Latest activity

Hentenza · Nov 1, 2025

Apple Sky said:
What I don't understand is that if the earth is turning how come the constellations still remain the same night after night ?

They don’t actually. You can see the same stars and planets but in different parts of the sky.

friend of · Nov 1, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
Christian Nationalism isn't Christianity. It's a parody of religion.

As a Christian, do you NOT want to live in a country that espouses Christianity as it's main doctrine? Why or why not?

Fervent · Nov 1, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
It was part of my studies in obtaining my Masters in Theology and Divinity.

So traditions of men?

Fervent · Nov 1, 2025

Bradskii said:
'You seem to be...'? There is no moral judgement in the fact that you'd be physically hurt and angry if I hit you. Obviously. Is it acceptable for me to do so? There's no indication of that. As you are finally acknowledging. Now you want to know what does makes the connection between the facts and whether it's acceptable.

Still as dense as ever. If there is no moral judgment, then the premises are not related to the conclusion. The tact you are taking leaves it a mystery what that relationship is meant to be, which means you are going down the path of non-sequitor.

Bradskii said:
All this nonsense about assuming the conclusion in the premise was just that. Nonsense. Now we can head to a conclusion as to what 'bridges the gap'. So let's start by asking you if you think it's acceptable or not.

No, not at all. It's a fork, the only way to relate the premises with the conclusion is to include the conclusion in the premises. If it's not there, then you simply are presenting a non-sequitor. Which is why I phrased it as an either/or. If you don't include the moral judgment in the premises, there is no relationship between premises and conclusion and you are presenting a non-sequitor. If there is a moral judgment in the premises, you simply beg the question. Either way, the so-called reasoning is fallacious.

concretecamper · Nov 1, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
@concretecamper as for canonization:

Old Testament Canonization
• Jewish Roots: The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) was canonized in stages. The Torah (first five books) was accepted by the 5th century BCE. The Prophets (Nevi'im) followed, and the Writings (Ketuvim) were likely finalized by the 2nd century CE.
• Council of Jamnia (c. 90 CE): this council is often cited as a moment when Jewish leaders affirmed the Hebrew canon, excluding books like Tobit and Maccabees found in the Septuagint (Greek translation).

Early Recognition: By the 2nd century CE, many Christian communities were using the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters. However, other texts like Hebrews, Revelation, and James were disputed (called antilegomena).

Marcion’s Canon (c. 140 CE): Marcion proposed a radical canon excluding the Old Testament and most New Testament writings. His controversial list spurred the church to clarify its own canon.

Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 CE): This early list from Rome includes most New Testament books but omits some later-accepted ones like Hebrews and James.

This doesn't back up your claim that the canon of Scripture was settled in 173AD.

Please post references that tell us the canon was styled in 173 AD

Strong in Him · Nov 1, 2025

Apple Sky said:
What I don't understand is that if the earth is turning how come the constellations still remain the same night after night ?

The earth turns on its own axis - it doesn't roll around the sky.

concretecamper · Nov 1, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Really?

6th Century – Holy Roman Church: Used in papal documents to emphasize Rome’s primacy.

1054 A.D. – Great Schism: Eastern and Western Churches split; “Roman Catholic” begins to distinguish the Western Church from Eastern Orthodoxy.

Please post references, yes really.

And references that show the term Roman Catholic Church used prior to the reformation. Not the Church of/in Rome, not the Roman Church, please it can't be that hard!!!

Fervent · Nov 1, 2025

childeye 2 said:
I'm not familiar with a gnomic will. Objectively speaking if Thelema is the natural/innate will/desire/determination that came from God and is drawn to God, then the gnomic will would be subjective, deliberative, and unnatural. Is that correct?

Not unnatural, but is more the ordinary will. The thelemic will is the will that is pointed towards our natural good, so it is directed toward God. The gnomic will is our basic sense of voluntary choice.

childeye 2 said:
Fervent said:
The question is, how can something be "voluntary" without free will. <-- It comes across as a genuine query, and it did not come across as a rhetorical question.

The problem here is terminology. If you had made a statement, I would assume it would look like this --> Something voluntary cannot happen without free will. <-- If by free will you mean a voluntary determination, this sounds like circular reasoning.

It's not circular, it's analytic. The concept of a voluntary action has within it an intrinsic implication of free will.

childeye 2 said:
None of these terms are qualified -> something, free, will.

Philosophizing about it simply complicates matters, free will is nothing more than agency.

Amo2 · Nov 1, 2025

The Liturgist said:
They’re utter nonsense. The Orthodox Church in Russia coexists with many Protestant churches and the Vatican has no power to outlaw evangelism anywhere (except in the Vatican City State).

+

However, this raises a much more pressing question, however, why should other Christians be trying to “evangelize” Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholics? These are Christian denominations, contrary to the teachings of some 19th century Restorationists, and so there are no souls to be saved by evangelizing their members - we should be focused on converting members of various non-Christian cults like the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarian Universalists, and the atheists and irreligious, and heathens such as Muslims, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Confucians and other adherents of the demonic false religions, and not trying to “evangelize” our fellow Nicene Christians.

And frankly if anyone dared try to “convert” Roman Catholics to some random church in the public areas of the Vatican, I would fully support the Vatican arresting them, but alas these days the Vatican has gone from being too aggressive in prior centuries to being too timid when it comes to defending the faith.

Here is a recent video of a misguided “evangelist” accosting an Orthodox priest in Greece, along with his very charitable reactions to her conduct (real video of an actual event):

Login to view embedded media

The following link seems to disagree with your assessment.

Russia's Newest Law: No Evangelizing Outside of Church - Christianity Today

(UPDATE) Putin signs new restrictions that limit where and how Christians share the gospel.

www.christianitytoday.com

Quote below from link above.

Update (July 8): This week, Russian president Vladimir Putin approved a package of anti-terrorism laws that usher in tighter restrictions on missionary activity and evangelism.

Despite prayers and protests from religious leaders and human rights advocates, the Kremlin announced Putin’s approval yesterday. The amendments, including laws against sharing faith in homes, online, or anywhere but recognized church buildings, go into effect July 20.

Though opponents to the new measures hope to eventually appeal in court or elect legislators to amend them, they have begun to prepare their communities for life under the new rules, reported Forum 18 News Service, a Christian outlet reporting on the region.

The following link as well, with quote below it.

EEA calls to pray for “wisdom and courage” for Christians in Russia

“The European Evangelical Alliance is extremely concerned about Russia’s new anti-terrorism law, which greatly restricts religious freedom”. Evangelism is no longer allowed outside religious buildings.

cms.evangelicalfocus.com

“The European Evangelical Alliance is extremely concerned about Russia’s new anti-terrorism law, which greatly restricts religious freedom”. Evangelism is no longer allowed outside religious buildings.

On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a controversial package of counterterrorism measures, including tougher sentences for extremism and heightened electronic surveillance of Russian citizens.

The European Evangelical Alliance explains that “sharing one’s faith will now be restricted to named members of registered organisations. Discussion about faith will only be able to take place in registered religious buildings.”

“All sharing of faith will be forbidden in homes. Informal witnessing between individuals is not allowed.”

“There are also restrictions on witnessing via social media.”

“If the law is broken, the fines to be paid are high”, the EEA explains.

It would be nice to be able to see the law for ourselves, if anyone knows where it may be viewed, if it can.

Tom D · Nov 1, 2025

The concept of purgatory is hinted in the Bible, although the word purgatory is not there.

Furthermore, there's a museum in Rome that exhibits the marks that were left by souls from purgatory.

Regarding the idea that 'every Christian truth must be referenced in the Bible', listen to what Dr Steve Ray have to say.

Hentenza · Nov 1, 2025

Apple Sky said:
No I haven't, I reckon we've exhausted the subject of molten glass which I'm never going to agree on, unless you want to carry on debating it, I don't mind.

Pretty sad after all evidence presented fully defeats what you believe. So at the end of the day you are going to believe what you believe whether you are right or wrong. You are the perfect candidate for false teachers and wolves in sheep clothing to pray on. I will continue to pray for you.

camille70 · Nov 1, 2025

Nithavela said:
Or you are a democrat and the opposing party is the GOP, which votes no on anything no matter what to make you look bad.

I think ending it may work out in the end. Elsewhere I had the same argument regarding dems when they were in charge and being obstructed by Sinema and Manchin. I think there were progressive polices that dems opposed but they could always vote in favor of because they knew with Sinema and Manchin, it was not going to pass. Sinema and Manchin gave them cover to follow the party line.

The same with the GOP. They can vote with Trump 99% of the time because, due to the filibuster, none of it is going to pass. Once they actually have to govern, and deal with the consequences of their vote, and the fallout of having to explain their votes, then I think some of the ridiculousness will get reigned in. Or the American public gets the full impact of GOP policies without the benefit of dems able to mitigate the worst harm.

This video share the sentiment that has been building in some circles for a while now.

https://x.com/citizengatsby/status/1983266419631632551

childeye 2 · Nov 1, 2025

Fervent said:
Thelema is only one of the words for will, and it is the "natural" will that is drawn to God. Generally the question is the freedom of the gnomic will, not the thelemic will.

I'm not familiar with a gnomic will. Objectively speaking if Thelema is the natural/innate will/desire/determination that came from God and is drawn to God, then the gnomic will would be subjective, deliberative, and not compulsive. Is that correct?

Fervent said:
None of this seems relevant to my statement about "voluntary" requiring free will in order to be a sensible statement.

Fervent said:
The question is, how can something be "voluntary" without free will. <-- It comes across as a genuine query, and it did not come across as a rhetorical question.

The problem here is terminology. If you had made a statement, I would assume it would look like this --> Something voluntary cannot happen without free will. <-- If by free will you mean a voluntary determination, this sounds like circular reasoning.

None of these terms are qualified -> something, free, will.

bbbbbbb · Nov 1, 2025

rocky mountains

Bradskii · Nov 1, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Reader will note - I recognized the protest and riot on Jan 6 - no excuse - no denial

Then compared it to the widespread, multi state riots that burnt down parts of cities - killed people - attacked police and fire bombed federal buildings.

Good grief. You did it again! Please stop.

Hentenza · Nov 1, 2025

rambot said:
How many times should they be required to prove their need? 1x? 5x? To every American who ever challenges them on it?

Once. And then every year.

rambot said:
Do you know how many americans are 1 job loss and 2 missed paycheques away from being homeless? So many peoples lives are literally that precarious....and there is exactly ZERO hope in sight for them with Republicans in charge of everything.

How many?

rambot said:
There certainly are families poor enough to access food banks even though they own a car. Don't shame them. it’s not helpful.

Definitely. And most churches have food pantries to feed the needy. My church runs one that is opened 7 days a week.

rambot said:
It's going to be a common sight in America. Frankly I find it a bit jarring your first thought was "Look at these cheats" and not "oh my goodness. Look at how hard it is getting for so many people". If you only see 1 tesla it may be a scam. If you see a lot of them with other cars....hm.
...maybe that means something different

I find it jarring that you don’t question the obvious abuse. As I stared, I have no problems helping the needy but I have a problem helping those that are gaming the system.

Always in His Presence · Nov 1, 2025

Bradskii said:
Now that is really weird. You ask me who is doing that and then immediately do it yourself.

Reader will note - I recognized the protest and riot on Jan 6 - no excuse - no denial

Then compared it to the widespread, multi state riots that burnt down parts of cities - killed people - attacked police and fire bombed federal buildings.

but my friends on the left called them mostly peaceful.

Always in His Presence · Nov 1, 2025

Again - query answered - Purgatory is extra biblical.

Always in His Presence · Nov 1, 2025

@concretecamper as for canonization:

Old Testament Canonization
• Jewish Roots: The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) was canonized in stages. The Torah (first five books) was accepted by the 5th century BCE. The Prophets (Nevi'im) followed, and the Writings (Ketuvim) were likely finalized by the 2nd century CE.
• Council of Jamnia (c. 90 CE): this council is often cited as a moment when Jewish leaders affirmed the Hebrew canon, excluding books like Tobit and Maccabees found in the Septuagint (Greek translation).

Early Recognition: By the 2nd century CE, many Christian communities were using the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters. However, other texts like Hebrews, Revelation, and James were disputed (called antilegomena).
Marcion’s Canon (c. 140 CE): Marcion proposed a radical canon excluding the Old Testament and most New Testament writings. His controversial list spurred the church to clarify its own canon.
Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 CE): This early list from Rome includes most New Testament books but omits some later-accepted ones like Hebrews and James.

Bradskii · Nov 1, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
who is doing that?

Now that is really weird. You ask me who is doing that and then immediately do it yourself.

Always in His Presence said:
One group on one day at the Nations Capital - vs Nationwide for months

which is more?

Amo2 · Nov 1, 2025

The Liturgist said:
Or, you could find a contemporary, peer-reviewed work to support your claims not sourced from a flawed and dated 18th century work, which was impressive for the time, but Edward Gibbon was limited in his knowledge, or from the writings of 19th century leaders of your religion.

I don’t think its too much to ask for you to provide contemporary sources.

And also regarding your claim the Roman church killed over 100 million people during the Middle Ages, that remains entirely unsubstantiated - no support exists for that claim even from dated and flawed works of historians such as Gibbon.

Nor for your claim of large scale violence between Christians during the fourth century (since the violence was inflicted against Christians by Arians, who are not Christians according to the CF Statement of Faith because they reject the deity of Christ).

Peer reviewed by who? As I have stated and asked on that thread before, which no one has taken to task including yourself, please do prove the historical information provided by Gibbons quoted to be wrong.

Nor is this topic concerning the number games of the martyred either, which I will gladly enter into again with you if you choose to start such a topic again. This thread however, is not about that topic. Nor do I intend to change the subject of it, as you please.

Deny the record of violence perpetrated both ways if you wish. This will change nothing. Not to worry, the truth will come out in the end.

Yes, I understand that those who think they have already fully comprehended God, think those who disagree with their views are or cannot be Christians. I will leave that one to God personally. You should be careful, I was just recently warned about the rules pertaining to not saying someone else is not a Christian. Though I was not sure where I did so. Perhaps though, such rules only apply to some of us, and not others.

Chesterton · Nov 1, 2025

Neogaia777 said:
2. Safety and alignment concerns — developers intentionally restrict autonomy, long-term memory, and self-modification to prevent unpredictable or harmful behavior.

3. Uncertainty and social risk — even if we could build a fully self-evolving AI, we don’t yet understand how it would develop values, self-perception, or motives; the stakes are simply too high.

I wonder about these. The humans are obviously programming their idea of values into it. When I recently started messing around with AI, I asked "I'm sitting alone in a room by myself. It's just you and me. Why can't we say whatever we want?" I don't remember the answer it gave, but I don't see where safety and risk enter into it. Risk of what, you know?

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page