Larniavc said:

Yes. And an action is a behaviour which is not a thought. A thought is an internal cognitive process.

You can think ANYTHING. But thoughts are not behaviours.

Click to expand...

That sounds strange coming from an atheist. Is not a thought the behavior of atoms?

partinobodycular said:

But you're just arbitrarily proposing God as a standard for objective morality without first establishing what differentiates moral from immoral. So how am I supposed to tell if God qualifies as its standard?

So if you really want to establish a baseline, then we first need to establish what differentiates moral from immoral.

Click to expand...

As I said, take it or leave it. If all morality is just arbitrary anyway, one arbitrary standard is as good as any other. If you want to talk, you'll have to present me with a reason for thinking you're capable of making an evaluation.

Tropical Wilds said:

So church is more like Walmart, not a community resource, with stakeholders and requiring legal incorporation.

Maybe that’s why so many people don’t like Christianity…

Click to expand...

Blamiing Christianity for US legal codes is wild.

Tropical Wilds said:

I have yet to hear of the church that is legally forbidden from offering help to those who need it, much less food. And there are dozens of things they can do and should be doing they cost $0 that should be basic standard practice if somebody asks for help which an overwhelming majority of these churches did not do.

Click to expand...

Churches have to have prior approval for all spending, though most set aside contingency funds for charitable giving. But the secretary who answers phones and the pastor and anyone else in the church office is not authorized to unilaterally release funds for any reason.

Tropical Wilds said:

If you want church to be treated like a business, where red tape and bureaucracy is a valid reason for denying help to somebody in need, then fine, but it means we need to stop treating the church as community resource that provides help and more like a Walmart, where they do some charity work but worry more about the bottom line.

Click to expand...

I'd prefer it not operate that way, but it's the reality of church life in the United States. Churches are legal corporations with legal restrictions on how they can allocate funds. The problem is you're comparing an ideal with reality, rather than recognizing the real issues at play.

Servus said:

People who believe America is becoming a communist nation often point to the expansion of government's role in social and economic affairs, associating policies typically found in social democracies or having socialist elements with the historical definition of communism.
Key reasons for this perception include:

• Association of social welfare programs with communism/socialism: Proposals for or implementation of policies like universal healthcare, tuition-free college, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and robust social safety nets are often labeled as "socialist" or "communist" by critics. These are seen by some as a move toward wealth redistribution and increased government control, which they associate with communist aims for a classless society with income equality.
• Historical anti-communist sentiment: The legacy of the Cold War and the McCarthy era created a deep-seated cultural fear and a strong political opposition to anything labeled "communist". The term became a powerful pejorative label for a wide range of inconvenient movements or ideas, meaning that the label is applied broadly to policies that do not align with traditional American capitalist principles.
• Misunderstanding of terms: There is often a misunderstanding and conflation of terms like social democracy, socialism, and communism. While social democracy aims to balance market principles with social welfare programs, true communism involves state ownership of the means of production, a rejection of private property, and a one-party rule system.
• Concerns about government overreach and individual freedoms: Some people worry that a larger government role threatens individual freedoms, private property rights, and self-sufficiency, core tenets of the traditional American system.
• Political rhetoric: Political figures sometimes use the label of "communist" to criticize opponents and their policies, often as a tactic to generate fear and galvanize their base.
• Perception of shared "collectivist" values: Certain progressive ideals promoting collective well-being or social justice are sometimes viewed by opponents as a shift away from American individualism towards collectivism, which they view as antithetical to the American way of life.

People who think America is becoming a socialist country often point to expanded government spending on social programs, the influence of self-described "democratic socialists" in politics, and a growing desire for more social safety nets among certain segments of the population. The argument stems from differing definitions of "socialism" and the degree to which government should intervene in the economy.
Key reasons and arguments include:

• Expansion of Social Welfare Programs: The U.S. has a long history of social welfare programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public education. Some people view the expansion of these existing programs, or proposals for new ones like universal healthcare ("Medicare for All") and free college tuition, as a move toward socialism, arguing that they represent excessive government control and dependency.
• Rise of "Democratic Socialists": The visibility and popularity of political figures like Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who identify as democratic socialists and advocate for significant government intervention to address income inequality and other social issues, have fueled this perception.
• Reaction to Economic Disparities: Growing concern over wealth disparities and the perceived failure of unfettered capitalism to provide a fair shot for everyone, especially among younger generations (millennials and Gen Z), has increased support for policies that widen social safety nets. This growing public appetite for social-oriented policies can be interpreted by critics as a national shift toward socialism.
• • Definition of Socialism: Part of the debate is rooted in the different understandings of the term "socialism" in the U.S. While some associate it with authoritarian communist regimes like the former Soviet Union or Cuba, others view it more in line with the social democracies of Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, etc.), which blend a market economy with a robust welfare state and public services.
  • Increased Government Regulation and Spending: Large-scale government spending and market interventions, such as those that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic or previous financial crises, are sometimes characterized by critics as examples of "state capitalism" or socialist creep, moving the country away from a free market system.

Ultimately, the belief that the U.S. is becoming socialist often relates to concerns about maintaining the country's traditionally capitalist, individualistic foundation against an increasing desire for greater social and economic equality guaranteed by government programs. - Google

Click to expand...

Do you guys ever write posts on your own?

Tropical Wilds said:

I have yet to hear of the church that is legally forbidden from offering help to those who need it, much less food. And there are dozens of things they can do and should be doing they cost $0 that should be basic standard practice if somebody asks for help which an overwhelming majority of these churches did not do.

If you want church to be treated like a business, where red tape and bureaucracy is a valid reason for denying help to somebody in need, then fine, but it means we need to stop treating the church as community resource that provides help and more like a Walmart, where they do some charity work but worry more about the bottom line.

Click to expand...

Amen! I was in a church before I moved that had a food pantry that people would donate food and they'd store it and hand it out to people in need. That's not cutting into any budget, that's allowing the community to help each other. The church would also budget for that too and around thanksgiving, the church would buy turkeys, we'd pack meals into boxes and hand them out to families. There's zero reason why more churches can't do something like that.

Hentenza said:

Thanks for the info. I am Latino but I don’t look it so I feel for the more ethnic looking Latinos out there that are going to be harassed simply for their looks. That should be unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Oh look, a point of agreement.

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

So church is more like Walmart, not a community resource, with stakeholders and requiring legal incorporation.

Maybe that’s why so many people don’t like Christianity…

Let's hear TheCommentDen's opinion:

Login to view embedded media

ThatRobGuy said:

Matching a visual description of someone they're looking for has always been "a thing" with regards to detaining and questioning (specifically with regards to law enforcement)

For instance, if officers were looking for a "6 foot 2 Caucasian male, roughly 180-200 pounds, wearing a blue hoodie was in the park dealing drugs and was believed to be armed"...

If I happen to be standing in the park the next day with my blue hoodie on and my hand in my pockets...I'd be getting detained for questioning & searched (possibly even tackled or ordered to get on the ground at gunpoint)

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is not what is happening here. Not too many 6’2” caucasians being stopped for suspicion of being in the country illegally. But anyone that “looks” Latino or those that are speaking Spanish are fair game. Hardly a comparison.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Oy vey! That's antisemitic? It is Jewish history. Nobody is perfect...

Click to expand...

In that case, they're just like the rest of us...not unique.

Tropical Wilds said:

It doesn’t matter if she only posted the “bad” ones. There shouldn’t be “bad” ones. That’s the point. You’re fixated on “why aren’t there any/many good ones” and “well she clearly had a bias.” None of those things matter if the church attempts to meet her need. She’s saying she has a bias and illustrating why. Effective ministry is to examine her why and see if it needs addressing, not outright saying “you’re biased, who cares what you think.”

If she said “I have a problem with Christianity because of the number of people who are Christians who have brown hair and I find brown hair ugly,” that’s a bias we can ignore. But saying “I have a problem with Christianity because being Christian and going to the church has been presented for a solution for all manner of things, but when I tested this theory during an acute national crisis, a large number refused to help me, so I think they’re ineffective, hypocritical, and display behavior that’s negative, here’s my evidence” is something that should be examined.

If I found out the church I support with my time, energy, and money was doing this to people asking for help, I’d have some serious questions about where my money was going and how effectively we were helping our community. If you think she doesn’t deserve answers for uncovering it and being biased, certainly the members of those 40+ churches do.

Click to expand...

In a perfect world, but most of the people answering the phones don't have the liberty to access church funds. These things are heavily regulated and restricted, and unless there is a prior authorization it would be illegal for them to appropriate church funds to help. There are realities that are being ignored to present a negative assessment of Christians/Christianity and there's a rush to judgment of these churches based on a lack of knowledge of how these things operate. Most church offices, at least the ones I've been a part of, are stretched beyond their limits with people they are assisting within the bounds of their legal abilities and have to make hard choices and say no to desperate people simply because there aren't resources available. It would be nice to have endless funds to help every person who comes looking for it, but that's just not the reality.

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.

Click to expand...

I have yet to hear of the church that is legally forbidden from offering help to those who need it, much less food. And there are dozens of things they can do and should be doing they cost $0 that should be basic standard practice if somebody asks for help which an overwhelming majority of these churches did not do.

If you want church to be treated like a business, where red tape and bureaucracy is a valid reason for denying help to somebody in need, then fine, but it means we need to stop treating the church as community resource that provides help and more like a Walmart, where they do some charity work but worry more about the bottom line.

Stopped_lurking said:

Instead of asking a question, perhaps you could explain why you think that knowledge confers authority to determine how others should behave?

Click to expand...

Nah, because we've established no common ground for engagement so there's no point in just swapping opinions.

Aryeh Jay said:

Yep, and the Soviets and Nazi's made a deal to be friends after dividing up Poland. I love deals made under the cover of darkness with ideological "foes".

Click to expand...

And then the nazis attacked the Soviets and took all of Poland until the allies beat the nazis and Poland was free (for a little while anyway). Moral of the story is work with others to accomplish a goal which is something that our two parties can’t seem to be able to do. The dems are going further left while the gop keeps going further right.

Fervent said:

Nope, it's skepticism because I know how people operate. It's a simple question, what reason do we have for thinking she's on the up and up? Random people on the internet spin things and misrepresent things all the time, so why should we trust this random woman?

Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter if she only posted the “bad” ones. There shouldn’t be “bad” ones. That’s the point. You’re fixated on “why aren’t there any/many good ones” and “well she clearly had a bias.” None of those things matter if the church attempts to meet her need. She’s saying she has a bias and illustrating why. Effective ministry is to examine her why and see if it needs addressing, not outright saying “you’re biased, who cares what you think.”

If she said “I have a problem with Christianity because of the number of people who are Christians who have brown hair and I find brown hair ugly,” that’s a bias we can ignore. But saying “I have a problem with Christianity because being Christian and going to the church has been presented for a solution for all manner of things, but when I tested this theory during an acute national crisis, a large number refused to help me, so I think they’re ineffective, hypocritical, and display behavior that’s negative, here’s my evidence” is something that should be examined.

If I found out the church I support with my time, energy, and money was doing this to people asking for help, I’d have some serious questions about where my money was going and how effectively we were helping our community. If you think she doesn’t deserve answers for uncovering it and being biased, certainly the members of those 40+ churches do.

partinobodycular said:

Well that seems rather arbitrary. Why should I presume God's person to be an objective moral standard?

Click to expand...

It's a take it or leave it proposition. As soon as you've got something that isn't just your opinion to offer, let me know.

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

Do you not see how asinine that is? You turned the church into a business and that is your main focus ... not on what Jesus told you to do, no... about the red tape you've put in the way. I'm sure Jesus is totally going to be happy when you tell them to go be well and be filled while literally doing nothing because "the church has budgets and they have to be approved by stakeholders".... bla bla bla...

Fervent said:

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?

Click to expand...

EXCUSES! The church is for the PEOPLE not the other way around!! I DID give my tithes as well as do my OWN out reach because people were being turned away from the church and being refused aid for ZERO reason! ITS an abomination what the churches have become today!

Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. - Luke 6:30

Click to expand...

Those churches that didn't do a dang thing are HYPOCRITES! DO whats in the book you claim to follow! Where are your works?

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. - James 2:14-17

Click to expand...

NO EXCUSES GIVE TO ANYONE WHO ASKS FOR IT

Phil G said:

I’m afraid these flat earthers are relying on people’s ignorance of technology and atmospheric conditions. And you are consistently falling for their nonsense.

Click to expand...

Well at least I'm not falling for any of NASA nonsense.

Thousands of satellites whirling around in space, what a joke

Dan Perez said:

IN 1. COR 1:15 SAYS THIS !!

# 1 LEST. // ME is a DISJUNCTIVE PARICLE NEGATIVE

# 2 ANY // TIS is an. INDEFINITE PRONOUN. is a NOMINATIVE CASE. , in. the SINGULAR

# 3 SHOULD SAY //. EIPON. in. the AORIST TENSE in the ACTIVE VOICE is. a SUBJUNCATIVE. in. the SIGNULAR

# 4 THAT //. HOTI. is a CONJUNCATIONI.

# 5 I HAVE BAPTIZED // in. the AORIST TENSE in. the ACTIVE VOICE. is a INDICATIVE. MOOD in. the SINGULAR

# 6 IN // EIS is a PREPOSITION

# 7 MINE. OWN. //. EMOS. is a POSSESSEIVE PRONOUN. in a ACCUSATIVE CASE. in. the SINGULAR

# NAME // ONOMA. in the ACCUSATIVE CASE in. the SIGNULAR in the NEUTER

# A. And Paul could NEVER say I PAUL BAPTIZE. YOU. in. the name. of PAUL ,!!


#B THAT. was. given too the ELEVEN. disciples. in Matt 28:16. and 19.

#C. And teach bother what. Jesus taught his disciples.

# D And what happened in Matt 28 was way before Saul was ever saved 11

dan p

Click to expand...

New Christians may not tap into everything that is available to them to help them experience the transformation:

I do not know of any Christian group, who believe the water itself saves you, since all believe it is God who saves and God is not limited by water.

Water baptism is not a “requirement” for salvation, since God does the saving, but is something Christians get to do to help them and others.

I know that I needed everything God could provide to assure me of my conversion, both outwardly and mentally. God wants you to physically feel the experience of what is going on Spiritually.

You would like to add to your conversion a definite time place and physical experience, which God has provided for you.

Adult believers water immersion is to be a physical outward representation of what had or is happening spiritually in the person being baptized. It is mainly to help the individual being baptized to better grasp what is going on, but it can “witness” to others observing the baptism. It has the elements of going down under the water (burying the old man), placing your dependence in another; the person baptizing you (surrendering your life to God), being washed (having your sins washed away), rising out of the water (rising from the old dead body), and stepping forth out onto the earth (a new person). The person is walking out into the hugs of his new family. It is also a sign of your humility, since it is a humbling act anyone can simple allow someone to do to them (so not a work) and since humility has been shown in the accept of charity (God’s free gift of undeserving forgiveness) it should just support and add to the memory of that acceptance. To refuse Christian water baptism when it is readily available might mean you are not ready to handle other responsibility like having the indwelling Holy Spirit and you are hurting yourself.

Christian Baptism replaced John’s Baptism and not circumcision, since circumcision went on at the same time as John’s baptism and it is not in the Bible where, Jewish Christians cease circumcising their boy children after baptism became available. Circumcision was a physical visible daily reminder to all Jewish boys and men that they were a Jew. The indwelling Holy Spirit is our literal daily reminder that we are Christians. The indwelling Holy Spirit replaced circumcision and is for both men and women.
Peter, Paul and all the rest would have agreed that: “water” does not save you, only Deity (God/Christ/Holy Spirit). God does not need you to “do” anything for Him to save you, but as Christians, we have the wonderful privilege and honor to add to our Spiritual salvation, a physical remembrance by physically going through a death burial and resurrection: washing away, reliance on others, rising to a new life in the arms of fellow Christians and witnessing to other what Christ went through in remembrance. Baptism is for us, because it helps us, and some of us will need that additional help, so God wants all of us to add this physical remembrance and witness.

Look at the context of 1 Cor: 16-17, 1 Cor. 1: 10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Yet tell me this: If Paul did not believe in water baptism, why did he specific give exceptions as being exceptions to his baptizing of Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas?

Paul is addressing one of the many issues the Corinthian Church was having, which was division among them partly created by them being baptized by different Church leaders or disciples of those church leaders. Paul personally limited baptizing people for the same reason Christ did not baptize anyone.

Paul is not bring judgement down on being baptized, but their division and using who baptized them in dividing up.

Why would baptism not be a benefit to you?

partinobodycular said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

Of course God created everything. The question is when?

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".....

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Click to expand...

Job is a lady?

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


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