Latest activity

67_Reasons · 2025-11-10T06:00:49-0600

Any suggestions on a go-to ammo box brand for deer or zeroing the scope at the range? This is an Axis I in Creedmoor, first centerfire rifle I have had...

Dan1988 · 2025-11-10T05:54:44-0600

RDKirk said:
When Scripture says God “marveled” at disbelief, it does not imply ignorance, because omniscience precludes that. It does three other things: 1) It conveys relational reality, the impact of disbelief on God’s engagement with humanity. 2), It is didactic, helping human readers appreciate the seriousness of belief and unbelief in a narrative or moral context. 4) It displays the irrationality of the human action in the face of the reality of God's power or (particularly when Jesus does the "marveling") it indicates a human action that is greatly different from the norm of human reactions.

For instance, scripture will describe Jesus "marveling" at great faith from someone who would not normally be expected to show such great faith. As a human being observed by the humans who would remember and write of the moment, Jesus would have openly displayed some semblance of "Wow, people, are you seeing this?" that would be recorded as "marveling."

God’s “marveling” is anthropomorphic way of describing divine relational response, not a literal surprise or lack of knowledge.

The same member tried to challenge Gods Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence. He claimed that God makes mistakes and changes His mind when He makes mistakes and learns from His mistakes.

He tried to twist the meaning of >> Genesis 6:6 "So the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart".

I tried to reason with him, in an effort to convince him that nothing takes God by surprise and He never needs to change His mind about anything. But it was all to no avail, as he firmly held on to his opinion

Evilarm · 2025-11-10T05:51:35-0600

Wow not a priest for once, how unusual.

redraven · 2025-11-10T05:50:39-0600

stevevw said:
This all sounds personal and subjective. So what about the many people who align with Kirk. Are they also not Christians.

Not that I am saying either opinion is correct but that this idea that some are not Christians and others are can be taken many ways dependning on a persons tilt whatever that is.

I think this is identity politics. Just like Kirk is not a true Christian belonging to the true Christian identity. There are other Christian identities within Christianity that war just like in secular society.

Like X politician is not a true Dem or Repulican or instead is a Nazi or white supremisist or Woke or Trans or a Women or male or black or Queer. Everything is determined by the identity and its ever changing morals and criteria for whats fits the moral and immoral identity of each group. According to the ideology they subscribe to.

Thats why I think as with the early church. Don't get too involved in the political arena. Just say the truth of the gospel warts and all and let people take it or leave it. Walk away. Don't get too bogged down in the politics and arguements as in the end its bel;ief and the spirit. Not some logical or reasoned arguement. Though that can dispell misconceptions many have today.

If they are interested they will come looking. God will be the one who awakens them. But if they are hostile Christ said pack up your stuff and go to the next town who may be more open.

You say my comment is personal and subjective, but if you objectively look at how Kirk behaved - as I gave examples of earlier in the thread and as others have noted both in this thread and in many other forums, it's objectively true he often behaved contrary to the teachings of the bible and of Christ.

It sounds like you are saying I'm subjective because I condemn him for his behavior, yet his behavior is something which is objective.

When his behaviour objectively does not match what he claims to be - a Christian - then it is not subjective to say he didn't behave as a Christian.

This is not only the issue many have with Kirk, but the 'Christian faith' in general and all religion for that matter.
The behaviour should match the label. People cling to religion as a matter of convenience and cling to the faith when it is convenient for them while behaving in ways that clearly contradict the teachings of the faith they claim to be. Then they are seen as hypocrits and are no longer believable.

Tropical Wilds · 2025-11-10T05:49:06-0600

Now we all gasp in surprise (again) when the the concessions they agreed to later (again) don’t happen as anticipated (again) and our erratic president justifies reneging (again) to the detriment of the nation (again) while all the people who follow him blindly excuse it (again) because they will gladly set their own house on fire if it means they can pretend they “pwned the libz.”

Bradskii · 2025-11-10T05:48:56-0600

Postvieww said:
i also said Newsom was not personally in court but he is the top dog in the state that made the stupid regulations. Newsom also did not light the match that started the fires but he still holds some responsibility on how it was handled.

So the lie that someone told you...you'll let it stay as it is in your post.

Well, OK. At least people who read it now know the truth. Including you.

stevevw · 2025-11-10T05:44:02-0600

Hans Blaster said:
They can?

If you can't the miracles in the bible. Or the many ways Christianity has changed individuals and the world. I am pretty sure Jesus calling Lazras out of his tomb or the disciples healing the sick and lame and raising people from the dead is knowledge beyond material science.

Hans Blaster said:
Indigenous knowledge and nature emersion? What are you talking about? We are talking about one of the most advanced cultures on the planet at the time. They had farms and villages and governments.

Yes and they came from the land and nature and were at their peak. The agriculture and communities were a natural evolution of people coming together as they evolved.

But everything about their world was of nature, spirits and the gods. The crops was aligned with seasons which were aligned with the sun which was a god. The architecture was aligned to the sun and stars. A rock was not just a rock but a spirit which was part of the spiritual worldview everyone had.

This was the peak of the gods and spirits. The early Egyptian kings were gods. All the ancients had gods that came and built the world and the megaliths. The megaliths and even tiny vases were made for the gods. Everything had the filter of gods and spirits and how this was in relationship to their experiences with nature.

Indigenous peoples today are a shell of their ancestors. But still they believe the same. They often speak of the white man and science being alien to their ways and that they destroyed their knowledge and disconnected them from their culture as the material scientific worldview dominated. .

Hans Blaster said:
"Nature's secrets"? This whole section reads like a condescending evaluation of "primative peoples".

Actually that you mock this idea of ancient and Indigenous knowledge as an alternative knowledge that is real and transcends scientific materialsm is condensending.

Hans Blaster said:
If there are manipulations of the rock, where are the signatures? (What is "energy manipulation"?)

The signatures come in changes structures and makeup. I linked a paper on how the Egyptians created stone by manipulating minerals and chemicals. Other studies are being done right with scans ect show possible manipulations of energy, sonic pulses in cutting ect. I linked them already.

There are other research on plant use in various ways such as medicines and as softening agents for stone. Acids and other reactions which melt, soften or weaken stone. Even making them lighter by messing around with electrons.

Hans Blaster said:
As we know the ancient Egyptians famously lived off the natural bounty of the land in their forest tents.

Living in nature is not just in the forrest lol. I could imagine the Giza plateau as thriving with all sorts of energy and inventions. The whole site is on a specific zone that is very active in several ways.

We have not begun to understand.

Hans Blaster said:
How?

I just explaned how. Their spiritual and phenomenal beliefs. These are conscious experiences. Like any conscious experience it transcends the physical aspect you are in or engaging with.

This is where art and music and other insights into humans and life and reality come from. It can only come from this aspect. Even science. When scientist imagine something outside the box they are transcending the limits of physical science in their imagination. IMagination is a big part of science and life.

So now imagine before all the white noise of the modern world, well before englightenment and the Greeks. Going way back to where there were only humans and nature. Or where nature or natural ways were used to live. Blending in with nature. Flowing with nature in a spiritual sense.

It is at this peak of oneness with nature through the spirit world and gods that enable ancients to gain insights that we could now know today with enlightened sciences. I don't tyhink you can even get it. You don't understand Christian spirituality so why will you understand this.

Hans Blaster said:
When did this happen? How does one "change reality"?

Well for the Hebrews they escaped slavery, built the Ark of the Covenant and important symbol of Gods covenant which changed all human history. They made the 10 commandments we still use today and set the way for Christ who saved the world. Thats pretty good knowledge and change lol.

Thats what I mean. If you think the ancients never had any spiritual aspect that changed their reality. THen you have to also say that every Christian is wrong, there is no knowledge to gain and we are deluded. Just like many treat the ancients and Indigenous peoples knowledge. As make belief and superstition. According to the newage gods of knowledge material science and atheists.

Hans Blaster said:
I thought it was a big reed boat coated in bitumen for sealing. Not that advanced.

Well it seemed just right for the job at hand. Any less a build and it would fail. It managed to save humankind and if it was not for that specific knowledge the world would be a different place. In fact reality itself would be completly different.

Dan1988 · 2025-11-10T05:39:27-0600

BNR32FAN said:
What happened to your interpretation of John 6:44? Now you’re saying that people can come to Christ who haven’t been drawn by The Father?

Why don't you remove your blinders and look at the surrounding context of the verse before you make silly unbiblical assumptions.
John 6:44 states, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day"
This verse confirms the doctrine of irresistible grace, it emphasizes that God's drawing is not optional but an effectual work that draws the elect to Christ. This means that the Father chooses whom to draw, and those whom He draws will certainly come to Him and be raised on the last day.

This verse doesn't deal with the reprobates, who followed Jesus around to get a free feed of fishes and loaves.

rocknanchor · 2025-11-10T05:38:41-0600

rocknanchor said:
Appraising a favorite quote, Surely, you must have one among several that could be considered?

Here’s one of mine, ,

You cannot have the indwelling [also infilling] without turning the [Church service] gavel to the Holy Spirit and you turn to a great truth, for the Holy Spirit is the vicar of Christ (John 16:7,14:26) – C.M. Ward

But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you, ,But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, ,has set you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, , will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you. (John 16:7, Acts 20:28, John 14:26)

One thing we all agree on is this: Jesus did physically leave us, Hooray! Long-live the thing we agree on, NOT on things that divide us! But, as we know, that fundamental, victorious unity is short-lived. Let’s talk about it.

Some we must admit, are unavoidable, but, I suggest here the vast majority are quite infantile! Among the many things Brother Ward said in his lifetime, some, I hold in sharp disagreement. But this ‘truth’ as he says is as unfiltered as it gets.

For there are so many influences around that the young convert is faced with such a steep uphill battle that they would benefit far more from you who hold the truth if we could step back from the playing field just long enough to address some of these things that ends up distancing themselves from biblical truths.

The Elephant Issue, Doctrinal Bias Gone Bonkers

New Testament OS (‘Oversight’, Hebrews 13:7), or

New Testament DO (‘Double-honor’, 1Timothy 5:17)?

One of the first things to slap a new convert’s face is our UN-CHRISTIAN divide over the “Vicar”. A search within AI is futile;

Vicar: Pastor, Elder, Minister, Bishop, Deacon

OS: Pastor, Elder, Minister, Bishop, Deacon

AI tries to apply subtle variables to the differences of Church OS vs Vicar, but is incapable of removing them from those who are considered to be a ‘Vicar’. So the question remains over this issue that has done far more than just threatened unity which we are told over and over in the NT to keep. That question is, by the New Testament standard, how well has DO survived? We know Cephas (Peter) found error enough “to be blamed”, Has today’s DO found error? I just told you it does – divisions.

How do we know? Ask yourself, Does today’s DO demonstrate an approval for the excellence of 1 John 2:27, or treat it as “a lie”?

But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

There may be other examples, but if those are sound, so will they be here, will either be shown to treat the ‘Vicar’ as worthy of far more than DO, or, well within the above NT bounds!

Postvieww · 2025-11-10T05:31:08-0600

Bradskii said:
If someone smacks me in the head every time I walk into a bar and I do nothing, then he's going to keep doing it. I abhor violence but pretty soon in this situation, I'm going to punch him in the mouth to get him to stop. Only an idiot could acuse me of lacking integrity by doing that.

I mean, seriously?

Democrats have the gerrymandering award in the past , just look at some of the maps. It’s about time Republicans “punched” back. It is a joke that Democrats are being cheated.

The Barbarian said:
That wasn't the lie exposed here. It was:

Fact is, In this case, Calvary Chapel San Jose and its senior pastor, Mike McClure, were sued by Santa Clara County for unpaid fines of more than $2.8 million, for alleged repeated violations of the county’s COVID-19 indoor gathering and mask mandates.

And even if they sued the state, the county governments were the actors in this. I'm not saying you were lying. I'm thinking you trusted people who lied to you.

i also said Newsom was not personally in court but he is the top dog in the state that made the stupid regulations. Newsom also did not light the match that started the fires but he still holds some responsibility on how it was handled.

Dan1988 · 2025-11-10T05:22:49-0600

BNR32FAN said:
And again you didn’t explain the passage YOUR FAITH HAS SAVED YOU. You just ignore it and pretend that it doesn’t exist.

Wow, you missed the elephant in the room. How does that negate the "saved by grace" gospel.

What problem do you have with my "God given FAITH". Yes it is "MY FAITH" but I didn't conjure it up, by performing some pagan ritual, (as most religious people do).
No my faith was given to me as a gift by God, and God is not an Indian giver, when He gives something He doesn't snatch it back from you when you turn your back, as religious people do.

Tropical Wilds · 2025-11-10T05:16:31-0600

rjs330 said:
Interesting. You claim that 5% is many. Yet have no actual numbers. We actually have numbers for the BLM numbers Yet were told consistently how there weren't many riots. Yet it was more than 5% which you claim is many.

The truth is, you dont have any idea how many right wingers are authoritarian racists. And we don't know how many leftists are radical socialist communists. So it appears that you don't really have a leg to stand on in regard to that.

Now we could go to X, BlueSky, You tube etc and start having a battle of who has more radicals posting

Authoritarian racist things vs radical leftist communist socialist things but thats not very helpful.

I guess we should just leave it at what we can see day to day. And right now, radical leftists are leading due to the violence and rhetoric.

Maybe some day that will change.

You are arguing nonsense, you simply want to invent a boogeyman to scare yourself, then blame everybody else for your fear. You don’t like BLM, leftists, socialists, communists, so you invent transgressions or round up a few issues to be indicative of a whole or a pattern, sprinkle in our bias against certain groups, become afraid, and then declare your fantasy a real-life problem.

The obvious solution would be to stop scaring yourself by indulging in the propaganda designed to make you fearful in order to have you act against your best interests and examine the facts as they are, not dig your heels in deeper and sob louder.

Dan1988 · 2025-11-10T05:14:08-0600

Nice try, but none of that justifies your version of the gospel, it's still woefully deficient

Dan1988 · 2025-11-10T05:11:53-0600

BNR32FAN said:
Just your typical cop out where you can’t explain passages of scripture that are easily explained because they don’t line up with your theology. They line up with my theology perfectly which is why I have no problem explaining them because unlike you when I come across a passage of scripture that doesn’t line up with my theology I reevaluate my theology so that it does line up with all scripture. You just ignore anything that doesn’t line up and pretend like it doesn’t matter

Normandt · 2025-11-10T05:09:03-0600

Homily Tuesday, November 11 2025

32nd OT

Ws 2:23 – 3:9

"They are in peace"

Being at peace means isolating evil, entrusting it to the Lord, and becoming as free as possible, in joy and peace.

Lk 17:7-10

Jesus said: "Who among you would say to your servant who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here immediately and take your place at table’?"

Yet this is what God offers us, his meal, the Eucharist that he serves us of himself. "Come quickly and sit down at the table" of the Lord, to receive all his graces, his Love.

Biblical texts: NAB-RE

Normand Thomas.

Dan1988 · 2025-11-10T05:07:05-0600

fhansen said:
There is no biblical doctrine of irresistible grace. And no one speaks about “external influence” here, but about internal work, about grace, being resisted.

In fact, there would be no need for the bible, for revelation, for man to know anything, if God's purpose is simply to predetermine everything for him anyway. There's no need for man to experience the law in order to learn of its inability to accomplish righteousness in him, no need to live in a world where good and evil are literally known so that a person might finally learn to embrace the one and hate the other. There's no reason for man to learn anything, so that he may choose, since God's just going to do it all for him.

If you haven't learned about the Bible doctrine of "irresistible grace", then your denominational teacher, leader, priest or whoever taught you theology has obviously failed you.

It's quite sad to see shepherds hiding the truth of the gospel from their flock.

The first thing I would like to tech you is that the Bible doesn't spell everything out for you in elementary terms. Sometime you actually need to connect the dots to see the picture.

Here's a few verses to help you connect the dots.

John 6:44, which states no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them, and Ephesians 2:8-9, which says salvation is a gift of God, not by human will. Other key verses include Romans 8:30, which shows that God's calling leads to glorification, and Acts 16:14, where the Lord opens the heart of Lydia to listen to Paul.

Do you really believe that men are more powerful than God????, do you really believe that men can stop God from doing what He wants to do. News flash, that';s exactly what your suggesting here.

Tropical Wilds · 2025-11-10T05:06:59-0600

BPPLEE said:
Yes you made a comment about Trump, not @Yarddog

And what are we able to infer from my statement about my stance on goodness of white supremacists?

Bob Crowley · 2025-11-10T05:06:18-0600

Obviously the deadlock has reached overseas news outlets, our own ABC included.

'I didn't vote for this': Millions of Americans go hungry as shutdown hits day 40

Unpaid federal workers are turning to food banks and draining their savings as the longest US government shutdown in history drags on.

www.abc.net.au

Meanwhile it seems the politicians were still getting paid, as they shafted the workers paychecks.

While federal employees go without their pay cheques, the politicians have continued to be paid.

"They're taking it lighter than they should, because they're not the ones on the streets going through this … they're not the ones that are actually running out of money," Amy said.

"I feel like they should not get their pay cheques in the process too."

Nithavela · 2025-11-10T05:04:57-0600

Desk trauma said:
Electing a Muslim mayor is Islam conquering NYC?

lol

In the view of the right, it is really easy for one side to "take over".

It's basically enough for a couple of right wing people with flags to stand in a formation in the middle of town to "take back" New York, so this sounds like a lazyness issue.

stevevw · 2025-11-10T05:04:41-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
You'll need a way to compare the likelihood that they were made with method 1 and compare it with method 2. Without access to the methods, this seems like an insurmountable difficulty. If someone wants to try they need to get their proposal published and evaluated by experts through peer-review.

OK so we can do it or not. We look at a mark on ancient works and we compare it to all known ways that could have caused in. In principle it should fall within all the actual ways humans have worked on stone from prehistory to modern times. We have plenty of method 1,2,3,4 ect.

In fact we have been doing exactly this when people do experiments using the different methods. We make the replica and compare the marks.

But some marks we just have to look at them and know they were not caused by said orthodox method. When a stone is cut around a bend or is very thin and follows the contour of the surface going up and down. Which a stright hand held saw cannot do.

So some of it at least is quite obvious and I cannot see how some cannot see this lol.

rusmeister · 2025-11-10T05:01:47-0600

Running the risk of weighing in here…

I certainly have seen VERY charged disagreements, perhaps even in politics. This is by no means the most acrimonious thread ever in TAW.

The central problem I see in the discussion is that one man has opinions on a number of different issues, but what the thing to do in our time is find one opinion which we strongly disagree with, and then completely dismiss or cancel the whole man, equating and dismissing everything he thinks about all issues with the one, two, or three stupid and bad opinions (in our own wise and good opinions, of course). We say, “The MAN is bad”. Well, we’re ALL bad. All of us think something that is unpopular with a majority somewhere.

Also, people do change over time. Charlie Kirk at 18 was not the same as Charlie Kirk at 31. Both external influences (as our friend Chesterton- not to be confused with the great GKC of course - here pointed out) and internal convictions can and often do change over the years. Some people grow up, or something happens to completely change their perspective.

GZT thinks conservatism brings only death and destruction. Aside from the obvious questions the honest observer would have, such as defining what exactly is meant by “conservatism”, his perspective may become modified over time. Some people might become convinced that the Orthodox Church really IS the historic Church established by Christ and become Orthodox, others might become convinced that it is not, and leave it. Certainly I have been so tempted over the past few years. EC thinks Calvin’s view of the family differs from established Orthodox teaching and might change his mind over time - Though I, too, am curious about what anti-Orthodox things Calvin says about marriage and the family. His main heresy was elsewhere. Most of Christendom for most of its history, until the 20th century, had huge agreement on the subject of marriage and the family, though there WAS a very slow and gradual falling away over a thousand years, such as in the Catholic idea that the couple performs the sacrament, enabling the idea of “annulments”, and the Anglican “till death do us part” that denied anything eternal in the marriage relationship and made multiple marriages in one’s life much more acceptable.

So regarding accusing Fr Josiah, I think it hasty. He probably should have looked up Fuentes‘ current views more thoroughly, though the vital issue is whatever F said about pornography. Any priest who speaks to audiences online, outside of his own parish, is “putting himself out there”, for better or for worse. The risk of doing so is significant. Ne has chosen to take it. Speaking for myself, people like him and Fr Seraphim, the monk at the Iona monastery, help me continue to believe in the Orthodox Church, when I have seen falling away from the traditional and ancient teachings, the Patristic consensus, on all sides, and while it doesn’t surprise me that the heterodox denominations are all falling away, nowhere has it struck me harder than finding it in the Orthodox Church.

I find that I don’t even see agreement on Patristic consensus with other members here, let alone elsewhere on the internet. What can be said when a member has an avatar that promotes a slogan that we certainly agree with as an isolated statement, and find completely abhorrent as connected with a Marxist political movement that has had anarchy and racial discord as its goal, sporting a particular hierarch who has made no effort to avoid the appearance of approving of things that we may not approve, who has effectively approved of such things? I don’t what to say to Orthodox people who attack a heterodox Christian man who says that men ought to be faithful to their wives and responsible husbands and fathers, and that we should honor the Theotokos, just for example (if you are unaware that Charlie Kirk DID say such things, you really should educate yourself). Certainly they mean to attack other things that such people say, but they make no acknowledgement of the huge good things that he said. Some here and in my real life think divorce between two practicing Orthodox Christians is acceptable (and the evil of men, at least, is in nodding their heads at teachings such as loving one’s neighbor and one’s enemy, but then making an exception of their wives), some think cremation is fine, some women proudly disdain headcoverings in church, and flaunt NOT wearing them, rejecting the idea of submission altogether, not seeing the pridefulness of so doing.

Most people I know are unwilling to take the trouble to explore nuances, to ask whether a man who has an obviously bad idea might also have good ideas, and so are not able to state the distinctions. Furthermore, we trust our own sources a little too much, and forget that even “our side” might choose to, or at least inadvertently leave out part of a story that might modify our understanding of it.

If I can, I’ll make a little time and watch the interview itself. But I don’t need to watch it to say what I am saying now. Honestly, I am at a point where I can hardly watch even the people I mostly agree with anymore. They are saying what I already know or have figured out, and sometimes say things that disappoint or dismay me.

As a final note, I think that modifying our views over time to be fine - IF they are being gradually modified to align with the mind of the Church, the Patristic consensus, little by little. Just bear in mind that that gradual change of mind IS sometimes to the good and should be taken into account. Hardly any of us hold all the views we held when we were eighteen.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page