ranunculus said:

I wrote down these next three paragraphs a year or so ago just so I could organize my thoughts on the matter but never posted this anywhere. I think it fits here because it deals with the lack of seriousness given to any of Trump's actions.

I think there is a meaningful difference between Trump's rhetoric and for example Biden's. Biden is generally serious. He typically means what he says, for a politician at least. Same with a lot of other politicians. Trump doesn't. Trump's all talk. He doesn't mean any of it. If Trump says something egregious it's easy to shrug it off because we all know he doesn't mean what he says. Poisoning the blood of our country this and immigrants are vermin that, lügenpresse this and enemy from within that... It's just empty rhetoric. He's a deeply unserious person without any real convictions who walks away from a room with the opinion of the last person he talked to in there. It's just a consequence of him hanging around the christofascists and white nationalists in his circle and his admiration for authoritarian dictators.

Trump had called Harris a marxist and fascist during rallies and interviews at least two dozen times before Harris ever referred to him as a fascist but it only MEANT something coming from Harris. Like he referred to her as a marxist AND a fascist in the same sentence, in the same breath. A contradiction in terms to be sure. Because they're just buzzwords to him. He doesn't understand what he is saying. It has of course led to a shift in what is acceptable in political discourse. The Overton window has been dragged to the right, making extreme things look normal. What used to disqualify someone from political office now doesn't. We're all numb to it now.

I haven't seen it in over a decade but I vaguely remember a YouTube video from the Onion where they lampooned Michelle Bachman's presidential campaign back in the day. It must have been what? 2008? Anyway the video consisted of mock interviews with democrats who professed they would be voting for Bachman in the then upcoming election because of the absurdity of it all. The repeated phrase during the video was "...because can you imagine?" The joke was the sheer disbelief that such a deeply flawed, unqualified and frankly insane candidate could ever become president of the USA. We've since moved far past that into a reality the Onion writers could have never even dreamed of.

Click to expand...

In other words he has no convictions, doesn't think things through, and has a lot of power. That 's a dangerous cocktail.

JosephZ said:

The east wing has been demolished; it's gone, and it's not coming back.

Click to expand...

Of course it's coming back. The "wing" of a building is a part of a building – or any feature of a building – that is subordinate to the main, central structure. In the case of the White House, the East Wing will reappear as a ballroom, and will still be the east wing.

Wing (building) - Wikipedia Wing (building) - Wikipedia

Login to view embedded media
Democrats still shutting it down

childeye 2 said:

Free will
2 of 2

1
: voluntary choice or decision
I do this of my own free will


2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Above are two Merriam/Webster definitions of free will. It matters what the term "free" implies.

The reason I only comment on the will in a moral/immoral context is to glorify God. The fruit of God's Holy Spirit are these:

Galatians 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance:

If we say we choose/decide to have these qualities of Character of our own volition, then we are denying that it's God's Spirit in us, which is irreverence/ungodliness

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your taking the time to look up the definition, and share it.
Would you mind putting the definition in your own words. Thanks.

Would you agree that atheists display these qualities in some measure - love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance:?
Do, we understand then that these qualities are of true value... that is, they refer to qualities of a godly nature, that are demonstrated to God's honor?

They are what God looks for in those who learn the Christ.
So, love shown by those in the world, is surpassed by love which is a quality of the spirit.

iluvatar5150 said:

“duped puppets”, eh?

Click to expand...

Yep, just watch a few videos. Here is one to prove my point. Login to view embedded media Do these people really look like informed legitimately concerned citizens or duped puppets? You be the judge. Login to view embedded media Login to view embedded media

ViaCrucis said:

Peter also betrayed Jesus by denying that he knew Him--

Click to expand...

He also was called an adversary for doing the same as Judas, trying to alter the will of God when he said that there must be another way than for Jesus to die. Judas' fault was in trying to bring about a worldly result rather than one of the Kingdom. Man has been looking at Christianity in the same way ever since.

Chesterton said:

Say a Jewish man has a neo-nazi coworker who would love to murder him. Your solution would be that the Jew should choose to find another job, no?

Click to expand...

How would I find out that he would love to murder me?

Hans Blaster said:

It will be good location for the "Donald J. Trump Collection of Classified Documents". A fine improvement from the old storage in the chandeliered bathroom.

Click to expand...

awe - you tried to make a funny....

childeye 2 said:

That's not what I mean. The OP gave contradictory meanings of free will; I wanted on record which one you meant. You went with the freedom to choose between options. In the moral/immoral context those two options are a subjective right and wrong. I always qualify what free will means according to what the Christ and Paul taught. --> a will free from sin. <-- this meaning is also in the moral/immoral context.

Click to expand...

There was no contradiction... unless you mean they contradicted your wrong premises. That I would agree with.
All the terms used agreed in the proper context.

childeye 2 said:

Oh yes, absolutely. Objectively speaking the choice/option to obey God or disobey God is the same as choosing between right/wrong because its right to obey God and it's wrong to disobey God --> so long as a person has a Trustworthy Image of God in their heart.

Click to expand...

Why does it depend on the person?
Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of what a person knows, or has, isn't it.

childeye 2 said:

For example, If I had a subjective wicked image of god in my reasoning, then I could rationalize that it would be wrong to serve that god. Just like Joshua showed below:

Click to expand...

It does not matter what subjective view one has.
If God gives one a command, and one disobeys, one has done wrong... made the wrong choice.... regardless of what one think.
Sorry. I forgot to use 'one', instead of 'you'.

childeye 2 said:

Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

The sentiment in bold and underscored above indicates to me that a person who finds it evil to serve God has a subjective wicked image of god.

Click to expand...

childeye 2 said:

On the contrary. I said a will free from innocence. The contradiction is counting it freedom to have the disability of sin. That would be a negative connotation of freedom. There are negative and positive connotations of free will in scripture, in the moral/immoral context.

Click to expand...

I understand that many persons, like yourself, have this idea.
Some people even believe that a perfect person cannot sin, and that is simply because they have the wrong concept of perfection.
Perfection is simply relative to the perfector.

In other words, it's perfect to the one who designed it, because it is made how he wants it.
You would hear a craftsman exclaim. "Perfect!" at one of his designs, and this is because it is just how he wanted it.
It does not mean it cannot break, or anything like that.

Similarly, the idea that free will means freedom from sin, dictates that free will is absolute perfection.
This is a mistaken view, since free will is relative to the one who requires an exercising of that will. It's not a freedom from.
This is your mistake, which I an trying to get you to see.

Here, take my $800.00 Van Heusen jacket. You are free to wear it.
Here are the keys to my brand new Mercedes Benz. You are free to drive it.
All of us are free to go jump off the highest cliff.
In all those cases, what are you free from?

When we limit word to one context, we can misunderstand their meaning.
Free will is not free from. It's free to. The God given gift to exercise one's freedom of choice without being forced.
Maybe that's what it's free from. force.

childeye 2 said:

Morality <-- This carries a positive connotation
Immorality <-- This carries a negative connotation

Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. <-- This is a positive connotation of free will
For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. <-- This is a negative connotation of free will

This is why counting it freedom to choose to sin is a contradiction. Jesus called it servitude to sin not freedom to choose sin

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Click to expand...

There you go.
You misplaced free will because of misunderstanding.

childeye 2 said:

I don't know what you mean by that. All I'm saying is that scripture shows that the will God gave mankind was without sin and without irreverence to God.

Click to expand...

Please explain how you arrived at that being a will. Are you redefining will?

childeye 2 said:

To see what I mean by without sin, you need to know that sin is both an action and a condition. That's why there are levels of sinfulness in Romans 1, and that's why Jesus said the sick need a doctor referring to sinners as sick and sin as a sickness, not a choice/decision.

Click to expand...

Okay, but that does not explain what you are saying.
If you are talking about perfection, I can see what you are saying, but free will is not perfection.

childeye 2 said:

The two what are far from equal? Are you talking about the freedom to choose or the free will that is free from sin?

Click to expand...

Perfection, and free will, or freedom of choice are far from equal.

childeye 2 said:

Scripture says they began in innocence, not knowing good and evil, and they trusted in God. So, I don't think they knew anything about wickedness and righteousness.

Click to expand...

Knowing good and evil was explained, to a degree, in the scriptures.
I'll return to this.

childeye 2 said:

I think God had mankind experience hardship to learn how good we had it.

Click to expand...

Many people think that as well.
Would you agree, what we think, is not really important, but what the scriptures teach, is?

childeye 2 said:

I don't think this qualifies as a working analogy. Your analogy has no serpent, no death if you eat. No false image of god.

Click to expand...

How does knowing if something is wrong or right, depend on a serpent, death, and a false image of god?

childeye 2 said:

That's not true. The scripture shows that Eve was believing she would die if she ate. Adam and Eve both believed it was wrong to eat because they would die.

Click to expand...

???
Eve repeated what God said.
She, nor the scriptures do not say the reason both believed it was wrong to eat was because they would die.
That's something you think as well, isn't it?

childeye 2 said:

It's a contradiction in reasoning to claim they both confessed their guilt and blamed someone else. If they were blaming each other, don't you think God would have said they were lying.

Click to expand...

Why did they hide?
Genesis 3:8 Now they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

childeye 2 said:

I hope you know that we will be judged by what measure we use to judge others. You talk as if disobeying God is something people want to do.

Click to expand...

I'm only going by what the scriptures reveal, or teach.

Did the angel that became Satan the Devil want to disobey God?
The Bible's answer: John 8:44 Yes, he did.

Did Adam want to disobey God?
The Bible's answer: 1 Timothy 2:14 Yes, he did.

Do many people today want to disobey God?
The Bible's answer: Romans 1:28-32 Yes, they do.

Something I hope you will eventually come to learn about me, is that I go by what the Bible says. Not by what I think.
What I think, is not important, because "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death". Proverbs 14:12

childeye 2 said:

I don't think you realize that the desire to sin is based on first believing a lie. Inordinate lusts of the flesh are the product of vain imaginings.

Click to expand...

I do not realize that, because it's not what the scriptures reveal.
While that's what you think, the disciple James says this:
"...a man is tempted, being drawn away and being enticed by the own desire." James 1:13

One of the things the scriptures reveal, is that God knows what's in the heart, and a thought, or desire that lingers there, is what develops into action.
Jesus said this, in agreement with his brother. Matthew 15:18-20

God knew what was in Eve's heart, before she went near the tree.
To think About...
Why did Eve not tell Adam anything, if she did not want to act on her own desires?
Adam was her head... was he not?
If she is so innocent, why is she not submissive to her head, but listens to a serpent who tells her to disobey something that her husband told her, or that God repeated in their presence?

Questions we can ask ourselves, lest we forget that unless we have all the facts, forming opinions can lead to wrong conclusions.
The serpent did not give Eve life. She came from Adam's rib, and Adam knew this, and no doubt, like we would, told her about this and the other magnificent things her maker did.
Why did she disobey God - her creator (not a serpent), if she did not want to?

Rebellion started in heaven, and continued on earth.
Psalm 78:17, 18
17 Yet they still continued to sin against Him, To rebel against the Most High in the desert.
18 And in their heart they put God to the test By asking food according to their desire.

childeye 2 said:

You still are leaving out the serpent who caused Eve to have vain imaginings with his lies.

Click to expand...

He caused her...? Do you mean, as in, "The Devil made me do it"?

childeye 2 said:

The serpent introduced an adulterated image of god that corrupted the mind and beguiled the woman. And Paul has a fear that we might be corrupted in the same way.

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Click to expand...

You appear to be saying the woman did not have a choice in the matter, and could not exercise her freedom of choice... she had none.
Is that what you are saying?

childeye 2 said:

I believe that the knowledge of good and evil gave the ability to see good and bad, as in judge and find fault, and subsequently experience pride and shame. For example, I see carnal vanity as comparing oneself with others and either feeling lifted up or put down in the process.

Click to expand...

Are you saying the knowledge of good and evil was in the fruit, and when they ate it, that knowledge gave them an ability?

childeye 2 said:

Let me say it this way: The Satan is the one that conveyed we have the choice/option to disobey God and not die. The Satan conveyed we could choose to eat. The Satan coveted God was lying to mankind. I don't believe the capacity to disobey God is a valid freedom because it's based on a corrupt image of god.

Click to expand...

So, when God said, “From any tree of the garden you may freely eat; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for on the day that you eat from it you will certainly die.”
You are saying Adam did not have a choice to eat from all the other trees instead of that one God commanded him not to. Is that correct?

childeye 2 said:

There is a premise that the serpent subconsciously introduces a false image of God to Eve through his subtilty. I'm saying Eve is not consciously aware that she is accepting a false premise. That hidden premise is (1) that God is a liar because he said you will die if you eat (2) God is keeping the man and woman down by forbidding them from knowledge that would elevate their status (3) They could be free from their blind servitude to God and become like gods themselves if they ate.

Click to expand...

Cool.
That sounds like something I can agree with.
In other words, Satan introduce the idea of independence from God... sort of like the kids will tells someone they want to join them, 'You don't have o listen to your dad. I do what I want. You can too." Peer pressure. ..and what does the wise kid do? Give in? No, he chooses to do otherwise.

Could Eve had decided otherwise?

childeye 2 said:

Therefore, I don't believe the capacity to disobey God is a valid freedom because it's based on a corrupt image of god that the serpent/the devil corrupted the mind with.

Click to expand...

"the capacity to disobey God is a valid freedom"?
Could you please rephrase that. I'm not making sense of it.
Do you mean man is free to disobey God, and so that is freedom?

childeye 2 said:

Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

There's only one God. There is no choice in monotheism. I think one has to have a corrupt image of god, to think it's evil to serve God. Just like the serpent beguiled Eve through introducing a corrupt image of god through subtlty.

Paul like wise feared someone would preach a different Christ

11 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.

2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Click to expand...

childeye 2 said:

No. I don't think they were blind. The way I interpret it is I think they found no fault in being naked before they ate and then found fault in being naked after they ate.

I think their eyes being opened implies a realization. I think their feeling ashamed and wanting to cover their privates implies a carnal vanity.

Click to expand...

A realization. Thank you.
A realization of what?

Psalm 37:20
But the wicked shall perish; And the enemies of the LORD, Like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish. Into smoke they shall vanish away. New King James Version

Mark 9:47
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. It’s better to enter the Kingdom of God with only one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where the maggots never die and the fire never goes out.’ New Living Translation

Considering The Bible uses words in a figurative way, not always a literal way Thousands of times, which scripture of these two scriptures is written in a literal way, in your opinion?

What ever happened with the 200 trade deals we were supposed to have by now?

Balloons inspired various medical stents.

Hentenza said:

Sure but it should also give you an idea that some things in scripture are allegorical and not literal. In real life 12 oxen could not carry over 85,000 pounds worth of water plus the weight of the materials.

Click to expand...

A bit like gravity - It couldn't keep the oceans clinging to a ball - Hey ?

Hans Blaster said:

Here's the one from Machu Picchu including a demonstration using modern and ancient tools for fitting irregular stones.

Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media
He's got a lot of other videos so you can learn more about ancient stone working and how to fix your retaining wall.

Click to expand...

Awesome!

I wrote down these next three paragraphs a year or so ago just so I could organize my thoughts on the matter but never posted this anywhere. I think it fits here because it deals with the lack of seriousness given to any of Trump's actions.

I think there is a meaningful difference between Trump's rhetoric and for example Biden's. Biden is generally serious. He typically means what he says, for a politician at least. Same with a lot of other politicians. Trump doesn't. Trump's all talk. He doesn't mean any of it. If Trump says something egregious it's easy to shrug it off because we all know he doesn't mean what he says. Poisoning the blood of our country this and immigrants are vermin that, lügenpresse this and enemy from within that... It's just empty rhetoric. He's a deeply unserious person without any real convictions who walks away from a room with the opinion of the last person he talked to in there. It's just a consequence of him hanging around the christofascists and white nationalists in his circle and his admiration for authoritarian dictators.

Trump had called Harris a marxist and fascist during rallies and interviews at least two dozen times before Harris ever referred to him as a fascist but it only MEANT something coming from Harris. Like he referred to her as a marxist AND a fascist in the same sentence, in the same breath. A contradiction in terms to be sure. Because they're just buzzwords to him. He doesn't understand what he is saying. It has of course led to a shift in what is acceptable in political discourse. The Overton window has been dragged to the right, making extreme things look normal. What used to disqualify someone from political office now doesn't. We're all numb to it now.

I haven't seen it in over a decade but I vaguely remember a YouTube video from the Onion where they lampooned Michelle Bachman's presidential campaign back in the day. It must have been what? 2008? Anyway the video consisted of mock interviews with democrats who professed they would be voting for Bachman in the then upcoming election because of the absurdity of it all. The repeated phrase during the video was "...because can you imagine?" The joke was the sheer disbelief that such a deeply flawed, unqualified and frankly insane candidate could ever become president of the USA. We've since moved far past that into a reality the Onion writers could have never even dreamed of.

Hentenza said:

The punishment itself is eternal. Now what? Word definitions have a semantic range so just focusing on one and only one definition leads to error. Context is important.

Click to expand...

This is my point. One has to look at the context within the verse to come up with the meaning. We can't use a wineskin example and Christ stating that both body and soul are destroyed in hell and come up with same meaning. That does not fit at all. But if we see the verses in Malachi about what happens to the wicked (burned up and ashes) and put that together with Christ's stating that both body and and soul are destroyed then we have context. Especially since we see that the first meaning is "fully destroyed" in the Greek. It's always stated life or death. But again, only one has life.

And eternal death is punishment. Eternal destruction is punishment.

Are you actually stating that you believe our own justice systems are wrong in calling death punishment?

Valletta said:

The Republicans announced well in advance they were going to put it to a vote. Another stunt by the Democrats, just like their border bill (after holding up the legitimate bill passed in the House) which would have made the border situation even worse. The Democrats had a chance to vote to fund the military, the list of those who voted against paying the military is now a matter of record.her government

Click to expand...

1) Members of the US military may not be receiving a paycheck but those living on base or engaged in active duty around the world still have their food and shelter costs met by the federal government!

2) Network news is showing long lines of federal government employees literally waiting for hours to receive food from the "SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE Program" (SNAP)!

3) The SNAP program was intended to meet the needs of Americans living at or below the poverty line - this includes a disproportionate number of children, seniors and those with physical/mental disabilities!
- 45% of SNAP households have children
- 37% of SNAP households have seniors
- 44% of SNAP households have a person with a disability

4) At present, approximately 42 million American are dependent on SNAP - the Trump Administration', in its infinite wisdom, introduced its "BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL,," making this food program much more difficult to access in order to justify a 20% budget cut in funding that translates into a reduction of $186 billion through to 2034!

5) The net result is that 22.3 million families will lose part or all of their SNAP benefits - the Urban Institute estimates that 5.3 million of those families will lose an average of $146 in food support per month despite the rapid increases in prices due to inflation!

6) SNAP was never budgeted to meet the needs of federal government workers who are gainfully employed but currently not receiving a paycheck - this food program has exhausted its budget and is scheduled to close on November 1st unless Congress enacts legislation to provide additional funding!

7) The Republicans were well aware that their Democrat counterparts would refuse to support legislation that would only issue paychecks to select group(s) and not all federal government employees - they deliberately chose to exclude the majority and then accuse congressional Democrats of failing to support the nation's military!

8) The real question is why Republicans would arbitrarily divide federal employees into groups of "WINNERS"and "LOSERS" - given that all are deserving of receiving their paychecks in a timely manner and none, through no fault of their own, should be subjected to spending hours in long lines for a government sponsored food program intended for the nation's poorest citizens.

BCP1928 said:

According to who?

Have you ever used any abrasive cutting techniques?

Click to expand...

Yes, but they went right over your head.

David Lamb said:

He "became flesh" as soon as He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb. So when He came into the world, when He was born, He was already in the flesh. He could not have been born otherwise.

If His second coming is only spiritual, how will every eye see Him, as the bible says they will?

Click to expand...

I agree with the first.

Explain how the high priest would from then on see Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father and coming on the clouds of heaven? Jesus repeatedly said He was coming as a "thief in the night" meaning you wouldn't see Him coming but would see that He would leave their house spoiled.
He said in another place that the kingdom does not come by observation Luke 17:20. Again He said that the world would see Him no longer. John 14:19

DragonFox91 said:

I wish I was more an evangelist. It's hard being an evangelist when you're more introverted. I have the passion.

That is not me tho. I am more a discipler, I want someone to be deep, not shallow. The evangelists can help plant it, I will help water it so it doesn't stay a seed.

The Bible teaches we all have different talents & the Bible teaches we can all 'evangelize' in what we do.

But be ready to evangelize

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry too much about that. I think most people already know what Christians believe, and they make a conscious choice not to buy in on their own. If they're not ready to listen or accept the message, I wouldn't try to force it on them.

Any group that survives on donations should be tax free--including churches.