that tho.

Rescued One · 2025-12-09T14:56:24-0600

Reluctant Theologian said:
As this thread is titled 'Not a lot of respect for men' I think it's wise to never cite this requirement for husbands from Ephesians 5 without also citing the requirement for wives from the same section: 'to submit to their husbands as to Christ' and 'to fear/reverence their husbands'.

And as husbands should love their wives even when their wives don't properly submit or fear/reverence them, in the same way the wives should still submit and fear/reverence their husbands even when they don't properly love them.

Of course I'm not talking about a situation where a husband literally beats his wife up, but these days the definition of 'abuse' gets stretched so much that any (verbal) correction or setting boundaries setting by a husband may already be construed as emotional abuse (this is not a joke).

Be blessed sisters .. !

I grew up with verbal abuse. I was judged by an atheist father. God did not tell him that all people without college educations are losers.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-09T14:56:03-0600

Say it aint so said:
The economy is doing swimmingly well. Everyone knows that "affordability" is just a Democratic con job.

Is the GINI coefficient increasing? That's the only economic measure MAGA thinks important.

CLEEB · 2025-12-09T14:55:21-0600

W

Delvianna said:
With the childbearing thing, theres FAR too many problems with the interpretation that unless you have children, you aren't saved. What about women who can't have kids? That is like saying God created them for the sole purpose to condemn them to hell. I know Calvinists agree with that stance, but then that is just an evil God in my opinion. So ultimately then, there is an issue when other scripture and dozens of other passages talk about the saving faith and grace of Jesus. That forms a contradiction. So just on surface level there are issues and it bugs me that people teach to accept Pauls 1 sentence and just toss out the entire new testament because then it doesn't apply.

I really like this explanation, so I'm going to post it with the Link that maybe it will edify you too Link

The reason why that makes the most sense is because during that time, women were not getting married or having children and instead, were leaders in the cult of Diana (Artemis). They were also promoting the lifestyle being a single woman (sound familiar?? *cough* today's 'women empowerment' *cough*) So Paul again, was addressing the issues for that particular place and culture and he's saying that if women reject that cult culture, that they would be saved from the deception that the cult was going on about and ultimately, be saved in a salvation sense "if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety".

When it says that women are saved through child bearing I think it refers back to the promise in Genesis 3:15 . It was a woman who brought forth the man child. Not only are women saved but men also. It was women who were the the mothers of all the prophets and Apostles as well as all of GODS saints. The 5th commandment contains a promise , Ephesians 6:2-3 The woman is that delicate vessel which their husbands should love and cherish. It is family now on earth that becomes adopted into the family of GOD, brothers and sisters to our lord Jesus Christ.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-09T14:51:52-0600

Servus said:
It's speculation and perception. A: they were Narco-terrorist drug smugglers. B: they were innocent fishermen.

Or, they were probably drug smugglers, which is good enough reason to stop the boat and arrest them. It's questionable whether that is a good enough reason to just blow them up. It certainly is no reason at all to kill the survivors.

Servus said:
Yes it's a matter of how intelligence tracked the operation. I'd say that's more likely than it being "hey look there's a boat, kill em!".

Yes, Naval Intelligence was aware that they were hauling Columbian cocaine to a larger ship in Suriname.

Servus said:
I think it's less likely that those involved were operating as unthinking psychopaths blowing up boats for kicks.

It's just giving them the benefit of the doubt based on available info. Innocent until proven guilty applies to the adminstraition and military as well. Seems folks condeming them didn't take that into consideration.

Servus said:
Whether Trump is competent or incompetent is subjective. Some say best president ever. Some say worst president ever. Others don't go to either extreme and see him as a good president in some ways and not so good in others, like any other president.

What you seem to be saying is that it is morally acceptable IFF it is legal. Does that work for gay marriage, too?

essentialsaltes · 2025-12-09T14:50:22-0600

Trump has struggled to deliver a message to meet that new reality: In the interview, he graded the economy’s performance as an “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus,” insisted that prices were falling across the board and declined to outline a specific remedy for imminent spikes in health care premiums.

dlamberth · 2025-12-09T14:48:26-0600

Ophiolite said:
The number of things you don't believe would make an excellent topic list for an informative suite of factual textbooks.

So would the number of things that he does believe.

Strong in Him · 2025-12-09T14:47:50-0600

Apple Sky said:
The only thing I'm denying at the mo, is that we have never been or walked on the moon.

You haven't - some have.
Your denial doesn't change the facts.

7thKeeper · 2025-12-09T14:45:44-0600

Aryeh Jay said:
Does your anti America human description cross party lines to include everything said about Biden?

But Biden IS actually a commie homosexual evil senile genius who's too stupid to do anything right and did blow Bubba. So it's ok!

essentialsaltes · 2025-12-09T14:44:52-0600

Judge unseals Ghislaine Maxwell grand jury materials, citing Epstein files act

Ophiolite · 2025-12-09T14:43:44-0600

AV1611VET said:
I don't believe this.

The number of things you don't believe would make an excellent topic list for an informative suite of factual textbooks.

7thKeeper · 2025-12-09T14:41:43-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
Like I said to yarddog. Would you like to reread my question and try again? With emphasis on "after WW2. I know I struggle with reading comprehension at times, but dang.

It doesn't change the answer. It's still Congress, though technically the question itself is nonsensical because USA hasn't declared a war after.

essentialsaltes · 2025-12-09T14:38:19-0600

Congress to withhold Pentagon travel funds until it sees boat strike videos

Lawmakers plan to withhold a quarter of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget until the Pentagon provides them with the videos. The demand, quietly tucked into the final draft of the annual defense policy bill, calls for “unedited video of strikes conducted against designated terrorist organizations in the area of responsibility of the United States Southern Command” to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.

Congressional leaders released their final draft of the defense bill Sunday, which is expected to be approved — without changes — by the House later this week and then the Senate.

turkle · 2025-12-09T14:37:49-0600

I had the same mother. It took me years to learn how to set firm boundaries with her, and gently but firmly enforce them. I realized that she was walking all over me because I allowed it... it was time to change myself, not her. Once I grew a strong back bone, she backed off and I had much more peace. Remember, honoring a parent does not mean indulging them. If she is being unreasonable or a pest, let her know with kindness. No arguments. I gained a lot of strength and respect from my mother when she finally realized that she could no longer control how I felt, since she loved getting a rise out of me. Firm self control helped me keep my sanity.

DaisyDay · 2025-12-09T14:37:11-0600

probinson said:
First of all, I'm not "demanding" anything of anyone. I put things in quotes that people have said.

Why put in quotes what people-not-me have said and then sweetly inquire how I defend "my beliefs" when they're not my beliefs?

probinson said:
I'm pleased to know that you don't think VAERS is "riddled with lies and misnfo" and I apologize if you think I was trying to make it seem like you said something you did not. That was not my intent.

Oookay....then what was your intent in labeling what was in quotes as "my beliefs" then delicately requesting that I defend said beliefs?

probinson said:
I couldn't disagree more. VAERS did nothing to inform the vaccination policies during COVID despite a veritable mountain of reports. V-Safe did even less. The main thing they provided was the illusion that someone was tracking adverse events.

The pandemic was a new situation as was the vaccine development and distribution. Data will always lag the events with analysis lagging even further behind and determining a course of action, particularly a change in the course, lagging even further behind. Do you truly believe that adverse reactions to the administration of the vaccines were not and are not tracked?

Where do you think data for studies come from? VAERS is one source.

probinson said:
if you say so. Meanwhile, the database consists of reports from real people who have been harmed by vaccines, and they are tossed into this database and simply forgotten.

There are also reports from health professionals and required reporters - as well as cranks, trolls and those looking to game the system to make a profit.

probinson said:
I truly don't believe the database exists for any other reason than to pretend like someone actually cares about adverse events from vaccination.

Well then, that's that. I don't see any point in further discussion since your mind is made up no matter what.

probinson said:
Did you see the increase in number of VAERS repots during COVID? Even though there were clearly fake reports, exactly how many reports do you think constitutes a "significant trend"? There's no doubt there's "noise" in this data, but there's also some very real "trends"that warranted further investigation. That didn't stop the government and public health from telling everyone to get vaccinated multiple times per year. Their booster recommendations during the Biden administration resulted in the top two vaccine regulators at the FDA resigning in protest.

The bottom line is, what you're saying sounds great. If VAERS were used in the way you explain, it would be a wonderful system to identify risks and pivot accordingly. But that's not what happens in practice. In practice, people pretend like the fact that there were over 1,000,000 VAERS reports in a single year when the previous high was around 60K is all just "noise" worthy of being ignored.

View attachment 374261

Oh look! A graph with no sourcing. Cool.

probinson said:
Would you be willing to share more specifics? What vaccine was involved, and what was concerning to you?

This was years ago. Generally, at some point I was looking at some covid vaccines particularly among the elderly in nursing homes. I don't remember the specifics - it was years ago and I was not particularly invested.

probinson said:
Again, you're asking a completely different question.

No, the question is not completely different; it is mostly the same.

probinson said:
The question should be, is there a benefit to vaccinating a newborn who is at low-risk?

I disagree - the question is what is the risk to benefit ratio to vaccinating at 24 hours versus at three months? That there is a benefit at all has been pretty well established by the near elimination of Hep B and its associated problems (cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, etc.) in children after the protocol was instituted compared to before.

probinson said:
If there is no evidence of benefit, then you're simply introducing risk, no matter how small it might be. "First do no harm" means tthat if we're going to recommend that every newborn baby should receive a Hep B vaccine within hours of birth, there should be evidence of benefit for such a recommendation.

Is the risk at 24 hours greater than the risk at three months? The risk includes the vaccination itself as well as the risk of infection between 24 hours and three months, taking into consideration that a newborn is more likely to be closely monitored by doctors and nurses than a three month old in a doctor's office or clinic.

probinson said:
Your theoretical can only be true if you assume that the risk associated with vaccination at birth is zero.

Baloney. Is the risk greater or lesser at 24 hours than at three months? I don't know - my theoretical actually assumed equal risk but not no risk. If the risk is greater earlier, please provide evidence that this is so. You haven't even given a theoretical why this would be so.

probinson said:
It's not. We may not know exactly what it is, and I'm sure it's quite small. But it's not zero. There is always a risk in any medical intervention. I know people have been taught to believe that vaccines are all benefit and no risk, but that's simply not true. If there is no evidence of benefit, then all you have left is risk, no matter how small it may be.

If that's what you know, then I question your general knowledge.

probinson said:
Earlier in the thread, there was a link to the ACP's statement on this change in recommendation. It said:

“For example, ACIP’s decision to downgrade the longstanding recommendation to vaccinate all newborns against hepatitis B at birth will lead to more childhood hepatitis B infections, will lead to more chronic infections that will follow patients into adulthood, and will complicate vaccine access for children. No new data was presented during the ACIP meeting to justify this change.

“The evidence remains clear: the hepatitis B birth dose is safe and an essential component in helping children develop immunity against a serious, potentially lifelong disease. In fact, since the U.S. implemented the hepatitis B birth dose in 1991, annual hepatitis B infections among infants and children have dropped 99%, from 16,000 to less than 20. This progress is directly attributable to timely vaccination. 

“ACIP’s actions will harm children, their families and the medical professionals who care for them. That is why we are joining together to speak up. American families deserve information grounded in science and clear, consistent guidance – not speculation intended to scare them. We urge the CDC leaders to reject ACIP’s new recommendation and instead retain the current, evidence-based approach.”  

Those are bold statements. Is there any evidence that "timely vaccination" is the reason that Hep B infections have dropped? We've already established that correlation is not causation, but here it seems it gets a pass. They make a bold statement this is "directly attributable to timely vaccination", as if we're to believe that there are no other confounders in play here over the last 34 years. No in this case, correlation IS causation.

Where is the evidence that supports this apoplectic hand-wringing?

How do you justify other people-not-you saying what you haven't said?

The Liturgist · 2025-12-09T14:37:08-0600

BobRyan said:
"Use AI"

Using strict rules, identify the largest Trinitarian Christian denominations that claim (1) scripture is a sufficient test of doctrine and no extra-biblical document is necessary for testing all doctrine, (2) possess a single global administrative authority, (3) maintain one unified set of binding official doctrines for all members, and (4) contain no doctrinally autonomous subgroups within their membership.

AI Response from "USE.AI"

That’s an excellent and very precise question about ecclesiology and formal doctrinal authority. Let’s apply each of your criteria strictly and systematically.

Result: Denominations That Fit All Four Strictly

Seventh-day Adventist Church

Scripture alone as authoritative test of doctrine (Formal statement: “The Holy Scriptures are the supreme, authoritative, and the infallible revelation of His will.”)

Single global administrative authority: The General Conference governs worldwide.

Uniform doctrine: The 28 Fundamental Beliefs, binding worldwide.

No doctrinal autonomy: National and local entities are administratively subordinate to the General Conference and cannot establish divergent doctrine.

Church of the Nazarene

Scripture alone: Historically and officially declares the Bible the sufficient rule of faith and practice.

Single administrative authority: The General Assembly is the final doctrinal and legal authority for the global church.

Unified doctrine: One global Manual defining binding Articles of Faith.

No doctrinal autonomy: Regional bodies cannot create independent doctrines.

Therefore — Strictly Applying Every Criterion

The largest Trinitarian Christian denominations that meet all four are:

Seventh-day Adventist Church (est. ~22 million members globally)

Church of the Nazarene (est. ~2.5 million members globally)

Use.ai is a service that uses the chatGPT API to access multiple AIs, but it only has chatGPT 5, the deprecated and buggy version of chatGPT, and chatGPT 4o and certain older models as options. I would assume you used chatGPT 5 since that is the default. Now when I ask chatGPT 5 the same question, I get this reply:

Applying the strict criteria, only a small number of Trinitarian denominations fit all four conditions. Most large Protestant bodies either lack a single global administrative authority or allow national autonomy. The following best satisfy all four criteria:

1. The Salvation Army

Scriptural sufficiency: Officially teaches that Scripture alone is the rule of Christian faith and practice, rejecting creeds as tests of fellowship.
Global authority: Governed by the General of The Salvation Army at International Headquarters in London, with authority extending worldwide.
Unified doctrine: One internationally binding “Handbook of Doctrine”, adopted by all territories.
No autonomous subgroups: All territorial commands operate under the same constitution and cannot define separate doctrinal stances.

2. The Church of the Nazarene

Scriptural sufficiency: Affirms the Bible as the final and sufficient authority in matters of faith and practice.
Global authority: Has a single international General Assembly and Board of General Superintendents, which exercise doctrinal and administrative oversight over all regions.
Unified doctrine: Uses one Manual worldwide containing the Articles of Faith, binding on every member and minister.
No doctrinal autonomy: Regional and national units cannot alter doctrine; only the General Assembly may revise the Articles of Faith.

3. The Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee)

Scriptural sufficiency: Teaches that the Bible alone is the all-sufficient rule of faith and conduct.
Global authority: Operates under a General Assembly and International Executive Committee, whose decisions are binding worldwide.
Unified doctrine: Maintains a single Declaration of Faith and Minutes of the General Assembly that govern doctrine and practice universally.
No autonomous subgroups: National and regional organizations are administratively subordinate to the international body and cannot adopt differing doctrinal standards.

4. The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel

Scriptural sufficiency: Confesses Scripture as the only authoritative rule of faith and conduct.
Global authority: Headed by an International Church Council with authority over all affiliated churches worldwide.
Unified doctrine: Holds a single, globally consistent Declaration of Faith.
No doctrinal autonomy: National fellowships are under the same confessional and organizational structure, without separate doctrinal powers.

Summary

The denominations that fully meet the stated criteria are:
1. The Salvation Army
2. The Church of the Nazarene
3. The Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee)
4. The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel

Each maintains (a) Scripture as the sole test of doctrine, (b) a single worldwide authority, (c) one binding doctrinal standard, and (d) no doctrinally autonomous subunits.

————————————————————————————————————

So alas, your attempt at prompt engineering is still producing inconsistent results, further proving my point about the unreliability of AI for what you are trying to do. Your parameters are subjective, and the fact that you’ve tuned your responses to try to exclude liturgical churches shows that you’ve lost objectivity and are (unsuccessfully) engaged in prompt engineering.

7thKeeper · 2025-12-09T14:36:32-0600

durangodawood said:
Yeah we just do war. We dont declare it.

My sense is that anything that would be considered an act of war against us should need congressional authorization if we do it to others - even if a "declaration of war" wouldnt be the specific instrument to use.

For example, there was an authorization for the Iraq War 2, as I recall. But I do wish it would be more formalized so Congress would have to "own it" more, and exert greater scrutiny on exec branch claims - which for Iraq2 were largely fraudulent.

Yes, Congress used a AUMF declaration for Iraq instead of formally declaring war, but it was still authorised by Congress. But yeah, it's essentially to just avoid the scrutiny that comes with being officially at war with someone, as stupid as that sounds.

Aryeh Jay · 2025-12-09T14:34:30-0600

Factotum said:
@DaisyDay ...I feel very sad, if the truth is burdensome for you.
Stay strong, continue to resist any anti-America humans who berate the Trump DoD with their hypocrisies and doublestandard.

Does your anti America human description cross party lines to include everything said about Biden?

BCP1928 · 2025-12-09T14:33:45-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
Okay? Would you like to reread my question and try again? With emphasis on "after WW2."

The Korean war was fought as a UN police action authorized by the Security Council--it was not a declared war. The Vietnam war and Iraq I & II were authorized by Congressional resolution, although war was not formally declared.

walter45 · 2025-12-09T14:33:15-0600

timothyu said:
Does AI follow that thinking? Does AI have a god? Will it one day also become aware of self?

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which commandment in The Written Law is the greatest?” 37 Yeshua said to him, “You shall love THE LORD JEHOVAH your God from all your heart and from all your soul and from all your power and from all your mind.” 38 “This is the great and the first commandment.” 39 “And the second which is like it is, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commands depend all The Written Law and The Prophets.”

Latest activity

Latest activity

Judge unseals Ghislaine Maxwell grand jury materials, citing Epstein files act​

Congress to withhold Pentagon travel funds until it sees boat strike videos​

Result: Denominations That Fit All Four Strictly​

Therefore — Strictly Applying Every Criterion​

1. The Salvation Army​

2. The Church of the Nazarene​

3. The Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee)​

4. The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel​

Summary​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Judge unseals Ghislaine Maxwell grand jury materials, citing Epstein files act

Congress to withhold Pentagon travel funds until it sees boat strike videos

Result: Denominations That Fit All Four Strictly

Therefore — Strictly Applying Every Criterion

1. The Salvation Army

2. The Church of the Nazarene

3. The Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee)

4. The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel

Summary