• 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.

The rise of menace as a mainstream political tool

GOP sends 'menacing texts' to voters ordering them to un-sign petition opposing gerrymandering: report

Missouri is one of a handful of Republican-controlled states that redrew their maps in a demand from Trump. However, voting rights activists responded by gathering signatures for a ballot measure to repeal it. If that measure qualifies, the altered map is automatically suspended until and unless voters approve it.

The text, paid for by the Republican National Committee, stated, “Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins has declared TENS OF THOUSANDS of petition signatures IMPROPERLY COLLECTED. Did you accidentally sign this? Text back or call 417-612-9044 to withdraw your signature before it’s too late.”
Upvote 0

What is God’s ‘Kin-dom’?

In some progressive circles of Christianity in the United States, the term "Kin-dom" has become increasingly used in recent decades as another name for "Kingdom," as in "God's Kin-dom" or "the Kin-dom of Jesus."

At the United Methodist Church General Conference held last year, for example, openly lesbian Bishop Karen Oliveto preached a sermon to delegates that referenced the phrase.

In an article published last month, Presbyterian News Service, the news outlet of the Presbyterian Church (USA), quoted a pastor who spoke of "standing on the kin-dom side of history."

But where does the term come from, and why was it created?

The first confirmed use of the term came from Catholic modernist theologian Ada Maria Isasi Diaz, a theological liberal who spoke of the concept in a 1996 book titled Mujerista Theology: A Theology for the Twenty-first Century.

The phrase has gained popularity among those who seek what they believe is a less patriarchal or imperial description of the Kingdom of God.

Continued below.
Note: Apparently, Ada Maria Isasi Diaz was a Cuban Catholic involved with Liberation theology. She was controversial because she ministered to her nephew's same-sex wedding at a Unitarian Church and supported the ordination of women in the Catholic Church. She died relatively young at 69. Hmmm.....
Upvote 0

Border Czar Tom Homan caught accepting $50K bribe; investigation shut down under Trump

So, nothing has come of this blatant corruption. What a surprise.
His supporters love it him.
And because they love him, it is okay.

But if anyone else would do it it would be problematic. Defending his children and hounding Hunter....par for the course.
Upvote 0

The White House Intervened on Behalf of Accused Sex Trafficker Andrew Tate During a Federal Investigation

Online influencer Andrew Tate, a self-described misogynist who has millions of young male followers, was facing allegations of sex trafficking women in three countries when he and his brother left their home in Romania to visit the United States.

“The Tates will be free, Trump is the president. The good old days are back,” Tate posted on X before the trip in February — one of many times he has sung the president’s praises to his fans.

But when the Tate brothers arrived by private plane in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, they immediately found themselves in the crosshairs of law enforcement once more, as Customs and Border Protection officials seized their electronic devices.

This time, they had a powerful ally come to their aid. Behind the scenes, the White House intervened on their behalf.

Interviews and records reviewed by ProPublica show a White House official told senior Department of Homeland Security officials to return the devices to the brothers several days after they were seized. The official who delivered the message, Paul [Nazi Streak] Ingrassia, is a lawyer who previously represented the Tate brothers before joining the White House, where he was working as its DHS liaison.

The White House declined to answer questions about whether Ingrassia was acting on his own or representing the White House’s wishes.

It’s unclear why law enforcement wanted to examine the devices, what their analysis found or whether Ingrassia’s intervention hindered any investigation. The White House and DHS declined to answer questions about the incident. [the Tates' lawyer-slash-Ingrassia's former boss says they haven't gotten their phones back.]

But law enforcement experts said it is highly unusual for the White House to get involved in particular border seizures or to demand authorities give up custody of potential evidence in an investigation.

Ingrassia’s lawyer, Edward Paltzik, said in a text message: “Mr. Ingrassia never ordered that the Tate Brothers’ devices be returned to them, nor did he say — and nor would he have ever said — that such a directive came from the White House. This story is fiction, simply not true.”

Vatican stops use of titles for Mary

I finally was able to read it.

And yes, my issue is with cardinal Fernandez. He's the author of that book, 'Heal Me With Your Mouth' which was a treatise on kissing. His other book was even worse, and he tried to bury it. But he was a friend of pope Francis, and thus promoted way beyond the merits of his competence. He was given the position as head of the DDF in one of the strangest appointments ever, only after pope Francis got incredible heat for proposing someone even worse for the same job. Cardinal Fernandez was the author of the document 'Fiducia supplicans', which proposed that we can now bless married homosexuals, if only it is an impromptu blessing not of them as a couple but as two independent blessings in a non-liturgical and spontaneous act clearly different from an actual wedding. This was so wrong on the face of itthat most of the bishops in Africa, and at least a third of the bishops around the world were in formal dissent from this document and cardinal Fernandez had to back down. The document still stands, with a follower or two here and there but Fernandez has the egg on his face and the document has no power.

That Fernandez.

Now I sort of agree that speaking about Mary as co-redemptrix and as mediator of all graces is not terribly opportune. And that because most Protestants would go all apoplectic over mention of such things even if I went into the ten minute explanation of what is and is not involved with those terms. Most Protestants are invincibly ignorant on such matters and cannot endure hearing such things. So why bother? Many Protestants go apoplectic too about Mary as the mother of God, thinking that we have decided that she gave birth to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Discussions with those sorts of people is also inopportune. That is the extent of my marginal agreement with MPF.

Actually, much of the document appears to be from notes compiled years ago, before cardinal Fernandez and before pope Francis. That part, the historical discussion of past use of the terms, seems OK. Selective though, as there are some glaring omissions of past usage by popes and by Vatican II. That part leaves it understood that Mary as co-redemptrix or as mother of all graces are not in error. But that was the position of pope Benedict, who decided that is was not opportune to define those terms as dogma while he was pope. He did not rule against them, nor rule for them, but deferred the whole discussion.

This new document does not rule against believing in those two terms. It just says it is 'always inappropriate' to speak using those terms. I consider this to be a 'silencing' rather than a doctrinal statement. Fernandez could have made a doctrinal statement against those two titles of Mary. He didn't. He kind of left that an open question. But he expects us to bite our tongues nonetheless. That is a disciplinary matter. One that I was following even without his special encouragement to bite my tongue.

Cardinal Fernandez made a special point that this document, approved by pope Leo, is now part of the Magisterial teaching of the faith. Which is him implying that this is infallible teaching. Ha! It's a very fallible disciplinary matter, imprudent in that it raised an issue that very few Catholics knew anything about, and probably advanced the cause of Mary as co-redemptrix and as mother of all graces well beyond anything else that has been done in the last 100 years. In that sense an epic fail. Which is par for the course for things cardinal Fernandez touches.

Cardinal Fernandez is no expert on Catholic theology. His predecessors, cardinal Mueller and cardinal Ratzinger were such experts. I hope cardinal Mueller has some comments on MPF some time soon. In the mean time there have been plenty of comments on how inopportune and confused and pretentious MPF is. And I agree. Even while I wouldn't be touting Mary as co-redemptrix or mother of all graces anyway.
The current pope agreed with it.

Now what?
Upvote 0

What happens if someone dies before they became a believer, is it their fault?

For example, a young man just starting college is murdered. He didn't get to live a long life, while someone else becomes a believer in their 40's.

The person in their 40's had more time to accept Jesus, yet the young man didn't. It seems unfair, but what does the Bible say?

Was the young man probably never would have been a believer anyway? Are we sometimes saved not only because we accepted Jesus, but by chance we survived long enough to accept Jesus as our God? Or does this not make any sense?
God alone is just and merciful. It's not for us to decide.
Upvote 0

B flat B♭

Here is a clip from Rob's video
1000034006.jpg


And here is the original, so you can get a better look.
1000034002.jpg


Notice that they are looking through the top half of the lens (which is bending light downwards, ie. what happens with atmospheric refraction). With Rob's kit, he has you looking through the bottom half of the lens which is bending light upwards (ie. the complete opposite of what happens with atmospheric refraction). Rob is a fraud.

Here's a link to the video Rob took his clip from
Login to view embedded media
To quote Rob Skiba from the end of his video:
Rob Skiba said:
You don't get to pick the anomalies that seem to agree with your views and ignore the common observations that don't and still call yourself an honest investigator
  • Like
Reactions: Phil G
Upvote 0

The Truth About Texas

Court blocks new Texas congressional map, in severe blow to GOP

A panel of federal judges in Texas on Tuesday blocked the state’s new GOP-favored House map from being used ahead of the 2026 midterms by declaring it a likely racial gerrymander, dealing a blow to Republicans who have looked to net extra seats.

In a 2-1 vote, the panel ordered Texas Republicans to use the congressional lines they had in place before they redistricted earlier this year. The new map would have offered Republicans up to five pickup opportunities in the House in 2026.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown wrote for the majority. Appointed to the bench by President Trump, Brown was joined by U.S. District Judge David Guaderrama, an appointee of former President Obama.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) quickly vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court, which is already considering wide-ranging questions about racial gerrymandering lawsuits in a long-running battle in Louisiana.
  • Informative
Reactions: MotoToTheMax
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,878,366
Messages
65,416,572
Members
276,379
Latest member
Leading Lady