• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Morality without Absolute Morality

All beings are objective. You objectively exist, as do I. If your god exists, then it to is objective. None of that makes any being's moral opinions and preferences as objective. They are ... subjective.
Sure, but God isn't just any subject. The problem with subjective morals isn't the element of subjective agency, it is the fact that no human being has any authority to dictate how others should behave. God, for numerous reasons, possesses such authority.
Where in nature are these moral senses?
In nature? Nope, it's not moral senses either. It's moral character, in God's nature as the perfect moral agent.
So any condemnation is extending beyond the reach of the available options.
I'm not a humanist, but I probably should be. Unfortunately there are a lot of unlikable humans that hold me back.
By humanist, I wasn't marking off a particular position just any position that takes humans as fit moral agents.
You haven't found one here.
Sure, but that's just because you lack the consistency.
Subjective morality exists, it is just not objective.
Nope, subjective opinions lack the force to equal morality. Subjective preferences are no one's business but yours.
That even the believers can't agree to the nature of God, I don't know how you can say that. Said God could clearly demonstrate their nature, but...
You're mistaking the epistemic problem with the metaphysical one.
Upvote 0

Praying for the Dead: The Sweetest of the Spiritual Works of Mercy...

In on
Amen! Unfortunately, some people don’t have much theological or biblical education. It’s really not their fault, I guess?
You do not really learn the faith through books imo. It something the person desires and the Holy Spriit steps in. I know from experience that a convert is hungry and they search out the food that feeds them as the process in the journey. God recognizes that and gives what they need in their desire to become closer to Him. You can read about it or you seek it in humility where it becomes your spiritual DNA. None of us have arrived as far as what we think we know. We are just sowers in His field. But all of us need a Shepherd. Of course that is Jesus Christ thr genuine Shepherd. What He left for us is something we should prayerfully discern. I really feel people have pushed the gift of the Holy Spirit away, even as self proclaimed Christ followers. You see many now even criticizing their brethren in favor of worldly approval.
Upvote 0

Would Jesus Condemn the Rosary? Jesus condemns ‘vain repetition’ in prayer . . . but Catholics also have the rosary.

The rosary also fulfills the command of scripture

Romans 12



1 I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God


We are to sacrifice our time, talent, and treasure. The Rosary is a sacrifice of our time to develop our talent to make Jesus and the Gospel our treasure. For Jesus says, where your treasure is, there will also be your heart.



We are also told in Philippians 4

8- For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline, think on these things 9 The things which you have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, these do ye, and the God of peace shall be with you.

In the Rosary we contemplate the mysteries of our redemption. Are they not holy and lovely? The Rosary is not all there is to think about, but learning it and saying it daily is a way to build discipline.
The mysteries are all in scripture, and when we repetitively contemplate them, the mysteries come alive as we receive our answer from God in prayer. Even the Hail Mary prayer, most objected to by non Catholics, begins with two quotes from scripture in the Gospel of Luke 1:28 and 1:42
Should we not contemplate these until they are planted firmly in our minds?

I can testify that it is true to follow this advice given in Scripture by Paul. I have done what he instructs and the peace of God is with me through the Rosary
Upvote 0

Young earth vs Old earth?

How does it confirm what you are saying?
Did you not say "If God made the Earth, and then He made something else that He called "Earth", that's confusing"?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the what you called mud is the same earth that God created at Genesis 1:1.
When that "mud" rose above the surface of the water, it was the same earth that is taking form - mountains, valleys, etc.
It's like having clay in your hand and shaping it into something. It's still clay.
Am I misunderstanding what you think Gen 1:1 is calling "earth"? Are you saying it is the same thing that later became the dry ground? Most people think that it refers to the whole planet we call "Earth" in Vs 1.
God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of the waters He called “seas” Genesis 1:10
The dry land always existed, but because it was covered with water, it was wet. When it pushed up above the water's surface, it dried,
God called it earth.
The same earth that existed at the beginning.
I think that's not clear from the scripture, though it is a possible interpretation. Would you say the same thing about "Heaven"? IOW, did "Heaven" exist within the water? If not, then what is Vs 1 talking about when it says "Heaven"?
Is that what you said?


Correct.
Wait a minute! Are you saying there were other objects besides earth. What other objects existed?
Is light an object? If not light, then are you asking about other spheres, such as the sun, moon, stars or something like them that came before? All I get from the scripture at that point is that light existed. If I compare that with modern physics, specifically the big bang theory (BBT), there was a period of time called the photon epoch which might correspond to what God did to create light, before there were other (large) objects, although there was something that preceded the light called "waters" and "the deep". In BBT, there is something that precedes the light also. I'm looking at Big Bang Timeline- The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe while writing. It talks about a "photon epoch"

No. The reason God said let there be light, was because the earth was shrouded in darkness.
Genesis 1:2-5
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep
Genesis1-2a.gif

There was no light for God to separate.

Only after light reached the earth, did God call the light "day", and the darkness "night".
Which is a supposition. Maybe true, maybe not. It requires your view to be true, but other views can still be valid without tossing the verse aside. Such as that the light was made to appear without any mist or atmospheric blockage.
Genesis1-3to5.gif


Light from the sun penetrated the dissipating ash and debris that is hanging above earth's atmosphere.
The light is called Day, and the darkness is called Night... Obviously we have night and day on earth. :smile:


We don't ignore context, is true, but neither do we ignore chronology.
Also true.
For example, we do not ignore a statement, run further down, form an idea, then arrange the reading to suit our idea.
I don't think it is wrong to apply the whole chapter's context in our understanding of the first few verses.
There is chronological order, in the reading of Genesis Chapter one.
It begins with... In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
That might not be the first event in the chronology. It might instead be an introduction to the chronology, just as Gen 2:1 is not another creation of heaven and earth, and cannot be considered part of the chronology, but just a summation (a short repeat) of the previous contents.
Your claim however, is this:

You made two claims.
  1. Light was made first, before there was "Earth", and before there was "Heaven(s)"
Yes
  1. I'm trying to read the passage for what it is trying to say, without putting my own ideas
Yes
However, both these claims do not prove to be true, because you just quoted Genesis 1:1, which says very clearly " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
How long did "the beginning" last" And when were "earth" and "heaven" created? I think I'm still within the window of the 6 days.
If you are "trying to read the passage for what it is trying to say, without putting my own ideas", then you must accept that the heavens and earth existed, first.
Not if the text said that they began to exist only after light.
The only way you can dismiss that, is by "putting my own ideas", which is to claim that earth in Genesis 1:1 is not earth,
Or, as stated before, that it was an introductory statement about the narrative that followed.
but like the other poster here is saying, it's not talking about an already created earth.

So, which is it you want me to go with?


Are you saying that the contexts of "the heavens" never relate to the things in the heavens?
Surely "the heavens" didn't mean "and everything the heavens will contain later on" when it was first defined. Are you saying the "the heavens" existed before "the heavens" were created??
Great!
Do you accept that heavens, in some contexts in scripture, do refer to all the things in the heavens combined?
Yes, at least sometimes. But when the narrative says the heavens were created by separating water above from water below, i don't understand how they existed prior to that.
What thing holds the earth water and sky and space?
Can you repeat that in different words?
Could you answer the other questions, please.
What is space, and how did that blackness impress David? Psalm 8:3

Space is where God placed the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. David was looking at stars in the heavens
When you read the phrase such as mentioned at Isaiah 57:16 and Jeremiah 32:19, since you do not just see empty space and mud, what do you see?
[Isa 57:16 NKJV] For I will not contend forever, Nor will I always be angry; For the spirit would fail before Me, And the souls [which] I have made. --I don't see how this relates to our discussion.
[Jer 32:19 NKJV] '[You are] great in counsel and mighty in work, for Your eyes [are] open to all the ways of the sons of men, to give everyone according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings. --nor this.

Please elaborate. I'm missing your point.
I'll repeat the verses again:
[Gen 1:1 KJV] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[Gen 2:1 KJV] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
The last one is not part of the narrative telling how and in what order God created, yet it is part of the section of scripture containing that narrative. That sentence could be termed a summation of what came before.
The first verse is similar--it isn't part of how and when God created, but is a statement of what the text that follows contains...an introduction, we would call it if writing an english paper. Or perhaps a title. Maybe you didn't understand what I was getting at with the story about making a lamp. I started with a statement about what I was about to describe the creation of (a lamp). The initial statement was not part of the story about how I was making a lamp, it was an introduction to the story about how I was making a lamp.

The assumption that the earth exists before the narrative says the earth exists makes the definition of "earth" confusing, because it is not what the verses define it. The verses of the text define "earth" as "dry land", not a planet where you can only see water. Therefore, if water is all you can see in Vs 2, it must not be the same thing as "earth" as defined in Gen 1:10. If Heaven is vs 1 is not something that came to exist only after the waters were separated from the waters, then there must be 2 things, in your view, that "Heaven" refers to. One in vs 1 and another in vs 8 and following. Whereas, if the introduction is telling us what the narrative is about, rather than being part of the narrative, we soon see the objects/foci of the narrative come into being in Gen 1:6-10.
Did you read Genesis 1:1, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20?
What is the expanse?
What is the expanse of the heavens?
I think they are the same thing--Space, extending down to the surface of the earth (dirt). The "face of the expanse" (still part of the expanse) is the sky where birds fly. "The Heavens" is the name God gave the expanse (firmament).
True. I'm interested in what you Derf, get from it.


Therefore, it does not refer to space, where the heavenly hosts... that is planets and stars would exist?
It does. But remember that the statement begins the narrative in which the heavens and the earth are created. It explains what the words mean as the things the words refer to come into being. If dry land existed prior to dry land existing, then the story of creation is confusing, don't you think? Remember that the narrative defines the words it uses for these things. If you then define them a different way, you need to explain where your definitions come from, and why they don't match the definitions in the narrative.
Ah. I see. So, you believe there is no space above the firmament. That's all a myth in science.
Isn't it? Or do scientists actually know what is outside the universe??
Can yo please point out where, or which layer the sun, moon, and stars reside in this diagram?
layers_of_the_atmosphere_withkm.png.webp
None of them. Can you tell me where the waters above the expanse reside?
Also, are you saying there is no space (heavens) above, which God created?
No. But when God made the firmament (expanse) there were a couple parts to it in the narrative. There is the firmament where stars and galaxies are, and there is the "face of the firmament", which is where birds fly.
[Gen 1:20 NKJV] Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens."
Upvote 0

TRUMP "MISSED THE DEADLINE" TO CALL OFF TX GERRYMANDERING; CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE “BEAUTIFUL MAPS”

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?

Yeesh. And I realize this has nothing to do with gerrymandering, but I was just responding to the horrible analogy presented to me.
I think you just missed the point of the analogy. Let me try to clarify: The bar is the country, the person kicking you is a political party resorting to unfair or dirty tricks to win an election. In this analogy, your solution, "just get up and walk away," would equate to leaving the country.

Is that your best solution for handling political disagreements or responding to unfair political tactics?

-- A2SG, metaphors can be hard sometimes....
Upvote 0

Trump promises $2000 tariff dividend to all Americans

ROFL!!!!

No way.
You believe that hey?

What happenned to paying down the debt? That has already increased faster than ever before (not counting COVID).
This will also be done with the tariffs. Eventually. It has to get worse before it gets better.
Upvote 0

Newsome pushed back against Democracy to achieve his political goals

Morals are real, they just aren't absolute or objective. Let's keep it in the other thread. I just wanted to know what my principles are and that I am judging your anti-democratic statements.
I don't mind being judged, particularly when someone has no real footing to make any kind of judgment. All you're telling me is your personal preference, and your opinion is really none of my business.
Upvote 0

Trump proposes 50-year mortgage


In another attempt to make homebuying more affordable, President Donald Trump floated the idea of a 50-year mortgage in a social media post. In response, Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte, who oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, posted that they are “working on it,” and that it would be, “a complete game-changer.”
I think this is a wonderful idea. You get to save some money per month, and when you die halfway into paying back your mortgage, your legacy lives on.

Stop Giving Your Jewish Kids Dumb Names

Why do you think Jews are inherently unique, Michie?
Because through the Jewish lineage God chose to reveal our salvation to the whole world. Much of our sacred scripture was Jewish history and has a direct link to our faith today. Jesus was born a Jew and revealed His plan of salvation through them as a Jewish man Himself. It’s about having respect and recognition of the branch we were grafted into. A covenant that was made. Opinions may vary on that one but thats my perspective. We are all a continuation of the salvation history that our Jewish Savior set in it course of salvation for the whole world.
Upvote 0

Testing AI in Reading & Comprehension

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.

That sentences presupposes AI is capable of decision-making with forensic consequences, and that eliminating certain obvious giveaways that one is speaking with an AI, which waste tokens and are distracting, in addition to being Turing test failing items, would somehow give an AI a human nature.

Since they lack qualia or executive planning capabilities or an inner monologue, we are far removed from such a possibility.
Upvote 0

The Octopianist

Warning - some incidental profanity.

I may have a dark sense of humor. I'm not into DEI, I believe in the merit system. If the fish thing had turned out to be a good musician, I'd say let it live. Since it didn't, I think it would've been pretty funny if the guy had ended the video by eating Tako.

Login to view embedded media

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,877,978
Messages
65,410,468
Members
276,357
Latest member
thelasttoknow