• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Immigrants Approved for Citizenship ‘Plucked Out’ of Line Moments Before Pledging Allegiance: Report


Immigrants were moments away from pledging allegiance to the United States in Boston — the final step of the long process to becoming a U.S. citizen — when government officials pulled them out of line, according to a new report.
The scene unfolded at Boston’s Faneuil Hall on Thursday, Dec. 4, according to the report from WGBH, a National Public Radio member station.
As people who were already approved to be naturalized — having completed the lengthy U.S. citizenship process — lined up to pledge allegiance, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials told them they could not continue due to their countries of origin, the outlet reported.
USCIS officials took individuals from the line because the federal agency has directed its employees to halt all immigration applications for nationals from the 19 countries that already faced travel restrictions since June due to a proclamation from President Donald Trump, per WGBH and NBC News. The Trump administration designated the list of largely African and Asian countries as high-risk.
They jumped through all the hoops and it wasn't enough for this administration. Some of these people have been in the U.S. for 20+ years raising families and contributing to the country. Now they will possibly be deported back to countries they haven't been to in decades and have no ties to anymore. What is this really about?

B flat B♭

What do you mean, "yes" - you obviously can't.
Therefore, you cannot debate science from the Bible - you've just proved it.
but still he does tell us about the earth, moon, the sun & all the stars where he has named each one.
He mentions them.
But he doesn't explain what he made the moon from, how many miles away from the earth he placed it or why we see it in different phases. He doesn't explain light years, or how far away the various stars are.
He doesn't tell us what the sun is made of, nor how it has shone for thousands of years without either burning up, or going out. He hasn't explained the weather. Or how it can be pouring with rain in one town - or even one street - but not the next one.

How many stars do you think there are? I doubt the Bible tells us, so how did you come up with that number?
Upvote 0

Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat (Now up to 2, 3, 4...)

The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee said Sunday that surveillance video of U.S. military strikes targeting an alleged drug trafficking vessel in the Caribbean Sea on Sept. 2 would contradict how Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and other Republicans have described it.

“When they [the survivors] were finally taken out, they weren’t trying to flip the boat over. The boat was clearly incapacitated. A tiny portion of it remained, capsized, the bow of the boat. They had no communications device. Certainly, they were unarmed,” Rep. Adam Smith, one of the Democratic lawmakers who saw the video, said. “Any claim that the drugs had somehow survived that attack is hard, hard to really square with what we saw.”
Upvote 0

Now does everyone understand why the "right to refuse illegal orders" video was made?

What stands most vividly in my mind are civilians killed during the Persian Gulf war in which I had a direct hand in the targeting decisions. That included the Amariyeh shelter in which 400 women and children were killed. There is a brief line that mentions me in the Wikipedia article...not by name, but I have to admit at once sentence, "That was my part." I was horrified the morning after watching Peter Arnett's reporting of the bodies being pulled from the rubble. I spent the next two days going over the previous imagery to see if there was anything we--or I--missed that should have tipped us off that the building was being used as a bomb shelter. It was certainly not anything I suspected.

Lord knows I despise General Glosson. Despised the liar then, despise the liar now.
I wish you the best with your heavy heart. Your compassion in that moment, is comforting to know about.

Thanks for sharing.
Upvote 0

Trump Fires Acting Chair & General Counsel of NLRB

Trump can fire labor, employment board members without cause: Appeals court

The Trump administration is challenging the 90-year-old precedent set by Humphrey’s, which limits the president’s ability to unilaterally remove the heads of certain independent government agencies. The Supreme Court on Monday is set to hear oral arguments in a case that could determine whether Humphrey’s is overturned.

In landmark case, Supreme Court to rule on Trump's bid to control independent agencies

The justices are weighing whether to overturn a 90-year precedent.

For more than 100 years, independent government agencies have regulated American monetary policy and stock trades, transportation systems and election campaigns, consumer product safety and broadcast licenses all free from direct political interference and supervision by the White House.

A major case before the Supreme Court on Monday could upend that tradition and dramatically transform the federal government, eliminating a spirit of bipartisanship and policy continuity that Congress had intended to instill in key areas of American life when it created the agencies.

At issue is President Donald Trump's attempt to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, as a member of the Federal Trade Commission on grounds that her service is "inconsistent with the administration's priorities." She was appointed to a seven-year term in 2023.

Lower courts have held that Slaughter's termination was illegal since federal lawstipulates a president may only remove a commissioner for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." The for-cause removal protection was intended to insulate the FTC from politics.

Trump has also tried to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and Federal Reserve -- all of whom have challenged their removals in court.

[The appellate ruling in the NLRB case came to the opposite conclusion to the FTC one now before SCOTUS.]

In September, the Supreme Court rejected Slaughter's bid to remain on the commission while the litigation is pending. The 6-3 decision, with all three liberal justices dissenting, signals that the likely outcome of her case will be in Trump’s favor, analysts said.

[So we would see more settled law become unsettled.]
Upvote 0

Now does everyone understand why the "right to refuse illegal orders" video was made?

... that doesn't change the fact that we have never defined drug traffickers as terrorsist.
Only one (1) process in our nation can OFFICIALLY determine who are terrorists. Ten (10) months ago, that process first determined that those Venezuelan perps are in fact terrorists.
Upvote 0

Consumer Prices Will Go Down From Day One? Will Gas Prices Go Down 50% Within A Year?

'People aren't dumb': Republicans worry they're not doing enough on affordability

Republican lawmakers, aides and strategists tell NBC News they worry that high prices and their party’s poor messaging on affordability could cost them in the midterms.

<Snip>

Pressed by NBC News on whether Republicans are doing enough to address affordability concerns among Americans, Speaker Mike Johnson said his message to everybody is to “relax.”

1765207192272.gif
Upvote 0

Now does everyone understand why the "right to refuse illegal orders" video was made?

I can sympathize with you, and I wish you the best in handling your displeasure. I know elders who felt the same way in 2012, and especially in 2016 when Obama-Biden Afghanistan bombings killed about 100 innocent civilians incl. children and women.
What stands most vividly in my mind are civilians killed during the Persian Gulf war in which I had a direct hand in the targeting decisions. That included the Amariyeh shelter in which 400 women and children were killed. There is a brief line that mentions me in the Wikipedia article...not by name, but I have to admit at once sentence, "That was my part." I was horrified the morning after watching Peter Arnett's reporting of the bodies being pulled from the rubble. I spent the next two days going over the previous imagery to see if there was anything we--or I--missed that should have tipped us off that the building was being used as a bomb shelter. It was certainly not anything I suspected.

Lord knows I despise General Glosson. Despised the liar then, despise the liar now.
  • Informative
Reactions: Belk
Upvote 0

RFK Adjusts Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendations; Democrats Lose Their Minds

The advantage is not overloading the newborn infant's system with a vaccine that has known cases of harm and even death, when it is not needed at that time. Europe seems to understand the advantage of delaying the shot, as almost every country in Europe (as well as places like New Zealand and Japan) already do delay the shot to 2 or more months after birth in children whose mothers do not have Hep B
There are no reported deaths from this vaccine that I was able to find.
Upvote 0

I hold a view similar to the Open View of God.

Mark Quayle said:
Well, yes, I can, if 'free will' goes by the adjective, "uncaused". Nothing happens uncaused, except God. Everything that is —except God— is so because it was caused to become so.

I agree it is opinion, as is everything philosophy and science uses for proof. It assumes that God is the only uncaused thing. But if you can show me how there is anything else uncaused, be my guest.

Second, as a believer in Scripture, it is my assumption that Scripture is true. And as Scriptures present an omniscient God, then he knows everything. Likewise, good reasoning shows God as the uncaused causer, the 'first cause', and, as I assume, to say that there can be more than one first cause is to contradict the meaning of "first cause".

I am not disputing that within our reality, God is the cause of everything. What I am saying is that if God caused all, then having omniscience automatically precludes true choice for anything that is caused, human or otherwise. My choice is an illusion. God created me a certain way, in an environment unique to me, knowing how I would respond and every choice that I would ever make. Therefore, with that logic, Adam and Eve had no choice but to sin; the serpent had no choice but to deceive, and man had no choice but to (for the most part) reject God, because of how they were created, how they were taught, and their life experiences.

I'm sorry. I don't follow. "...implies otherwise."? You provided scripture that implies that you do NOT believe that God is not omniscient? Or are you saying that @FutureAndAHope (and you) provided scripture that demonstrates that God is not omniscient? If I remember @FutureAndAHope right, he would take issue with the notion that God is not omniscient.

As for what you ask me to do, (and I could make your point better than you do—God even 'repents of' what he did, and 'changes his mind' about what he was going to do, according to the translations. He also says that 'it never entered my mind that they should do that'.) Several logical rules apply to hermeneutics and produce good exegesis. To take verses out of context, for example, is not a good hermeneutic. And to assume that a modern day reading of the English is all that is necessary for understanding a statement in scripture, is not exegesis. All Scripture agrees with itself. Therefore, the 'whole counsel of God' is to be brought to bear when drawing meaning and doctrine from a verse. If the Bible says, "God is not a man....that he should change his mind." and in another place, "God changed his mind", there is

The "impossible to lie" quote was a hyperbole to show how the raw meaning of the word itself (omnipotence or omniscience) is technically an oxymoron.

As far as translated scriptures go, certain things obviously need to be interpreted, otherwise raw readings look like contradictions.

Genesis 6:6,7 & 1 Samuel 15:11,35 - God regrets his own actions. But in the same chapter in Samuel (1 Samuel 15:29) which you quoted, God is not a man that he should have regret. (ESV) or that he should repent (KJV) or change his mind (NIV). So obviously there is some kind of interpretation or translation issue. But the fact remains that God anointed three different individuals to be king over Israel, and only one remained faithful. (Saul & David through Samuel, and Jeroboam through Ahijah) Not a great record if you are omniscient or know ahead of time what your chosen appointees will do. In fact, Jeroboam almost immediately rebelled and not a single king of Israel from that point were faithful. (except partially Jehu)

I'm not suggesting that God doesn't know or see or have some kind of supernatural ability to see the future. I just don't follow the logic that God doesn't have a choice to decide what to foresee, in order to prevent his creation from being a mere simulation.

Mark Quayle said:
So that they are without excuse. And so that we would know that they had no excuse.

On the contrary. If God caused that I sin, it is by use of my [willed] choices. We know that it is logically self-contradictory to say that God can sin, (because God does nothing against himself, and sin is against God.) Likewise, Scripture says that God tempts nobody. So sin comes, just as James says, from our lusts. Follow that line of causation all the way back. There is God. He does not tempt, and he does not sin. We do. Satan does. Our lusts do. And the whole of creation was caused by God to exist. You can't escape that, except by ignoring it, or by claiming that God is less than omnipotent.

If God caused everything and knows everything, then I have no will, period. If it is self-contradictory to say that God can sin (which I agree with), then he can't possibly have pre-conceived that Adam and Eve and the serpent and Satan would sin, because then, as you say, God would be sinning against himself through Adam and Eve, and is furthermore responsible for everything Satan would do.

If your existence is caused, your choices are caused. Your choices are your own, and are caused.

This sentence is self-contradictory. Your choices are not your own if they are caused by someone else.

You have a will. A robot does not. Your will is to do according to your inclinations. You will always choose to do what you most want to do at that instant of choosing. Why do you have that inclination? Why do you want to choose what you choose? These things don't happen in a vacuum. You could not have chosen anything if you had not woken up to see the options. What caused you to wake up? How do you have any thoughts? Are these things entirely spontaneous? No, they are causes of effects and they in turn are effects of earlier causes. Your options are not illusions, but it will only ever be possible to choose what you end up choosing. And you don't know which one that is until you choose. Can you demonstrate that all options on the table are possible to choose? It is human to see them that way, but in the end, only the one is ever chosen, as history consistently demonstrates. And the whole scenario is God's. It doesn't happen by itself, but is established by God, in whom we live and breath and have our existence.

You are missing the point. Whatever reason I may have to choose what I have chosen to do is caused by God, as you say, whether that is by influencing my brain waves now, or by just allowing it to develop through history from some initial quantum wave of creation. The sticking point is whether at the point of creation God already knew that I would exist and what I would do thousands or billions of years later. (Depending on whether you are a young earth or old earth creationist) And omniscience means God did know, and therefore my choices are not mine after all.

You attempt to show a logical self-contradiction with your syllogism built on the premise "God cannot create a creature with free choice". The premise is faulty—the statement is bogus. It is not that God cannot do it, but that the whole notion is logically self-contradictory. Would you say that the statement, "God cannot create a rock too big for him to pick up." is a valid statement? It is utter foolishness. Why would God even consider such a thing? He would not. It is not even a thing, but oxymoronic self-contradiction.

But I didn't say that or believe that. You don't maybe see it that way, but that is your position. I believe that God can create a creature with free choice, that we all have free choice, and God wants us to have free choice. (the word choice here being synonymous with will) I also believe that despite our free choice, prophecies can still exist, because despite what we do in our lives, it will not affect prophecy or God's will, so peering into our choices is not relevant. And if our actions did or was going to affect God's will, then God would intervene as he did in so many parts of the Bible.

Furthermore, God taking an initiative to help a single individual in distress who prays for help will also not generally affect prophecy. So individually God can guide us, and on a macro scale he can fulfill his prophecies without contradiction.
Upvote 0

Man acquitted of stabbing by Portland jury — after victim said slur following the attack

Defense attorney Daniel Small said the most relevant evidence was recorded later, when security officers heard the wounded man shouting the racist slur and captured it on their body cameras as he described the incident.

I'd say that "most relevant" would count as "key" by contemporary definitions.

OK. So the defense thinks it relevant. Though no context as to how. Point conceded as far as the defense is concerned.
There's video evidence covering the lead-up, the actual event, and the aftermath, and the identities of the people in the video aren't in dispute as far as I know.

Some additional info from a different source:
Police body-camera video later recorded Howard using the N-word as officers intervened. Howard insisted he only said it after being stabbed. Edwards, however, testified that the slur came the moment Howard spotted him, and that he reacted.

“What other than racism could explain why Mr. Howard perceived hatred, animosity and aggression from a complete stranger?” defense attorney Daniel Small argued to jurors.

Edwards has past convictions including attempted second-degree assault in 2021 and served a three-year sentence for a separate stabbing at a Portland light-rail station in 2020. Another case against him, a fourth-degree assault charge involving a store clerk, was dismissed earlier this year due to a lack of available public defenders.

Ok. Good to know there is video but that is not the totality of the evidence and it certainly does not override other pieces of evidence that might mitigate the circumstances.
But you did touch on something interesting, you mentioned "additional details that these news stories aren't mentioning".

Are news media silos perhaps a bit of an issue here? Where if there's a story that ends up being somewhat unfavorable for an outlet's ideological bent, they ignore it and won't touch it with a 10 foot pole?

I would certainly say so. I have noticed that my more liberal news sources are going to same way some conservative ones have were they prefer narrative over facts. I try to have sources from multiple view points but it is getting harder.
I personally would not, but there's a variety of public polling (that we can discuss if you like) that would suggest that there are other people who would.

Here's a very recent poll conducted by Harvard


One of the most disturbing findings from the Buckley Institute’s 2025 national college student survey is this: 39 percent of students agree with the statement, “If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views.”

Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, "Violence is an appropriate response to hate speech" is not some fringe far left view.

It may not be fringe but I don't think it is mainstream either.
Given the demographic make-up of Portland (it's a city that skews pretty young (median age is 34), and very left -- compared to many other major US cities), it's not wild to think that you could end up with a jury that's leaning in the direction of "violence is excusable against someone who's being a racist".

Eh, I have a hard time finding this idea a reasonable conclusion. Admittedly I'm up in Seattle not down in Portland but I don't think we are THAT far apart in views. It just strikes me as being an unreasonable conclusion and it seems like there are much more likely reasons for why this person was acquitted then those being asserted by these articles. I would need significantly more evidence before I concede that this is a likely reason. :wave:
Upvote 0

Man acquitted of stabbing by Portland jury — after victim said slur following the attack

Defense attorney Daniel Small said the most relevant evidence was recorded later, when security officers heard the wounded man shouting the racist slur and captured it on their body cameras as he described the incident.

I'd say that "most relevant" would count as "key" by contemporary definitions.

There's video evidence covering the lead-up, the actual event, and the aftermath, and the identities of the people in the video aren't in dispute as far as I know.

Some additional info from a different source:
Police body-camera video later recorded Howard using the N-word as officers intervened. Howard insisted he only said it after being stabbed. Edwards, however, testified that the slur came the moment Howard spotted him, and that he reacted.

“What other than racism could explain why Mr. Howard perceived hatred, animosity and aggression from a complete stranger?” defense attorney Daniel Small argued to jurors.

Edwards has past convictions including attempted second-degree assault in 2021 and served a three-year sentence for a separate stabbing at a Portland light-rail station in 2020. Another case against him, a fourth-degree assault charge involving a store clerk, was dismissed earlier this year due to a lack of available public defenders.



But you did touch on something interesting, you mentioned "additional details that these news stories aren't mentioning".

Are news media silos perhaps a bit of an issue here? Where if there's a story that ends up being somewhat unfavorable for an outlet's ideological bent, they ignore it and won't touch it with a 10 foot pole?



I personally would not, but there's a variety of public polling (that we can discuss if you like) that would suggest that there are other people who would.

Here's a very recent poll conducted by Harvard


One of the most disturbing findings from the Buckley Institute’s 2025 national college student survey is this: 39 percent of students agree with the statement, “If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views.”

Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, "Violence is an appropriate response to hate speech" is not some fringe far left view.
No, it is the ancient legal principle of "fighting words doctrine."
Given the demographic make-up of Portland (it's a city that skews pretty young (median age is 34), and very left -- compared to many other major US cities), it's not wild to think that you could end up with a jury that's leaning in the direction of "violence is excusable against someone who's being a racist".
How is that different than the view that violence against suspected drug smugglers clinging to the remains of their wrecked boat is an act of Christian virtue?
Upvote 0

St Nicholas

Not that I need any more decorations, but where did you get him? :)

I found him in a CVS pharmacy, of all places, years ago. The box says "Matrix" and "Christmas Traditions", but my quick google search this morning is turning up only "vintage" items, so I suspect he's no longer being made, alas. He was one in a series of Santas from different eras that the company sold, but St Nicholas was the version of "Santa" that caught my eye, for obvious reasons.
Upvote 0

The rise of menace as a mainstream political tool

Students form human swastika on San José high school football field

A viral image of San José students forming a human swastika while lying on their high school’s football field has roiled the Silicon Valley community and prompted an outcry from the Jewish community.

The picture of eight Branham High School students was posted Wednesday on social media, accompanied by an antisemitic 1939 quote from Adolf Hitler. The post has since been deleted and denounced by local leaders.

[The quote refers to the annihilation of the Jews in Europe in the context of blaming 'international financial Jews' for world wars.]
  • Informative
Reactions: iluvatar5150
Upvote 0

B flat B♭

Ok then.
From the Bible, explain to me the theory of relativity.
From the Bible, explain how God made the human body; why he gave us an appendix, tonsils or five fingers on each hand. How he decided we would have 23 pairs of chromosomes and so on.
Show me the passages in the Bible which explain osmosis or photosynthesis.
Where does it tell us that God decided to give birds, feathers and fish, gills?
How did God decide to give a giraffe a long neck and an elephant a trunk? Did you know that an elephant has 4,000 muscles in its trunk? Guess what? I learnt that at our local zoo, not from the Bible.

Yes but still he does tell us about the earth, moon, the sun & all the stars where he has named each one.
Upvote 0

Now does everyone understand why the "right to refuse illegal orders" video was made?

I can appreciate that, too.
Nonetheless, I disagree that they are separable issues or separate issues. You can't decide to do something without simultaneously thinking through how to do it/how to be successful at it. Those are the exact elements which create the decision to NOT do something or to do something.
Yes, that's true to a degree, and I've spoken of it.

For instance, whoever made the decision to use only drones or an AC-130 gunship to do the shooting must have also made the decision not to have surface craft in the area to rescue survivors. That was an up-front decision not to rescue survivors and was a crime in itself under the LOAC.

But the fact is still that accountability will be separated between deciding to strike and the tactics of the strike. The man who actually pulled the trigger to release the missiles has one level of accountability for making the second strike (even if it was ordered from above), but is not accountable for the decision for the first strike.
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,879,384
Messages
65,433,227
Members
276,436
Latest member
GoodNewsSoldier