Larniavc said:

"I'LL STOP CALLING THIS ADMINISTRATION "ORWELLIAN" WHEN THEY STOP USING 1984 AS AN OPERATIONS MANUAL" -Op-Ed Columnist: Get Me Rewrite!: February 6, 2004 OP By PAUL KRUGMAN

"Seventeen years later than expected, 1984 has arrived." -Bush's Orwellian Address: Happy New Year! It's 1984 Published on Saturday, September 22, 2001 by CommonDreams.org by Jacob Levich

"As President Bush wages his war against terrorism and moves to create a huge homeland security apparatus, he appears to be borrowing heavily, if not ripping off ideas outright, from George Orwell. The work in question is 1984, the prophetic novel about a government that controls the masses by spreading propaganda, cracking down on subversive thought and altering history to suit its needs. It was intended to be read as a warning about the evils of totalitarianism -- not a how-to manual" -Learning To Love Big Brother by Dan Klutzman (Washing Political Correspondent) July 2002

Click to expand...

My intent here is not to pick on the U.K. Public video surveillance is everywhere these days. But I had heard about London even in the early '90's, I believe. I thought it strange that that would come about in the land that gave us the story about a world where there was even surveillance inside private homes. I was wondering if Orwell's writings were still relevant, or have been forgotten over there.

We have "thought crime" in the U.S., but I do have to say that when it comes to thought crime, ya'll are way ahead of the game, right up there with North Korea and China, IMO.

FireDragon76 said:

The only time proselytes are mentioned explicitly in the Scriptures is by Jesus himself, and he does so negatively.

Click to expand...

Of of the men selected as a supply steward in the congregation of Jerusalem was explicitly identified as a proselyte.

Hans Blaster said:

Who's suffrage do you want to revoke?

Click to expand...

Anyone who can't pass a basic civics class, and possibly the citizenship test.

probinson said:

What an inane thing to say. Why would I just lay on the ground and let someone kick me? Why would I not get up and walk away?

Click to expand...

Because the next time you go into the bar he'll do exactly the same thing. He wants to do it and nobody is stopping him. Including you. If every time you turn the other cheek he slaps it then at some point you have to get up off the floor, say enough is enough and smack the guy back.

Y'know what? The rest of the bar will give a little cheer and people will want to buy you a beer.

Keep walking out and 1) you lose respect from everyone. And 2) you keep getting beat up every time you walk back in.

Or, if the analogy is too obscure for you, if you're the Dems and you accept every dirty trick the GOP hits you with and do nothing then 1) you lose the respect of those who voted for you. And 2) the GOP will carry on doing it.

ChubbyCherub said:

Well, it is unfortunate to me that a man is put in the position of leadership but still falls for the tactics of women regardless of the reasons or justifications they may give i.e. wants to make a woman happy at the expense of himself. How can he lead women in spiritual matters if his earthly happiness is forever tied to how his woman feels or the things she does knowing that they are not Christ focused? It seems silly and I just can't reconcile it! It would be like the blind leading the blind and it just doesn't make sense to me. There are times I wish I had an armchair for Jesus to sit in so He and I could have a 1:1 chat about all the mysteries of the bible!

Click to expand...

When I look into what the bible says about relationships, I view it as what is the perfect standard? I mean, we aren't ever going to be perfect, but understanding the standard would be key because it helps you pick out who is a terrible leader, vs someone you would want to follow.

The standard is Christ.

He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. - 1 John 2:6

Click to expand...

So essentially, how Christ-like is that man? What are his fruits? Is he leading by serving just as Christ did? Is he leading by example? Is he guiding you to be in a stronger relationship with Christ? Is he correcting when necessary, uplifting when needed and putting others first above himself?

Now with all those questions in mind, re-read what I quoted from you from your last reply. Doesn't fit does it?

calicocat said:

That's interesting to know.

He still does some extremely... Interesting... Stuff that makes me think he's one of their sects.

Click to expand...

Trump? Who's "sects"?

calicocat said:

The well-known "creepy comments about Ivanka" and others.

Click to expand...

The word you were looking for is sex. It sounds kind of like "sects" but it is quite different.

Pommer said:

Providing one’s own bootstraps is mandatory?

Click to expand...

The key is to grab the strap on your boot and use it to lift yourself from the floor...

Always in His Presence said:

It's being called the Mandami effect.

Click to expand...

ok. That still doesn’t clarify your point.

Michie said:

Depends on what you are being stubborn about and why.

Click to expand...

Amen

calicocat said:

If doesn't appear in medieval literature before AD1300 and the French medievalist Jacques Le Goff believed it was invented then to compete with the pagan cults.

I used to be really into classic literature (which I can't recommend because some of it's kind of dark.)

Purgatory in the older medieval literature isn't RARE.
It's non-existent.

Click to expand...

Um, no. Not at all the point Le Goff was trying to make.

"In his 1984 book, The Birth of Purgatory, he argued that the conception of purgatory as a physical place, rather than merely as a state, dates to the 12th century, the heyday of medieval otherworld-journey narratives such as the Irish Visio Tnugdali, and of pilgrims' tales about St Patrick's Purgatory, a cavelike entrance to purgatory on a remote island in Ireland.[2] Alexander Lee argued in History Today, "This innovative use of popular culture to uncover the roots of a central idea in the religious thought of the Middle Ages was firmly within the Annales tradition, but extended the boundaries of the Annalistes’ approach in such a way that its broader potential as an historiographical methodology was almost beyond question."[3]"

Point is purgatory has long been recognized as a state of being, even a 'central idea in the religious thought of the Middle Ages'. His point was that it was being newly imagined as a physical place starting in the 12th century.

Gracious Heavenly Father,
Please help Jane and her father to better understand each other here, that they may be able communicate with each other and express their concerns in an effective manner.
In Christ’s Name,
Amen

CoreyD said:

You did not read my post and so you missed the reason the map is there.


Because you did not read my post, you won't learn where you went wrong.
Expanse = heaven.
Expanse of the heavens = heaven of the heavens.

The scholars are sensible enough to know that it's not heaven of the heaven, and God created the heaven and the earth, when all through the Bible the heavens is repeatedly referred to, as there isn't just one heaven.

You will always disagree with the Bible, so long as you want to keep false ideas, but this thread is examining the evidence, so feel free to back out as you cannot dispute it.
I am presenting it for the OP, and destroying false arguments and myths. and all their intellectual arrogance that oppose the knowledge of God. We take every thought captive so that it is obedient to Christ, while doing so. 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5

The weapons we use in our fight are not the world's weapons but God's powerful weapons, which we use to destroy strongholds. We destroy false arguments; and all their intellectual arrogance that oppose the knowledge of God. We take every thought captive so that it is obedient to Christ.​

Click to expand...

I would say that you're ignoring my posts by not understanding the cosmology of Genesis in light of its ancient Israelite context and cosmology. You're reading the text like it's an astronomy textbook. And that's incorrect.

Login to view embedded media
The Bible is not a science textbook. This text isn't giving a description about the structure of space. It's Ancient Isrealite Cosmology.

On Day 2, God creates the firmament, like building a fence that defines the boundaries of a park, and He calls it “Heaven”, not because the fence itself is the whole park, but because it establishes and names the realm of the park. This fence sets the limits of the domain, separating the waters above from the waters below, just as a fence delineates a space for park activity. Then on Day 4, God places the luminaries, the sun, moon, and stars, inside the park and/or upon the fence, like putting swings and benches within the fenced area, giving them specific roles to govern day, night, and seasons. In this way, the firmament and Heaven are closely connected: the fence creates and names the domain, and the objects placed within it operate in the space it defines, so the firmament is called Heaven because it demarcates the heavenly realm.

Day 2 is the creation of the Heavens, and
Day 3 is the creation of the Earth.

And if you want, you can call the creation of light on Day 1 part of the creation of the heavens as well. But the point is that nothing is created in Genesis 1:1. The first thing created is light. That's the first time it says "And God said". God creates with the spoken word and He does not speak in Genesis 1:1. Light is the first thing created in verse 3. Nothing happens in 1:1, that's just part of the introduction.

Alright I'm moving on. I have nothing to gain in discussion with people who ignore the ancient near east context of the Bible. If you can't accept the context of the Bible, then there is no point in even discussing what it says.

I think it's meant to be on a personal basis just to help with one another. Like, if I were to tell you I was struggling with alchohol. The point is to give me guidance that might help me overcome this sin and not like it's going to absolve me of the sin itself. I think some people believe that it does (catholics for instance), but the context tells me it's just supposed to be a helpful thing and nothing more. Specially because of the last verse:

remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

Click to expand...

ChubbyCherub said:

That being said, I am reading that many are embarrassed or ashamed so this once popular action is not very popular, anymore?

Click to expand...

I think it is, it's just mostly used within intimate circles. Friends or people that you know, instead of like just a random stranger. Might be why it isn't so apparent. Just a guess though.


And yes, this verse among a few others is what Catholics use as to why they confess to a priest.

Vytor: The Starfire Champion

Always in His Presence said:

Furious Democrats Call for Schumer to Be Replaced After Shutdown Cave​

Leftists, including some elected officials, reacted with apoplectic rage Monday after eight Senate Democrats caved to Senate Republicans by agreeing to vote to end the lengthy government shutdown.​

​

And while Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer didn’t appear to be directly responsible, as it seemed the eight had negotiated a deal behind his back, the blame for the massive concession was still flowing his way.​

​

“Despite voting against the deal, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is emerging as the top target for not containing the defections,” Axios confirmed, citing the words of a a number of lawmakers.​

​

“Schumer is voting no,” a senior House Democrat told the outlet. “But that doesn’t mean [a] primary [challenge is] not coming.”​

​

IMHO - They are coming apart at the seams because they eat their own.

Click to expand...

This is civil war. Between the Saubders/AOC/Mamdami/OccupyWashington faction of the Democratic Party and the slightly less woke faction. One battle finished but the war is escalating. The fury is palpable.

ThatRobGuy said:

There was a guy from India who applied with us and did a virtual interview, and no joke...in the interview stated he was an expert in "hatchtemel"

Click to expand...

"Hatchemel". I like it!

The Liturgist said:

That’s because it passes, except for experienced users, the Turing test. Indeed much if my work has had the effect of removing the remaining hints one is working with an AI (which is yet another reason why I’m unwilling to disclose, just yet, how my GPTs function).

Click to expand...

Don't waste your time trying to make AI think/reason with the flawed human nature. You're not supposed to clone the flawed human nature, you need to break from it.

d taylor said:

-
​

In the lake of fire what are people punished for???

Click to expand...

If the damnationists are correct, most of them are punished for being born in the wrong place.

Bro.T said:

Paul concerning the unchangeable Royal Law of God. (Rom. 13:7-10) (v.7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (v.8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. That’s the biblical definition of love, the keeping of God’s law. (v.9) For this, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, THOU SHALT NOT KILL, THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, THOU SHALT NOT COVET; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF. (v.10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

And that is what God’s holy commandments are all about; the first four tells you how to love God and the last six tells you how to love your neighbor. If you love your God you will not do any thing to offend him, like having other gods before him. You will do as he says like remember the sabbath day to keep it holy on the seventh day of the week. If you love him you will obey him when he tells you not to eat certain meats etc… And the same goes for your fellow man, if you love your neighbor you wouldn’t steal from him, you wouldn’t kill him, you wouldn’t try and sleep with his wife and so on and so forth. (See exodus 20: 1-17)

This is God’s definition of love and it is perfect in its ways. The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: The judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: And in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19: 7-11)

So if you say that you know God, but you don’t keep his commandments, lets see what the Lord had specially written for you.

(1John 2:3-4) (v.3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (v.4) he that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the beautiful verses you quoted. But if you have not taught or understand this, then let me tell you, the old covenant law (10C) was given only to show Sin and Not Love. Romans 3:20, Gal 3:19-

Vambram said:

Nope.

Click to expand...

Appears you have an issue with reality.

Hope you all are doing well!

The Biggest Fussy Eater (Chapter 2)

"....When you repeat the same action over and over—like eating junk food constantly—you stop noticing its effects. But your body doesn’t stop reacting. The damage keeps building, even though your brain tunes it out. That’s why you think you’re fine, but your cough tells the truth."

The kidnappers, though still skeptical, exchanged uneasy glances. Their growing discomfort validated
Johann’s claims, and he seized on their hesitation. “If I die,” he said weakly, “you lose everything. No ransom.
You’ll have nothing to show for your trouble. I need a specific medicine to counteract this.”
Their resolve finally faltered. Reluctant but desperate to keep him alive, they asked Johann what medicine he
needed. Johann provided them with a list of ingredients: vinegar, ground nutmeg, crushed chili peppers, and
adelwez. He explained that the ingredients must be cooked together and insisted the concoction be prepared
with all windows closed to retain potency.

Johann explained carefully, emphasizing that the ingredients must be cooked together in precise proportions
to ensure the mixture’s potency. He insisted the concoction be prepared with all windows tightly shut, claiming
that even the faintest draft could weaken its effectiveness. Many people know it's dangerous to cook while closing all windows, but not them. Knowing nothing of the risks, the kidnappers followed his instructions, bolting the windows and sealing every crack.

The small, dimly lit room grew increasingly stifling, the air turning thick and oppressive. As the mixture simmered on their wood-burning stove, an ominous transformation began. A new toxic gas crept into the room, its presence subtle but a bit dangerous. Apart from that, the lack of ventilation caused carbon monoxide levels to rise imperceptibly, unnoticed by the kidnappers who remained focused on their ransom plans.

Johann, fully aware of the consequences, stayed low to the ground, breathing the marginally clearer air near
the bottom edge of the door. From his position, he watched intently as the effects of the gas began to take
hold. Gradually, their movements slowed, their once-brisk actions reduced to sluggish, clumsy gestures. Their
speech became slurred and incoherent, their heads drooping as if weighted down by invisible hands. Johann
remained still, his heart pounding, as the room sank into a suffocating silence.

FredVB said:

So, dispense with Enoch as scriptures because there was not a quote from it...

Click to expand...

I never argued "Enoch isn't scripture because there wasn't a quote from it in Matthew." I argued that one cannot try to use Matthew 22 to argue for it being scripture because it isn't being cited at all. The whole argument is "Jesus refers to the scriptures, then to Enoch, showing it's scripture" except Jesus never gives any quote from Enoch.

I dispense with the argument that there was a quote from 1 Enoch in Matthew 22 because there was not a quote from it.

FredVB said:

That would dispense with a lot of books we acknowledge as part of the Bible. Maybe that is not such a good argument as you thought it was.

Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't the argument I made, so..

FredVB said:

I can dispense with apocrypha being scriptures as I find contradictions to scriptures in them, and internal inconsistencies. What is found for that in 1 Enoch? I am looking at it and yet not finding it myself.

Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't trying to argue anything about contradictions or inconsistencies, but still, various people have pointed to what they consider to be contradictions or inconsistencies in 1 Enoch; given his posts in this topic, I expect Jipsah would probably be happy to point to what he considers examples.

FredVB said:

And about not being quoted, Enoch was quoted. Certainly by Jude, speaking of it as being from Enoch.

Click to expand...

You didn't mention Jude in your post, so this is criticizing me for not responding to an argument you didn't make.

FredVB said:

And there is more than that passage used in the new testament though without Enoch being named. So why did Jesus even say that angels in heaven do not give themselves in marriage? Where was that from? Just special inside knowledge Jesus chose to use, this time?

Click to expand...

Hardly special inside knowledge; this was a belief by some Jews at that period, which presumably made its way into 1 Enoch on that basis. But there is no reason to believe that Jesus's statement was any reference to Enoch as scripture given that (1) Jesus doesn't introduce it in the way Jesus introduces scripture on essentially every other occasion, (2) it isn't a quote from Enoch anyway, and (3) the actual scriptural quote Jesus gives is from Exodus 3:6.

FredVB said:

Where else does Jesus do that... with those not believing anyway?

Click to expand...

As noted, there is no need for "special inside knowledge" for this--unless that special inside knowledge refers to knowing which of the various Jewish beliefs were correct.

However, even if it was indeed special insider knowledge of what is true, the question was posed to Jesus, and Jesus answered it. Even when non-believers posed questions to Jesus, Jesus would normally answer them. There's an example of such a thing just before the incident with the Sadducees, where the Pharisees try to do a similar "gotcha!" question to Jesus about whether to pay the imperial tax, to which Jesus gives the famous "render under Caesar what is Caesar's" quote.

FredVB said:

His whole point is that those Sadducees do not know scriptures that they should. Not a great time to mention a concept not from scriptures that would be his very special knowledge exclusively. I am not buying that.

Click to expand...

Jesus's reference to them being ignorant of the scriptures was, presumably, in reference to their denial of resurrection, which Jesus goes on to defend by citing Exodus 3:6 (the actual scripture cited). This seems like a bit of an odd choice to cite when there appear to be stronger verses, but there is evidence the Sadducees considered only the Pentateuch (Genesis/Exodus/Leviticus/Deuteronomy/Numbers) to be scripture, in which case Jesus obviously wasn't going to get anywhere citing something from outside of those. Which only goes to show it would be very odd for Jesus to try to cite 1 Enoch as evidence for something to the Sadducees, as they presumably didn't accept it.