Having a 1-year-old is much more fun than having a newborn, but I had no idea what I was in for when it came to changing the diaper of a rolling, sitting up, standing toddler. Or trimming her nails. Or feeding her cottage cheese.

It’s an adventure. Nothing is cuter than seeing her point at all the owls in my house and say “ho ho hoooo”!

Factotum said:

Oh look! A hallucination!! lol

Click to expand...

A hit and a miss.

Factotum said:

And Please, feel free to show where I was wrong in my statement you call a deflection about the Trump acts that were criminalized by L. James via lawfare.

Click to expand...

Great, another attempt at derailment. I'm not going to argue about which city in the western hemisphere is the most dangerous and criminal or even the largest - this would be a deflection from the actual thread topic. For what else you got wrong I refer you to post #105, post #107, and post #108 for your edification.

ThatRobGuy said:

No, I'm suggesting that Rob Reiner was anything but apolitical.

A) I posted earlier showing where he, himself, did the "attack the day after death" to one of his own political rivals. He was not coy about using similar tactics. (evidenced by the tweet from him I linked that he put out the day after Rush Limbaugh died)

B) My post #37 shows the laundry list of ways in involved himself in politics.

I'll re-post here since people may have not seen it on the previous page

Rob Reiner - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1998, Reiner chaired the campaign to pass California Proposition 10

He was a co-founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which initiated the court challenge against California Proposition 8 that banned same-sex marriage in the state.

Reiner came under criticism for campaigning for Proposition 82, a ballot measure to fund public preschools, while serving as chair of the First 5 Commission.

Reiner was a member of the Social Responsibility Task Force

He campaigned extensively for Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election

Reiner served on the advisory board of the Committee to Investigate Russia.


He was well known for involving himself in the political arena

When a person is serving on the advisory board (along side Leon Panetta and James Clapper) to investigate Trump/Russia connections...I think the whole "Not political" thing goes out the window.

Click to expand...

And pray tell, which of these activities have driven people crazy as a consequence of TDS?
Which of these have "due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, " to a degree that murder is acceptable?
Can you point me to any word of Trump that condemns the murder? To any blame for the murderer? Can you point me to any time where Trump guarantees the free exercise of the First Amendment Rights, like engaging in peaceful politics?

Stopped_lurking said:

You don't seem to get it, I didn't say that they were polished. I pointed out a possible alternative explanation that the researchers have to show is less likely than their own explanation.

Click to expand...

I get it. But the point is I don't think anyone who has even looked at this based on fairly common knowledge. Do you think from your knowledge that someone polishing the works was more likely. What basis did you use to suggest that this was a possibility in the first place. Was there anything or was it just something you threw out there.

Stopped_lurking said:

They haven't shown that the most likely explanation is that the ancients had an lost technology or knowledge. That is the researchers job.

Click to expand...

So if they show that the ancient alters and stones were vitrified and/or softened by human intervention would that count as advanced knowledge.

Stopped_lurking said:

If they want to be convincing they need to get it into the journals after peer-review.

Click to expand...

You know I sort of believe the unknown independents who actually go out on site and show the evidence first hand. Its good that there are independents who can bypass all that gatekeeping now and show us the truth.

Stopped_lurking said:

Of course, it is the actual archeological field that needs to be convinced for widespread acceptance.

Click to expand...

Lol yeah I know. Thats the problem. Like Hawass who gatekeeps a lot of evidence he does not want released.

The very fact that independents can show obvious evidence that is claimed to not exist or show obvious contradictions in the narrative is the evidence that theres no convincing some.

Stopped_lurking said:

So don't say that they are being kept out if they haven't even tried to get it published.

Click to expand...

They have lol. Some of these issues and discoveries that are being discussed in recent times have already been submitted in journals years ago. Look at GT. Its only resurfaced recently due to a reinvestigation.

But thats part of the issue. The evidence was dismissed and assumed as nothing in the first place.

Stopped_lurking said:

No, that is an overinterpretation on your part. Presenting alternative hypothesis is not the same as saying they look to modern.

Click to expand...

Its self evidence and logically follows. If they claim its a modern forgery then they can't claim that unless they believe it looks modern lol. Otherwise its not a forgery and theres nothing to compare it to.

Stopped_lurking said:

There are no clear observations.

Click to expand...

So you don't see any arcs in the cuts. You don't see a fine, sharp and thin lip along the edge where the cut meets the uncut stone. You don't see a cut bending or moving up and down with the surface of the stone its cutting.

You don't have difficulty reconciling how a 20 foot cut in the stone could even happen. That there is no such thing as a hand held saw that could possibly cut that.

You keep saying its not clear and in your experience that this is not the case. Yet you never explain exactly how you think its not clear.

Stopped_lurking said:

Or have been struck by lighting, or scared in a accidental fires or....

Click to expand...

Yes everything is an act of nature or an accident. This is the scientific materialist go to explanation. Everything except the agency of the people and their ability to do it themselves.

So your saying that either a lightening bolt just happen to hit specific works and never the untouched stones around them. Or they just happened to keep having accidental fires when they made these works and never any accidental fires of the untouched rocks around the works.

Maybe they controlled lightening as well lol. Actually thats not a bad idea. I think there was suggestion of solar heat was used. You may be onto something.

Stopped_lurking said:

You obviously think what you want in any case.

Click to expand...

No I just admit what I see in front of my eyes. Sure there may be a logical explanation. But you can't work out whats going on if you pretend that a circle is a square in the first place.

I think 9 times out of 10 when people see a arc cut they don't think a straight edged handsaw can create that. But if you pretend it can then how do we even work out whats going on when the simple observation is denied.

Stopped_lurking said:

Ok. You can believe what you want.

Click to expand...

They say that proper belief is the repeated and persist same belief despite whether it makes sense or conforms to a preset idea. Whenever I look at these images I immediate think of machining. I don't see any evidence of rough grinding and hand held tools that go off line or never machine flat and sharp.

I don't think its my belief alone but a persistent and nagging thought of linking these signatures with machining by the similarities they have with how machines cut into stuff with uniformity and precision.

But I think its even more interesting that two people can see a completely different thing in the first place. If this was true then this would be evidence that there is no objective reality and that two different subjects can see completely different observations in the object world.

Which sort of supports the idea that there is no objective knowledge and its all in the mind of the observer. Fascinating stuff.

Stopped_lurking said:

Who has argued this?

Click to expand...

Like I said when you dispute that these are machine, planer or routing cuts and give not explanation then who knows. You said they don't look like machine marks and have implied the orthodoxy.

What else is left if its not one of these. If you propose anything but the orthodoxy then your advocating an alternative and possibly advanced method. But you have never explained yourself lol.

Stopped_lurking said:

Normally you don't present the data to non-experts before you write the article and send it to the journal. Upon acceptance they can ask you to put a link on social media.

Click to expand...

Nah I don't trust that. I trust the smaller independents without the gatekeeping. They are more likely to tell the truth and not be biased or dismiss ideas out of hand. I have learnt this from this thread actually lol.

Stopped_lurking said:

I don't know if it is done by the ortodox methods. I'm just not convinced that machining is a better fit for the data.

Click to expand...

I am not asking you "if its machining". I am asking the first step. Just acknowledging whats in front of you. What it looks like. You don't have to be an expert or have peer review to tell the difference between a circle and a square. In this case the difference between a straight edged saw and an arc cut lol.

You don't have to be an expert to know that this cannot produce an arc cut. That an arc cut is usually acknowledged as the result of some fixed and guided cutter like a circular saw or planer ect. Or that a straight edged saw cannot cut around bends lol.

Stopped_lurking said:

I really don't need to.

Click to expand...

Why, because you know you cannot. That if you do you will have to come to the realisation that there is contradicting evidence for the orthodoxy.

If we cannot even engage in discussing what the examples look like as observational science. To determine what it is we are dealing with. Then no science at all can be done.

Stopped_lurking said:

I don't make that claim.

Click to expand...

You sort of have when the only stock standard explanation you keep giving as the possibility is the orthodoxy. You mention it could be abrasion, and then grinding and then polishing which are all within the orthodoxy.

Along with offering no support this seems like dismissing everything in favor of the orthodoxy.

Stopped_lurking said:

No it doesn't.

Click to expand...

So far you have not given anything. You have not explained how this does not look like machining and that the marks look more like the result of of what you claimed (abrasion, grinding and polishing).

I say the signatures look more like machining that the orthodoxy and gave the reasoning along with at least some preliminary evidence. You have given nothing but your experience and opinion.

Stopped_lurking said:

So how do you purpose to differentiate between stories that depict what actually happened from those that had a some different function?

Click to expand...

Like anything. You dedicate time and effort to get to understand and perhaps come to know or gain some insight into what that knowledge was. Or how it was obtained.

The first thing we know is that the whole paradigm and the epistemics is a reality. There is such a thing as spiritual and transcedent knowledge expressed in the beliefs of the ancients and people today.

So that tells us its there. It now a case of trying to work this out. But this is not easy as remember that we cannot measure this in the conventional way of material science. You can't put experiences in a test tube.

So like all transcedent domains it comes down to collecting data on the experiences and lots of it. The more the better as this helps to identify patterns and behaviours and mindsets.

I see the frontier of consciousness and quantum physics studies closely linked. So imagine the "Hard Problem of Consciousness' and science overcoming this.

This is the difficultly now in more or reinvention how we can measure this aspect. More or less a complete paradigm shift. Not just within science as like the deterministic mechanical schema of classical physics to the inderminent one of Quantum physics. BUt even a completely different dimension that is more like Mind than Matter.

Stopped_lurking said:

What? There is nothing transcendental with lived reality, it is like all other knowledge.

Click to expand...

So is the belief in say God when someone experiences the awe and majesty of the universes noght sky. Or the astronaught who comes to believe in God from his experience of outerspace. How is that not transcedent.

The knowledge came that there was a creator God who was a reality. It was spoken through HIs creation and reveals as real knowledge.

The same with the ancients. If they are living within an experiential realm with nature then they are at one and see how nature works more clearly. Animals have this built in connection as well. Its not just what the physical world represents. There are as many superficial perspectives as there are species.

There is a deeper connection and nature has certain designs and fundemental aspects that humans can connect with on a more fundemental relationship as the ancients did and we have lost or are losing.

See this is the point. You just claimed there is nothing transcedental with lived reality and no knowledge besides empiricle knowledge. Yet we have the majority of the world for the majority of history in reality believing and declaring there is this knowledge.

So according to you your metaphysical belief that the only real knowledge is material and naturalistic or is measured as such/ Thus dismissing the majority as make believe. The very point I was making about how material sciences position comes down to a belief and not science itself.

Stopped_lurking said:

That philosophical argument is not seen as slam dunk among philosophers, so how you think that it proves anything is really strange.

Click to expand...

Thats not the only evidence for something beyond. We have the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' and other philosophical arguements that stand up.

But most of all we have the majority of people for the majority of history believing such. That belief in such is as normal as love or music or even the need for food. Thats the lived reality. How we actually live and declare it truth over our long lived and real history. Its not spurstition afterall. Now we can finally begin to understand instead of fobbing it all off as make believe.

Stopped_lurking said:

The name of the sub forum is physical and life sciences.

Click to expand...

What is Life Sciences. It covers both. There has been aspects like the vases and rock softening that requaire the hard sciences like physics and chemistry or engineering.

But as some have acknoledges as with archeology this requires a cultural understand, anthropology and sociology. They are also sciences and you can;t have one without the other when it comes to alternative ways of knowing.

Its not really about the end results of the works. But what sort of knowledge led to the end results. If its transcedent knowledge such as direct conscious experiences that helps the ancients understand say how rocks work and change through mixing potions associated with their beliefs. Then its an alternative way of knowing.

Stopped_lurking said:

For vitrified stone? Give the post number if you don't wish to link them again.

Click to expand...

Gee, ok let me find it. The trouble is they are hard to find. Heres one

Evidence of Vitrified Stonework in the Inca Vestiges of Peru

Heres another

Ancient Geopolymers in South America and Easter Island

Jerry N. said:

So was the theory of the four humors, and germ theory was rejected.

Click to expand...

Many things were rejected throughout our histories Jerry . Some later proven to be true but certainly not all . When thinking upon germ theory you be thinking upon Louis Pascal. The mystery of where viruses originate is still hard to discern from what I’ve studied. It be sleep time for me . Jerry goodnight

Dave... said:

This actually says the opposite. These in Acts 19:1-7 were true OT believers that missed the whole thing. They didn't hear the Gospel. They didn't know that Jesus was the Messiah. Their understanding stopped at the OT with John the Baptist before Jesus arrived in His incarnation. Paul asked one question and understood immediately what the circumstances were. These were already given to the Son by the Father and were predestined to believe the Gospel because they were already declared righteous by promise in their OT faith. Paul shared the Gospel. These Sheep heard and believed, and then they received the Holy Spirit. The sign had to follow this conversion just as they followed the others because they were OT believers receiving the Promise of the Father.

There is a transition that is taking place and these signs are unique to that transition. Unless you're a true OT believer who still has not heard the Gospel and believed (like in Acts 19, or Lydia, Cornelius, etc.), or you're an true OT believer who heard the Gospel and believed before the cross, and are still waiting for the promise of the Father (like at Pentecost), there is no need to wait for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, now, you receive it the moment that you first believe. There is no need for the signs, for that which they pointed to are here and established. The transition is over.

Click to expand...

Let us look at Acts 19:1-3

2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.

Paul asks the question: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit…”. When you go through Paul’s letters he make the distinction between Christians and non-Christians (Jews or Gentiles) to be the indwelling Holy Spirit, so this would be his question. Also, the indwelling Holy Spirit comes with, “when you first believed” with no transition period.

Paul than asked a rhetorical question, “Then what baptism did you receive?” Which Paul would realize the only baptism they could receive was John’s water baptism, so he has an introduction to talk briefly about John. Paul is also so a relationship between baptism and the Holy Spirit, but this does not mean Paul is referencing the baptism of the holy Spirit.

Paul also says Acts 19:4… “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” So, these 12 had heard about the Messiah (Jesus) to come later from John and were not in need of a lengthy gospel message.

Acts 19: 5 “On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” That is the same description used in Acts 8: 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Being “Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” does not mean you received “Holy Spirit baptism”.

The next verse is not a continuation of the baptism using the Greek grammar, no scholar makes the laying on of hands the baptism, they are two separate acts the same as we see in Acts 8: 17 “Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” Exact same scenario.

Dave... said:

The indwelling is the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

That is not what we are seeing in both Acts 8 and Acts 19.

Dave... said:

There were reasons for these signs. "Languages" was a sign of judgment of Israel. And the miracle of it was a sign that this was in fact from God, in one way undoing the confusion of languages (supernaturally) that went all the way back to the Tower of Babel, thus paving the way for the Church to now evangelize the world. Only God could undo what He did at Babel. Thus proving that what they were experiencing was from Him. And those miracles showed that the Promise of the Father, the Holy Spirit was being given. The same miracles happened for the Samaritan, the Gentiles, and the Jews, so there was no misunderstanding that "Salvation had come to the Gentiles also". The Promise of the Father has been given to both Jew and Gentile.

Click to expand...

The problem of different languages still exist today, so if we are still being baptized with the Holy Spirit, why do we not have the miraculous ability to speak different languages?

Why do people baptized with the Holy Spirit not have miraculous powers to obviously raise people from the dead, heal, drink poison, and so on.

Dave... said:

I think we're on the same page here.

Click to expand...

Answer my ending question: “Was Jesus physically water baptized as an example for us?”

Dave... said:

These are two separate things. Sometimes in Scripture one directly follows the other, but they are still separate. In Scripture, and now, a new believer who just began to trust in Christ Jesus may get water baptized right after he came to faith. But one does not initiate the other. Faith initiates the Spirit baptism, then water baptism is a public testimony symbolically of an inward reality that has already taken place.

Click to expand...

So, we are to water Baptize new believers for some reason?

Dave... said:

Believe and be saved, that's the Gospel message. Water baptism comes after that fact. Some people who cannot see the Spiritual truth, place the powered in the types (water) and not the spiritual truth that the types point to. They say water baptism saves. This is wrong. Then they say, water baptism initiates the Spirit baptism. This is wrong also. Faith initiates the Spirit baptism. We enter into this grace by faith (Romans 5:1-2). There are some who try to make us believe that water baptism saves us and only to protect and advance a hierarchy to keep people subservient to it.

Dave

Click to expand...

I have no problem with the idea: “Water baptism comes after that fact”, since God does the saving. In my first post I gave lots of good reasons to be water baptized and know how it has helped me and others.

ThatRobGuy said:

It's not that I support everything he does...it's that I vehemently object to the premise that "because Trump is bad, the right thing to do is let our team do whatever we want for 4 years and you just have to zip your lip and go along with it, because orange man bad".

And anyone saying that he's the "worst president in the history of the country" is expressing an opinion that gels with why I don't take some democrats seriously. That's the exact type of exaggeration that's attempting to justify the aforementioned premise of "the moral thing to do is abandon 75% of your principles and go along with the democrats"

This is all gonna happen again in a few years, the talking points will just shift a tad...

"Vance was aligned with Trump, the worst orange man president in the history of presidents, men, and oranges, so that's why you have a duty to support whatever Democratic candidate we send out there if you care about democracy"

The only way the Democratic rhetoric would change on this, is if the GOP goes back to throwing squishy "easy to beat" candidate like Romney and McCain out there again.

Click to expand...

Neither was "squishy." Romney opened his mouth at the wrong time about what he really thought of the poor and working classes and it cost him. (Just like it did Hillary when she spoke of Trump supporters.) I would have voted for McCain (better a genuine conservative than a neoliberal) but he got saddled with a prototype MAGA for a running mate. I think most people take Buchanan to be the worst President, although Trump still has time to catch up.

@CoreyD
War of Rights – American Civil War FPS with muzzle loaders and bayonets – Blood is part of combat. It is not a focal point like in games that glorify blood and gore. This is PVP.
Star Citizen – space mmo – Combat yes. I have not seen any gore or blood yet.
Albion Online – mmorpg – Combat, yes. Gore are blood, no. There is a lot of PVP content.
Myth of Empires -– sandbox survival game inspired by the Ancient East – No player worship. I have not seen any gore and blood like many other titles. There is PVP content.
Corepunk –- Open world mmorpg - I did some deeper dives into this one and uncovered worship and very sexual dialogue.
Avorion –- co-op space and spaceship game- I have not dug deep enough yet.
…and Bellatores being released in 2026 – I am still researching this one.

Since joining this topic, I have already removed Corepunk from the list of games I am interested in playing. It doesn’t fit into what I am looking for because of the worship and sexual dialog.

The violence in the games that are so far staying on my list don’t align to what you find in GTA, Left for Dead, Manhunt, etc. It’s combat mechanics that don’t evoke the same response one would get from real life violence. Games like GTA, you just know it is wrong.

I really don’t associate the content in the above games as something promoting wickedness. I also don’t think the PVP content in these games is bad either. As far as War of Rights and Myth of Empires is concerned, possible even Albion Online should be in this remark, violence is prominent in the game, but again, it’s not the type of violence that evokes the same response from real life or even reading about it where it hurts to know it is happening. Or from games that glorify in an ugly way like the games like GTA and others would.

These are my thoughts for the now.

Mark Quayle said:

Mark Quayle said:
Even YOU believe God is the creator of all that is. If he is that Creator, and if there is sin, then he caused that there be sin.

Finally admit it?? I've been claiming it outright for years. I'll say it again, and happily —God caused that there be sin. Do you think God did not have Redemption in mind when he created the universe?

Notice how you relate this to the question of omnipotence. You are right to do so. Omnipotent means that ALL things descended logically from his causation, whether directly, or through means. There is no such thing as 'accident', with God.

Click to expand...

If you are correct, then there is no other causation than first cause, but the Bible does not say this. The creation account alone specifies at least 6 distinct interventions by God, or 6 different causes. These causes are probably broken down in reality into multiple smaller interventions by God. Humans at this point don't exist until the 7th cause. God didn't just create a big bang (the true first cause in our universe), he caused the energy and shaped it as he went. That is clear by a reading of Genesis 1.

Man is given many choices in the Bible. None of them imply that he wanted man to choose the wrong thing. Here's what your ideology means.

Genesis 2:16,17 - God warns Adam that he must not eat from the tree, or he will die.
(God intended Adam and Eve to die.)

Genesis 4:6, 7 - God warns Cain not to be angry and submit to sin.
(God intended Cain to murder Abel)

Genesis 6:5, 7 - Humans were wicked and violent. They must be destroyed.
(God intended man to be violent but destroys them for being so. At least God feels regret in the meantime in verse 6, anthropomorphic language or not.)

Genesis 11 - Humans rebel again against God and build a tower.
(God intends them to rebel, but punishes them anyway, and they scatter abroad as he originally intended.)

Genesis 19 - Sodom and Gomorrah are wicked and are going to be destroyed. Lot's family is warned to leave.
(God intends for Sodom and Gomorrah to be wicked so that he can destroy them dramatically along with Lot's wife who was also destined to become a pillar of salt, maybe to provide an opening for Lot's daughters to have Lot's children.)

Note that if any of the above humans had chosen righteous paths, it would not have broken any prophecies to this point. (Adam and Even sinned before the first prophecy.)

I will admit at this point that there is a 430-year period where the story is predestined, which follows the prophecies to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; however, it also follows that God is actively intervening throughout. (Joseph's dreams resulting in his brother's jealousy, Potiphar, Pharaoh's dreams, Moses, and the text explicitly saying that Pharaoh's heart was hardened during the 10 plagues.)

Now, in this period, we have your scriptural quote:

Mark Quayle said:

Like I've shown before, Joseph told his brothers, and I quote (my emphasis), "As for you, what you intended against me for evil, God intended for good..." Genesis 50:20

Click to expand...

Now I asked for a quote that suggested that God caused or wants sin and/or evil in the world. This scripture is not it. What it says specifically is that man (Joseph's brothers) intended evil, and God intended good.

Mark Quayle said:

"The first causer" of a chain of causation is not the immediate causer. God caused that there BE sin. He did not sin. He did it for his own sake, for his glory and for our sake,

Click to expand...

This is again illogical. God caused that there be sin, but he did not sin. The chain of causality suggests that if God did not sin by causing evil, then man does not sin either by being evil. If I give a gun to a small child who doesn't know any better or even know what it is and he points it at someone and pulls the trigger, then who is more guilty? Me or the child?

Mark Quayle said:

—But, do you want a big one? Acts 2:23 (and, again, my emphasis) : "This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."

Click to expand...

This says that God planned the redemption, not sin. This says nothing about God wanting evil or sin. Furthermore, he calls those who killed Jesus wicked.

Whether I sin or not in the end has no impact on God's promises. Even Jesus said this about his disciples:

Luke 19:40 - "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

God does not need us. He wants us to come to him willingly which we cannot do without free will on our part.

NxNW said:

Trump shot at by Republican
Kirk shot by a product of Republican environment
Melissa Hortman shot by Republican
Mark Hortman shot by Republican
John Hoffman shot by Republican
Yvette Hoffman shot by Republican

Click to expand...

Always in His Presence said:

Trump shot by far left
Charlie Kirk - shot by far left
Judge Kavanaugh - far left assassin arrested
Steve Scalise - shot by far left

Click to expand...

Instead of listing who has shot more than the other side, you guys should above all calm down.

Oompa Loompa said:

Yes. Guns saving lives is of no interest.

Click to expand...

Correct. It's not interesting unless you have some kind of obsession with guns. Do we have a thread every time a well-designed car saves a life? Such is the country we live in.

Hentenza said:

Citation please.

Click to expand...

Not that you have ever addressed or even acknowledged most of the Scriptures I have posted, but so as not to return evil for evil, I will grant your request.

Ex. 4: 10 And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. 11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? 12 Now therefore go, "and I will be with thy mouth", and teach thee "what thou shalt say".

Ex. 12: 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Ex. 31: 18 And he (God) gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

John 1: 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

John 14: 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. ( Jn. 10: 30 I and my Father are one. , Jn. 17:8 For I have given unto them the words "which thou gavest me"; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.) 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

And why did the religions of this world at that time, not know Him, according to the Jesus "of the Bible's own Words"?

John 5: 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye "believe not" his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Thus the reason for the Christ "of the Bible's", Own Words I posted for you in Luke 16. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

If you are not persuaded by these Words, who was chosen to record and carry God's Laws, Statutes and Commandments throughout the nations, it is clear why, according to Christ's Own Words.

DamianWarS said:

Christ is a model but this needs to be qualified as to how far that model extends. I suspect what you mean is Christ is a model so far as it pertains to the things you value in your faith. For example, Christ was circumcised physically; therefore, as a model, should we not be circumcised physically? Christ died for our sins; therefore as a model, should we too die for the sins of others? Christ radically challenged the de facto interpretation of the law of the day, so as a model, should we not radically challenge the de facto interpretation of the law too? How far does this modelship go? Simply calling Christ a model is not a mic drop as it's a loaded statement and used only to prop up whatever it is you're trying to prop up.

Click to expand...

You're still over-complicating the matter. Christ shows us that obedience is possible, that man was never created to sin and that there's a way, one Way, to overcome the sin that otherwise earns us death.

DamianWarS said:

As it pretains to Sabbath law, Christ shows us as a model of Sabbath that it is better to do good (Mat 12:12). So rather than plan to have a ritual rest on the Sabbath day, it is better to plan to do good (even if that involves work) but no one whats to admit that logic and would rather keep their sabbath day as the 4th has instructed them to, rather than actively seek goodness as Christ has modeled.

Click to expand...

Ye, it's good to do good on the Sabbath. And so?? One of those goods, for our own benefit as the Sabbath was made for man, is to regulary take that time dedicated to the devotion and partaking of God.

DamianWarS said:

"Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." The law can certainly show us moral action, but it should not function as our guide to a moral foundation and if it does we will end up missing the point.

Click to expand...

And how faithful are we being, or what good would our faith be, if we were persistently and unrepentantly engaged in breaking the commandments? Here's a great quote that happens to be from a former pope:

"This faith, however, is not a thought, an opinion, an idea. This faith is communion with Christ, which the Lord gives to us, and thus becomes life, becomes conformity with him. Or to use different words faith, if it is true, if it is real, becomes love, becomes charity, is expressed in charity. A faith without charity, without this fruit, would not be true faith. It would be a dead faith."

DamianWarS said:

I may not kill, not steal or not lie to my neighbour, all law-keeping things, but I also may actively hate him and have a motivation towards him that is incompatible with Christian living, all while saying the law is my tutor so I am justified.

Click to expand...

??? The law as a tutor only points to our lack of justice, our lack of love, IOW, in such cases!

DamianWarS said:

I suspect the thing that keeps you fixated on the law is the 4th commandment so you have to maintain this false dichotomy of law to prop up the 10 and smuggle them into the NC.

Click to expand...

There's no smuggling them in to the NC. They simply stand as truth regarding certain basic matters of justice, even though they cannot accomplish that justice/righteousness in us by merely observing them. Again, they're innocuous for one who would be "perfected in love", but we prove that we still benefit from their tutorship to the extent the we sin, wherever we fail to love, IOW. They help convict us that our hearts and minds are not in the right place.

DamianWarS said:

Is not Christ the Lord of the Sabbath, meaning he has authority over it? The 10 communicates these values in Christ but in ignorance and unrevealed. Why would you hold on to those value?

Click to expand...

What does that even mean? If we were actively breaking the commandments we only prove that we don't even know Christ, let alone love Him and neighbor.

prodromos said:

They are Pakistani, which is 96% Moslem.

Click to expand...

One of the Islamist extremists was an Indian national, the elder of the two, and his son was an Australian national.

DamianWarS said:

If antinomianism (lit. against law) is regarding no longer being bound by the "moral law of God"

Click to expand...

so then if the dictionary and history of the NT church is correct?

DamianWarS said:

then the critical question is what is the "moral law of God".

Click to expand...

yep. Hence all the confessions of faith addressing that very point and even the definition for antinomianism pointing to the TEN Commandments

DamianWarS said:

which begs the question: Is this responsible terminology/should we be using it?

Click to expand...

It is probably a bit uncomfortable if one is used to posting in opposition to the Ten Commandments, given how the definition for antinomianism reads.

DamianWarS said:

Scripture doesn't bifurcate law

Click to expand...

Until you read Heb 10 where "He takes away the first to establish the second" vs 4-10 where it is explicitly speaking of "animal sacrifice and offerings" all the while "The Commandments of God" are strongly affirmed in 1 Cor 7:19 where "Honor your father and mother is the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:1 in that still valid unit of TEN

So apparently the definition for Antinomianism is indeed accurate in what it says happened in first century church history

DamianWarS said:

, and when the subject of law is raised, law is treated as whole units defined within covenants. Some indeed have more of a moral foundation and others ceremonial/ritual or symbolic,

Click to expand...

No wonder the Baptist Confession of Faith sectn 19, and the Westminster Confession of Faith sectn 19 , and D.L. Moody's sermon on the Ten Commandments, and R.C. Sproul, and C.H. Spurgeon affirm the TEN as included in the moral law of God




Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]R.C. Sproul
[*]many others as well..

* - 10 as-is or else in edited form

rjs330 said:

I am not twisting scripture. I am merely quoting it. I am pointing out that our mandate cannot be cherry picked to suit whatever political cause you want. That goes for everyone. The legitimacy of scripture is diluted when we decide we are going to pick and choose which ones we want to follow. Its diluted even more when we pick and choose which ones we want the government to enforce. We shouldn't do that. That is nothing more than you deciding what kind of Theocracy you want.

Jesus commands are for YOU. You should help the poor. You should help the needy. He does not command governments to. If anyone is twisting scriptures it is those who try and use it for political purposes to force others to care for illegal immigrants whether they want to or not.

Incorrect. You and far too many Christian liberals are the ones who are intertwining religious obligation and civil law. Can you please quote Christ or any apostle who says the religious obligations of followers of Christ ought to be codified and enforced by law?

Click to expand...

So how do you justify wanting to make laws against sinful sex?

rjs330 said:

Neither Christ nor the apostles said anything about social justice. That is nothing more than liberal political nonsense. And it does violence to the actual mandates of scripture. The greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart. Are you for forcing that upon civil law?

He commanded YOU to do it. It was not a mandate for governmental law. You give out of your own pocket, not someone else's.

Except that scripture also commands other things as well. As I pointed out. Its a violation to pick and choose which ones you want to follow. And its also a violation of scripture to cherry pick which ones you want the government to enforce.

You are commanded to help the needy and to love God by obeying all his commandments. That is for you to do.

If you were trying to give water to the thirsty and the government told you, you can't then you should disobey the government.

Mercy does NOT negate consequences for illegal acts. If someone murdered your loved one you may show them mercy by forgiving them. But that doesn’t mean the government is now obligated to release them.

Justice and mercy are what we should be seeking. And if you are demanding mercy then you should also be demanding justice. Illegals should be rounded up for disobeying the law. They should be treated humanely, given food, water, medical treatment, and their needs should be covered. Then they should face the consequences of their illegal acts and be deported.

8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

15 “ ‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

Click to expand...

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that a Catholic charity can be exempt from an unemployment insurance tax, affirming an earlier ruling from the United States Supreme Court.

In an order released Monday, the state high court concluded that Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB), Inc. and four sub-entities were “eligible for the religious purposes exemption to unemployment taxation.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered that the case be sent back to the circuit court level with the instruction to vacate a decision by the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) against the CCB.

The order also rejects an attempt by state officials to eliminate the religious exemption altogether, according to the religious liberty law firm Becket, which represented the CCB.

Continued below.

Aryeh Jay said:

If they can't take the heat perhaps they should find different enjoyment.

Click to expand...

ICEE can't take the heat. ICE melts when heat is applied.

rjs330 said:

1. Quit trying to excuse it by continuing to say, "well the right is worse".

Click to expand...

I think what we are saying is that the Right is no better.

rjs330 said:

2. Quit claiming the right hates everyone and they don't agree with and are just relying to take e away all their rights.

Click to expand...

Nobody is saying the Right hates everybody.

rjs330 said:

3. Quit claiming that the right is a bunch of Nazi, misogynistic racists.

Click to expand...

Nobody is claiming that about the entire right. Even Hillary only accused half of you.

rjs330 said:

4. Quit claiming that Trump's administration is an authoritarian government using gestapo tactics.

Click to expand...

Watch the news.

rjs330 said:

Just those 4 things would tone down the rhetoric that has led to so much violence from the left. The permission structures for violence need to be ended. Because if ANY of those are true then violence is justified in order to defend oneself self and defend the nation against people who want to take away your rights and and act like Nazis and set up some sort of authoritarian government and destroy the constitution.

Click to expand...

Wait! I thought you were condemning left wing violence, and there you go excusing it.

samaus123456789 said:

Luke 24:44-53 He said to them, “Remember when I was with you before? I said that everything written about me must happen—everything in the law of Moses, the books of the prophets, and the Psalms.” Then Jesus opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

Law Psalms Prophets - this canon list excludes 1 Enoch, and other OT texts (Jubilees, Test of the 12 patriarchs, Tobit, 1/2 Maccabees, and others). Josephus gave the same canon list around 100 AD, and it was Genesis to Malachi organized into around 24 books. This is the primary canon.

Click to expand...

Greetings again sambas

I presume your second paragraph is a support for the verse above it. If not, then my apologies. It appears you are suggesting that the Luke 24:44 verse, when it says "the law of Moses, the books of the prophets, and the Psalms", means to include 1 Enoch. But I don't know of any support for this. Could you give me your source so I might study this inclusion of 1 Enoch into what Luke wrote in Luke 24:44?


Peace to you brother

On my knees in the dirt holding and praying with a woman who was crying and destitute, with prostitutes walking in front of us trying to get to the car behind us where a dealer was waving around a 9mm, and having someone sell drugs out of the back seat to the people on the streets, and cop cars kept rolling by and never stopping, while we risked our lives for the spreading of the gospel at the gates of hell on earth if necessary..

Richard T said:

You can call it what you want. Conservatives are expected to fight against abortion and many fight against decriminalization of pot. American churches often too try to make such leaders more like "Church officials." we see it al the time. Regardless though the ends do not justify the means. Desantis should have used private money, not state money.

Click to expand...

The *governor* should not be doing it at all. If some church-paid friend wants to do it with private funds that is one thing, but a governor is still not a church official.

Richard T said:

I am not sure how loose Florida is on this. I'm guessing he will get a pass though. I am thinking his stock for political influence is waning. Like Trump he is too authoritarian. I doubt America will vote like that again.

Click to expand...

DeSantis put all of his political theater into action to get the 2024 nomination. He's got nothing left and has made almost no news in the last year plus. Trump crushed dreams by running for reelection.

Richard T said:

I asked google ai what USA Governor was the most authoritarian. DeSantis was indeed first. Newsom though was also mentioned.

Click to expand...

don't care what "ai" says.