I seem to have stopped getting notifications on threads
- By WarriorAngel
- One Bread, One Body - Catholic
- 5 Replies
I'm getting notifications again. TYThe updates? What do you mean?
Upvote
0
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.
I'm getting notifications again. TYThe updates? What do you mean?
Good question.Why don't you develop your thought further? Perhaps we have overlooked a detail.
Imagine you are Ham's lawful wife; you love your husband and are happy to have given birth to a healthy baby boy. What would you think if the grandfather stood next to you and pronounced a terrible curse on your own child, when you knew that neither the child nor its parents had done anything wrong?
That is your opinion, I do not share it, nor does the Catholic Church.This is two commandments, not one
you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
This is one commandment- not two
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
But it is not quite true, is it? And it is divisive. There are quite a few Americans who would not subscribe to this as their motto.“America’s motto” since 1954.
It never went away. It is still on the Great Seal of the United States of America.Many of us would like to return to E Pluribus Unum
Did they though? From what I can tell they entered into a preliminary deal in March for that amount, but haven't been able to find anything saying that the deal has been finalized or the money distributed.Good timing for Intel - they received $8.5 billion
Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota is also coming out with revelations about Tim Walz and his time in Congress. It's interesting how you can't really hide your past.Michele Bachmann: Tim Walz is 'as radical as AOC or more'
(Member of Congress served with Kamala's VP pick for years)
Former Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, now dean of the Robertson School of Government, served with now Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for years.
And after Kamala Harris tagged Walz as her pick for the Democrat party's nomination for vice president, she spoke out.
"I went to Congress with Tim Walz in 2006 and served with him for 8 years. On the outside, he looks like an awe-shucks, back slapping, nice guy politician, when in fact he is as radical as AOC or more," Bachmann said.
She said, "Because of Tim Walz, more people have moved out of the state than at any other time in Minnesota's history. Last year, $2 billion and 30,000 people left the state of Minnesota." And she noted Walz promoted "the strongest transgender protection bill in the country and the strongest pro-abortion bill in the country."
![]()
Michele Bachmann: Tim Walz is 'as radical as AOC or more' * WorldNetDaily * by Bob Unruh
Former Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, now dean of the Robertson School of Government, served with now Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for years.www.wnd.com
Homosexuality as a choice vs you are born with it are both flawed arguments.The debate as to whether homosexuality is a sin often revolves around the question whether or not its a choice. But this assumes that something has to be a choice in order for it to be a sin -- which is implicitly an Arminian assumption. So its interesting that Calvinists, too, argue that homosexuality is a choice. Why can't Calvinists say that homosexuality isn't a choice since everyone was predestined to either go to heaven or hell from birth, so including homosexuality as a part of this predestination-package won't be any more unfair? Thus, it would make logical sense if Arminians were to say homosexuality is a choice while Calvinists were to say that it isn't.
However, despite the fact that Arminians would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a choice", Calvinists would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a sin". Here is why. The reason for arguing that homosexuality is not a sin (despite Bible clearly teaching that it is), is the fact that, based on secular evidence, homosexuality doesn't seem to be a choice, while sin is a choice. So, again, the underlying assumption here is Arminian: namely, that sin is a choice. So, logically speaking, Calvinist can argue their way out of it by saying "fine, people are born gay, but homosexuality is still a sin, because according to Calvinism every sin is predestined from birth". An Arminian won't be able to argue that way so thats why the Arminian, if faced with a failure of refuting evidence against homosexuality being a choice, would be forced to try to argue that its not a sin.
Combining the two paragraphs above, here is what would happen. An Arminian would, logically, first take "conservative" position and try to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Then, after he fails to make his case, he would, logically, switch to "liberal" side and argue that homosexuality is not a sin. On the other hand, Calvinist would logically be fine simply maintaining a fixed point of view that partly agrees with liberals and partly with conservatives, namely "homosexuality is not a choice but its still a sin, since those people were predestined to sin".
Now, you might notice that in the above I didn't say they "believe" something; I only said "one would logically expect them to believe it" (with the word logically being key word). Because I don't think the actual opinion survey would confirm what I would logically expect in the above discussion. Why not? One logical explanation is maybe because Calvinists used to be Arminians prior to converting to Calvinism. So, back in their Arminian past, they had to say homosexuality is a choice. And then, after they became Calvinist, they never came back to re-evaluate their perspective. Either that, or a different explanation is that Calvinists want to give people milk before giving them hard meat. Openly admitting to predestination would be hard meat that many people can't bear. So, in order to give them milk (since the discussion in question is the one with either non-believers or not true believers) they have to pretend to be Arminian and then argue from Arminian viewpoint.
AgreedLet's a guy was standing for a local council. I tell you how he avoided the draft, the sexual assault charge, he slept with porn star while his wife was pregnant, the comments he's made about women, all his failed companies, the way he talks about his opponents, the fact that he's a felon...I could go on and on. Any reasonable person would say 'Well...that's enough. No need to go on. I think we'll skip on this guy'.
But wait. How can you reject him? I haven't told you what his policies are. And again, surely all reasonable people would say 'I don't care what his policies are. His behaviour, his character, has excluded him from being considered.'
It seems that that's not the way the world works any more.
The method also was usually different. One common method of teaching was (and still is) used, where a statement is made as though absolute, that is not meant as absolute, but something to consider by which to bear upon other applications, and often followed soon after by a contradictory statement, also presented as absolute. Preaching rarely did (does) this.Mk 9:
Strong's Greek: 1321. διδάσκω (didaskó) — 97 Occurrences
BDAG:
① to tell someone what to do, tell, instruct
② to provide instruction in a formal or informal setting, teach
Mk 1:
Strong's Greek: 2784. κηρύσσω (kérussó) — 61 Occurrences
BDAG:
① to make an official announcement, announce, make known
② to make public declarations, proclaim aloud
Teaching was more personal and interactive, while preaching was more public and unidirectional. However, their meanings overlapped. Mark 6:
ok but Ex 20:7 (third commandment) is not about pronouncing the Hebrew word.You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
The name of the Lord is YHWH in Latin letters and יְהֹוָה in Hebrew. It is commonly pronounced as Yahweh or Jehovah.
exactly!Misusing God's name would involve using it disrespectfully or as if it had no value.
I bet "Big Brother" would like to do that to keep all the slaves happily following the Party Line.Fake news has been a topic that has come up often in the last few months, with some saying it helped President Donald Trump win the election while the president himself called his “Golden Shower Gate” controversy another piece of fake news.
Around the world too, there have been various instances recently involving fake news — China, Germany and Sweden, among others, are mulling action against Facebook and other social media platforms for the propagation of misinformation; Pakistan’s defense minister threatened Israel with nuclear war based on a bogus news story; a fake news story about a blast in Thailand triggered the safety check feature on Facebook; and so on.
In a statement, the researchers from universities of Yale, George Mason, and Cambridge in the United Kingdom, said: “A new study compared reactions to a well-known climate change fact with those to a popular misinformation campaign. When presented consecutively, the false material completely cancelled out the accurate statement in people’s minds — opinions ended up back where they started. Researchers then added a small dose of misinformation to delivery of the climate change fact, by briefly introducing people to distortion tactics used by certain groups. This ‘inoculation’ helped shift and hold opinions closer to the truth — despite the follow-up exposure to ‘fake news’.”
Over 2,000 participants across the United States were tested for the study, in which they were presented with opposing statements on climate change — from false assertions about there being no consensus about climate change among the scientific fraternity to accurate ones like 97 percent of scientists agreeing on human-induced climate change.
Researchers found those who saw only the facts about climate change were quite likely, irrespective of political affiliation, to move toward believing in the scientific consensus. Those who were shown only the misinformation were inclined to move away from scientific beliefs. Participants who saw the accurate data followed by fake news had very little change in opinion, the two competing sets of data cancelling each other out.
Two groups among the participants, chosen randomly, were given two separate doses of “vaccines.” One was a general warning that some groups tried to mislead the public by talking about disagreement among scientists on climate change. The other was a detailed breakdown of such claims by the Oregon Global Warming Petition Project, explaining how the signatories were fraudulent (Charles Darwin and members of the Spice Girls are among them) and how less than 1 percent actually had a background in climate science.
It was seen that the groups so inoculated showed a marked shift in opinion toward believing in climate change, and its human cause.
Sander van der Linden, a social psychologist from the University of Cambridge and director of the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab, and lead author of the study, said: “We found that inoculation messages were equally effective in shifting the opinions of Republicans, Independents and Democrats in a direction consistent with the conclusions of climate science. What’s striking is that, on average, we found no backfire effect to inoculation messages among groups predisposed to reject climate science, they didn't seem to retreat into conspiracy theories. There will always be people completely resistant to change, but we tend to find there is room for most people to change their minds, even just a little.”
Titled “Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change,” the open access study was published in the journal Global Challenges.
Full article here: A Fake News Vaccine? Climate Change Misinformation Can Be Fought With ‘Inoculation,’ Scientists Say
No idea.I wonder, was the cop sleeping in the back seat at the time when Mr. Footman drove off in the car?
And, later, maybe the cop woke up and tried to get control of the car thus causing the crash?
The word "Day" in Genesis 1 in Aramaic is Heat which means the process, effort & thought, all of which is heat.International System of Units defines an hour = 3,600 seconds. A second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
Genesis 1:
Darkness was first.
The light was next.
Darkness was followed by light.
The usage of "night" here was related to the darkness in verse 2. The usage of "day" here was related to the creation of the light and not the sun. Here, I define the first day as the time elapsed from Genesis 1:2 to 1:5.
Could the first day be defined as a 24-hour earthly solar day?
I doubt it. The flow of time is not absolute but a relativistic experience. It depends on the local gravity or acceleration exerted on the time observer. To my reading, the first day seems short. God was the observer, 2 Peter 3:
This is not an equation but a simile. God is timeless and above time. No human observers were there to experience the first day. The first day marked the creation of light and delineated it from the creation of the following day. These days were markers of milestones and achievements placed by God. They are not related to the scientific SI definitions.
See also How old is the earth?.
You are welcome, bro.No, thanks. Let people join or not the thread.
I'm not disappointed by our dialogue, Alex, whether or not you're a theologian ; and i wish you the same : a blessed day (how kind!)
You again? Do we need another back-and-forth? Fallen Angels Sure, only you have the facts. Others who may have studied a subject for years, only have conjecture and opinions.This statement is conjecture. Pure opinion without facts. I read this internet myth frequently, as it is spread without regard to proper research.