Latest activity

Fervent · 2025-11-11T09:59:55-0600

partinobodycular said:
So you're proposing that the objective standard for morality is established via authority... is that correct? Via edict.

No, I'm proposing the objective moral standard is in the eternal, unchanging nature of God's person. His authority is a separate issue.

Jerry N. · 2025-11-11T09:59:49-0600

CoreyD said:
Later interpretations went that rout.
However, that was not the way the Jews saw it
Despite these diverse views, the majority of ancient rabbis understood the creation account as literal in its core message: that God is the sole creator of the universe, and that creation began with a divine act of will. The idea that the world was created from pre-existing matter was generally rejected, as it was seen as incompatible with strict monotheism, which holds that God alone is eternal and self-sufficient.
...ancient Jewish scholars consistently affirmed the divine origin of creation, with the event described in Genesis 1:1 serving as a cornerstone of Jewish faith and cosmology

Of course God created everything. The question is when?

Fervent · 2025-11-11T09:58:18-0600

Delvianna said:
Excuses excuses excuses in order to not help. I hope that argument holds water when you tell Jesus "I didn't help because of strict church regulations".....

You speak of judgment, but how much have you contributed to church coffers? and how much engagement in church budget discussions have you engaged in to make sure that there is sufficient contingency funds for situations like this one? It's easy to judge, but what have you done?

Jerry N. · 2025-11-11T09:57:51-0600

CoreyD said:
That's a funny one.
I think you missed something Jerry.
However, I'd rather she told you, than I did, because it is indeed confusing.

Job is a lady?

Danthemailman · 2025-11-11T09:57:12-0600

Mamdani's top incoming aide was 'chief architect' of radical proposal overhauling NYPD

Mamdani's top incoming aide was 'chief architect' of radical proposal overhauling NYPD

Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani appoints Elle Bisgaard-Church as chief adviser, the DSA-affiliated strategist who developed his controversial social worker 911 response proposal.

www.foxnews.com

This guy is wasting no time! I'm with 50cent.

Fervent · 2025-11-11T09:56:46-0600

Delvianna said:
Did Jesus give stipulations on who we are supposed to give to and who we aren't? If someone comes to you for aid, are you supposed to go "well, are you scamming for money?" Because she's asking specifically for formula, you could go to the store, spend 20 bucks on formula and give it to her. There... helping without the risk of someone using money not for the purposes they asked for. And I don't care about the red tape of political church behavior. Someone, reach into their pocket, pull out a 20 and get the woman some baby formula!

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying, because churches don't have the freedom to just give away funds as they see fit. They have to set budgets and get them approved by the stakeholders. The church offices hands are largely tied for legal reasons, it's not "political church behavior" but the reality of legal incorporation.

Delvianna · 2025-11-11T09:56:23-0600

Fervent said:
No, it's saying I don't trust people on the internet simply for the sake of trusting them.

Her motives matter, and if you've never dealt with church offices from the inside then you don't really know enough to make a judgment or understand the issues at hand.

In a perfect world, but churches use of funds are strictly regulated and my guess is most of the people condemning these churches aren't contributing to the church coffers all that much and engaging in church budget discussions to make it possible to assist in these sorts of situations. It's sensationalist smear tactics.

Excuses excuses excuses in order to not help. I hope that argument holds water when you tell Jesus "I didn't help because of strict church regulations".....

BlessedDisciple · 2025-11-11T09:55:53-0600

Fervent · 2025-11-11T09:54:50-0600

Delvianna said:
How can you say this:

Without watching a video. That's not skepticism, that's making a blanket judgment based off of nothing other than your pre-judgment decision. "you see" no reason... you haven't looked into her at all! How is this not judgement? That makes literally zero sense.

No, it's saying I don't trust people on the internet simply for the sake of trusting them.

Delvianna said:
Regardless of her motives, does it matter? She never states her motives, she just is conducting an experiment to see what happens and you know, I'm glad she did it. Any church, ANY church that claims they have Christ should be on blast for the answers they gave. We are required to take care of widows, orphans, homeless and show love to even our enemies. The churches though, showed most were heartless and just told her to go to the states outreach center and when she said they couldn't help her, they just told her no.

Her motives matter, and if you've never dealt with church offices from the inside then you don't really know enough to make a judgment or understand the issues at hand.

Delvianna said:
You don't need to "trust her" you need to see the outcome of what these churches said and how most refused aid.

In a perfect world, but churches use of funds are strictly regulated and my guess is most of the people condemning these churches aren't contributing to the church coffers all that much and engaging in church budget discussions to make it possible to assist in these sorts of situations. It's sensationalist smear tactics.

Delvianna · 2025-11-11T09:54:25-0600

Fervent said:
Perhaps, but there's a lot that people don't understand about how churches operate. They aren't free to just give away money because of legal requirements, even if there is a desire. There are strict regulations on how churches use funds and most often require pre-established ground rules. So while it would be nice if there was complete freedom and unrestricted funds to help every person in need, it's not that simple and sensationalist pieces like this operate more as smear campaigns than to serve any useful purpose.

Did Jesus give stipulations on who we are supposed to give to and who we aren't? If someone comes to you for aid, are you supposed to go "well, are you scamming for money?" Because she's asking specifically for formula, you could go to the store, spend 20 bucks on formula and give it to her. There... helping without the risk of someone using money not for the purposes they asked for. And I don't care about the red tape of political church behavior. Someone, reach into their pocket, pull out a 20 and get the woman some baby formula!

CoreyD · 2025-11-11T09:53:40-0600

Jerry N. said:
We do have the Hebrew of Genesis back to about 200 B.C. Imagine you just got the task to copy older manuscripts to make a fresh new copy. Would you make a mistake in the first few lines? I think not. Verses 1 and 2 are what we might call “perfective”in that act had stopped for some time. They can stand as introductory before verse 3. If you want to look at it linguistically, the following is very useful: https://www.grisda.org/bediako-2014-antecedent-creation.pdf

You might want to pay attention to “Clausal Analysis” on page six. I wouldn’t say it is definitive, but the case that something existed before verse 3 is pretty strong.

Later interpretations went that rout.
However, that was not the way the Jews saw it
Despite these diverse views, the majority of ancient rabbis understood the creation account as literal in its core message: that God is the sole creator of the universe, and that creation began with a divine act of will. The idea that the world was created from pre-existing matter was generally rejected, as it was seen as incompatible with strict monotheism, which holds that God alone is eternal and self-sufficient.
...ancient Jewish scholars consistently affirmed the divine origin of creation, with the event described in Genesis 1:1 serving as a cornerstone of Jewish faith and cosmology

stevevw · 2025-11-11T09:53:24-0600

David Lamb said:
The bible doesn't tell us how old Mary was, nor does it tell us that she rode a donkey to Bethlehem.

No don't say that. Your spoiling the image I have in my head of poor Mary, or rather brave Mary riding a donkey in the cold desert night air with the stars shining above. Now I have to reimagine it. No I'm keeping my image lol. Thats how I picture it.

David Lamb said:
It also doesn't tell us that Joseph was much older than Mary. We have songs that tell us these things, for example, "Little Donkey" and "The Cherry Tree Carol" which begins: "Joseph was an old man, an old man was he." But such songs are unbiblical.

Yeah they are filling in the picture and each culture will have their own version. THough they are pretty close. They all say he's older but some like to elaborate he was much older as the percieved custom could potentially have an old man marry a very young women in those times.

Some religions in ancient times had girls of 8 and 9 bestowed and married at 9 or 10. But the husband had to wait to the coming of age. Still a scarry proposition to allow such an opportunity in the wrong hands. But that was the custom and practice in some parts of the world. Which was really an extreme version of how generally it was the norm for older men to marry females at 14, 15 and often 16 years.

I think it was around the 50s that some western nations had marriage laws below 16 years. I know Gerry Lee Lewis got in trouble for marrying a girl at 14.

Danthemailman · 2025-11-11T09:53:11-0600

Nithavela said:
What about doing your own research if you're interested about the veracity of this image?

Instagram 50 Cent on Instagram: "R.I.P NYC @50centaction"

Just for fun I even asked AI if it was true.

BlessedDisciple · 2025-11-11T09:52:06-0600

Thanks! Glad you liked them!

Fervent · 2025-11-11T09:51:14-0600

Tropical Wilds said:
I think the point is that no church should be failing to act.

Perhaps, but there's a lot that people don't understand about how churches operate. They aren't free to just give away money because of legal requirements, even if there is a desire. There are strict regulations on how churches use funds and most often require pre-established ground rules. So while it would be nice if there was complete freedom and unrestricted funds to help every person in need, it's not that simple and sensationalist pieces like this operate more as smear campaigns than to serve any useful purpose.

CoreyD · 2025-11-11T09:49:48-0600

Job 33:6 said:
You're ignoring that the text is in construct form. It's not about whether it's a noun or a verb.
Login to view embedded media
You're making arguments that suggest you don't know what you're talking about.

Me? Not me.

Job 33:6 said:
You're not paying attention to the situation.

For example:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The beginning is defined by whim God acts. Not by the beginning of the cosmos. Bara is a verb. To create. To make or to do.

Not according to Jewish rabbis, and scholars during the Talmudic period.

Nithavela · 2025-11-11T09:49:18-0600

wing2000 said:
What do you think? If a police officer detains you based on your appearance, would you be cool with that?

I think the appropriate response in the USA is to do whatever the law enforcement officer tells you to do, then wait for the internal investigation to clear him, then go through a lengthy and costly litigation process.

Land of the free!

Fervent · 2025-11-11T09:48:11-0600

partinobodycular said:
Then first we need to establish the relationship between authority and morality, otherwise establishing authority is pointless. Agreed?

Well, first we'd have to establish an objective standard for morality, otherwise we're just trading personal opinions without any foundation. And as I was not speaking of authority in a general sense, but moral authority there's no need to establish any additional relationship.

Delvianna · 2025-11-11T09:48:05-0600

Fervent said:
Nope, it's skepticism because I know how people operate.

How can you say this:

Fervent said:
but I see no reason to take her word for it.

Without watching a video. That's not skepticism, that's making a blanket judgment based off of nothing other than your pre-judgment decision. "you see" no reason... you haven't looked into her at all! How is this not judgement? That makes literally zero sense.

what reason do we have for thinking she's on the up and up?

Regardless of her motives, does it matter? She never states her motives, she just is conducting an experiment to see what happens and you know, I'm glad she did it. Any church, ANY church that claims they have Christ should be on blast for the answers they gave. We are required to take care of widows, orphans, homeless and show love to even our enemies. The churches though, showed most were heartless and just told her to go to the states outreach center and when she said they couldn't help her, they just told her no.

Fervent said:
Random people on the internet spin things and misrepresent things all the time, so why should we trust this random woman?

You don't need to "trust her" you need to see the outcome of what these churches said and how most refused aid.

CoreyD · 2025-11-11T09:47:42-0600

Actually, my mistake... I missed c. 22 for the period of Rashi's life.
Still, he is not the only rabbi during that period, and is outnumbered by other rabbis.
However, Jerry is right. The thread is about how long the creative days were, and so, I am going to refocus on that.

Jerry N. · 2025-11-11T09:46:52-0600

CoreyD said:
February 1040 – 13 July 1105!!! What?
Here you are talking about Near Eastern culture, and I asked for references to support the claims you were making, and you give me some guy that lived from February 1040 – 13 July 1105.

Then you ignore sources from Jewish rabbis, and scholars spanning from the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE to the Muslim conquest of Palestine in 638 CE.
LOL

That's the best joke I have had on these forums.
I'm not the one lacking knowledge of the history of Bible interpretation... among other things.
Perhaps you should go back and read what you ignored... again.
Is it any wonder you are ignoring facts.

Since you ignored it again, I'll post it again.

According to reliable sources, some Bible translations alter words, and this occurs due to differences in translation philosophy, manuscript evidence, and linguistic challenges. Translators may omit, add, or change words based on their interpretation of the original texts, which were written in ancient languages like Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. For example, a table comparing modern Bible versions to the King James Version (KJV) shows that words like "Christ," "Lord," "Jesus," and "God" are omitted or added in various translations, with some versions adding or removing words in hundreds of instances.

Like everyone else, we have the God given right to reject alterations to God's word the Bible.
Religious freedom also allows us the right to do so... just as you have the right to look for a translated text that suits or supports your ideas.

The fact is, the Hebrew manuscripts do not use a verb, which some translations of Genesis 1:1 alter, which you favor.
The Hebrew manuscripts uses a noun, which I accept.
Do you fault me for loving honesty? Do you love dishonesty?
We all have freedom to make that choice.

4QGenb (4Q2)
You can grab any manuscript, and if you can read it, it says very plainly, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I do reject dishonest translations, that interpret text and then translate base on their interpretation.

"How is it that I am speaking to you at all?" John 8:25

We do have the Hebrew of Genesis back to about 200 B.C. Imagine you just got the task to copy older manuscripts to make a fresh new copy. Would you make a mistake in the first few lines? I think not. Verses 1 and 2 are what we might call “perfective”in that act had stopped for some time. They can stand as introductory before verse 3. If you want to look at it linguistically, the following is very useful: https://www.grisda.org/bediako-2014-antecedent-creation.pdf

You might want to pay attention to “Clausal Analysis” on page six. I wouldn’t say it is definitive, but the case that something existed before verse 3 is pretty strong.

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-11T09:46:22-0600

Tropical Wilds · 2025-11-11T09:45:53-0600

Fervent said:
"The results"? How do we know what the results are, how do we know we can trust what she's releasing and not that she is selectively smearing by only releasing the ones where the church failed to act?

I think the point is that no church should be failing to act.

Tropical Wilds · 2025-11-11T09:44:31-0600

durangodawood said:
Rap can be clever as heck. But its not so good for generating emotion.

Idk… I think it’s a YMMV kind of thing. The first time I sat on the lyrics to “Gangsta’s Paradise” it kind of broke my heart. And there are lots of good hype up songs that are rap.

I think since music depends on so many factors to illicit a response… Words, music, voice, pacing… It has more benchmarks to hit in order to hit people in a certain way. Like, I think Bob Dylan is a lyrical genius but his voice and accompaniments make me want to beat my head on a wall so I don’t find his music all that inspiring. Rap has a similar issue for me, but it’s because my tastes gravitate more to dance or modern pop, which in many ways is the opposite. The song that makes me feel heard, sometimes to the point of tears, is a dance pop song. It hits me perfectly, but anybody who’s not into that genre isn’t going to feel it like I do.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page