Strong in Him said:

Three question marks at the end of a sentence suggests that you were horrified at the suggestion that Rob might lie

Click to expand...

Why would three question at the end of my sentence make me horrified

Fantine said:

Perhaps because his own gain is his sole interest. Not the country, not the people.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that your anti-Trump bias is showing.

Fantine said:

Would it surprise you to learn that climatologists favor limited nuclear energy during the transition?

Click to expand...

We had a brief “nuclear renaissance” in the early 2000s but then Fukushima happened. Then US utilities demonstrated they still are incapable of bringing new reactors on line without being a decade behind schedule and a billion or five over budget. I thought that was the death of nuclear power in the US. Now its corpse has been dug up and chained to the AI nonsense, can’t wait for that to fail and leave yet another string of half built nuclear plants in its wake.

Getting the hostages released was a great achievement, and Trump and his administration should be acknowledged for that, but Trump saying "the war is over" and “we have peace in the Middle East” is premature and means very little at this point. Netanyahu has made it clear that the fight isn't over, and Hamas has rejected proposals for disarming or leaving Gaza. Unfortunately, this so-called "peace deal" is likely to be nothing more than a temporary ceasefire. We should be celebrating the return of the hostages, but it's way too early to be celebrating the end of the war as some seem to be doing.

President Trump has cited Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 12406 as the authority to deploy the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property.

§12406. National Guard in Federal service: call
Whenever-
(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;

The President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

Section 12406 of Title 10 permits the President to call the National Guard into federal service under specific circumstances, including invasion, rebellion, or when unable to execute laws with regular forces.

Section 12406 is distinct from the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. § 251-255). The Insurrection Act specifically allows the president to use the military for civilian law enforcement during an insurrection, while Section 12406, when used alone, does not override the Posse Comitatus Act and restricts federalized troops to a supportive role, such as protecting property. The decision to use Section 12406 instead of the Insurrection Act may be due to its potentially lower political sensitivity, but it has resulted in legal ambiguity and debate over presidential authority.

Say it aint so said:

They are capped. Why not just pathway to citizenship?

Click to expand...

What do you desire? This cheap labor, or citizens? We have a waiting list for immigrants as it is. We are not in need of legal immigration in this country. Guest workers does not make for a slave class. These go back home with pretty good money in their pocket.

Hans Blaster said:

Just speaking generally (about this site).

Fine. Then it isn't about atheists or their "gurus" either.

Wasn't that obvious?

A common traits for religions.

Click to expand...

I'm glad we've absolutely squared that away.

Michie said:

I’m more in the early horror movies like Bride of Frankenstein put out by Universal. Loved the sets, etc. I won’t touch horror movies today with a 10 foot pole. I don’t need that graphic gore, etc. I find movies much more interesting without it. But I’m just a big fan of old movies overall. The stuff put out now does not peak my interest.

Click to expand...

I like the old classic monster movies from the 30s, too (although most of them seem pretty campy now), and for the same reason I like the classic "big bug" movies of the 1950s: it's neat to look at the clothes, the cars, etc. And I agree with you on many of the movies today---I'm not much on splattergore, either. I much prefer an intelligent horror movie that's atmospheric rather than graphic; The Others, for example.

keras said:

My contention is that if her husband Joseph had died, Mary and her family could easily have made that journey as her uncle Joseph of Arimathea: had ships that traded between Rome and Britian. They settled at Glastonbury and helped acquire tin, lead and food grains.
What makes this more probable, is when Jesus selected His disciples, they did not seem to be known to each other.

Click to expand...

What makes this improbable is that it is not Scriptural. Not about Joseph of Arimathea being Mary's uncle nor about him having boats.

Peter and Andrew certainly knew each other, as did James and John. One commentator I read said that 5 of the disciples were cousins

Hope

Delvianna said:

That entire statement is an assumption. Did you ask my thoughts? No. You made a statement concerning what I think and feel ("this bothers you"). What did I actually say?

Click to expand...

Notice here that I couched my evaluation within the adverbial qualifier of [perhaps], which is to say that I leave open the possibility that I am not correct and you can correct me. An actual assumption would not be accompanied by an adverbial qualifier.

If you would like me to directly ask you about what you think and feel, then I will: What is your expected goal in this thread? You've stated that the Church, such as it is, is 'broken, an d I agree with you that it is, but what do you think we should do to make this "go away"?

Delvianna said:

^ that. And when it comes to the topic that I started on this post, what bothers me is that people don't hash it out and come to a conclusion so we can stop being more fractured and creating more denominations. I can say my own thoughts and feelings and I don't need statements of you telling me what I think or feel on various different topics.

Click to expand...

So, in your own view, what does it mean for us to "hash it out"? May I assume that "hashing it out" isn't equivalent to "debate the issues"?

Delvianna said:

How does that read? When you use that to make a point, like it adds validity to it.

Click to expand...

It does add validity to the point, because Epistemology is the study of 'how we justify' our claims to knowledge, of any sort. In fact, you're doing epistemology right now and I applaud your effort.

Delvianna said:

We are ALL students, or should be. And I mean that in relation to God. We don't need a college degree with someone teaching us the bible to tell us what the truth is when God IS truth.

Click to expand...

There are different forms of 'truth claims'; and there are different theories as to what Truth is. We have to differentiate the denotations between them so we don't equivocate our terms, or the methods by which any one of us tries to justify our efforts to establish our truth claims and move beyond mere subjective appraisals coming out of our own personal perspectives. This isn't just me saying this--this a lot of Christian teachers, leaders and philosophers who also have the Holy Spirit just as you or I do.

Delvianna said:

Can it help point you in the right direction, sure but again... people lead others astray or we wouldn't have 45,000 different denominations.

Click to expand...

Sure. I agree that an education isn't a guarantee for any clear discernment. But by education, I'm not simply referring to what so many secular institutions are spitting out. I'm referring mainly to Christian institutions and/or Christians who have become educated and still remain mainly conservative in their politics and traditional in their values.

With this in mind, an education isn't something that is necessarily deprecated by God Himself, or else He wouldn't have sent us folks like the Apostle Paul or Priscilla and Aquila, or Apollos, or various teachers or scribes over the past 2,000 years. He didn't leave us alone in the hands of St. Peter the fisherman by which to later hear the Gospel. We have Peter to listen to, and we also have been given many others to listen to since Peter's time as well, haven't we?

Delvianna said:

Re-read your own statements to me.

Click to expand...

Which statements do you want me to revisit and re-read? I'm not seeing any that I've made which could be read as a put down.

ancient pyramid

Safety first is our motto.

fhansen said:

What I actually said was, "...wherever they determine that the new covenant consists of the freedom to enter heaven without regard to one's righteousness." When discussing Sola Fide with its adherents, there are a few different positions held. One is that no degree or gravity of sin could ever keep a believer from heaven, because all sin and all sins are equally bad and even one would disqualify them from having any claims to righteousness.
Eph 2:8-9 is speaking of works of the law, which is what Paul is always speaking of, and opposing, when he objects to works saving us. Works of the law are decidedly not righteous; performing them is only a pretense at righteousness=legalism. Righteousness, OTOH, the real thing made possibile by God through the Holy Spirit, is necessary. You either believe Rom 6:20-22, or you don't:

Click to expand...

"When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life."

Click to expand...

Yes, the new birth (Jn 3:3-5) by the sovereign choice (as unaccountable as the wind, Jn 3:6-8) of the Holy Spirit sets free from sin and results in eternal life.

Michie said:

We have always had a lot of antichrist’s running around. The world is full of them.

Click to expand...

Anyone who sin has the spirit of the antichrist.

lismore said:

I agree. It seems to be a two fold problem. First the church as a corporate body takes no action against obvious and blatant false teachers, false prophets and the like in their midst. Wolves are given a platform to continue. Secondly individual Christians continue to support those with a proven track record of false prophecies and teachings.

Both these things are clear signs that we're living in the last days IMHO. The first thing Jesus said when asked for signs of his coming was deception:

Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

God Bless

Click to expand...

I think people are allowed to continue because people have this idea that truth varies. If a catholic contradicts an orthodox who contradicts a baptist who contradicts a presbyterian, everyone just shrugs and says they can just believe what they want and it's totally okay. How in the world can you even point out a wolf when theology is so fractured, we can't even agree on who the wolf is, based off of what they say!?

Not to mention Christians literally argue that we can elevate people's theology instead of God being the one who dictates what truth is. Meaning, we learn what truth is from others because we can't rely on learning what the truth is from God. Or that truth is relative and not universal. "Pastor Pete said XYZ and I trust him because he had scripture to back it up and clearly, he has the spirit of God!" Okay and how do you know Pastor Pete isn't a wolf in sheeps clothing? Because he said so?

The Vatican’s doctrine office announced Monday that a panel of five judges has been nominated to decide the disciplinary case against Father Marko Rupnik, accused of the sexual and psychological abuse of consecrated women under his spiritual care.

The judges, appointed Oct. 9, do not hold any position in the Roman Curia — the Vatican’s governing body — to ensure their autonomy and independence in the penal judicial procedure, according to an Oct. 13 press release from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF).

Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, the head of the DDF, told journalists in July that the judges for the Rupnik case had been selected. The panel of judges includes both women and clerics.

Fernández had said in an interview at the end of January that the dicastery had finished gathering information in the disciplinary case, had conducted a first review, and was working to put together an independent tribunal for the penal judicial procedure.

Rupnik — a well-known artist with mosaics and paintings in hundreds of Catholic shrines and churches around the world — is accused of having committed sexual, psychological, and spiritual abuse against dozens of women religious in the 1980s and early 1990s.

In May 2019, the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith launched a criminal administrative process against Rupnik after the Society of Jesus reported credible complaints of abuse by the priest to the Vatican.

Continued below.

johansen said:

man if you read the thread, we're talking about women bleeding to death, or close to it.

send them away the lawyers say! we can't handle the liability of dealing with the featile heartbeat.

Click to expand...

Do you have knowledge that the woman was "bleeding to death, or close to it"? All I know from the article is that her amniotic membrane ruptured.

Senior Christian leaders in the U.K. have warned that a proposed ban on so-called conversion therapy would criminalize core elements of Christian belief. In a letter to the equalities minister, they stated that the legislation could make it illegal to share the Gospel or guide children on issues of gender and sexuality.

The open letter, organized by the Let Us Pray campaign and backed by The Christian Institute, was signed by 24 leaders from various denominations and sent to Equalities Minister Olivia Bailey, The Telegraph reported.

The leaders wrote that Labour’s planned ban on sexual orientation change efforts therapy, including pastoral counseling, could “criminalize mainstream, historic Christian teaching on marriage and sexual ethics” and “make sharing the Gospel with some people illegal.”

The letter expressed concern that the legislation might prevent parents from urging caution if their child, who is experiencing gender confusion, shared an interest in irreversible trans procedures. It said existing laws already prohibit abuse and claimed that campaigners advocating for the new ban routinely conflate “the ordinary work of churches with abuse.”

The signatories argued that prayer and pastoral conversations were being wrongly framed as forms of conversion therapy. “They imply that merely expressing Christian beliefs on sexuality and gender in prayer and pastoral conversations constitutes ‘conversion therapy’ and should be outlawed.”

Continued below.

o_mlly said:

Are you now asserting that shared DNA's is no longer sufficient evidence for a common ancestor?

Click to expand...

By itself with no other context (as Tour presented it), no.

o_mlly said:

If so, is your claim that because Dr. Tour is only partially correct in his claim, that he is, therefore, incredible?

Click to expand...

He is either ignorant of, or deliberately omitting the key context that I've posted about, both of which erode his credibility on the subject. Since he's a chemist and not a biologist, evolutionary biologist, or geneticist that's not exactly a surprise.

o_mlly said:

Therefore, you abandon the common ancestor claim that humans evolved from any other kind of living creature that lacks specific genetic sequences in common?

Click to expand...

The "specific genetic sequences in common" have been one of my main points since the start. To repeat for the third time, it's not that they're merely similar, it's that they're similar in very specific ways (for example share genetic errors).

o_mlly said:

Or at least admit the evidence for that claim is on the lowest confidence level possible for scientific claims, ie., consensus among biased "experts"?

Click to expand...

That's a complete non sequitur.

More than 100 free speech advocates, including former U.S. and European officials, have urged the European Commission to reconsider a key internet regulation that they say risks censoring global speech and undermining international free expression rights.

In a letter to the executive body of the European Union, the 113 signatories warned that the EU’s Digital Services Actcreates “a pan-European censorship infrastructure” with vaguely defined limits that could suppress lawful content across borders, human rights group ADF International reported.

The letter calls for an overhaul of the commission’s review process, demanding that it include input from independent experts in constitutional law, digital rights and free expression.

The review is due by Nov. 17. Signatories include former U.S. Ambassador at-large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback, former Yahoo Europe Vice President Jean-Marc Potdevin, Princeton professor Robert P. George, Free Speech Union founder Toby Young, journalist Michael Shellenberger, and rights advocate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Continued below.

Wondering what the difference is between meditation and contemplation? Thanks.