I think it's in the book of Daniel
It means something

The Polish people are rejecting the Globalist and MSM narrative. Grzegorz Braun was elected with 0% MSM coverage, after he extinguished a menorah with a fire extinguisher. He stands on a platform of peace, and putting the interests of the Polish people over the Globalists' agendas.

Other European nations are moving in the same direction.




Login to view embedded media

I always do not attend Church's service on Sunday, I feel boring, not interested, have no friends in Church,
my wife and I go to different churches,
I feel that the preaching is boring, very dull.
Wasting my time to go to church.

What is your advice to me?

I propose more logical version of chess, with the following modifications:

1) You have to actually capture the king in order to win. Thus, if you made a checkmate, you didn't win yet. You only win after your opponent makes a move in response to your checkmate, and then you capture the king in your move after that.

2) Stalemate is not a draw. Just like with checkmate, the next move will be made, which will result in capturing the king of stalemated party, thus stalemated party losing the game

3) If someone doesn't pay attention, its possible to fail to capture the king after either checkmate or stalemate, simply because one doesn't notice that they just checkmated/stalemated their opponent. So in this case the game continues.

4) Conversely, if one doesn't pay attention, its also possible to accidentally put a king under threat without being either checkmated or stalemated. In this case, your opponent will capture your king the next move and you will lose

5) Its also possible that both parties are careless: one party accidentally puts a king under threat, and the other party doesn't notice it. In this case, the game continues.

6) If someone accidentally puts a king under threat and then notices it before their opponents move, they are not allowed to undo that move. Because the move of putting the king under threat is just as legal as any other move. And, just like you aren't allowed to undo any other move, you aren't allowed to undo this move either.

7) If the game is timed, and the one who checkmated/stalemated their opponent runs out of time immediately after that, they lose the game. So if its the checkmate then normal rules would say they won (since they checkmated their opponent before running out of time) but my rules would say they lost (because they didn't capture the opponents king before running out of time). And if its a stalemate then normal rules would say its a draw, while my rules would again say they lost (and if they didn't run out of time it wouldn't be a draw either, instead they would have won per part 2).

8) If someone resigns, then yes they lose. So, of course, its possible to resign due to being checkmated/stalemated. And in this situation they would lose without any more moves. But the official reason why they would lose would "not" be checkmate/stalemate. Instead, it would be the fact that they resigned. So, unless they officially resign, another move needs to be made.

9) On the other hand, if you do capture their king, then yes, they would lose without resigning. Losing a king is the official reason to lose the game, without any need for resignation.

10) By the same token, no position is automatic draw unless the draw is agreed upon. Thus, if the game is timed, in the draw situation they would simply be moving their pieces as quickly as possible until one of the parties runs out of time. Thus, if one player has a lot more time left than the other player, then the former is much more likely to win (unless the latter player happens to be able to move pieces faster). So, the player with less time left might realize this, resign, and lose due to resigning. Or they might decide not to resign and hope to move pieces really fast and see what happens. Or if they have similar time left, they might both agree to have a draw since they don't like mindlessly moving pieces for five minutes. And then they would have a draw, but official reason for a draw would not be the actual position but instead the fact that they agreed for a draw. If they don't agree for a draw, they would have to be moving pieces. Now, as they are moving pieces as quickly as possible, its very easy to accidentally put a king under threat. And then whoever does it would lose this way -- provided their opponent notices it, which they might not notice due to also being focus on moving as fast as possible.

11) An alternative way to deal with draws is that, instead of putting the limit on the total time of all moves (say, 10 minutes total for all moves) put the limit on the time for each move (say, 1 minute total each move). Thus, the total number of moves would be of unlimitted time. And since 1 minute per move is very easy to fulfill, especially in a draw situation, both players would realize the game would never end unless they agree for a draw. And this would induce them to agree for a draw. The purpose of 1 minute per move is completely different from the one for 10 minute total. You see, 1 minute per move is very easy, so it has nothing to do with thinking fast. Instead, it has to do with the fact that, without limitting time per move, the losing player would stall indefinitely. So this is the way to prevent them from stalling. So, if you like, I can make it an hour per move. Even that would do the job too. The losing player will realize they would lose after the hour runs out, so they would either make their bad move they are forced to make sooner or they will resign.

12) Here is even better alternative. Instead of saying 1 minute per move, say 1 day per move. So then even if they do move it indefinitely it won't be too bad: they just have to remember to make one move per day so the challenge would be to remember it. But still its a bit of a nuisance. So one thing they might do is this. Apart from being able to agree to have a draw, they can agree to postpone the game. And if they reach that agreement then the time for a move wont be a day. And so the game that is to be drawn can simply be indefinitely postponed instead. Or they can simply change their mind about allowed time per move on the condition that both players agree (so one player can't stall since it takes agreement of both to change the time per move). So in a situation of a draw, both players can agree to take a year per move, and then they don't have to come back to that game for a year.

I am originally from Russia, born to two Jewish parents, but I discovered faith in Jesus at the age of 22 completely on my own.

I first made conscious decision in favor of Christianity when I was 22 years old. The way it happened was pretty interesting. My mom was renting a room in Berkeley from a Jewish math professor, Jacob Feldman, who was an atheist. At that time, I was doing my first year of my Master's program in physics at University of Minnesota. I visitted my mom in Berkeley for the winter break, in winter between 2001 and 2002. Coincidentally, at that same time, math professor at university of Minnesota, Walter Littman, had visitted Jacob Feldman as well. Ironically, I haven't met him in Minnesota during my first semester there, so I first met him in Berkeley, when we both visited Jack's house.

Walter and his wife were talking about a mathematician Hillel who, while he was a little kid, was rescued from Nazi concentration camp: his parents threw him across the fense and then he found his way to the home that took care of him. Walter's wife then said "I resent the people that say it didn't happen". I asked what didn't happen? She then told me about some people that say that there is no holocaust. I haven't heard of this before, and I asked her why would they say it. She said they say it because they hate Jews. I didn't see how the hatred of Jews have anything to do with saying it. To me, that statement didn't sound hateful at all, instead it sounded something like 2+2=5. Now, I researched it later on the internet and I realized from my future research why it is politically charged: namely, as a result of the holocaust, Germany sends a lot of money to Jewish survivors, and also holocaust is the main reason the State of Israel was created. But I didn't know it at that time. Likewise, upon later research, I found the arguments that the holocaust revisionists were making as well as the rebutals of those arguments. But I didn't know any of it at the time of the conversation. So my reaction at the time was the one of simple surprise and curiosity, yet she didn't really address it.

When I asked her that question, her answer was "those are the same people who say that Jews have horns and they know how to hide them". So then I asked her why would people say Jews have horns? After all, if Jews had horns, you would see them, would you not? How is it possible for Jews to have horns without you being able to see them? Again, her simple answer was "they say it because they hate Jews". And then she refused to answer it further and just changed the subject.

When I googled it myself, I found out that the reason they say Jews have horns is two-fold:

1. There was a verse that when Moses came down from the mountain, he had light coming off of him. In certain language, the word illumination is similar to the word horns. So they mistranslated it as if Moses had horns. As a result of that mistranslation, they actually built a statue of Moses with horns, which later resulted in the stereotype that Jews in general have horns.
2. In John 8:44 Jesus told Jews that they are the children of the devil, and devil has horns. This verse was further used to back up Christian Identity doctrine that in the Garden of Eden, Eve had intercourse with the serpent which resulted in birth of Cain. Thus, the only offspring of Adam and Eve was Abel, while Cain was an offspring of Eve and serpent instead. They then claim that Jews are descendants of Cain and, consequently, are children of the devil (aka that serpent).

To me, those two things didn't add up. Because I knew that Christians regarded Moses as a prophet. So if the reason Jews have horns is that they are of the devil (point number 2), and Moses also has horns (point number 1), then this would imply that Moses is of the devil. Also, point number 2 didn't really make sense on its own either because it would imply that Jesus is of the devil too. Later on I learned Christian Identity answer to this: in particular they claim that today's Jews (who are of Cain) are not true Israelites, while the true Israelites (which includes both Jesus and Moses) are non-Jewish Europeans. However, it again didn't add up: if they claim that Moses is non-Jewish European, why would Moses having horns imply that Jews have horns and not imply that Europeans do? And why would he have horns if having horns is a sign of being of the devil (which they claim Jews are, but non-Jewish Europeans aren't, while Moses is supposedly European)? Plus, regardless of how ethnicities are assigned, Moses can't possibly be of the devil by the virtue of being a prophet, so he can't possibly have horns.

However, a lot more importantly, I got scared by that verse. While, coming from Russia, I knew antisemitism exists, I didn't know it gets that extreme. I was assuming antisemites say Jews are bad people – but still people. I didn't know anybody would say that Jews are literally demonic. That, plus also I assumed antisemitism is a folklore, I didn't realize it would make it into the Bible. I guess I knew about the claim that Jews killed Christ, and I guess if someone would have asked me if its in the Bible, I would say "I guess", but I would only be guessing since I haven't read the Bible. But since nobody asked me I haven't really thought of it. But in any case, the claim that Jews killed Christ didn't sound nearly as extreme as a claim that Jews are literally of the devil, and so the latter really scared me.

Logically speaking, as an atheist, I didn't believe the Bible. However, on an emotional level, I still regarded Bible as some sort of authority. And so while generally I would dismiss everything it says, once I ran into something that extreme, I couldn't dismiss it: I got scared. And I was wondering how come other people weren't as scared as I was.

In order to answer that question, I searched more conventional interpretations of John 8:44. One thing I found was that it wasn't talking about literal biological descent, but instead it was talking about spiritual one. If one speaks biologically, then if some Jews are of the devil that would mean all are, because Jews are biologically related. On the other hand, if one speaks spiritually, then it is possible for some Jews to be of the devil and for others not to be. In fact, one can even have identical twins, one is of the devil and the other isn't. Thus, it is possible that Moses and Pharesees are genetically related, yet Pharesees are of the devil and Moses wasn't, due to their different choices. And where today's Jews stand would also depend on their choices.

To me this was very hard to grasp. Because what I pictured was somebody supernaturally changing their genetics through their choices, which appeared to be next to impossible. So I decided to research it further. Upon further research I realized that it goes back to the concept of being "born again", and the question I was asking was the very same question Nicodemus was asking (except that the context in which I was asking it was a lot more scary). Yet, the notion of being "born again" seemed abstract too (just like it did to Nicodemus) and I had no idea how to address it. So I decided that maybe it would make sense if I read the Bible in order.

However, reading Bible in order didn't lead to what I expected. I expected Bible to be similar to a textbook, where all the terms are defined, all in logical order, etc. But it turned out not to be that way. For example, when I got to Matthew 4, I was surprised how did it mention devil without defining him. And as I kept reading it just kept getting worse and worse. So then I realized that Bible is not like a textbook but instead its like a universe where I can try to gather an evidence to come up with my own textbook about it. As a research-minded person, this intrigued me.

However, at the beginning, I was doing that research as an atheist, looking at a Bible as a human artifact that I was doing antrhopological survey about. What changed my attitude was the following. As I was running the google searches on "children of the devil", google sent me to church of satan (which was irrelevant to what I was searching for, but the google picked up key words). The existence of church of satan was the other thing I was previously unaware of, and it was the other thing that scared me. So then I started to search the church of satan, to address my fears. And as I was searching I ran into two separate things:

1. Laveyan satanists claimed that they aren't worshipping satan. In fact, they don't believe in satan to begin with, just like they don't believe in God. They are simply using satan as a symbol, while their belief system is identical to atheism. While their intention was to redeem themselves from the accusations, they had the opposite effect on me. In particular, if their faith is the same as the one of the atheists, then this means that by being an atheist I was agreeing with them! And that thought was really scary.
2. Christians claimed that, unless you are a Christian, you are an satanist. Actually I ran into a softer version of that statement that said "you are either a Christian or a Jew or a satanist" (thus redeeming the Jews from this accusation which was naturally quite important to me). But still, since I didn't believe in God at that time, I was still an atheist rather than the Jew as far as my religion was concerned. So since, unlike before, I became concerned with my religion rather than genetics, I was still scared I was siding with satanists religion-wise.

So what I noticed was that two opposite camps (Christians and satanists) happened to agree on one thing: that atheism and satanism is the same thing. This really scared me. Even though I was an atheist, I wanted to think that in the battle of Christians vs Satanists I would side with Christians. So then I decided to stop being an atheist. I wasn't quite ready to become a Christian yet. Instead I decided to start believing in God and possibly becoming religious Jew. I only ended up becoming a Christian few months later.

The way I ended up becoming Christian was the following. After 911, my grandmother was telling me about Palestinian terrorism against Israel, and was presenting it as facts. She didn't really tell me that there are two sides to the story until a couple of months later. But then, after said couple of months, she told me "do you know that most of Europe (especially France) supports Palestine?" I was like "Why? I thought they are terrorists!" And she told me they support Palestine because they hate Jews. Then I got angry about it and stayed angry for the next several months.

Then, some time in Spring 2002, I went to the holocaust survivors message board and started to complain how antisemites are using passive aggression a lot. In particular, in my post I drew a parallel between those three things:

1. During the holocaust, only Axis actually exterminated Jews, while Allied countries "neglected" to rescue the Jews from the Nazis (so Allied countries didn't target the Jews, they just neglected them).
2. People who oppose Israel, they aren't making up any of the bad things that Israel allegidly did that it didn't actually do. What they do instead is that they "neglect" to notice the stuff Palestinians do to the Israelis. So if you "forget" the acts of Palestinian terrorism, then Israeli response to it (without any exaggerations of said response) begins to look like aggression.
3. Today's Christians don't want to say anything negative about the Jews. But they "forget" to keep Old Testament law, because they "forget" that Old Testament is part of the Bible, too.

As far as point c goes, I now see that they didn't "forget the Old Testament"; instead, they read Paul that wrote at length why it is not to be kept. Of course, Messianic/Sabbaterian groups re-interpret Paul differently, to claim that one should still keep the law; but that is an entirely different issue. The point is that neither side "forgot" about the Old Testament, the way I claimed they did. However, back when I made that post, I haven't read Paul. Thats why I assumed Christians forgot it. And when somebody mentioned Paul in my response to that thread, I didn't even know that Paul was one of the authors of the Bible. Instead, I assumed he was one of the commentaries, and got mad as to why he said it.

In any case, while this was a board for holocaust survivors, there were a lot of non-Jews (including Christians) who were participated in it. So one of them told me that if I think Christianity and Judaism should be kept together, there are Messianic congregations that do that. This was the first time I ever heard of Messianic Judaism, and that term sounded attractive because it was exotic. So I decided to go check out Messianic congregation. The knowledge of Messianic congregations (which I obtained entirely by accident from that post) was the one bridge that I needed to be able to accept Jesus. Because when I attempted to go to Christian church prior to that, I felt an acute discomfort (although nowdays that I been Christian for a long time, I go to Christian churches and enjoy it; but this would have never happened if it wasn't for that bridge that Messianic congregation provided).

Again, however, simply going to Messianic congregation wouldn't necessarily mean believing their teachings (including the one about Jesus). The reason why I ended up believing in Jesus is that i went on a website that compared hell in three monotheistic religions. What I learned from that website is that Jews don't believe in hell at all, they just believe in different distances from God. Plus they also believe that the consequences in the afterlife (in a form of distance from God) would only last for a year. Muslims do believe in hell, but Muslims believe that people of the book (that is, Jews and Christians) are exempt from it, if they stay true to their respective religions (that is, Judaism or Christianity). However, Christians do believe in eternal hell, that both Jews and Muslims (along with other non-Christians) would go to. So I decided that if either Jews or Muslims are right, and I am a Christian, I won't have to suffer eternal torment. But if Christians are right, and I am either Jew or Muslim, then I would have to suffer eternal torment. So it is safer to be a Christian.

Now, back in my atheist days, I thought I had scientific proof that there is no God. So now that I decided to become religious (in 2002), I needed to deal with those arguments somehow. What came handy was the course on Descartes I took back in 1999 (when I was an atheist).

In most of the essays assigned for that course, they didn't ask us to actually agree with Descartes. Instead, they were asking us to write our own contemplations about the questions he was posing. Of course, we had to know, and describe, what his views are. But we were also asked to compare and contrast his views to our own views and make an argument about it. So I wrote that, while the quetsions Descartes posed were good ones, the way he addressed them was bad. In particular, he started out by being very careful not to make any leaps in logic that most people make. Yet, later on, he proceeded to make his own leaps of logic that are a lot wider than the ones others are making. I did, however, agree with him up to the point of "I think therefore I am". But I didn't agree with most of the subsequent claims he was making (including his claim in favor of existence of God, and so forth).

Now, the way I proposed to answer his questions was the following. I claimed that any reasoning is based off of axioms. So the idea that we are not sleeping is simply an axiom. Of course, this was totally different from Descarte's thinking, but since I was asked to present my own opinion, I got good grades for those essays.

Again, that is what I wrote back in 1999, when I was an atheist. But when I decided to become a believer in 2002, I decided that I can use that line of reasoning to convince myself to be a believer. In particular, since every reasoning is based off of axioms, then my idea that there is no God is also based off of axioms. So by abandoning some of the axioms that led to the idea that there is no God, and introducing some of the new axioms that would imply that there is God, I can make myself a believer.

In particular, one axiom I decided to believe in was the one that Bible is 100% true. The apparent problem with that axiom is that it seemingly contradicts archaeological findings. However, there are similar contradictions in science-proper too. A good example would be a contradiction between quantum mechanics and gravity. This contradiction doesn't lead people to say that scientists conspired to lie about their lab results, because an axiom that modern-day people (such as the ones who reported the lab results) are trustworthy surpasses the apparent incompatibility between quantum mechanics and gravity. Similarly, if I were to make an axiom that Bible is trustworthy and believe it to the point that it surpasses its apparent incompatibility with archeology, then I will end up believing in the Bible too.

1 Thessalonians 4:

16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Click to expand...

1. Jesus comes down.
2. The first group rises.
3. The second group catches up.

What's step 4? Will the entire bunch of people go up or down or stay in the air?

Down, I think.

YLT Matthew 25:

6 and in the middle of the night a cry was made, Lo, the bridegroom doth come; go ye forth to meet [G529] him.

Click to expand...

The word "meet" here is apantēsin. The virgins were to meet and welcome Jesus, the bridegroom.

7‘Then rose all those virgins, and trimmed their lamps, 8and the foolish said to the prudent, Give us of your oil, because our lamps are going out; 9and the prudent answered, saying — Lest there may not be sufficient for us and you, go ye rather unto those selling, and buy for yourselves. 10‘And while they are going away to buy,

Click to expand...

The foolish virgins went away to find oil. They missed being part of the welcoming group.

the bridegroom came, and those ready went in with him to the marriage-feasts, and the door was shut;

Click to expand...

The bridegroom continued in the same direction and reached his destination.

Now, Young's Literal Translation, 1 Thessalonians 4:

17 then we who are living, who are remaining over, together with them shall be caught away in clouds to meet [G529] the Lord in air, and so always with the Lord we shall be

Click to expand...

meet
ἀπάντησιν (apantēsin)
Noun - Accusative Feminine Singular
Strong's 529: From apantao; a encounter.

Presumably, after the meeting/encounter of the welcoming people in the air, Jesus will continue in the same direction to come down to reach his destination on Earth where the wedding banquet will take place. I don't think it is like the popular Left Behind film series, where unbelievers will be left on earth to face the chaos and the Antichrist.

See also The word "rapture"

What is the Christian stance on AI?

Are you worried that AI will strip away human nature?

Will AI enslave humans?

Is AI dangerous to human existence?

Do you think AI robot will dominate the world?

Family of black belts stops attempted sex assault next door, police say​

Simon An, a 20-year-old college student, was mindlessly scrolling social media inside his family’s Texas taekwondo school on Tuesday afternoon when he heard an unsettling scream. His father, Han An — a 59-year-old eighth-degree black belt who once served in the South Korean military — immediately sprung to action.

“My dad led the charge, and then my sister was just right behind him,” Simon said.

Within seconds, Simon’s father burst into a mobile phone store next door, where he said he saw a young man on top of a female, one hand over her mouth and the other touching her inappropriately.

From there, the scene unfolded quickly: Simon said his father grabbed the man’s shirt, but the man managed to take the shirt off. Han then grabbed the man’s pants, keeping one arm straight and stable while using the other to block any attacks. He was able to pin him down.

Although he used his taekwondo skills to help stop the attack, he said he hopes the public knows they can always intervene.

“If a regular person were to see something like that, I would hope for them to go and help,” he said. “Just help the person in need.”

Hi, I don't know a whole lot about this topic. There is a nursing home 10 miles away from me. I have a very strong attachment to the town it's in, but that's different story. However, it used to be under the umbrella of a Catholic hospital that was deconsecrated some time ago, I don't know when. With the hospital being deconsecrated, so was the nursing home. Also, when I was a kid, I could have sworn that when we entered the premises of the nursing home, there used to be a big cross on the side of the building. The cross is gone. The circular drive around the perimeter of the building is named after nuns. The name of the roadway was not changed, I guess. I would like to know:

- Why would a place that was once a Catholic facility be deconsecrated?
- Is it a sin to deconsecrate a facility?
- If not, why would the Bishop allow such a thing?

It does break my heart because it's a sign that society wants to "take God" out of a particular place.

Most Christians would say that Bible condemns antisemitism. Yet, starting from second century all the way throughout middle ages all the way till 19-th century and even beginning of 20-th century antisemitism was a mainstream belief among Christians. So the question is why did things change? Yes, we have antisemites now, but nowdays they are a minority, while in the past they were vast majority. The typical Christian answer is that "they were not true Christians". But this doesn't address the question of a timeline. Why would Christians in the middle ages not be true Christians, while Christians in 21-st century be true Christians, when Bible prophesizes the opposite, that there would be falling away of the church at the end times.

I think the real honest reason why Christians have sympathy towards Jews is simply because they feel bad for the Jews after the holocaust. As much as Christians will deny it, this is something that objective look at the timeline, and objective use of secular psychology would tell us. And whether the Bible supports antisemitism or not is a separate question. I am not discussing whether Bible supports antisemitism -- I am only discussing the psychology of people that cause them to choose one interpretation of the Bible over the other. Right or wrong, it was traditional to choose antisemitic interpretations of the Bible. But then the holocaust made them feel bad for the Jews, so they decided to rethink their interpretation of the Bible and choose less antisemitic ones.

This being said, lets ask ourselves a different question. On the one hand, Christians can't bear the idea that 6 million holocaust victims deserved it. Yet, on the other hand, Christians are okay with an idea that people that are in hell deserve it. But you see, the 6 million Jews only suffered for limitted period of time, while hell suffering is eternal (the reason I say they suffered for limitted period of time is because Christians are not comfortable in saying Anne Frank or any other holocaust victim is in hell, even though they don't believe in Jesus; or even if we do say they are in hell, they would have been in hell with or without Hitler; the amount of suffering Hitler ADDED to it is finite). So why is it finite suffering of 6 million Jews is harder to bear than infinite suffering of a lot more people in hell? I think its because Christians haven't actually seen hell, yet they seen the suffering of 6 million Jews. Yes, they say they believe in hell. But its one thing to simply believe, and its another thing altogether to actually see it.

In fact lets ask ourselves a famous question as to how Hitler could go to heaven if he accepted Jesus right before his death and how Anne Frank could go to hell for not believing in Jesus. But, instead of trying to answer this question, lets ask ourselves a different question. Regardless if its true or not, why would it be more appealing to our sensitivities to see Anne Frank in heaven and Hitler in hell? In other words, we are not asking who is actually in heaven or in hell, we are only asking the question about ourselves: namely our own sensitivities. And it is a valid question. Because you see, if Anne Frank were to go to heaven and Hitler were to go to hell, then Hitler would suffer in hell a lot more and a lot longer than Anne Frank suffered in the real life. So, since the honest reason for sympathy towards Anne Frank is that she suffered more (see above), then this reason is no longer true, since now Hitler suffered more. Yet, I still claim that the reason that Anne Frank suffered more is real honest reason. Because, again, people haven't seen hell. So even though they conceptually know that Hitlers suffering in hell are a lot more severe and a lot longer, still deep down on a more intuitive level they feel that Anne Frank's suffering are worse, because its here in the tangible, while hell isn't.

A counter-argument to this is a statement "yes Hitler suffered more but he deserved it while Anne Frank didn't". I don't buy this either. Because one can claim that Jews deserved it too, since they killed Jesus. If you say "Romans killed Jesus", again, let me ask you to be honest with yourself and others. What would have happened if for the past 2 millenia people were to persecute Italians instead of Jews beause Romans killed Jesus, and then Hitler were to kill 6 millions Italians instead of 6 millions Jews for that same reason. Then everyone would feel bad for Italians and would say "Jews killed Jesus" not because they hate Jews but simply because they want to redeem Italians who were victims of all that persecution. But since in actuality it were the Jews that were persecutted and not the Italians, thats why nowdays so many people want to say that Romans killed Jesus out of sympathy towards Jews. But if we were to be more honest then yes Bible teaches Jews killed Jesus or at least strongly suggests it.

Then the other argument is that its unfair to nowdays Jews to be punished for what their ancestors did 2 millenia ago. Well, by the same token, it is also unfair to punish humankind as a whole for what Adam and Eve did in even more distant past. Yet, most Christians feel like punishing Jews for their ancestors is objectionable while the belief in original sin isn't. Again, I think it is because they wittnessed the holocaust so they feel a lot of sympathy towards the Jews. But wait a second: wouldn't the majority of mankind suffer for original sin a lot more severely and a lot longer than Jews suffered for the holocaust? Again: the holocaust happened in the tangible while the future hell for original sin isn't.

And also, as far as the idea that "unlike Anne Frank, it was Hitler's own choice", if you look at it from Calvinist perspective, Hitler was predestined to make the choices he did. I am not saying I am a Calvinist. But I can still ask a question: why is it, the people that are Calvinist, still act as if Hitler is responsible for what he did, yet Jews aren't responsible for how they were born, if neither of them had a choice (from Calvinist perspective)? Again, the answer lies in their sympathies towards Jews after the holocaust. And again I can ask why don't they have even more sympathies towards Hitler, given that he had no choice either (from their perspective), and he would suffer eternally? Again, the answer lies in the fact that they see Jewish suffering in the tangible while the suffering in hell is not tangible.

Now, if you look at all the bolded parts, you will see that the jist of why people changed their theology out of sympathy towards the holocaust victims yet they are okay in believing in hell and so forth, is really because, whether they admit it or not, they treat hell as less real than this tangible world. So the holocaust was really just a small glimpse of hell here in the tangible. And the glimpse of hell in the tagible is something they can't stand to the point of having to change their theology, while the full blown hell in the intangible is something they are willing to believe in, because even though they say they believe in it, deep down they treat it as intangible.

A lot of other social issues point to the same thing too. How come people are more mad at David Duke than they are at John Macarthur? David Duke never said Jews or blacks go to hell, he simply wants to change some policies here on earth, while John Macarthur says vast majority of people were predestined to hell from birth (even though this predestination is not related to skin color, how is it any better than if it was? whether its skin color or not, the bottom line is that they had no control over it). The reason David Duke is more offensive than John MacArthur is, again, because David Duke deals with the tangible while John Macarthur deals with intangible. People claim they treat hell as tangible, since they want to say they are Chrsitian. But the fact is they don't, as the above contrast illustrates.

By the way, I am a Christian. If you ask me what I believe Bible wants us to believe about those issues, I would be a lot more honest than most and say I don't know: Bible has many interpretations. But the above secular analysis should be considered, if you want to be honest with yourself.

I know I've posted about Jim Carrey before, but this vid reveals a more thorough biography that makes his testimony even more profound. His expression of the Gospel and grace couldn't be more clear, imho. Enjoy and please say a prayer for his witness.

I am a Christian. However, I must say that Christians oftentimes use strawman arguments when dealing with atheists. If anything, it only hurts their case. I think it is very important to deal with things logically, admit where the other person's opinion comes from, and then address it.

This being said, one strawman argument Christians use is the following. They say that atheists must really hate God in order to say that God doesn't exist. They say that they don't even hate Stalin and Hitler as much as they hate God. Because they don't deny Stalin's and Hitler's existence, yet they deny God's existence.

I think this claim is simply not true. 99% of people would hate Stalin and Hitler more than God. Just ask them and see The reason they deny God's existence but they don't deny Hitler's and Stalin's existence is very simple. Hitler and Stalin made their existence tangible. God didn't. Hating Stalin and Hitler won't make people want to deny their existence: on the contrary their survival instinct would make them want to acknowledge their existence so that they can hide from them (at least if they lived at their time). But in Gods case its exact opposite because, unlike them, God doesn't make His existence known and tangible.

By the way, this is also the real honest reason as to why people prefer material things over praying. Material things are tangible. Prayer isn't. So it has nothing to do with liking material things more than liking God. If God were to speak in audible voice, the way He spoke in Genesis, maybe God would be more important than various material things. But since God doesn't speak in audible voice the way He used to, nor does He provide anything else tangible the way He used to, then its no wonder why people put him far from the top of their priority list.

And even the whole business with calling Christians bigots is related to this too. Most people don't call nutritionists bigots when they are telling them not to eat sweets, yet they call Christians bigots when they tell them something that would keep them out of hell. Christians would make a strawman argument that its because they hate God. No its not. The real reason is because if someone doesn't listen to nutritionists, they can come back 20 years later with a big regret about it. But if someone doesn't listen to Christians, they will only regret it once they go to hell, and at that point they can't come back from hell to tell about it.

Again, to reiterate: I am a Christian. The only reason I sound like an atheist in the above arguments is because I don't believe in using strawman arguments. I think it is very important to understand that atheists do have a point, in order to intelligently address it.

Now, lets address the above arguments (without strawman) from a Christian viewpoint. So, the key point in the above examples is that the root of atheism is the fact that God is not tangible. Now, ask yourself: why is that? Bible provides an answer. God used to be tangible in the early days, but then He became intangible due to human sin. So now we have a vicious cycle. Human sin makes God choose to be intangible, God being intangible makes people doubt His existence, which in turn causes people to sin even more, which in turn causes God to be even more intangible, and so forth. Now, that is biblical. The extreme version of this is when God makes it outright impossible for people to believe in Him by sending strong delusion (2 Thess 2:11). Now, like I just said, "strong delusion" is an extreme case. But then there are other cases, less extreme, when God doesn't make it "impossible" to believe, but simply makes it "harder". One example of this would be Jesus speaking in parables. A lot of people assume He spoke in parables in order to make it easier to understand. But if you read the plain text of Matthew 13:10-16, you will see that Jesus said that its the exact opposite: He spoke in parables in order to purposely hide the true meaning of what He was trying to say. Does it make it impossible to believe when true meaning is hidden? Not necessarily. One can still believe and say its a mystery to pray about (and we hear a lot of Christians saying they believe yet admitting that things like trinity and some other stuff are mysteries). But it certainly makes it harder to believe. Similarly, when God gives people over to depraved mind in Romans 1:24-28, it doesn't necesserely makes it impossible for them to believe either: after all, Paul then proceeds to offering them the solution of how to escape said depraved mind (in contrast to strong delusion in 2 Thess 2:11 when there is no solution since at that point its too late). Did God have to do it this way? Not necessarily. But it is Gods choice to punish non-belief/disobedience by making it progressively harder and harder to believe until, finally, one reaches a point of no return (either by getting strong delusion of 2 Thess 2:11 or by dying).

So then we see why God is not tangible (both to nonbelievers and believers): because, clearly, we are a lot more sinful than people used to be. And the fact that believers don't have tangible encounters with God is an evidenc in that direction. But the fact that believers have some sort of spiritual experience while atheists do not is simply saying that atheists disobeyed God more so God punished them more. In other words, atheism is not necesserely a choice but instead it is God's punishment for person's disobedience in other ways. Now, atheism does have a component of a choice. Because an atheist can say "yes, it is hard to believe in God because I never had any encounters, but I am going to make a free will decision to believe anyway" (which is possible to do, since Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is a belief in things not seen). However, God made it harder for atheists by withdrawing Himself from them. So while its possible to believe in things not seen, it is certainly harder to do than to believe in things seen. So while atheists "can" believe in God if they "really" try super hard, its harder for them to do so than to Christians from whom God didn't withdraw. Thats why I would say atheism is a combination of human choice to be an atheist and Gods choice to withdraw Himself due to other since (not involving atheism). So to say its only the former and not the latter is a strawman. On the flipside you have Calvinists that say its the latter and not the former. That would be unfair. I say its a combination of both.

And this also can be extended to homosexuality. Christians argue that homosexuality is a choice. That doesn't make sense. First of all, as someone straight, I can't choose to be gay. So I don't see how it can be a choice for someone else, unless that other person happened to be bisexual (and bisexuality isn't a choice either, since I can't choose to be bisexual even if I wanted to). Secondly, even if it was a choice, I don't see why would someone want to choose to be gay anyway, particularly since gays are looked down upon. I guess some might make that choice out of rebellion (like satanists do) but then homosexuality would be a lot less common than it is. Now, here is a real, biblical, reason for homosexuality, that doesn't involve choice to be gay. And it is at the end of Romans 1. If you read the end of Romans 1, what you find is that people were involved in some other sins and then, as a punishment for those other sins, God gave them over to depraved mind which, among other things, caused them to become gay. One example of other sins Bible mentions is worshipping creation rather than creator. So picture the following. Someone, who is straight, decides to worship idols. God repeatedly warns that person against idolatry, but that person persists. Then eventually God punishes that person by making that person gay. So then that person didn't choose to be gay: that person chose to worship idols. But God made that person gay in response to that person's choice to worshipping idols. So was that person born gay? No, because that person didn't have a chance to worship idols in their mothers womb. Yet, that person didn't choose to be gay either: being gay is God's punishment for that person's idolatry. And by the way its not my theory; this is something I read directly out of Romans 1. I don't see why other Christians not notice it.

Now, would this thread prove to atheists they are wrong? No. Because atheists can still argue that there is no God altogether and the above theory is just a convenient way for Christians to explain why what they claim to exist isn't tangible. However, at the same time, this thread would disprove atheist argument that Christians are wrong. In other words, we now have two logical possibilities. One logical possibility is that atheists are right and this whole thing is just explaining away of why we don't see God. But the other possibility is that Christians are right and the reason we can't see God is God's choice to respond to our sins. So since we still have those two logial possibilities, we still have to look at other arguments on both sides that are beyond the scope of this thread. But at least this thread will show atheists that there is a logical possibility that Christians are right, even though its at a level of logical possibility rather than certainty.

H everyone, is anyone here aware if Benny Hinn is still doing healing revivals around the world? I remember him doing lots of these years ago. He came to the Giant Center stadium in my hometown Hershey, PA probably 15 years ago and I went, it was amazing, a blast! I did not get healed but probably at least 1000 people did, the stage was full of empty wheelchairs from paralyzed people that got up and walked en-masse. I haven't heard much from Benny in the last few years.

Hi everyone, I would greatly appreciate your prayers- I have a very severe spiritual problem, I do not understand the bible and I do not understand God very well either. I think it would take a sovereign act of God for me to understand the scripture, you need to understand the scripture or you are going to get fooled and you won't understand God either, so I am in a serious predicament. I have been through reading the bible at least 8 times cover-to-cover over the years and I still do not understand it. Please pray for God to help me to understand the scripture and also to understand Him!

It will be on live TV so there is no crying fake anything. Can't be selective editing when it is live.


Even the left's CNN has commentators talking about it.

Login to view embedded media
According to this Black Studies professor, romance is racist because romantic practices as we know them in American culture were invented in France.

The basis for her asserting that means those practices are racist is rooted in the Critical Race Theory assertion that everything about European culture is for the purpose of establishing their race as oppressors of all other races.

Olathe Northwest high school

ANNOUNCEMENT

of H.E. Msgr. Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has informed me, with a simple email, of the initiation of an extrajudicial penal trial against me, with the accusation of having committed the crime of schism and charging me of having denied the legitimacy of “Pope Francis” of having broken communion “with Him” and of having rejected the Second Vatican Council. I have been summoned to the Palace of the Holy Office on June 20, in person or represented by a canon lawyer. I assume that the sentence has already been prepared, given that it is an extrajudicial process.

I regard the accusations against me as an honor. I believe that the very wording of the charges confirms the theses that I have repeatedly defended in my various addresses. It is no coincidence that the accusation against me concerns the questioning of the legitimacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the rejection of Vatican II: the Council represents the ideological, theological, moral, and liturgical cancer of which the Bergoglian “synodal church” is the necessary metastasis.

It is necessary for the Episcopate, the Clergy and the People of God to seriously ask themselves whether it is consistent with the profession of the Catholic Faith to passively witness the systematic destruction of the Church by its leaders, just as other subversives are destroying civil society. Globalism calls for ethnic substitution: Bergoglio promotes uncontrolled immigration and calls for the integration of cultures and religions. Globalism supports LGBTQ+ ideology: Bergoglio authorizes the blessing of same-sex couples and imposes on the faithful the acceptance of homosexualism, while covering up the scandals of his protégés and promoting them to the highest positions of responsibility. Globalism imposes the green agenda: Bergoglio worships the idol of the Pachamama, writes delirious encyclicals about the environment, supports the Agenda 2030, and attacks those who question the theory of man-made global warming. He goes beyond his role in matters that strictly pertain to science, but always and only in one direction: a direction that is diametrically opposed to what the Church has always taught. He has mandated the use of experimental gene serums, which caused very serious damage, death and sterility, calling them “an act of love,” in exchange for funding from pharmaceutical companies and philanthropic foundations. His total alignment with the Davos religion is scandalous. Wherever governments at the service of the World Economic Forum have introduced or extended abortion, promoted vice, legitimized homosexual unions or gender transition, encouraged euthanasia, and tolerated the persecution of Catholics, not a word has been spent in defense of the Faith or Morals that are threatened, or in support of the civil battles of so many Catholics who have been abandoned by the Vatican and the Bishops. Not a word for the persecuted Catholics in China, with the complicity of the Holy See, which considers Beijing’s billions more important than the lives and freedom of thousands of Chinese who are faithful to the Roman Church. In the “synodal church” presided over by Bergoglio, no schism is recognized among the German Episcopate, or among the government-appointed Bishops who have been consecrated in China without the mandate of Rome. Because their action is consistent with the destruction of the Church, and therefore must be concealed, minimized, tolerated, and finally encouraged. In these eleven years of “pontificate” the Catholic Church has been humiliated and discredited above all because of the scandals and corruption of the leaders of the Hierarchy, which have been totally ignored even as the most ruthless Vatican authoritarianism raged against faithful priests and religious, small communities of traditional nuns, and communities tied to the Latin Mass.

This one-sided zeal is reminiscent of Cromwell’s fanaticism, typical of those who defy Providence in the presumption of knowing that they are finally at the top of the hierarchical pyramid, free to do and undo as they please without anyone objecting to anything. And this work of destruction, this willingness to renounce the salvation of souls in the name of a human peace that denies God is not an invention of Bergoglio, but the main (and unmentionable) purpose of those who used a Council to contradict the Catholic Magisterium and to begin to demolish the Church from within, in small steps, but always in a single direction, always with the indulgent tolerance or culpable inaction – if not the explicit approval – of the Roman authorities. The Catholic Church has been slowly but surely taken over, and Bergoglio has been given the task of making it a philanthropic agency, the “church of humanity, of inclusion, of the environment” at the service of the New World Order. But this is not the Catholic Church: it is her counterfeit.

The resignation of Benedict XVI and the appointment by the St. Gallen Mafia of a successor in line with the diktats of the Agenda 2030 was intended to allow – and has succeeded in allowing – the global coup to take place with the complicity and authoritative support of the Church of Rome. Bergoglio is to the Church what other world leaders are to their nations: traitors, subversives, and final liquidators of traditional society who are certain of impunity. Bergoglio’s defect of consent (vitium consensus) in accepting his election is based precisely on the evident alienity of his action of government and magisterium with respect to what any Catholic of any age expects from the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles. Everything that Bergoglio does constitutes an offense and a provocation to the entire Catholic Church, to her Saints of all times, to the Martyrs who were killed in odium Fidei, and to the Popes of all times until the Second Vatican Council.

This is also and principally an offense against the Divine Head of the Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Whose sacred authority Bergoglio claims to exercise for the detriment of the Mystical Body, with an action that is too systematic and coherent to appear to be the fruit of mere incapacity. In the work of Bergoglio and his circle, the Lord’s warning is put into practice: Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the guise of lambs, but who are ravenous wolves at heart (Mt 7:15). I am honored not to have – and indeed I do not want – any ecclesial communion with them: theirs is a lobby, which conceals its complicity with the masters of the world in order to deceive many souls and prevent any resistance against the establishment of the Kingdom of the Antichrist.

In the face of the Dicastery’s accusations, I claim, as Successor of the Apostles, to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, with the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs, and with the uninterrupted doctrinal, moral, and liturgical Tradition which they have faithfully preserved.

I repudiate the neomodernist errors inherent in the Second Vatican Council and in the so-called “post-conciliar magisterium,” in particular in matters of collegiality, ecumenism, religious freedom, the secularity of the State, and the liturgy.

I repudiate, reject, and condemn the scandals, errors, and heresies of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who manifests an absolutely tyrannical management of power, exercised against the purpose that legitimizes Authority in the Church: an authority that is vicarious of that of Christ, and as such must obey Him alone. This separation of the Papacy from its legitimizing principle, which is Christ the High Priest, transforms the ministerium into a self-referential tyranny.

No Catholic worthy of the name can be in communion with this “Bergoglian church,” because it acts in clear discontinuity and rupture with all the Popes of history and with the Church of Christ.

Fifty years ago, in that same Palace of the Holy Office, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was summoned and accused of schism for rejecting Vatican II. His defense is mine; his words are mine; and his arguments are mine – arguments before which the Roman authorities could not condemn him for heresy, having to wait instead for him to consecrate bishops so as to have the pretext of declaring him schismatic and then revoking his excommunication when he was already dead. The scheme is repeated even after half a century has demonstrated Archbishop Lefebvre’s prophetic choice.

In these times of apostasy, Catholics will find in Pastors faithful to the mandate received from Our Lord an example and an encouragement to abide in the Truth of Christ.

Depositum custodi, according to the Apostle’s exhortation: as the time approaches when I will have to give an account to the Son of God of all my actions, I intend to persevere in the bonum certamen and not to fail in the witness of faith which is required of each one who, as Bishop, has been endowed with the fullness of the priesthood and constituted Successor of the Apostles.

I invite all Catholics to pray that the Lord will come to the aid of His Church and give courage to those who are persecuted for their Faith.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

20 June 2024

Silverii Papæ et Martyris

Dermitii O’Hurley, Episcopi et Martyris

How well do you tolerate doubt, uncertainty, unknowing and what do they do for your faith.

Jesus tells us:

Matthew 21:21
Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done.

And yet who among us can move a mountain into he sea?

Is the opposite of doubt faith?

Is it a character of the will or of the intellect.

Many of us pray for more faith. As if we want to believe but cannot.

And in our culture we must be skeptical. So many are out to deceive us, to scam us and toe persuade us with half truths.

Even when it comes to scripture we do well to exercise caution when it comes to literal versus figurative language.

I think for me there is a fundamental assurance that at least there is a personal God.
After that, so much is inexpressible. I don't rely on any particular interpretation of scripture.
I don't rely on any historical event other than the birth and death of Jesus.
I read it all with an openness to possibility.

I thin there may be a spectrum of our response to doubt:

1. Some people cannot tolerate it at all and then opt for a literal interpretation of scripture with black and white definite answers to any question.
2. Others, like myself, can tolerate some doubt and think there is a greater need for informed discernment on all matters.
3. Then there are the skeptics who doubt anything that does not have string objective evidence.

Naturally these three and the many in between do not agree on much of anything and it comes into every aspect from our lives from how we educate "groom" our children to who we let across our borders.

One guy who has done some research on all this is James Fowler who came up with 7 stages of faith.



The idea that we go through stages seems natural. But this relation ship between faith and doubt intrigues me because I do think doubt purifies faith so that we do not believe all sorts of crazy things.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has announced that more NATO member states than originally expected were set to fulfill the 2% target of GDP defense spending this year.

Hello everyone

I’m completely new to this Plattform but I wanted to give it a try and reach out to you.
Because I honestly don’t know where to seek advice. To understand all, I have to get a little in the past.

I was raised in a Christian household but my parents weren’t really living by the word of god. They were not like the other people going every Sunday to church. I also got baptized at the age of 6 and not as a baby. Due to several very painful things I’ve been through, as I got older I denied God more and more. At the age of 15 I wanted to commit suicide. And then like a miracle happened and it didn’t work. So I accepted it , I did resist it but I had obviously no choice. It was like it’s not time yet and I can’t go now. However at that time I was still young, had no guidance and was completely overwhelmed by my emotions and couldn’t think clearly. As years has passed I still kinda denied what had happened and of course Gods presence. I was very angry with him for all the bad things that happen (not just in my life but in general) and I couldn’t grasp a lot of things back then.

Today I’m 29 years old and i somehow, by „accident“ searched for God. Now there’s absolutely NO SHADOW OF A DOUBT that God does exist. I never heard him (unlike what other people are telling) but I felt him. I still really can’t explain how it all started cause I’m not surely aware of it but it started kinda with a song for god. It was a language I didn’t understand but as I was listening to it I began to utterly cry, couldn’t control myself anymore and was overwhelmed. And every time I sing this song in this foreign language I can’t even speak, I always cry. But it’s a different crying than when I’m sad.

However long story short, through this I started to go after the urge an seek for god.
Every time I prayed I also cried, and I’m sure he did hear me and he was there. And he already helped me, without me even asking for his help.
The thing is, due to all that I’ve done and the fact that I denied him for so long, and was such a bad child, im ashamed. And I feel like I’m not worth even his attention. I’m struggling so hard and I don’t know what to do and how.

Even when I pray, I first of all apologize to God that I don’t even know how to pray properly and every time I also apologize to him and ask for his forgiveness for my denial.

I tried to read the Bible but to be honest there are too many times where i absolutely DONT understand what it should mean.

Since I’m new to this, I literally have NO idea what I should do and how I should do it: praying, living the life God wants me to, how to connect to Jesus, how to overcome all the bad things that has been planted into my brain from the devil, etc.

A few days ago I asked him to hear his voice at least once, but now I don’t even need that anymore. I do know that he’s here and that he’s watching me.

I today even started to yell at the devil because he’s been trying to deceive me again and I literally FELT him being proud of me.

Still I have this doubts that I’m no good for him and that I have to change a lot for him , to be able to walk the path he put me in.


Can please someone help me? I’m so overwhelmed and confused.

I thank all of you for your time, help and support.

Blessed be your day❤️

The term Mother of God is not in the Scripture. I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I approach it indifferently. I prefer to adhere to Scripture's wording when it comes to doctrines. I would not bother using the term in the formal doctrinal sense. I would put little weight on it when others use it in an argument. People who like to generalize tend to overgeneralize in a doctrine. More precisely, I know the following:

Matthew 12:

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Click to expand...

Mary was Jesus' biological mother. When it comes to doctrines, I'd rather stick to the wording of the Bible.

See also

• “WOMAN, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
• My take on Trinity.

Is it in Middle East or is at the center of earth which is at the North Pole ?

The description given in Genesis 2 concerning the location of the Garden of Eden does not fit with what is observed regarding the present Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. God’s Word makes it clear that the Garden of Eden was located where there were four rivers coming from one head. No matter how one tries to fit this location in the Middle East today, it just can’t be done




Login to view embedded media

I have not seen this movie yet. I am glad that this movie is very successful and I plan on watching it soon with my wife.