Welcome Lina!

Welcome!

Welcome!

ARBITER01 said:

People who were saved but decided to go over to satan's side,.... ie betray GOD like satan did.

Yes,.... there have been people who have done this, don't be naive.

Click to expand...

Simply tasting the heavenly gift is not salvation.

AV1611VET said:

Are you implying the Holocaust was a necessary evil that balanced out something good?

Click to expand...

Those that would say so are those that would theodicize it.

The same kind of person who would go to the child dying of diptheria and begin lecturing her about "God's Great Plan".

Whereas I would say that the Holocaust is the perfect example of projection.

After WWI, Germany was humiliated, disoriented, and hungry for renewal. Instead of confronting its own darkness — its rage, inferiority, and need for scapegoats — the culture projected that darkness onto the Jews, who were made into the symbolic carriers of evil.

That’s projection at a massive scale: what a nation cannot face in itself, it seeks to destroy in others.

Someday this deported illegal immigrant is going to become king of Eswatini and turn the country into a massive empire.

Colo Millz said:

So those who endure "calamity" deserve it?

Like the child dying of diptheria?

Click to expand...

I see that you only copied part of my post in essence removing the context. Your appeal to emotion fallacy is what guides your questions. I’m not sure if you are here to learn or just argue. If the second then count me out.

rambot said:

So...principles can be turned on and off depending on if you like or dislike people?

Click to expand...

Sure, many countries and people do that all the time. Because thats their principle. The principle that says they can turn off their principles whenever dealing with people they dont lije ir agree with.

In this case however, terrorists were killed in International waters. No principles were violated since evil men were on their way to help kill millions of Americans.

Isn’t there a way to verify someone’s identity in this case? How bizarre!

Job 33:6 said:

Yes. Like a population.

Click to expand...

I presume you do not define "population" different than "group"? OK?

Job 33:6 said:

Like if you had a population of fish, maybe you have some thousands of fish. And they interbreed.

Click to expand...

I assume that in your example that the interbreeding is universally successful. And, therefore, all the some thousands of fish are the same species.

Job 33:6 said:

And they interbreed. But something happens, and then they stop interbreeding. Some subset separates from the group.

Click to expand...

Does the separated subset in your example retain the potential to successfully interbreed for at least for some number of generations? If so then how many generations (numerically) until a new species emerges in the subset?

Job 33:6 said:

And so their DNA drifts apart ...

Click to expand...

OK. So, the gene flow is geographically, at least temporarily, interrupted. So, since a creature's location in space and time is accidental and not essential to its species designation, species properties are not essential properties, ie., present in every individual at all times and in all places? If not essential then are those assigned properties arbitrary (vague)?

Job 33:6 said:

" ... all members of a species share a common “gene pool,” while different species remain distinct because they don’t (or can’t) regularly exchange genes. For example, all domestic dogs belong to one species because they can breed with each other ... while different species remain distinct because they don’t (or can’t) regularly exchange genes.

Click to expand...

Can a female Chihuahua breed with a male Great Dane? But both are the same species ie., domestic dogs, right?

What I'm trying to show is that your "species" definition is not clear but rather vague.

River Jordan said:

I didn't have to resort to anything. You posting that you think grandparents and grandkids are an example of reproductive isolation exposed your ignorance of the subject (while you simultaneously think you know biology better than biologists). All I had to do was point at it.

Click to expand...

Obviously, your hubris blinds you. And, your claiming to know what I think, serves to confirm that fact. Adios.

fhansen said:

This is silliness. Tell God He shouldn't have done it that way, then. If speculation is the order of the day now, He could've just forgone the need for an incarnate Savior altogether for that matter, and just prevented or forgiven sins to begin with-or just stocked heaven in the beginning with whomever he wished if He was going to predetermine the whole affair anyway.

Click to expand...

Not seeing how the above is related to my post.

RDKirk said:

You didn't apologize at all. Not every "I'm sorry" is an apology.

The same phrase, “I’m sorry,” carries two quite different meanings depending on intent and context:

1. Acknowledging Wrong (Apology)
   • Here “I’m sorry” means accepting responsibility for something you did (or failed to do) that hurt or inconvenienced another person.
   • It implies guilt, fault, or moral/relational responsibility.
   • Often it’s paired with an explanation, restitution, or a promise to do better: “I’m sorry I forgot your birthday. I’ll make it up to you.”
   • The hearer expects not just words, but accountability.
2. Expressing Empathy (Sympathy/Compassion)
   • Here “I’m sorry” does not admit wrongdoing; rather, it expresses shared sorrow or compassion for another’s situation.
   • Example: “I’m so sorry to hear about your father’s passing.”
   • It’s a gesture of solidarity -- communicating that you see the person’s pain and care about it.
   • No responsibility or restitution is implied; the “sorry” is about emotional presence.

Key distinction:

• In the apology sense, “sorry” is about me and what I did wrong.
• In the empathy sense, “sorry” is about you and what you’re going through.

Click to expand...

You are taking this way more seriously than it should. In my original post empathy was my motivation but even if we take this further there are still times that apologizing defuses situations. If you’ve been married for any amount of time (41 years for me) you know the value of this.

I had an incident that happened a few months ago where I had pulled into a parking space and apparently missed another car full of what appeared to be gang members wanting that space. The driver was very aggressive and proceeded to berate me and make forward motions that I took as a possibility that he was going to get violent. I apologized to him that I didn’t see him and after a bit they left to find another parking spot. My wife was with me at the time. I also had my hand in my concealed weapon but did not pulled it out. I was not at fault for taking the parking space and did not even see the other car until they pulled behind mine. I firmly believe that if I would not have defused the situation that the probability of violence was great.

Aaron112 said:

Man's creed.
Somewhat but not 100%.

Click to expand...

That's similar, though on a larger scale, to a church's doctrinal checkpoints for members, and their "Statement of Faith."

I see all that as compliance to a written interpretation in order to gain acceptance in a flock, at the loss of one's personal insights and wisdom.

Most teachings within churches have to be filtered through lenses of their denominations, doctrines, and dogmas.

I suppose that's why forums such as this are riddled with fruitless debates about doctrinal differences, and lacks the very practices and standards that we all say we believe, (when we're not arguing with others).

Is it better to apologize, or say 'sorry',

or to heal someone ?

As far as THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP TO THE PHILIPPIANS goes, apart from that being discussed, I see no major contradictions with holy scripture. I will simply state that this author as well, while promoting the keeping of the commandments of God, also makes no mention of a change regarding the fourth commandment. Or the keeping of Sunday as a sacred day in its place. Which apparently therefore, was not a prominent issue during his day. While historical record testifies that many Christians kept the fourth commandment at this time, and for hundreds of years beyond it.

P

essentialsaltes said:

If it's a person, it has a Constitutional right to due process. No person can be deprived of this right.

Click to expand...

Are you putting every person across this planet under the constitution then?

As long as it doesn’t promote sin, it’s ok? I dunno

May she rest in peace and rise to glory!

King Solomon

DaisyDay said:

Preaching to the choir.

Click to expand...

As iron sharpens iron,
so one person sharpens another.

Proverbs 27:17

Desk trauma said:

Well I mean they didn’t call in an air strike.

Click to expand...

This time.