GoldenBoy89 said:

It happens. I used to love Captain Planet when I was little not realizing it was just flat out preaching environmentalism to a young audience.

For what it’s worth, I’m terrible at recycling to this day so maybe preachy cartoons aren’t the most effective method of indoctrination.

Click to expand...

Don't sweat it. Recycling is largely a market-driven endeavor, and the market prices for many of those reclaimed materials are so low that they often wind up in a landfill anyways.

ThatRobGuy said:

I would say yes, any topic of sexuality in a show geared towards 2nd graders would probably draw some level of backlash regardless of orientation.

Click to expand...

And you would be wrong. Do you watch any kids movies? I do. I watch a lot of them. That list I put up before:

• Cinderella
• Snow White
• Sleeping Beauty
• Beauty and the Beast
• The Little Mermaid
• Lady and the Tramp
• Brave
• Frozen
• Tangled
• Up
• Wall-E

In every one of those, the characters' sexual orientations aren't merely ancillary characteristics; they're central to the story. Cinderella, Snow White, and Rapunzel are saved from their evil families by their hetero love interests. Princess Aurora is saved from Maleficent's curse by her future husband (arranged marriage in some versions). Belle's falling in love with the Beast is what breaks the curse on him. Lady and the Tramp is about a good girl falling for a "bad boy" who turns out to defy everybody's poor opinion of him. Brave is about a Celtic princess rebelling against being forced into an arranged marriage. Frozen is about a teen princess ascending to the throne and having would-be villains try to seize control by marrying into the family. Up is about an elderly man grieving the loss of his wife. Wall-E is about an ostensibly male robot falling in love and pursuing an ostensibly female robot.

Elemental is another one I just thought of where hetero love interest play an important role in helping two characters of different "elements" (the proxy for ethnicities) bridge the gap between their two families and cultures.

Goonie said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/27/us/politics/trump-portland-troops.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Donald Trump says he is deploying troops to Portland, Oregon

Apparently misled by hyperbolic reporting from conservative outlets on a single small protest, president described peaceful city as ‘war ravaged’

www.theguardian.com

With protesters in the single digits, Trump has ordered the military to use full force to eliminate them.

Click to expand...

Thats is patently a lie from someone. Its not single digit people. I cant believe prople are allowed to post such falsehoods.

There is plenty of video out there of whats going on in Portland. So, proclaiming falsehoods like this is easily disproven. Shame on anyone putting out garbage like this.

Doea this look like single digit protestors? Take a look starting at 5:16. Then lets go to the night. Take a look at 6:00.

Login to view embedded media

This is a good thing, but how much better it would be if Christian students and teachers took their Bible to school every day. ( I know that some do, but not all.)

Servus said:

It's not really about actual empathy. It's really about capitulating to the leftist woke agenda. They just replaced "woke" with "empathy", because "woke" was co-opted as a pejorative for their agenda.

Click to expand...

Honestly, you're just making this up right?

Because this reads like self serving nonsense more than anything resembling reality.

RDKirk said:

“Some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.” -- Philippians 1

Click to expand...

Oooo....I'm not convinced that representation of the text isn't affected by context...

The full quote:
15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

This particular observation seems VERY particular to Paul's situation of being in chains.

I mean, 12 vrs later is....

"27 Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ."

Not sure how being insincere and selfish reflects that.

Bob8102 said:

I have confusion and concern both about God’s will for me and my salvation.

Click to expand...

"casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you." (1 Peter 5:7)

Bob8102 said:

Assuming I already am a Christian, I should be seeking, as they often pray, “Your [God’s] will be done, not mine.” I want to be saved and I want to do my will, not God’s. This contradiction causes me much doubt and confusion.

Click to expand...

Well, we are not going to have peace about doing our own wills.

"'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:29)

We have rest while doing God's will.

essentialsaltes said:

It's hard to find archived material now that the glossary is gone, but I dug deeper

ADL Backgrounder Turning Point (last edited 2023)

• Since the group’s founding. Kirk has moved further to the right and has promoted numerous conspiracy theories about election fraud and Covid-19 and has demonized the transgender community.
• Kirk also promotes Christian nationalism: the idea that Christians should dominate the government and other areas of life in the US.
• TPUSA continues to attract racists to the group. Numerous TPUSA representatives have made bigoted remarks about minority groups and the LGBTQ+ community.
• White nationalists have attended TPUSA events, even though the group says it rejects white supremacist ideology.
• Kirk has created a vast platform for extremists and far-right conspiracy theorists, who speak and attend his annual AmericaFest and other events sponsored by TPUSA.

at the end of the article is a long list of statements by TPUSA members or speakers they find objectionable.

Here's one detail from a more general article

New Surge in Support for Replacement Theory Rhetoric (2021)​

Charlie Kirk of the far-right student group Turning Point USA said on his show that Texas should “deputize a citizen force and put them on the border” to protect “white demographics in America.” He added that the left is focused on “bringing in voters that they want, and they like, and honestly, diminishing and decreasing white demographics in America.”

And from a PolitiFact look at Turning Point

The Anti-Defamation League does not categorize Turning Point as a hate group, Pitcavage said. "It does have this checkered or spotted history with regard to individual members or local leaders in Turning Point USA making racist or otherwise problematic comments… but it’s not the ideology of the group itself."

Click to expand...

Thanks! While some of it is generics like "made bigoted remarks about minority groups..." but doesn't actually state what he said, what they do quote is definitely problematic. No one should be above reproach or correction. Not good that the glossary was deleted and I state again, that the glorification of him is being taken way too far.

I'm glad some people have said that he made them decide to go to church again and other things, but I personally didn't like the point of his arguments which were mostly political. But people are claiming he was "doing the Lord's work" which I find ridiculous. Could God use his arguments for good? Absolutely, but I equate that to the Lords work and not Charlie's.

RDKirk said:

Your words were conflicted (perhaps reflecting your feelings). You said:



If you say someone has made you feel dehumanized, betrayed, treated with insincerity, you can't then say you were "not upset, angry, or offended in any way."

If you felt dehumanized, betrayed, treated with insincerity, that is an offense.

Does this person have reason to think you are also a Christian...or not a Christian? That makes a difference, and a judgment can't be made about their intentions without the answer to that question.

Click to expand...

Those are "OFFENSES" for sure. But to feel offended has it's own specific emotions associated with it (hurt, annoyed, resentful).

Seems tough to parse out the minutae of every feeling of someone we don't know triggered by a situation we weren't privvy to. It seem likes we could simply trust the person telling their story is aware of their emotional state.

fhansen said:

Claire, as intelligent as you are you nonetheless seem to go out of your way to avoid logic and truth here. Consider the whole chapter, the whole letter, together. Humanity became truly guilty of possessing that sin,

Click to expand...

We don't "become inherently guilty of possessing/inheriting someone else's sin" (Eze 18:20),
nor are we acquitted of possessing/inheriting someone else's sin that we don't possess.
Guilt of someone else's sin must be imputed to us (Ro 5:17), charged to our account,
as righteousness was imputed to Abraham (Ge 15:6), charged to his account.

Humanity became guilty of Adam's sin by imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17,
the only sin that caused death between Adam and Moses, Ro 5:14, when there was no law to sin against to cause man's death, Ro 4:15), just as humanity becomes righteous by imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

Both guilt of Adam's sin and righteouness of Christ are imputed to mankind (Ro 5:18-19).

o_mlly said:

The most violated First Principle by evolutionist is the first one. [...] The very first of the First Principles of philosophy (which are self-evident) simply put is that a being cannot give that which it does not already possess.

Click to expand...

Okay, let's start there. First issue: that doesn't appear to be a standard statement of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which basically says that everything has a cause. Second issue: even as normally stated, it's far from self-evident, as can be seen from the many arguments about it and the many version of it in philosophical circles.

Third, and much the most important: you have a great deal of work to do to demonstrate that the principle, in whatever form you posit and assuming it's true, prohibits evolution. As you have stated the principle, it's trivially false: we routinely see being A give rise to being B with properties that A did not possess: acorns do not have leaves and roots, water vapor does not have hard pointy bits, and so on. So there's obviously more to applying the principle than is evident from your statement of it here.

Given that state of affairs, could you spell out the process by which you apply the principle to real world processes? Let's start with a simpler case than evolution. Take photons. Photons have neither mass nor charge. Can photons produce electrons, which have both mass and charge? That is, can they give them something that they don't themselves already possess?

keras said:

For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named”.
This means that it is not the ethnic children who are God’s people, but the children of the promise, who have faith in Him, who are counted as Abrahams descendants.

Click to expand...

The seed of Abraham who received [the birthright inheritance] here are physical decedents.

God promised Abraham and Sarah a son/heir. The couple waited,
the days grew into weeks; weeks to months; months to years.

This couple now in old age, who lacked/lost faith in God to give an heir and tried
through the flesh. We cannot rush promises given from God in our own way.

Abraham made the serious mistake; he agreed to the adulterous relationship
with Hagar, Sarah’s [Egyptian handmaid/bondwoman] through the flesh.

Abraham still wanted Ishmael, Genesis 17:18, but God chose Isaac, his first
lawful son. Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac (Genesis 25:5)
Isaac was born by promise, and by a miracle from God.
The promise, as confirmed to Isaac, Genesis 26:3-5 all these countries....

"not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring"

Click to expand...

Ishmael and Abraham’s other sons were rejected from the birthright.
but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named”.
"But my covenant will I establish with Isaac …” .
-

Being the first born of Isaac, Esau would have inherited the birthright, but
he sold his birthright blessing for a bowl of soup, so it went to Jacob/Israel.
-

Reuben, the firstborn son of Jacob and Leah, was entitled to the birthright,
that included a double portion of the inheritance and leadership of the family.
However, his actions led to the forfeiture of these privileges. The primary reason
for this loss is recorded in Genesis 35:22,

“For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”

Click to expand...

Reuben, a descended of Israel, was rejected from the birthright inheritance.
Joseph, the favorite son of the patriarch Jacob, that his envious brothers
sold into slavery in Egypt, receives the birthright inheritance.

Just as All Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews.
-

1 Chronicles 5:2 (KJV) For Judah prevailed above his brethren,
and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's.

Both the birthright and the scepter promises were re-promised by
the Eternal to Abraham and Isaac and to Jacob before splitting.

The Septer promise [I have never heard you mention],
was separated from the birthright promise.

“Some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.” -- Philippians 1

So the proselytizer’s personal motives don’t negate the gospel’s efficacy. If the message is true, God can work through it. From a Christian perspective, the distinction between “evangelism” and “proselytism” is primarily about method and intent of the messenger, but the spiritual benefit to the hearer does not depend on the messenger’s purity of motive.

In other words: even if a “proselytizer” acts selfishly, manipulates, or seeks personal gain, as long as the gospel is proclaimed faithfully, the listener can still encounter Christ. The spiritual outcome for the proselyte depends on receiving the true gospel, not the proselytizer’s inner motives.

SabbathBlessings said:

I guess that means you do not have an answer.

Click to expand...

I’ve been giving you an answer ever since we started talking this morning. I can’t help it that you are stuck on following the old covenant. That is on you not on me.

Jesus never taught that the Christian is under the law. The gospel of Christ does not include the law. If you don’t want to believe Paul as an apostle of Christ then your NT just go real thin.

Clare73 said:

Does not Jn 1:1, 14 explicitly state the Incarnation?

Click to expand...

It does, but the problem is Arians will deny that’s what it’s referring to. Tradition corrects errant readings.

For example there are people who claim John ch. 6 does not refer to the Holy Eucharist, when I think it very clearly does, but we have members of a major Sabbatarian denomination whose views about Church history and sacramental theology I emphatically reject, and they insist that there is no Eucharistic context, not even a Zwinglian or Memorialist context, to John ch. 6, for whatever reason (at least in my experience; perhaps some of the theologians in their church do recognize the Eucharistic context).

Colo Millz said:

But the real point is that the grownups know that outcomes versus principles are in tension, and have to be balanced somehow.

The real points of difference are where to draw that line in particular cases.

Click to expand...

doubtingmerle said:

In other words, true morality does not rely on moral absolutes.

Click to expand...

I would say there are absolutes, about how to make choices about outcomes.

There are times when it is clearly harmful to let an outcome influence what you do; so this would be an example of when not to let an outcome decide.

But in case you know you must look for a lost child in the woods; you use a bloodhound because the outcome of using the bloodhound is so likely to be that you find the child.

So, absolutes can go hand in hand with what the outcome will or can be, subjectively.

And God knows, by the way, if a certain action will have a bad result; it may not be obvious, but God knows.

For example > God's word says not to do sexually wrong things which the Bible says are wrong. Now, getting a little sexual pleasure, in itself, is not what I would say is harmful. But if God knows His Holy Spirit will not have you do that thing, doing it will have you getting affected by "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" > in Ephesians 2:2. And Satan's evil selfish spirit is harmful, emotionally and spiritually and even having physical effects that are not good. And so you can see how sexually wrong people can keep on having personality problems that do not go away . . . because of not doing their things in God's love.

God's love makes us strong so we do not give in to fear and worry and arguing and complaining and hurts and unforgiveness; so God has rules about what to do and not to do . . . knowing which things He approves of and therefore has us doing these things in His love which does us so much good while doing things in God's own love.

And when people do not follow God's objective moral rules, they get the emotional and social and relational outcomes of disobeying God. And God does not want them to have such outcomes, because our Father cares about any and all people. But people want their pleasure.

Delvianna said:

I'd like to know what statements they found that were "bigoted"

Click to expand...

It's hard to find archived material now that the glossary is gone, but I dug deeper

ADL Backgrounder Turning Point (last edited 2023) [sorry, had to remove the link for language]

• Since the group’s founding. Kirk has moved further to the right and has promoted numerous conspiracy theories about election fraud and Covid-19 and has demonized the transgender community.
• Kirk also promotes Christian nationalism: the idea that Christians should dominate the government and other areas of life in the US.
• TPUSA continues to attract racists to the group. Numerous TPUSA representatives have made bigoted remarks about minority groups and the LGBTQ+ community.
• White nationalists have attended TPUSA events, even though the group says it rejects white supremacist ideology.
• Kirk has created a vast platform for extremists and far-right conspiracy theorists, who speak and attend his annual AmericaFest and other events sponsored by TPUSA.

at the end of the article is a long list of statements by TPUSA members or speakers they find objectionable.

Here's one detail from a more general article

New Surge in Support for Replacement Theory Rhetoric (2021)​

Charlie Kirk of the far-right student group Turning Point USA said on his show that Texas should “deputize a citizen force and put them on the border” to protect “white demographics in America.” He added that the left is focused on “bringing in voters that they want, and they like, and honestly, diminishing and decreasing white demographics in America.”

And from a PolitiFact look at Turning Point

The Anti-Defamation League does not categorize Turning Point as a hate group, Pitcavage said. "It does have this checkered or spotted history with regard to individual members or local leaders in Turning Point USA making racist or otherwise problematic comments… but it’s not the ideology of the group itself."

fide said:

A "Catholic" church having "men in drag in the choir"? Who is the "bishop" of this travesty? Literally, a wolf in sheep's clothing, the smoke of satan, counterfeit of the breath of the Spirit. Reminds me of the church in Thyatira (Rev 2:20), "But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols." These are satan's workings, confusion through contradiction, liars cross-dressing as prophets of God.

Who is pretending to be the "bishop" of this diocese?

Click to expand...

That priest passed away and the bishop is retired. (This was 10 years ago.)

SabbathBlessings said:

Again, this is when Jesus was going to ratify His covenant- without blood- the covenant cannot be ratified. Hebrews 9:18 So when did Heb8:10 get ratified if not this covenant Jesus speaks of.

Click to expand...

You are stuck on the OT laws and can’t see past it. These verses explain the new covenant for the Christian church. You can’t get past that to reach the gospel of good news.

Michie said:

Seems the inmates are running the asylum.

Click to expand...

And every one of them is there because the American voters elected them.