• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Average consumer now carries $6,329 in credit card debt. 'People are stretched,' expert says

Again it's a summary of his writings. It's not that difficult to understand.

You said:
“Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value, zero.” -- Voltaire (1694-1778)

You didn't say this was a summary. You presented it as an actual quote of his. Now you're trying to claim it was some kind of summary even though you presented it as a bona fide quote.

How did you like that last Keynes quote? Did you like that one more?

Well, first, that quote wasn't there when I replied to your message. What you added later via an edit was:
If you don't like that one; here's another Keynesian one:

View attachment 372330

British Lord John Maynard Keynes (the father of 'Keynesian Economics' which our nation now endures) in his book "THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE" (1920).

Your statement of "the father of 'Keynesian Economics' which our nation now endures" indicates that you don't have a high opinion of him, and if so, that makes you quoting him as evidence seem a bit odd.

Now, the simple fact a famous historical figure (whether it be Voltaire, Keynes, Lincoln, or someone else) happened to say something doesn't mean much of anything in terms of whether it was true or not. However, if one is going to quote a historical figure, it's very important that someone quote them properly, and not give false quotes they didn't say. That is my problem here.

As for this Keynes quote, this one is inaccurate as well. It is, to be fair, an edited version of something he actually said, but still an inaccurate quote. Here is what he said:

"If, however, a government refrains from regulation and allows matters to take their course, essential commodities soon attain a level of price out of the reach of all but the rich, the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent, and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer."

The inaccurate quote you offer rewords the beginning and then cuts out the middle half of the sentence without using anything to show that is the case (such an ellipsis).

How about this one?:


"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- Abraham Lincoln in a letter from to Col. William F. Elkins, November 21, 1864

I don't need Abe to tell me about what I can see with my own eyes.

Well, if you don't need Abraham Lincoln to tell you something, what does it matter if he said it or not? However, we run into the problem that this quote appears to be a total hoax, as explained here:

So you've given three quotes. The first one, attributed to Voltaire, appears false, or at least no one can point to the source. The second one, from Keynes, is more accurate, but still is edited and cuts out half of the sentence. The third one appears very much to be a total fraud.

I must ask at this point: Why do you accept vague Internet quotes like this so easily? Why don't you make sure they're real before spouting them off? Do you not care if you falsely ascribe words to someone that they did not say?

In fact, speaking of Abraham Lincoln, he had very wise words on this very subject:

Lincoln-quote-internet.jpg
Upvote 0

Ethics of Proselytization

For what it's worth, there is a small update. During a small exchange I was asked if I was a Christian, which I affirmed. When asked what sort of church I attended I answered honestly, Lutheran.

I do believe she means well, so for those whose focus was on the details of my story (though I want to emphasize that my intent, originally, was not to focus on the details of my anecdote, but address a larger picture). Though there was some discomfort when she was trying to push a book from her church's tradition (Apostolic) about spiritual warfare. I didn't believe it appropriate, while on the clock, to engage in theological debate; so it was largely an uncomfortable situation. But, I do want to be clear: I do believe her intent is sincere. Though I also believe that if I offered my own frank opinion, she would be offended--which I did not share.

In the same way that my original intent was not to hyper-focus my personal experience; but rather discuss a more general subject. I also don't want this to become a theological quibble. I am more than happy to engage in debates and conversations on the subject of "spiritual warfare" on more appropriate boards here on CF.

But, for whatever it's worth, I want to bring closure to the fact that I do think she means well.

-CryptoLutheran
Upvote 0

Trump third term

You do realize there is very little in the political spectrum we are going to agree on. What you call childish behavior by Trump is his response to the same kind of behavior from liberals who tee up the ball for him to knock out of the park. Trump is trolling gullible liberals who continually give him reason to do so. You spend all of your time complaining about Trump while ignoring the provocations of liberals.
Have you considered it’s the liberals who are triggering him? I mean if he responds in kind every time he becomes pretty predictable, right?
Upvote 0

Baltimore Officer Suspended After Trying to Run Over Citizen



The person who recorded the video, Slick Brown, exclusively told WBAL-TV 11 News that he and his friends were hanging out along Wylie Avenue in Park Heights when the officer went up and told them to move.

"(The officer) told him, 'Come here,' for no reason, Brown told WBAL-TV 11 News. "So, my man said, 'No,' so he kept walking. He walked through the alley. As soon as he walked into the alley, (the officer) hopped back into the car and started chasing him. Automatic, full speed, trying to hit him and all of that. So, my man started running. He was running for his life. He isn't going to stop, (the officer) was trying to hit him with his car."​

I linked this article because of the ones I checked, it had the most of the original video. It's worth checking out the full video (which is easy to find on /r/baltimore but I can't link to it because of swears), because it makes the officer's actions look even more unhinged. The commentary is kind of funny, too.

Hamas now executing Palestinians who tried to help peace.

Don't know which thread you've been reading, but in this one, there are plenty of people who's general tone of post is "Well, shouldn't have colaborated. Hamas did what they had to.".

I believe that you personally feel different, but don't pretend that people on the left that defend those killings by hamas don't exist in meaningful numbers.

It's okay. You don't have to make their opinion your own just because you share a lot of other opinions.

I did catch that after the fact. And am saddened by it. I don't believe that defending Hamas aids the Palestinian cause. I support Palestine, and more importantly I support Palestinians--but Hamas is objectively wrong. And defending Hamas is ultimately hurtful, harmful, and discredits meaningful support for Palestinian people who suffer.

-CryptoLutheran
Upvote 0

BUSTED - 12 False theories refuted:

Oh, so he's coming back twice?
The Lord will not be seen on His terrible day of vengeance and wrath. Psalms 11:4-6..... He SENDS fire to destroy His enemies. Habakkuk 3:4, +
So now the Lord's coming back in 36 years, not between 15-20?
You think you're going to live to be 120?
I hope to be with Jesus in the Millennium, in 15-20 years.

Genesis 6:3 says it is possible; Moses did it. Also, Isaiah 65:20 tells us people will live for much longer in the Millennium. I believe our atmosphere will have a higher proportion of Oxygen then.
If you think that being in heaven is about your good deeds - forget end times, you've got fundamental problems.
I worded my reply incorrectly. As a believer in Jesus, I have His Promise of Eternal life, John 3:16 With God, on the new earth. Rev 21:1-7

If ' jumping to conclusions' was an Olympic event, you would get the gold medal.
Upvote 0

Would you get rid of daylight saving time?

It's all play. You can't add or subtract an hour from the day. It's dark either way
I'm not sure the legitimacy of the attribution, but I have heard about an old native response to daylight savings time, where he said, "Only the white man would think that by cutting two inches from the top of a blanket and sewing it on the bottom he has given himself a longer blanket."
Upvote 0

The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

Yes, by grace He draws all men to Himself. And yet He won't force anyone to come, or to remain. God's never been in the business of producing automatons. But if we come to Him and remain in Him we will produce much good fruit. those who do so to the end are the elect. Meanwhile there will by some who beleive they're His but who are not, and others who didn't know they were His but are.

I hope you don't mind someone else chiming in on your comments. I wanted to offer some detailed food for thought.

John 12:32 occurs within the context of Jesus responding to the report that "some Greeks" desired to see Him (v. 20). The arrival of Gentiles signals that the redemptive focus is widening beyond Israel. Jesus interprets this event as the indication that His "hour" has come: the hour of His glorification through death (v. 23). Thus, when He says He will be "lifted up," He refers to His crucifixion (v. 33).

So when he says πάντας ἑλκύσω ("I will draw all people"), the phrase must be read in light of the preceding Gentile reference and the Johannine theme of universal scope of the gospel, not universal salvation (or the attempt at such). In other words, "all" here does not mean "every individual without exception," but "all kinds of people (Jew and Gentile alike) without distinction." The arrival of Greeks prompts Jesus to declare that His crucifixion will effect a drawing not limited to Jews. The verse, therefore, celebrates the inclusiveness of the atonement's scope (its sufficiency), not the universality of its effect (its efficiency).

In short, the "drawing" of John 12:32 refers to the world-wide proclamation of the gospel, through which all nations are summoned to faith. It is not a statement on the wooing effects of God's work on the hearts of individuals. The text is missional, not soteriological. Christ's cross will be the magnet of gospel appeal to every tribe and tongue.

In contrast, John 6:44 depicts a different kind of drawing. There, Jesus addresses unbelieving Jews who are grumbling over His claim to be the bread from heaven (vv. 41-43). He rebukes them, essentially telling them to knock it off (μὴ γογγύζετε), as if to declare that it is pointless for them to complain. Why? Why not just address their concerns and try to reason with them? He answers: "No one can (οὐδεὶς δύναται) come to me unless drawn," the implication being that they hadn't been, hence the reason for their persistent unbelief. The problem is not that they haven't been invited, but that they cannot believe. The issue is moral and spiritual inability, not ethnic scope.

Same verb as in John 12:32, but its sense differs. In John 6, the "drawing" is effectual; it infallibly results in saving faith. Grammatically, the object of "draws him" (ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν) is the same as the object of "I will raise him" (ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν), both referring back to οὐδεὶς. Thus, while the text explicitly says that the one who is drawn is enabled to come, the grammar also entails that the one who is drawn is the one who comes, believes, and is raised. In other words, the text assumes no distinction between "enabled to come" and "those who do come." It presents man in two categories: those who are unable to come, and those who, being enabled, do so. (More on the grammatical argument for this below.)

So the Father's drawing in John 6:44 is not the external call of gospel proclamation (as in John 12:32), but the internal, regenerative work of grace whereby the sinner's will is made willing (cf. v. 65, which restates v. 44 but replaces the verb with that of v. 37).

It means to draw, to appeal to, to coax, to prompt, to inform, to grace, to call, to knock on our door. And then, as we respond, we draw near to Him, and the nearer we draw to Him, the nearer yet He draws to us. That's the whole point of our faith; that's man's purpose, that's man's state of justice, his wholeness, his holiness, his complete and uncompromised happiness, to be near to God and to remain there in this life, and then be there eternally as this union is fully consummated in the next.

This is too soft a definition of ἑλκύω. The lexical range of ἑλκύω is primarily in the realm of "drag" or "haul" (see John 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; James 2:6). It's a term that expresses decisive action resulting in movement, not gentle persuasion. Even when used metaphorically, as in John 6:44 and 12:32, the same strength of meaning carries through, because the drawing accomplishes its intent. In John 6:44, it accomplishes (at the very least) an enablement to believe; in John 12:32, it accomplishes the worldwide extension of the gospel's appeal. These efforts do not fail. They describe an effectual change of position -- from unable to able to believe (6:44), and from restricted to universal scope in gospel proclamation (12:32). That's the semantic force of ἑλκύω, "draw."

I agree, we cannot possibly be saved unless we’re drawn. Our difference lies in whether or not a person can refuse to be drawn, or can turn and walk back away after being drawn.

The syntax of John 6:44 is decisive on this. The main clause, οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ("no one is able to come to me"), asserts total inability. The verb δύναται ("is able") makes ability, not willingness, the issue. The conditional clause, ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ... ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν ("unless the Father... draws him"), introduces the single remedy for this inability: divine initiative. The construction is a present general third-class conditional, meaning Jesus is appealing to a general or axiomatic truth about humanity: mankind as a whole is naturally incapable of coming to Christ, apart from the Father's drawing.

The final clause, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ("and I will raise him up on the last day"), is not part of the condition, but its logical consequence. Grammatically, the αὐτὸν ("him") in both ἑλκύσῃ ("draws") and ἀναστήσω ("will raise") refers to the same person. Thus, the one drawn is the one raised. This is easily seen if restating the logic of the verse contrapositively:

"If he is able to come, then the Father [has drawn] him, and I will raise him up."

Who is the one raised? The one enabled to come; the one drawn by the Father. We could say, theologically, that the one raised is the one who actually comes. But what the logic of John 6:44 is declaring is that there isn't a distinction. Jesus assumes no difference between those enabled to come, and those who actually do so. The drawing is effectual -- not in making people into "automatons," but in changing the disposition of their hearts such that the sin they once loved they now hate, and the God they once opposed (Rom. 8:7-8) they are now naturally inclined toward. They will as their heart desires, and their heart desires Christ.

This aligns with verse 37, which says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Interestingly, verse 65 restates verse 44, but replaces the verb with that of verse 37. That interchange of ἑλκύω ("draw") and δίδωμι ("give") indicates a paradigmatic relationship between the two verbs within parallel syntagmatic contexts, suggesting that the Father's drawing and giving are conceptually identical acts:

"All that the Father gives/draws to me will come to me."
"No one can come to me unless the Father draws/gives them to me (the one drawn/given will be raised up on the last day)."

And still some, after having tasted of the heavenly gift (Heb 6:4), or coming to the knowledge of Christ (2 Pet 2:20-22), may yet prefer to return to their death, to the flesh, like a dog to its vomit.

These warnings describe those who are exposed to the blessings of God's gospel (tasting, seeing, or experiencing) without being truly regenerated. They illustrate the danger of false profession and the severity of rejecting God's gift. They do not demonstrate that the elect, those whom the Father draws and Christ saves, can finally fall away. The "return to death" is evidence of those who were never truly born of God (1 John 2:19).
  • Like
Reactions: Brightfame52
Upvote 0

Is it OK to use the 'F' word?

I think the political baggage is inevitable. The movement has long since abandoned being a distinctly female enterprise, as it supposedly aims for more egalitarian policies across the board not just women. Where it largely goes wrong is that it misses that while WASPy men tend to be the ones in power, the system has always functioned for the benefit of WASPy women. Men typically seek power not for the sake of having power, but for the sake of having access to high status women. By ignoring the privilege that such women have typically had and perpetuating a simplistic victim mentality and focus feminism is bound to foment resentment on all sides. The whole oppressor-oppressed narrative frame is too far removed from the reality of such things to be of any use in actually correcting the self-perpetuation of systemic issues.
  • Like
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

Would you get rid of daylight saving time?

In Australia five states and territories have daylight saving, and three don't.

The three states with a tropical or sub-tropical climate don't have it - Queensland, Nothern Territory and Western Australia. Western Australia has a significant population in the South West (mediterranean climate) who possibly would like daylight saving, but it would not be popular in the northern part, including the mining towns which underpin the state's wealth.

The five states and territories which do have it are all in the southern part of Australia.

I don't like it myself and since I live in Queensland I don't have to worry about it.

DST in States and Territories in Australia (8 in total, 5 observe DST, 3 don't observe DST)

States which have it -


Australian Capital Territory 5 Oct – 6 Apr
Victoria 5 Oct – 6 Apr
New South Wales 5 Oct – 6 Apr
South Australia 5 Oct – 6 Apr
Tasmania 5 Oct – 6 Apr

States which don't -

Queensland No DST
Western Australia No DST
Northern Territory No DST

PS - The Tropic of Capricorn passes through all three of the last three states or territories, which means they have hot summers.
Upvote 0

Trump third term

I didn’t ask you about Democrat leadership, I asked about the president.

I’m trying to understand why it is you accept such childish behavior from someone in such an important position. Do you think it doesn’t matter?
You do realize there is very little in the political spectrum we are going to agree on. What you call childish behavior by Trump is his response to the same kind of behavior from liberals who tee up the ball for him to knock out of the park. Trump is trolling gullible liberals who continually give him reason to do so. You spend all of your time complaining about Trump while ignoring the provocations of liberals.
Upvote 0

Is it OK to use the 'F' word?

Vulgar language is, I'm sorry to say, a failing of mine. Colossians 3:8 calls for believers to put away filthy language, so I'm without excuse. Maybe i don't lapse into military grade invective as much now - maybe. Yet I still do on occasion. That's not good.

That included the F word. It might come up more in casual conversation now, but the word hasn't lost its crude meaning or invective overtones. Granted that words change in meaning (at one time the F word and some others considered vile didn't have that connotation in English, though that does not hold for all such words. The point is what the words mean now and where. The "B" word is seen as a curious British and Australian invective to American ears, but that doesn't mean it's fine for an American to use it in British or Australian company.
Upvote 0

Trump third term

The president joking about ignoring the 22 amendment, even selling merch about doing it , you know the topic of the thread. Now, what other parts of the constitution are funny to joke about ignoring?
Sorry you just don’t get the fact that Trump is trolling gullible liberals because they give him the ammunition to do so.
Upvote 0

Bioluminescence

Fireflies use extremely efficient bioluminescence which outperforms our current lighting systems.

Although scientists are developing more efficient lighting, partly based on the design of fireflies.


Fireflies produce light with remarkable efficiency, converting between 41% and nearly 100% of the energy from a chemical reaction directly into light. This is significantly more efficient than human-made incandescent light bulbs, which lose about 90% of their energy as heat.
The high efficiency of bioluminescence in fireflies is because they produce "cold light," meaning very little energy is lost as thermal energy.
  • Like
Reactions: rockytopva
Upvote 0

Meditation

The path to holiness proceeds through stages. Christian meditation should rightfully begin in the first stage (called the Purgative Stage, or Stage of the Beginner) of this journey. What is formed in the soul by virtue of Christian (discursive) meditation establishes a crucial part of the foundation upon which and from which can emerge in the second stage, infused contemplation. The prayer of quiet (mentioned by JimR above) is a "substage" of the broader and general category of (infused) contemplation which is to be found in the second stage - a stage which is called the Illuminative Stage (or Stage of the Proficient) - it is here that the supernatural is experienced - and if given, is "infused", certainly not earned or developed by any natural works of the pilgrim.

I'm trying to say that the terms "meditation" and "contemplation" are mangled and abused beyond usefulness, and when used as they typically are, only confuse an understanding that is good to possess, in the journey of prayer. We can do meditation. God alone can give infused contemplation.

Forgive me please for dropping all these terms upon you, if they are new to you, but there is much misunderstanding of exactly how the interior life grows and matures. Labels and terms can sound and can be cold, academic, and far from the delicate and mystical Spirit who is at work within, in holy Love. Maturation in prayer IS maturation in divine Love and is most beautiful, an embrace of God within the soul. It ought - and deserves - to be sought with one's whole heart. And the seeking can be greatly aided by learning from the saints, and from the God-appointed witnesses and teachers of the journey.
Upvote 0

Would you get rid of daylight saving time?

It's about more daylight time for activities after one gets home from work.
Which is was my father' observation about congressmen and golf. That's not how it was sold to the public, though. Part of that is we no longer rely on natural lighting like we did when Franklin woke one morning and observed his room was flooded with sunlight despite the early hour.
  • Agree
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

When You Lose Interest In A Series You Once Liked

Not new episodes of series you like, but when you revisit an episode you once did. I was a Star Trek fan from when the original episodes first aired. Tonight I found one of my favorite TOS episodes on, The Trouble with Tribbles. I watched it and didn't enjoy it that much. There were mildly amusing moments, such as Spock declaring himself immune to the trilling effect of tribbles, all while he was stroking one (and this was noticed by his shipmates), and Kirk's dressing down of Scotty for the brawl. But...I didn't enjoy it. This is was an episode that never failed to delight, until now. Obviously it's myself that changed, not the episode.

Has this happened to you? Have you gone back to an episode of a series or a film that you once liked, but now find it kind of "meh?"
  • Prayers
Reactions: eclipsenow

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,879,146
Messages
65,429,684
Members
276,428
Latest member
Lovelybreeder