Latest activity

Clare73 · Sep 20, 2025

Romans 8 said:
Absolutely! If you're not born again, none of this applies. Born again believers have been given a new heart.

And therein lies the guarantee of perseverance within the born again.

durangodawood · Sep 20, 2025

o_mlly said:
Only if you do not discriminate between the definitions of violence and force, as I have. Our Lord knew that just as hate caused his death, so hate would attack those He chose to follow Him. John 15:18-21.

You can make your exact point without re-defining enduring and well understood words.

So why do that?

Chesterton · Sep 20, 2025

RocksInMyHead said:
The fact that you equate this:

with this:

would tend to counter this:

durangodawood said:
Its the exact meaning of "silent majority" as Falwell used it.. He just applied it to a different group at the time.

So not-honoring in congress is now = celebrating, or evidence of it? You can see why dont take your assessment of all this seriously.

Obviously I didn't equate one with the other, but merely suggested you can tell where sympathies lie.

As for "silent majority", I was using it as Nixon originally used it long before Falwell.

durangodawood · Sep 20, 2025

Chesterton said:
That's not the original meaning of "silent majority",

Its the exact meaning of "silent majority" as Falwell used it.. He just applied it to a different group at the time.

Chesterton said:
and I didn't say they were a majority of the population, but they could be, which is why I keep my ammo dry. If you want some evidence, look at the Democrats. Fifty-eight of them voted against the resolution to honor Kirk. The Democrat/Democratic* Party is still not just viable, but very powerful. I don't understand how it wasn't resigned to the dustbin of history 20 years ago.

So not-honoring in congress is now = celebrating, or evidence of it? You can see why dont take your assessment of all this seriously.

JAM2b · Sep 20, 2025

I have also experienced the pain of being a project rather than seriously viewed as a friend, girlfriend, church member.

It has sometimes been because of my health and disabilities, but it has also been because I'm a divorced mom and sometimes because I'm an abuse survivor.

It's terrible when people don't value you as a person and what you can bring to the table, and only see you for your disability, illness, or experiences.

Some will try to use you for their own goals and to benefit from feeling good or impressing others by their association with you or activities surrounding you. When you don't fall in line with their goals, they blame you, accuse you, criticize you.

They don't view you as a valid option for a genuine relationship or participation. It is so hard to be taken seriously at church. If they can't help me or fix me, they don't want me.

And it is harassment when they push their goals, agenda, and "healing" prayer on you. I would go so far as to say it is spiritual abuse to pressure someone to submit to that and then criticize them when it doesn't work, blame them for their own affliction, and accuse them of lacking faith or having sin or not being ready. If a person isn't asking for help or understanding about faith and healing, it is wrong to push that on them because believe me, we have asked the questions, we have said the prayers, we have confessed sins, we have waited in faith. There is nothing else. We have been through it all. There is a good chance other faith healers have already been through all that with them before.

When I was expecting my second child, things weren't going well. I was told if God didn't give healing, it was because I didn't have enough faith. A nurse told me that's not true because if it was based on the amount or kind of faith I have, then healing would be in my power, not God's.

Truth is God doesn't always say yes. Sometimes he says, "no." Sometimes he says "not yet." Sometimes he says, "not that, but this." Sometimes we can know the reasons why but a lot of times we don't. I just trust that God does have a reason and He does love me regardless of how things feel or look.

RocksInMyHead · Sep 20, 2025

The fact that you equate this:

Chesterton said:
If you want some evidence, look at the Democrats. Fifty-eight of them voted against the resolution to honor Kirk.

with this:

Chesterton said:
Celebrate is what we call celebrate, as in, laughing joyously, expressing extreme happiness and thankfulness, playing music and dancing, using fake blood to re-enact a man getting shot in the neck, writing up hit lists of who they want murdered next...

would tend to counter this:

Chesterton said:
Incorrect.

o_mlly · Sep 20, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
Violence is not always immoral. Take for example violence in self defense. Jesus didnt tell his disciples to buy swords for shaving their legs.

Only if you do not discriminate between the definitions of violence and force, as I have. Our Lord knew that just as hate caused his death, so hate would attack those He chose to follow Him. John 15:18-21.

Chrystal-J · Sep 20, 2025

Praying!

Freth · Sep 20, 2025

I Plead the Fourth

The First Three Commandments

God asserts Himself in each of the first three commandments.

Exodus 20:1-3 And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Exodus 20:4-6 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Exodus 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

The Fourth Commandment

God asserts Himself three times in the fourth commandment.

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Exodus 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

Exodus 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Lord of the Sabbath

In six days, God created the heaven and earth, and then rested on the seventh day, blessing and hallowing it.
In the fourth commandment, God says the Sabbath is His. He points back to creation.
Jesus says that, because the Sabbath was made for man (He points back to creation), He is Lord of the Sabbath.

A Day of Remembrance

The Sabbath day was blessed and hallowed at creation.
Leviticus 23:3 says that the Sabbath is a holy convocation.
The fourth commandment says to remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.
Exodus 31:16 calls the fourth commandment a perpetual covenant.

The Seal of God

The Seal of God is found in the fourth commandment.

Name: The Lord

Title: Creator (made)

Territory: Heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is

Exodus 31:13, and Exodus 31:17 call the fourth commandment a sign, and points back to creation.

The Last Call to Worship

The last call to worship points back to creation, just as the fourth commandment does.

Revelation 14:6-7 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Revelation 14 continues...

Revelation 14:8-11 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

In stark contrast...

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Conclusion

Scripture keeps pointing back to creation.

Exodus 20:8-11 The Sabbath commandment.
Mark 2:27-28 The Lord of the Sabbath.
Exodus 31:13-17 The Sabbath a sign and perpetual covenant.
Leviticus 23:3 The holy convocation.
Exodus 20:8-11 The Seal of God.
Revelation 14:6-12 The last call to worship.

God might be trying to tell us something.

durangodawood · Sep 20, 2025

Chrystal-J said:
Just because someone doesn't want something doesn't mean they're scared. Maybe they just don't want it.

Theres no evidence to suggest she was prejudiced against gay people in that way.

And there is loads of evidence that a gay VP candidate is a big political risk.

BelieveItOarKnot · Sep 20, 2025

JulieB67 said:
No, my mind is just set for when we need the gospel armor on and in place if I happen to be here during that "evil day" I know Satan for who he is and what role he's going to play sometime in the future. This has always been about God vs Satan. And we know who has the victory. But it still means one should do their part and most importantly wait on the true Christ and not fall away to the fake one that arrives first. That's what being a watchman is all about.

When I fall short/miss the mark and sin today, I realize this and get back on the path.

The destruction of Satan and his messengers will transpire within mankind, collectively

JulieB67 said:
You said people do not have sins counted against them. So try again.

We've done this drill numerous times, with scripture.

You don't want your sins counted against you but could care less about fixating sins on other people. I consider such acts not of the person, but of our adversary.

JulieB67 said:
Who is Christ talking to in his letters to the churches? He's talking about their deeds/ sin and how much they have fallen, ect. Hint,

The hint is the working of Satan transpired in all 7 churches of Rev and all other churches and all other people who've ever lived save One

JulieB67 said:
it's certainly not the devils. Again, they're not in the book of life

I can only speculate how many times you've fallen and then supposedly put yourself back in good graces

Not one time in any repentant person have they made themselves sinless. No, not once. Why? Because the adversary continues to work in all, regardless. You just can't seem to bring this into focus. Again, no blame on you. People don't see it because God doesn't allow them to.

JulieB67 said:
As you stated Satan doesn't stop sinning and we know he's not in the book of life. So who's in danger of having their names blotted out?

Any person who is dominated over by Satan is not in the book of life in this present life. This does not preclude their salvation. Romans 11:26-30 shows us even enemies of the Gospel are saved through zero work of their own

JulieB67 said:
Yes, he did but unless one reconciles them self to Christ they will not take part.

When any person is removed from Satan's grip, whether in this life or the next, they'll all see just fine

JulieB67 said:
We are told again and again, they will perish. You keep claiming you accept every word but it's clear you don't.

We all perish because of sin in case you missed the obvious. Numerous citing, Romans 8:10, Col. 3:3 for a couple easy ones

JulieB67 said:
You're still ignoring the point. If nothing has to be done on our part why is Paul praying that we "be reconciled"?

Some see now. Really a remnant. Most won't see til later. But all captives will be set free sooner or later. And our mutual adversaries will perish

Chesterton · Sep 20, 2025

JSRG said:
Why would they have been resigned to the dustbin of history 20 years ago? This would have been 2005, and the only thing I can think of is that one year prior the Democrats had gotten some notable defeats in 2004 (Bush winning re-election and Democrats losing in House and Senate). But both Democrats and Republicans have managed to come back from worse defeats than that. And they did so quite quickly, in fact; in 2006 (19 years ago) they made great gains and gained a majority in both House and Senate (technically Democrats didn't have a majority, but the two Independents in the Senate (Sanders and Liebermann) were more aligned with Democrats than Republicans, especially Sanders). Then they made even stronger gains in 2008.

So I'm not exactly sure why you're surprised Democrats not doing so well in 2004 didn't result in them going to the dustbin of history. It's like wondering why Republicans didn't go into the dustbin of history 17 years ago.

I made a mistake. I should have said 30 years ago.

PloverWing · Sep 20, 2025

As far as I can tell, the student in the video was mistaken about the legality of discussing gender in the classroom. The president's executive orders (which all of us in higher ed are paying close attention to) address federal policy, such as passports, and federal granting agencies like the NSF and NIH, but executive orders don't govern state-level policy.

At the state level, it looks like Texas passed a law in 2023 restricting what Texas state universities may do regarding DEI. This law applies to Texas A&M. A document describing what is permitted and what is prohibited is here: https://compliance.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/documents/ut-system-sb-17-guidance-9-25.pdf

I see in this document that employee hiring and training are restricted, but I also see that academic course instruction is not. From p. 6, section C.2: "SB 17 specifically states that the bill’s restrictions do not apply to academic course instruction. Faculty retain academic freedom in how they provide instruction in their assigned courses, curriculum, practicums, seminars, clinical rotations, executive education programs, and any other academic instructional or clinical training setting." So, again, the student was mistaken when she said that discussing gender-diversity issues in the classroom is illegal.

Mostly, I'm disturbed by the precedent that university faculty should be fired if they require students to read content that the students disagree with. Part of the job of a university is to broaden everyone's minds, to introduce students to perspectives they haven't encountered before. We can't do our jobs if we only tell students stuff they already know and agree with.

I'll allow two points, both of which are mildly in favor of the student in the video:

1) Any discussion of sensitive topics like this should be done with respect, without ridicule. Students who believe that people shouldn't be able to identify as trans or non-binary --especially if this is coming from deeply-held religious beliefs -- should be able to voice their opinions and be heard (and challenged) respectfully. These students ought to be similarly respectful as they listen to (and challenge) the beliefs of their LGBTQ-affirming classmates. This environment of respectful discussion and challenge is not at all easy, but it's what we have to do if we're going to learn and grow together.

I'll note that I didn't hear any ridicule or disrespect coming from the professor in the video, but it was a short clip. I don't know what the larger classroom discussions have looked like.

2) If a course is going to require students to study sensitive or controversial topics, I think it's a good idea to put that in the syllabus on day one, and tell the students what's coming up during the semester, so that students who don't want to be exposed to topics they dislike can switch to another course or section during the drop/add period.

Chesterton · Sep 20, 2025

JosephZ said:
The official name of the street will still be "Warren Avenue" in addresses, but the brown signs are a symbolic reminder of the city's Arab American presence.

I forgot. I thought this was kind of humorous. Who needs to be reminded, and why do they need to be reminded of the city's Arab presence? If the Arab population is 1% or 99%, who needs to be reminded? ^_^

Sounds like something Hitler would do.

Chesterton · Sep 20, 2025

JosephZ said:
Why do you prefer to legitimize the extremist narrative of Islam and the minority that promotes it when the vast majority of the world's 2 billion Muslims reject Islamic extremists and the extremist narrative?

Say I'm in a room with 10 other people. One of those ten states proudly that he wants to subjugate or kill me. I'm going to be concerned with him, not the others.

JosephZ said:
I knew the city was majority Arab, but I'm not so sure it would be over 50% Muslim just yet. Not all Arabs are Muslim.

I'm a member of the Antiochian church. I know not all Arabs are Muslim. Several sources I checked say Dearborn's population is about 54% Muslim.

JosephZ said:
Warren Avenue hasn't been renamed. It was honorary signs erected at a couple of street corners; that’s it. It was also Wayne County, and not Dearborn, that approved the signs. Wayne County has less than a 20% Muslim population.

Wayne County street signs in Dearborn honor Arab American leader Osama Siblani

Historical experts say it's the first street sign in Dearborn honoring an Arab American leader.

Wayne County, which has jurisdiction over Warren Avenue, approved the honorary designation, putting up two brown street signs with Siblani's name in white lettering: one on the northwest corner of Warren Avenue and Chase and another about half a mile east on the northeast corner of Warren and Schaefer Road that sits above a green "Warren" street sign.

Warren Avenue is believed to be the first street in Dearborn to have a sign in honor of an Arab American advocate, officials with Wayne County and experts on Dearborn's history told the Free Press. The official name of the street will still be "Warren Avenue" in addresses, but the brown signs are a symbolic reminder of the city's Arab American presence.

Honorary signs tend to become the official name. It happened in my city when a street with a politically neutral name was honorarily named Cesar E. Chavez Blvd. Years passed, street signs were replaced, now it's the official name.

JosephZ said:
I don't know anything about Osama Siblani, but if what you say is true, then the city should reconsider giving him the honary designation.

Thank you.

JosephZ said:
The mayor was certainly wrong to do that.

Thank you.

JosephZ said:
Aren't you doing exactly the same by calling the mayor of Dearborn an "interloper" when he is a US citizen born and raised in Dearborn?

No, because he brags about his Arab heritage. There is no Arab heritage in America. If the person he was dressing down bragged of his European heritage, he'd be called a racist, even though America obviously does have a substantial European heritage.

JSRG · Sep 20, 2025

Chesterton said:
That's not the original meaning of "silent majority", and I didn't say they were a majority of the population, but they could be, which is why I keep my ammo dry. If you want some evidence, look at the Democrats. Fifty-eight of them voted against the resolution to honor Kirk. The Democrat/Democratic* Party is still not just viable, but very powerful. I don't understand how it wasn't resigned to the dustbin of history 20 years ago.

* I used both words because one of them is against the rules of CF, but I can never remember which one since they both mean the same thing.

Why would they have been resigned to the dustbin of history 20 years ago? This would have been 2005, and the only thing I can think of is that one year prior the Democrats had gotten some notable defeats in 2004 (Bush winning re-election and Democrats losing in House and Senate). But both Democrats and Republicans have managed to come back from worse defeats than that. And they did so quite quickly, in fact; in 2006 (19 years ago) they made great gains and gained a majority in both House and Senate (technically Democrats didn't have a majority, but the two Independents in the Senate (Sanders and Liebermann) were more aligned with Democrats than Republicans, especially Sanders). Then they made even stronger gains in 2008.

So I'm not exactly sure why you're surprised Democrats not doing so well in 2004 didn't result in them going to the dustbin of history. It's like wondering why Republicans didn't go into the dustbin of history 17 years ago.

Pommer · Sep 20, 2025

Servus said:
I didn't have any particular individual in mind when I made the joke, so it's too vague to clarify. If the left wants to accuse me of being racist, that's pretty much unavoidable under most any circumstances.

Your backtracking has sufficed.

Oompa Loompa · Sep 20, 2025

o_mlly said:
Violence" is the immoral use of force. War always involves the use of force and not every war is immoral.

Violence is not always immoral. Take for example violence in self defense. Jesus didnt tell his disciples to buy swords for shaving their legs.

prodromos · Sep 20, 2025

I don't understand the angst over Jimmy Kimmel. People who watch late night television want to be entertained, they don't want politics. I suspect ABC had long wanted to get rid of him because of the poor ratings but would have lost even more money breaking the contract they had with him. I'm guessing they were able to interpret his comments as violating the terms of his contract which gave them a cost free means of dropping him. I'm curious to see if he tries to fight it in court.

DaisyDay · Sep 20, 2025

Vambram said:
EXCLUSIVE: Pentagon denies NBC report on Charlie Kirk recruiting campaign, calls it '100% wrong'

The Pentagon denied an NBC report claiming it planned a recruiting campaign tied to slain activist Charlie Kirk, blasting it as false and based on anonymous sources.

www.foxnews.com

According to the Pentagon, the NBC News report is 100% wrong.

100% wrong? Would it be redundant to say gross hyperbole?

Is this part wrong?

NBCNews said:
And Trump, Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and several other members of the Cabinet are scheduled to speak at a memorial service for Kirk in Arizona on Sunday.

How about this part?

NBCNews said:
Asked for comment by NBC News, the Defense Department provided a statement from chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell in which he said, “The media is so desperate to attack this administration’s success that they are now inventing lies about our recruitment efforts. Leadership matters, and under the strong leadership of President Trump and Secretary Hegseth men and women are coming out in droves to serve this great nation.”[/quote

How about this part?

NBCNews said:

In 2022, the Army introduced the Future Soldier Preparatory Course, a program to help young people improve their physical fitness and their scores on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, known as the ASVAB test. According to the Army, almost 50,000 men and women have completed the course and moved to basic training, which has helped boost recruiting numbers.

Click to expand...

Chrystal-J · Sep 20, 2025

durangodawood said:
She didnt pick him because America is still too scared of a gay VP.

So yes, you are correct. And I think she was too, unfortunately.

Just because someone doesn't want something doesn't mean they're scared. Maybe they just don't want it.

gzt · Sep 20, 2025

I mean, seafood being luxurious is not merely about the meat of them per se, but the method of preparation as well. Fresh, steamed or boiled in teh shell, served with melted butter and lemon juice, lobster is pretty great. Canned, not so much.

o_mlly · Sep 20, 2025

durangodawood said:
You just completely made that up, against the well understood and almost universally accepted and correct definition of the term, which is something like:

"behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something"

Assuming the "term" you refer to is the word "violence":

The Ethics of Force: Against Aggression and Violence

Violence is evil and it should be striven with all possible means, including force. If it were appropriate to speak on some absolute moral command, it would be a command of resistance to evil. This command as such is prior to a command of

www.academia.edu

Violence is evil and it should be striven with all possible means, including force. If it were appropriate to speak on some absolute moral command, it would be a command of resistance to evil.

durangodawood said:
This is true. Violence is sometimes morally justifiable.

No. Only the use of force may sometimes by morally justified.

durangodawood said:
We cant have a proper conversation if you redefine terms however you need to suit yourself.

? Our definitions of violence are essentially the same.

Chesterton · Sep 20, 2025

durangodawood said:
Ah the "silent majority" who goes through life not daring to utter their true sentiments. Absent evidence, this is pure supposition from you and something of a calumny.

That's not the original meaning of "silent majority", and I didn't say they were a majority of the population, but they could be, which is why I keep my ammo dry. If you want some evidence, look at the Democrats. Fifty-eight of them voted against the resolution to honor Kirk. The Democrat/Democratic* Party is still not just viable, but very powerful. I don't understand how it wasn't resigned to the dustbin of history 20 years ago.

* I used both words because one of them is against the rules of CF, but I can never remember which one since they both mean the same thing.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page