CerebralCherub said:

No one who supports the Constitutional right to carry arms, to resist governmental tyranny, supports murder regardless of the age of the victim.

Click to expand...

I am not American, but I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

When they devalue one life, they devalue all lives.

Job 33:6 said:

The theory of evolution only suggests changes in degree. That is, by small steps that accumulate through time.

Click to expand...

Yes. Again, we have no disagreement on micro-evolution events.

Job 33:6 said:

Evolution occurs at a species to species level. Or by speciation. The theory never suggests anything otherwise. Just small changes that over millions of years, accumulate.

Click to expand...

If "species to species level" means that every "species" is no more than a small change (micro-evolution) from other species then we agree. But I don't think that is what you were arguing.

I think the disagreement involves the claim that un-directed mutations over time produce a novel creature. Changes that are minor (imperceptible) in short time periods produce in longer periods of time a radical (perceptible) different creature, labeled as a new "species" within a genus. Although all "species" within a genus are supposed to be "similar", there are no objective criteria for grouping "species" into genera nor are there objective criteria to assign a creature to a genera. How many genera claim only one species?

Job 33:6 said:

Evolutionary change through time is not done by events disconnected from prior events. Because future mutations involve a genome that retains past mutations.

Click to expand...

Perhaps "disconnected" was a poor choice of words. The probabiltiy of mutation event n+1 is independent of the mutation event n from the virutally same probabiltiy space. Your math, I suggest, would apply to perhaps the mutuation of a clone several times in sequence.

Job 33:6 said:

And I don't see any logical fallacies here. If we define macro evolution as evolution at a species level, then if it is observed, then that's simply what it is, by definition.

Click to expand...

I think that takes us back to the tautological and definitional problems of the words "species" and "macro-evolution".

Job 33:6 said:

That is my example. How can my example prove itself wrong?

Click to expand...

I beleive you wrote that the hybrid should be strerile but it was not.

Job 33:6 said:

Speciation is just reproductive isolation as a product of mutation and descent with modification. And that's just a reality and fact of nature. So I'm not sure what there is to speculate on here.

Click to expand...

While you and I are demonstrably different in kind than a bonobo or any other ape, to claim we evolved from them is pure specualtion.

RIP: Charlie Kirk

HARK! said:

The claim is that he is in fear of torture in over 20 countries; or at least that is the story now.

Click to expand...

He can go to Costa Rica.

There is no justification to send a person from Central America to Africa. None.

John Robie said:

The people who have abortions, perform abortions, make pills to cause abortions, etc., do not value human life. Those who support a woman’s so-called right to kill her child do not value human life. Those who turn a blind eye to this do not value human life. So why care about Charlie Kirk or Iryna Zarutska? They are just as disposable as an unborn child.

Click to expand...

This kind of rhetoric is not only illogical, it's irresponsible. I am afraid there isn't any hope for honest dialog about this issue, in light of that.

Oompa Loompa said:

Like I said, this is what "democracy" looks like.

Click to expand...

The United States is a Constitutional Republic - and "democracy" does not include violence.

CerebralCherub said:

I can't even imagine the pain of it and it never gets easier no matter how many times I read about it! It's shocking.

Click to expand...

I don't think any of us can. And to think that all that happened to Jesus Christ, Who had come to earth from the glorious perfection of heaven, indicates something of how horrific it must have been for Him.

CerebralCherub said:

Hi David,

I have researched this since your post and come across this which seems to agree with my initial thoughts about what Jesus said:

Luke 22:42 - Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives

Study Bible

Book ◦ Chapter

Father,
This term reflects the intimate relationship between Jesus and God, emphasizing His divine sonship. In Jewish culture, addressing God as "Father" was not common, highlighting Jesus' unique position. This relationship is central to understanding the Trinity and the nature of Jesus' mission.
if You are willing,
This phrase acknowledges God's sovereignty and Jesus' submission to His divine plan. It reflects the tension between Jesus' human desire to avoid suffering and His commitment to fulfill God's will. This submission is a model for believers, illustrating the importance of aligning personal desires with God's purposes.

take this cup from Me.
The "cup" symbolizes the impending suffering and crucifixion Jesus is about to endure. In the Old Testament, the cup often represents God's wrath and judgment (e.g., Psalm 75:8, Isaiah 51:17). Jesus' request to have the cup removed underscores His awareness of the physical and spiritual agony He is about to face, fulfilling prophecies such as Isaiah 53.

Yet not My will,
This phrase highlights the dual nature of Christ, fully human and fully divine. Jesus expresses a natural human desire to avoid pain, yet He prioritizes divine will over personal preference. This submission is a key aspect of His role as the obedient Son, contrasting with Adam's disobedience in the Garden of Eden.

but Yours be done.
This ultimate submission to God's will is central to the Christian understanding of obedience and sacrifice. It reflects Jesus' role as the perfect servant, fulfilling prophecies like Isaiah 42:1. This act of surrender is pivotal in the narrative of salvation, demonstrating the path of true discipleship and trust in God's plan.

I find it interesting that 2 people are reading 1 verse and there are 2 different views but mine remains the same. What about yours? Do you have anywhere I can refer to with a view similar to yours?

Click to expand...

I think we are agreed. It wasn't merely death that Jesus was praying to His Father about, but all that His particular death involved - the betrayal, the sham trials before Pilate and the High Priest, the denial by Peter, the scourging, the mockery, but most of all, the enormous weight of the sin of His people.

johansen said:

The insurance companies will know.

Click to expand...

Only if it's covered, which is rare, and only if the prescription goes through them. Otherwise, why would they?

The Liturgist said:

Indeed, it is clear that the offices of Presbyter and Bishop diverged between the mid 1st century and the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who outlines the hierarchy we have at present. I suspect this division was due to the repose of the Apostles, with the archpresbyters assuming the title episkopoi, but it could have gone the other way.

Practically speaking, the Presbyterians reinvented the bare minimum function of tne episcopal office in the form of the Moderators of your assemblies - that function being the traditional Episcopal function, but I am sympathetic to why the trauma of the Western church caused you to wish to jettison the monarchial bishops. In the East we love our bishops, but the laity can usually with some difficulty force out a noxious bishop or override their decisions (this has happened - it is rare, but the classic example of the laity overriding the decisions of the hierarchy was the rejection of the Council of Florence, which was approved by both the Eastern Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic hierarchies, with the exception on the EO side of St. Mark of Ephesus - I can’t recall exactly how things occurred in the Armenian church, but it was along these approximate lines.

Click to expand...

I think officially the whole Presbytery (the assembly, not the geographical region) is our equivalent of a bishop.

SabbathBlessings said:

So the church knows more than the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

I never said that, indeed I have maintained the opposite position, that the Church in compiling the Nicene Creed, the New Testament canon, and in preserving apostolic docfrines relies on the guidance of the Spirit. The teaching ministry of the Church is the means by which the Holy Spirit communicates, for the Spirit is able to speak through the hierarchy of the One Holy Catholic Church and Apostolic Church, however one defines it. This view is in full accord with the Nicene Creed.

SabbathBlessings said:

despite no church agreeing on doctrine.

Click to expand...

False. Aside from the fact that all Orthodox churches agree on doctrine, additionally, all traditional liturgical churches (Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, traditional Methodist, liturgical Calvinist, Congregationalist), which also represent most of the faithful, agree on most points of doctrine, including the Trinity, the Incarnation, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the status of Mary as Theotokos, the use of Icons, certain points of soteriology and eschatology, and importantly, worship on all days of the week and not just the seventh day, for Christ said “pray without ceasing,” and for this reason we are in the process of reunification.

Additionally, all Christian churches, including yours, agree on some doctrine, such as the Nicene Creed and the contents of the New Testament. So a church that rejects the Trinity, the Incarnation, the canonicity of the 27 books of the New Testament, the Apostolate of St. Paul, and the Nicene Creed is not, according to the ecumenical consensus, Christian. Thus we do not count Unitarians, Swedenborgians, Mormons, J/Ws, Christian Science, Oneness Pentecostals or related heretics as being within the fold of the Christian Church, since they reject the doctrines associated with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church through the Nicene Creed (however one defines the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - the definition of Catholicity is disputed due to schism, and I have outlined before the different ways most Christians define it, yet you seem to insist that in all cases Catholic means the Roman Catholic Church headed by the Pope, which is ironically the same definition used by Roman Catholics, who ironically also conduct the most worship on Saturday.

Tropical Wilds said:

What’s the article title on MSNBC so we can read it, for those of us who don’t click random links…

Click to expand...

Some of the commentary on MSNBC about this sad event is vile and not worth reading or listening to. One commentator on MSNBC has been fired for insensitive comments on Kirk’s assassination.

John Robie said:

The people who have abortions, perform abortions, make pills to cause abortions, etc., do not value human life. Those who support a woman’s so-called right to kill her child do not value human life. Those who turn a blind eye to this do not value human life. So why care about Charlie Kirk or Iryna Zarutska? They are just as disposable as an unborn child.

Click to expand...

Hold the on. You were only just explaining how you not caring about abortion meant that Kirk’s death was just meh.

Something smells fishy here…..

Zaha Torte said:

Those who advocate for abortion do not value human life and tend to justify violence and murder as long as it happens to those whose existence they deem inconvenient.

Click to expand...

That’s everyone.

John Robie said:

…killing Charlie Kirk is just meh.

Click to expand...

Weird flex but you do you I guess?