Latest activity

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.

iluvatar5150 · 2025-11-11T09:43:10-0600

Of all the good things FDR did, that's the one he wants to top?

Jipsah · 2025-11-11T09:38:59-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Can you see the bottom (or top) of the moon? Same thing.

In Skagen, Denmark, you can stand up on a chair, flip the moon over and see the LED bulbs and the patent information embossed into the plastic. (They replaced the old neon moon several years ago.)

BCP1928 · 2025-11-11T09:37:55-0600

stevevw said:
In other words faith and miracles are conspiracy just like ancient and indigenous knowledge. Thats my point. You have already decided as a matter of your own belief and science fact that there is no such possibility for alternative knowledge advanced or not. Everything must conform to material naturalism.

You seem to be confusing "no such thing" with "no evidence of such a thing and no necessity for it as an explanatory framework."

stevevw said:
Actually the miracles and healings done by the disciples was after Christ had gone. There have been miracles in the church all through the ages. But its not just miracles. Everything that Christians argue with non Christians about life is alternative knowledge to the world. This has transformed lives and the world.

Remarkable. Have you ever used your faith in Christ to cut granite?

stevevw said:
OK lol. I meant 'material' as in physical and naturalistic sciences. That are based on naturalistic rather than the transcendental aspects like spirituality, phenomenal belief and experiences which also give us knowledge of the world and reality.

The area was actually quite wet due to the Nile delta and ideal for crops. They used the natural fertile basin. I guess thats why they chose such a place. But I am talking about the spirits and gods that agriculture was based on. What role this played as part of the natural and spiritual world they lived in. How they treated the plants and respected nature and worked with it.

Are you trying to rationalise away all ancient and indigenous knowledge as just imagination. An evolutionary by product of survival.

I think there were two aspects going on at the same time. The further you go back the more everything was gods and spirits. The Egyptians and other megalith cultures are the peaks. As populations grew they became less based on the spirits and gods. Obviously progression naturally takes over.

That I think is why this spiritual knowledge was lost. Just as the Indigenous and native peoples culture and knowledge was lost as colonialism grew.

The Egyptians being a peak were transitioning. So we can see both the gods and spirits as well as modern civilisation taking over. They were really the first great civilisation who invented many things. So I think when we go back it becomes more spiritual. What the Egyptians call the time of the gods. In fact most cultures have the same transition and refer to the ancestors as the time of the gods or spirits.

I thought it was common knowledge that just about everything was seen through the eyes of spirits and gods or some transcedent entity. Even later pharoahs actually made themselves gods. The precision vases were for the gods. They were placed in tombs to bring favor to the gods.

The Famine Stele is a rock that has spiritual significance and thats why it was chosen. There are many natural monuments that have spiritual meaning or are a sort of god. Uluru also known as Ayers Rock is one of the worlds most famous rocks that has been worshipped by Aboriginals for 60,000 years.

A couple of pharoahs were deified like Akhenaten. He bannished all other gods and made himself god. I think but I am not sure that he was the pharoah of the Exodus. But yes many were intermediates. Which still shows that even the rules were ruling by the gods. Everything was about spirits and gods.

Atenism and Phar tenism and Pharaoh Akhenaten aoh Akhenaten’s Attempt t ttempt to Deify Himself o Deify Himself

https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=aujh

But why does it matter. Are you disputing that the world was a different place the further we go back and more immersed in spirituality, transcedent beliefs and gods.

I guess all sorts of ways lol. Some were giants so they would have needed a big chariot. I know the pharoah of the Exodus though he was a god and had a chariot when chasing the Hebrews.

I was covering a lot of cultures. Some say they were built by the gods and there are different ways they describe this. Some say they were built for the gods. In fact building for the gods was a common practice throughout ancient times. The precision vases were regarded as bring favor with the gods and buried with most important people. Thats why Djoser accumulated so many.

Your the one turning it into that. This actually comes from indigenous peoples themselves and they have been saying it for years as they lose their cultures. Have you not been listening to them lol.

We are talking about all beliefs within a certain realm of spirituality and belief. Yes they are different and yes they change.in one way or another. But they all have a common belief in that realm.

They all created similar creation and flood stories for example. They believes in gods and the spirit world and this was their knowledge of the world. Through that lens. A compared today with say material science or naturalism.

What is a civilisation. Its not necessarily like todays west, colonialism, western sciences and the material worldview. Like I said despite progress this was a different worldview and paradigm. One governed by the gods and spiritual domain.

We still believed God was ordering the universe and earth was His special creation at its center only a few centuries ago. So go nack earlier and its even more immersed in the spiritual realm and gods despite progress. Even progress because of the gods.

stevevw said:
This is silly. You have not demonstrated its not real. I pointed out that your belief (not science) assumes there is no such thing. So you would not know it if it was staring you in the face lol.

Ok lets ask the ancients and indigenous peoples who testify to this belief as a reality. Do they have to demonstrate to you thats its real. Is that not condecending. That you dismiss their own beliefs and testimony as unreal as far as their knowledge being something real.

How could anyone demonstrate alternative knowledge to material sciences or methological naturalism. The very nature of it cannot be veerified by methological naturalism. Like I said this brings us back to your belief verses ancients beliefs. Not science.

But your still here.

Ok I am looking. Heres a couple

Paleomagnetic investigation of the great egyptian pyramid
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2012/06/epn2012436p28.pdf

A 2011 Nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum were obtained from Senefru's Bent Pyramid as well as the two limestone quarries in the area. The results show that the casing stones are the result of limestone grains from the Tura quarry Giza but cemented with an amorphis calcium silicate gel formed by human intervention.

Were the casing stones of Senefru's Bent Pyramid in Dahshour cast or carved?: Multinuclear NMR evidence
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167577X10008979

That what where trying to find out. I've given most of the possibilities already including lath and machining marks, evidence of softened or weakened stone. Probably some sort of natural geometry as well.

Imagination and spirituality is what immerces the ancients and indigneous peoples in nature to get the knowledge in the first place.

Yes and that too. Let me ask. Do you think there is any difference between say Indigenous knowledge and enlightenment and material sciences. Any difference in paradigm that there are differences in worldview. In how people see the world and nature ect that may bring different kinds of knowledge .

No I am trying to seperate them out so you can understand that they are different. For example material science see the universe through the lens of empiricalism and scientific theories and testing and verification. A physical and mechanical lens of how the universe works.

Whereas the ancients seen the sjies as part of an experiencential relationship with for example local stars and constellations which represented real time effects in their world. There were reasons they aligned or worshipped stars. They had a real influence on their world in how they tried to reflect that onto the way they lived and positioned themselves in the world. A living relationship with nature.

Yes and notice how people say it gets you back to nature. What does that mean. There must be some effect it has which is different from the world they are escaping. You begin to see the world differently.

If you understood the spiritual aspect then you would not be rejecting the spiritual aspect. The point is all Christians know and acknowledge the spiritual aspect. They don't reject it as unreal or imagination. Its real.

I keep telling you that the spiritual and belief aspect which is a phenomenal experience is what gives the deeper knowledge of understanding nature and how it works. Do you think the chemistry or physics they come to know was the result of a academia.

It was a direct knowledge from a deeper relationship in nature that science cannot give because its a 3rd part enterpirse looking from the outside in. When they become part of nature insread of on the outside don't you think they could get a deeper knowledge of it. Its more about a paradigm difference. A consciousness or state of mind open to a deeper direct relationship with nature rather than intelligence.

Color me purple. The experience of colors.

Why not. If phenomenal experiences or whatever transcedent state that the ancients were in allowed them a deeper relationship with nature. Actually at one or immersed in it. Rather than material sciences that intellectualise nature from a 3rd party relation. They why not this bring deeper knowledge about how nature works which enabled them to understand how to cgange the elements or mess around with the chemical make of of nature.

Thus if they were able to change the material structure it makes it easier to shape the material or cut it or move it. It makes much more sense in that if we consider the hugh achievements that they did not come up with some innovative ways or short cuts that made it easier. Considering they were immersed in that nature in every way. It would be surprising that they did not find some secrets of nature to help them.

lol I forgot there are certain trigger words. Like a word suddenly is what makes reality. Just mention the word and it all reality becomes the word. Like the word has magic powers.

Never considering that the word obviously has more than one meaning and when spoken was not necessarily the meaning the reciever thought. Which suggests that words themselves are just the subjective beliefs of the sender and reciever. Nothing objective.

What I meant by Newage was the religions of today. Not some mystical meaning 20 years ago like those of Mother earth and crystals lol. Though the core of the belief has similar aspects like turning nature into spirits or gods.

I meant that people still make spirits and gods today of nature and reality. Whether its a new religion, a modernised pagan belief, worshipping Gurus or whatever thing that is made spirit or ideol worship or god. Its inherent in humans and real. These are all expressions of the same phenomena.

Of course you would say that because you don't believe God can impart any knowledge to people, to Noah. That the whole enterprise was just in the imaginations of the Hebrews. It was all just man building stuff and nothing more. No God needed.

God is always needed. What you appear to need in addition to God is to have a talk with a real theologian. I would suggest that you talk to a scientist who is also Christian, but my experience with you over the years in this forum is that you ignore such people.

Oompa Loompa · 2025-11-11T09:37:16-0600

chevyontheriver said:
IF that were so

Yes. It is so.

Democrats melt down, call for Chuck Schumer’s ouster after deal to end government shutdown clears Senate hurdle

Democrats and progressives exploded with outrage after the Senate took a giant leap toward reopening the government Sunday night.

nypost.com

The fact is that the Chuck Schumer and the Democratic party is furious that 8 member crossed party lines to negotiate.

fli · 2025-11-11T09:37:07-0600

Guojing said:
So what do you mean by this?

BelieveItOarKnot said:
The church is only required to teach and tell the world of salvation by being redeemed by Jesus. Every time I have heard a teaching about the white throne judgment is that no one is saved from the white throne judgment. The teaching that I have heard about the Matthew 25 judgment is Jesus judges people who enter the 1000 years when He sits on His throne on the earth.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Deserving? Clearly "all of Israel" shall be saved inclusive of enemies of the Gospel.

The individuals did exactly nothing to "deserve" their salvation. Romans 11:26-32 other than to be genetically lucky enough to have believing forefathers of faith.

The "Bible" tells me that anyone who loves knows God and is born of God, recipes and incantations involing Jesus, notwithstanding. There is no technical difference between Jesus/God and Love. Love of any kind comes from God to start with and, in addition to that, Jesus advised us that we ALL have ONE Father, God, in Matt. 23:9.

Click to expand...

The New Testament begins when Jesus died. All that is said does not apply to the church. In Matthew 23:9 Jesus is speaking to the Israelis of His time on earth. Exodus 4:22 Israel was set aside as His people, His bride, and His children. It was not until the NT that we discovered not all Israel was Israel. Not all people on earth are His children. After Jesus died only those who believe in Jesus and walk in the Spirit are His children.

When did I ever mention any recipes or incantations? Please show me just where I cited anything other than scripture to justify my conclusions. Since you have accused me of this, I do expect you to prove it.

BelieveItOarKnot said:
BelieveItOarKnot said:

I'd suggest being saved is not complicated whatsoever using that measure, of 1 John 4:7, Matt. 23:9 and others such as Jesus actually being The Savior of the world who presumably gets the job done, and this not of ourselves.

Jesus was not saved by "works." He was and Is God, Perfect from before eternity and after.

"I Am" never changed nor did He have to.

Click to expand...

I never said that Jesus was saved by His works. Jesus saved His body, the church, by His works.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. NKJV

Jesus suffered death, which He could have avoided as He never sinned. He suffered death so those who believed in Him did not suffer eternal death. Because He died in obedience to the Father's wish, God gave Him the right to save the world. He chose to save all who believed in Him (the redeemed, all true Israel) and also save those who showed Him and His brethren kindness (the white throne judgment). Two different groups.

Fervent · 2025-11-11T09:34:46-0600

Delvianna said:
That, all of that, is a pre-judgement when you haven't even looked at a single video lol

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?

wing2000 · 2025-11-11T09:33:22-0600

BNR32FAN said:
So if an officer wants to detain a citizen for questioning they’re not allowed to because they’re a citizen?

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

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page