Landon Caeli said:

Israel is widely known as a country of immigrants from across the entire globe. For you to suggest it is not a multicultural society, is factually incorrect, regardless of your anti-broadbrushing ideological pet peeve.

Click to expand...

Right. European or other western-oriented cultures. The Mizrahis came later and are still considered second-class citizens.

Just a question for my Catholic friends. My current circle of friends in the neighborhood I now reside Many were were raised in Catholic schools. Three separate people non related and from different areas of the country when ask if the Bible was ever used in Catholic school , all three said no. I find this shocking. Could someone please explain how this can be in church schools under the umbrella of the Catholic Church? All three seem to have no knowledge of a personal relationship with Christ or what is involved in being born again. What were these people actually exposed to?

Larniavc said:

Again: you can’t say that kind of thing about an entire section of society. SOME are multicultural but some are very much not.

Please try to imagine humanity with a pinch of granularity instead of making sweeping authoritative statements about huge swathes of people.

Click to expand...

Israel is widely known as a country of immigrants from across the entire globe. For you to suggest it is not a multicultural society, is factually incorrect, regardless of your anti-broadbrushing ideological pet peeve.

rambot said:

Wait...you think Bernie and aoc are "out of touch" with their base?

I am VERY curious what evidence you have of such a thing....considering the immense crowds they got on their tours

Click to expand...

Trumps campaign’s accurately demonstrated that immense crowds don’t equate to equivalent levels of votes.

Bernie and Aandrea combined have less than 40% of their party. In addition the self titled Democratic Socialist are promoting an agenda that has less than 20% approval nationwide.

You cannot win a majority when you appeal only to a minority.

I 100% support them running. It will mean another Republican win IMHO

Aaron112 said:

Well, they shook him (and me and others) a little here and there..... but that has nothing to do with the subject.

Click to expand...

So the earth is not immovable then, right?

Larniavc said:

You seem to be forgetting the common American refrain of “it’s their fault for making poor life choices”.

Click to expand...

As An American, I've never heard that phrase before.

Hans Blaster said:

So it would appear that Easterners can integrate into "the West". Would you like to change your claim to the contrary? (Post #61)

Click to expand...

You're misinterpreting post 61.

I never said anything about integrating into the West, I was trying to say that we can't go into geographical Eastern countries, like Afghanistan, and turn the whole place into a little America - That doesn't work, as it's been tried.

lismore said:

Yes. There is a difference between entering a country legally and illegally. IMHO the question should be asked that when there are legal means of entering a country, what sort of person enters illegally?

Click to expand...

Perhaps a desperate person.

rambot said:

Ew.

I can't imagine using verses about salvation so utterly out of context.

Click to expand...

It absolutely supports the notion that those who were let in to claim asylum are all "thieves and robbers" a notion that supports the administration's immigration propaganda.

lismore said:

John 10:1 "Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber.

Click to expand...

Ew.

I can't imagine using verses about salvation so utterly out of context.

Always in His Presence said:

I don’t think there will be enough voters, even in her party to bring a win for her.

Not because she is a woman, but because her policies are out of touch with majority of her own base

Like Bernie

Click to expand...

Wait...you think Bernie and aoc are "out of touch" with their base?

I am VERY curious what evidence you have of such a thing....considering the immense crowds they got on their tours

honey badger said:

whist he walked the earth which is to say his nakedness was not revealed to him because he did not make a way for the devil to enter into his garden\mind and therefor was not separated\divided from the Truth he was ect ect ect

Click to expand...

Hence your spin on yet another form of works gospel.

Jesus worked to save himself and you can too if you play the ambivalence card and never commit to actually having a thought one way or the other.

Oh, don't eat the fruit and save yourself!

I've seen enough iterations of that angle too. Sorry. Doesn't fly

Threads about this story are an AMAZING example about comparing anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence.

List a set of individual incidents with names....from a city of 700,000.

you can argue the "wrong people" are getting mugged in dc all you want.

But you can't say the whole city is so unsafe because his buddy got hurt.

If you're sending in thr army you better define what lack of safety means and better be willing to actually make DANGEROUS places safer.

Becsuse there are far more dangerous places than DC.

Also, strange that he continues to get support after the right Smolletted him up REAL good.

Studyman said:

You, and others who "Come in Christ's Name" promote that this "Will of God" is evil, or as you said "Godless" that HE would give men the free will to choose or reject.

Click to expand...

And you merely fail to see how your claims of being free from both the Will of God working in you and the will of the tempter working in you makes your will exempt from the others.

Freewill makes the chooser "god" and shoves both of the other wills aside as inferior to its own decisions.

Plain old typical works salvation gospel carryover from Roman catholicism

Apple Sky said:

Why ?

Click to expand...

Because to a trained eye everything is obvious.

What you consume "oozes" out of you, in some form of another. It can be a behavior, a reaction, a method, a pattern. Even if you control your speech, or actions, involuntary ones still occurs, and offers an itinerary of everything you did or do. It cannot be prevented.

You would have known this, if you were a deep thinker.

Apple Sky said:

So ......

Click to expand...

So..... you saying "Not at all" was wrong.

fhansen said:

And anyone who says that believers can't overcome sin aren't correctly hearing and trusting God's word

Click to expand...

Learn the difference between "dominion over sin" compared to false claims of "eradication of sin."

The latter doesn't exist

And we don't dominate over sin if we don't have it to dominate over

Aaron112 said:

No. Do not as if possible try to apply what the Bible says to life as we are living it. Everything is not only upside down today, but everything (practically) is harmful - pernicious (re Galatians) - and surviving is by sheer grace of the Creator through Jesus the Messiah.

Click to expand...

But you literally just did that to Biden with Roman's 13.

Cherry picking verses is one problem. Cherry picking when you believe and apply certain verses is another, not small, problem.

David Lamb said:

So you cannot claim that you do "not at all" ask for evidence or proof from those who disagree with you.

Click to expand...

So ......

206. Let’s be vigilant





Paul gives this recommendation:

“See to it that no one be deprived of the grace of God.” Hebrews, chapter 12, verse 15



Of all the insurances that we can buy to give us a sense of security, the assurance of God’s grace is the one that exceeds all others. Let’s ask God for our assurance to stay with Jesus.



The assurance of God’s grace costs nothing. It’s true that today, we often think that what costs more is better, but it’s almost never true. With God, what’s necessary for life and for the road is free.



God offers his endless grace, but we can neglect it. How easy it is to get away from the exercise regime that we gave ourselves at the beginning of the year. It’s even easier to get away from the grace of God and lose sense of reality. Let’s be sure to be constantly under the coverage of God’s grace.



Let’s check if our “coverage” of the “grace of God” is still valid. God’s service is always open, but are we updating it in our lives? Otherwise, let’s regain confidence. Let’s take time for an appointment with Jesus and take up the coverage of the Holy Spirit on us. May his assurance be renewed every day. Let’s walk in faith with the complete and free coverage of God.



The new American Bible, 2011-2014

Book: Caring for our poverties, Normand Thomas

Aaron112 said:

Don't know if that would be truly good or not - as what is falsely called knowledge (smart?) has increased beyond measure in the world (of unbelievers).

Click to expand...

Believing in the words of Moses is smart

The Barbarian said:

Your word was "the whole world." As you learned, the word used was "erets", which was used for localities, like "erets Israel", meaning "the land of Israel." The word for "the whole world" is "tevel." I realize that's not what you want. But that's how it is.

Click to expand...

Yeah you corrected me. It was just the land that flooded. Technicality but you are correct. I’ll be sure to say all the land was flooded next time.

prudent_commenter said:

If you think this, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Why ?

Hans Blaster said:

The thread's topic is based on physics, not common words. Use physics terms properly.

Click to expand...

Is it just based on physics. Or are you determining what is or is not the OP. It seems to me the OP is posing a philosophical question and not just about physics ie the commentator says she thinks the math and physics point to God.

Why would the physics itself determine this question. We can all agree on the physics and how wonderful it is at explaining reality. But people will differ as to what that represents philosophically. How can science verify this aspect of epistemics.

Are you saying that methofdological naturalism is the only explanation for what we observe. If so then this is a belief rather than a scientific claim.

Hans Blaster said:

I don't care what your AI said. Do you own work. An AI can't understand for you.

Click to expand...

Do my own work to do what. Prove God with mathmatics. No one is disputing that physics and maths describe very well what we observe. The question is whether those physical laws and maths are purely invented or point to fundementally to mind.

This is a philosophical question.

I mean we could go down the rabbit hole of whether the mind is just a physical phenomena or something beyond. Thats a big topic and its certainly not as though theres some knockdown evidence either way. The mind/body battle has been goind for 100 years or more.

Hans Blaster said:

Not related to QM at all.

Click to expand...

Ok I thought it did.

Quantum nothingness might have birthed the Universe
The fact that matter may come out of what we would call “nothing” shows that the “nothing” of quantum physics is far from a complete void. Virtual particles appear and disappear like bubbles in a boiling soup. In the current view of quantum physics, the void bubbles continuously with the creation and destruction of matter particles.

Hans Blaster said:

As an expert.

Click to expand...

An expert in philosophy. This is a philsophical question I think. That the math/physics points to a mind, intelligence or God. Or are we trying to verify the math and physics. I don't think it matters.

Its good your an expert so you can verify the physics and how well they describe oberservation. The better we can describe the observations the better we can understand how this points to a mind or some sort of creator of the physics.

Look at my signature lol. I linked that over 10 years ago and for me it is still coming true. If you disagree then thats ok. But that is your belief that it does not point to a creator. Not science. It is beyond what expertise in physics can claim. It is the physicist injecting themselves into the equation by a personal belief in metaphysical naturalism.

Hans Blaster said:

Because I was disputing that *you* understood the claims made in the OP based on your responses. You clearly didn't.

Click to expand...

What claims. There was a claim that the math/physics points to intelliegnce behind it. That was a belief claim. The belief is based on the science. The expertise knowledge of the science. It seems at least for the commentator her expert knowledge gave her even more belief that there was a God than those with less knowledge.

The more she was able to understand the physics down to the quantum level the more she thought it reflected intelligence. That it made sense that God would make it such for us mere mortals to be able to get some insight into Gods all knowing and infinite mind.

That is why I jumped straight into the very bottom, the quantum vacumn. No one disputes the theory. Its the philosophical implications of this beyond the theory as to the greater scheme of reality and beyond that is the question.

How is knowing the physics or explaining observations with science accounting for ontological reality. A description is not prescriptive. A Lennox says a description of whats happening does create what is happening. This is a philosophical question.

Hans Blaster said:

Which is not what my responses from February were about, nor my commentary on the video's claims. You are arguing against things I haven't been saying.

I know what Templeton is and what their (semi-hidden) goals are. I don't care what they publish.

Steve, a few things you need to know:

1. I discard all AI output posted to this site. (I also skip all bible quotes, unless the discussion is specifically about them.)

Click to expand...

How do you get to decide what counts or not lol. It seems to me this thread is more a philosophical one than a scientific one. Afterall the question is whether the math/physics points to a creator or not.

I am not sue what your point was. I made my point based on the OP. You came into my post from memory.

Hans Blaster said:

2. Links are not arguments. Links provide references and sources to back your argument.

Click to expand...

I thought I had already made my arguements. I just made them again. This is a philosophical question and you seem to want to control things epistemically. Make it an empiricle question. Make it only about knowledge of physics and exclude philsophy.

Hans Blaster said:

3. I'm probably not going to watch any embedded videos either, with exceptions like the OP.

Click to expand...

Thats quite dismissive. Almost a priori assumption that they are of no use. I though good critical thinking was looking at counter evidence and stuff you may feel is irrelevant. To actually see if it is or not rather than assuming.

Hans Blaster said:

As to this thread, what you have posted is not tied to the claims made by the Purdue physics professor in the video in the OP. That video uses the regularity of physics as an argument for god. I made my assessment of her claim quite plainly in the first two pages of this thread. If you want to discuss those claims and counter claims, that is fine, but be sure you know what is being discussed first. (If you have a question, I am open to replying.)

Click to expand...

Yeah I read those and some from others and I don't think they are any different to the usual objections. The idea that because we are here to marvel at how we are here somehow deminishes that we are here at all and could be here due to all those parameters being just right and designed that way from the start.

Its sort of assuming that its all self evident. That merely existing to contemplate negates the possibility that there was design in why we are here to do that. In fact it makes just as much sense and if not more to say that it should be expected that we see the world this way because God made us that way.

If there is a creator God who designed everything including us then it makes sense that He gave us the ability for his most intelligent and concious creatures to be able to know Him through what he has made.

But I think its still missing the point. Just making the claim is stepping beyond science. Its making a philosophical claim based on the observations. Science cannot claim there is no God or design.

He's committed adultery several times.

Apparently he doesn't think that may necessitate forgiveness from Presbyterians.

Again...not familiar with thwir dogma.

Lil help?