Latest activity

DaisyDay · Sep 6, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
You are wondering if it is appropriate for a District Attorney to bring charges against two murderers who were spraying the street trying to hit a gang member on a bike?

Just the opposite. How do you read "This is an appropriate use of her office" to mean that I am "wondering" if it is?

I suspect this is a knee-jerk assumption on your part that caused you to misread my post.

Always in His Presence said:
You have an issue with charges being brought against a Federal worker assaulting a Federal Officer?

I and ~~apparently~~ three separate grand juries have an issue with assault by sandwich being charged as a felony offense. How much time, personnel and money was wasted on overcharging three separate times for the same offense?

Always in His Presence said:
We agree here.

Okay.

RocksInMyHead · Sep 6, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
Osama Bin Laden died unarmed like a dog while trying to use his own wife as a human shield. So I guess, according to your standard, Obama is a murderer.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by this whataboutism exercise. If he explicitly ordered the SEALs to kill him rather than capture him, then yes that could be considered murder. Pretty sure that's not what their orders were though.

Clare73 · Sep 6, 2025

fhansen said:
Ok so do you believe that God wanted His people to to be free and also didn't want them to be free? Maybe some kind of divine schizophrenia at play?

Do you believe that God did want Pharaoh to disobey (Ex 4:21) and also didn't want Pharoah to disobey (Ex 4:22-23)?

stevevw · Sep 6, 2025

The Barbarian said:
Lay down your weary tune got me through a rough patch spiritually.

Lay down your weary tune, lay down
Lay down the song you strum
And rest yourself 'neath the strength of strings
No voice can hope to hum

I stood unwound beneath the skies
And clouds unbound by laws
The crying rain like a trumpet sang
And asked for no applause

I really wish there was some artist who expressed the culture like Dylan today.

The Barbarian · Sep 6, 2025

And, of course, biological evolution is consistent with Biblical Creation

BobRyan said:
Until you read Genesis 1 and 2, and then Ex 20:8,11

No, that's wrong. Only some modern interpretations of those verses are incompatible with the reality of biological evolution.

But there are others. Strict YEC literalism has to incorporate the sky as a solid dome with windows in it, and a flat earth.

BobRyan said:
They make that error ,

The Bible has no errors. Strict YEC literalism honestly accepts all of scripture as literal. Cafeteria YECs say "scripture is literally true, except where I say it isn't." What other parts of the flood of Noah do you think are not true?

BobRyan said:
Gen 1 has the sun made 1 day after plants,

A literal reading of Genesis 1 has mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them, making it very clear that the story is not a literal one.

BobRyan said:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

And yet Genesis 2 says it happened in one day:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: 5 And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.

If these are literal verses, one of them has to be wrong. Which one do you think is wrong?

Always in His Presence · Sep 6, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
Login to view embedded media
It seems as though that all Trump has to do is merely threaten to send National Guard troops to blue cities for them to finally pull up their bootstrap and finally take their crime seriously. Sounds like a win win.

Because we finally have a President who does what he says he will do! Peace through strength!

I live in OK - our Governor is doing the same for Tulsa -

Always in His Presence · Sep 6, 2025

Now that is how to derail a thread!

NewLifeInChristJesus · Sep 6, 2025

WordSword said:
Most Bible studies will not involve one of the most significant issues of the times, which has to do with modern Bible translations. This issue of course cannot effect one’s salvation, but will effect one’s spiritual growth, not receiving all of God’s Word and being exposed to misleading information.

The majority of those who copied scriptural manuscripts (scribes) discarded a small amount of manuscripts that did not agree with the majority of extant copies. Two sources that were rejected for copying were the codex Vaticanus and the codex Sinaiticus. The codex Alexandrinus is included but is excessively missing much of the OT and NT, along with much decadence of page condition, torn leaves and lacunae on the edges of almost every page of Revelation.

These oldest manuscript copies just recently became available (19th century) for making translations. The Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican library and remained perdu for fifteen centuries, until it was discovered on a shelf. The Sinaiticus was discovered at St. Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai in Egypt. A monk was burning some of the leaves (probably to keep warm) when Constantine von Tischendorf, a German biblical scholar, located portions of the manuscript there. He first found some leaves in a waste basket during his initial visit in 1844. A larger portion of the manuscript was discovered during his subsequent visit in 1859.

The recently found manuscript copies did not wear out like the majority of extant copies because they fell into disuse due to the fact that most of the scribes would not use them for copying purposes.

Totally Omitted Passages

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Mat 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 23:17
Acts 24:7
1Jn 5:7

Partially Omitted, Transposed or Interpolated Passages

Matthew 1:25
Matthew 19:9
Matthew 19:17
Matthew 20:7
Matthew 20:16
Matthew 20:22, 23
Matthew 21:12
Matthew 22:13
Matthew 23:4
Matthew 23:8
Matthew 23:19
Matthew 24:7
Matthew 25:13
Matthew 26:28
Matthew 26:60
Matthew 27:24
Matthew 27:35
Matthew 27:64
Matthew 28:2
Matthew 28:6
Matthew 28:9
Matthew 5:22
Matthew 5:44
Matthew 6:4
Matthew 6:6
Matthew 6:13
Matthew 6:18
Matthew 9:13
Matthew 15:8
Matthew 15:6
Matthew 16:3
Matthew 16:20
Matthew 18:35
Matthew 19:9
Matthew 19:17
Matthew 20:7
Matthew 20:16
Matthew 20:22, 23
Matthew 21:12
Matthew 22:13
Matthew 23:4
Matthew 23:8
Matthew 23:19
Matthew 24:7
Matthew 25:13
Matthew 26:28
Matthew 26:60
Matthew 27:24
Matthew 27:35
Matthew 27:64
Matthew 28:2
Matthew 28:6
Matthew 28:9
Mark 1:2
Mark 1:14
Mark 1:31
Mark 3:15
Mark 4:24
Mark 5:36
Mark 6:33
Mark 6:11
Mark 6:51
Mark 7:8
Mark 8:26
Mark 9:23
Mark 9:29
Mark 9:45
Mark 9:49
Mark 10:21
Mark 10:24
Mark 11:10
Mark 12:23
Mark 12:29-30
Mark 12:33
Mark 13:8
Mark 13:33
Mark 13:14
Mark 14:22
Mark 14:27
Mark 14:68
Mark 14:70
Luke 1:28
Luke 2:33
Luke 2:40
Luke 2:43
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:4
Luke 4:18
Luke 4:41
Luke 5:38
Luke 7:31
Luke 8:43
Luke 8:48
Luke 8:54
Luke 9:10
Luke 9:54
Luke 9:55
Luke 9:56
Luke 9:57
Luke 10:19
Luke 11:2
Luke 11:11
Luke 11:29
Luke 11:44
Luke 11:54
Luke 12:31
Luke 12:39
Luke 17:3
Luke 17:9
Luke 18:24
Luke 19:45
Luke 20:13
Luke 20:30
Luke 20:33
Luke 21:4
Luke 22:31
Luke 22:64
Luke 22:68
Luke 23:23
Luke 23:38
Luke 23:42
Luke 24:1
Luke 24:42
Luke 24:49
Luke 24:53
John 1:14
John 1:18
John 1:27
John 3:13
John 3:15
John 3:16
John 4:42
John 5:16
John 6:11
John 6:47
John 8:9
John 8:59
John 9:35
John 11:41
John 12:1
John 16:16
John 17:12
John 19:16
John 20:29
Acts 2:30
Acts 2:31
Acts 3:11
Acts 3:26
Acts 7:30
Acts 7:37
Acts 9:5,6
Acts 10:6
Acts 9:29
Acts 10:21
Acts 10:30
Acts 15:18
Acts 15:24
Acts 15:37
Acts 16:31
Acts 17:5
Acts 18:17
Acts 18:21
Acts 20:15
Acts 20:24
Acts 20:25
Acts 20:32
Acts 21:8
Acts 21:22
Acts 21:25
Acts 22:9
Acts 23:9
Acts 24:6
Acts 24:8
Acts 24:15
Acts 24:26
Acts 25:16
Acts 26:30
Acts 28:16
Romans 1:16
Romans 8:1
Romans 9:28
Romans 10:15
Romans 11:6
Romans 13:9
Romans 14:6
Romans 14:21
Romans 15:29
1 Corinthians 2:4
1 Corinthians 4:6
1 Corinthians 6:20
1 Corinthians 7:29
1 Corinthians 10:28
1 Corinthians 11:24
1 Corinthians 11:29
1 Corinthians 15:47
1 Corinthians 16:22-23
2 Corinthians 4:4
2 Corinthians 4:10
Galatians 3:1
Galatians 4:7
Galatians 5:21
Galatians 6:15
Ephesians 3:9
Ephesians 3:14
Ephesians 5:30
Ephesians 6:10
Philippians 3:16
Colossians 1:2
Colossians 1:14
Colossians 2:2
Colossians 2:18
Colossians 3:6
1 Thessalonians 1:1
1 Thessalonians 5:27
2 Thessalonians 1:8
1 Timothy 3:16
1 Timothy 4:12
1 Timothy 5:16
1 Timothy 6:5
2 Timothy 1:11
2 Timothy 2:9
2 Timothy 4:22
Philemon 1:12
Titus 1:4
Hebrews 1:3
Hebrews 2:7
Hebrews 7:21
Hebrews 10:9
Hebrews 10:30
Hebrews 10:34
Hebrews 11:11
Hebrews 11:37
Hebrews 12:20
1 Peter 1:22
1 Peter 4:1
1 Peter 4:14
1 Peter 5:5
1 Peter 5:10-11
2 Peter 1:21
2 Peter 2:17
2 Peter 3:10
1 John 1:7
1 John 2:7
1 John 4:3
1 John 4:9
1 John 4:19
1 John 5:7, 8
1 John 5:13
2 John 1:9
Jude 1:25
Revelation 1:8
Revelation 1:11
Revelation 1:20
Revelation 2:13
Revelation 2:15
Revelation 5:14
Revelation 6:1, 3, 5, 7
Revelation 11:17
Revelation 12:12
Revelation 12:17
Revelation 14:5
Revelation 15:2
Revelation 16:17
Revelation 18:20
Revelation 20:9
Revelation 20:12
Revelation 21:24
Revelation 22:19

Most good Bibles today (electronic and physical), including KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, HCSB, and ASV have footnotes that identify variants in Greek texts. So I guess I don't know how using one of those Bibles "will effect one’s spiritual growth, not receiving all of God’s Word and being exposed to misleading information".

Your post here makes it seem like the Bibles we use today are vastly different in content. But the opposite is true. There are many good articles on the subject. And because of the footnotes I mentioned above, it is easy for today's reader to be well informed of the significant variants. So I guess I don't understand why you're being so negative.

Hentenza · Sep 6, 2025

ARBITER01 said:
I think it's been a moment of truth.

I doubt it. You, Mark, and me have been here long enough to have seen this bad play repeat over and over.

Always in His Presence · Sep 6, 2025

DaisyDay said:
Now this is an appropriate use of her office.

You are wondering if it is appropriate for a District Attorney to bring charges against two murderers who were spraying the street trying to hit a gang member on a bike?

DaisyDay said:
So much better than trying and failing, three times!, to indict the sandwich thrower for a felony.

You have an issue with charges being brought against a Federal worker assaulting a Federal Officer?

DaisyDay said:
Kudos for doing her job properly.

We agree here.

RocksInMyHead · Sep 6, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
Her criticism in this case may be valid "on paper", but is it aimed at serving different ends?

If a person is critiquing Israel because it fits in with some broader antisemitic trope, then that's not the same as more objective critiques.

Sure, but no one is responsible for another person's motives.

Perpetual Student · Sep 6, 2025

rjs330 said:
Yep there are still leftist ideologues in tge government who will oppose anything Trump does and will side with narco terrorists.

I see "the leftists" not side with narco terrorists, but with the rule of law.
You know, the rule that everybody is innocent until proven guilty. The rule that everybody has the right of a fair trial with the possibility to defend himself. Apparently some here have abandoned this. Suspicion is enough for being killed.

The Barbarian · Sep 6, 2025

stevevw said:
Dylan is unsurpassed as far as capturing a culture. I remember him saying in an interview how when he was writing those songs that it was like a gift from the universe and something special that he cannot do anymore. Like the words came to him anf flowed. Such as "It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)". Or maybe it was a little too much punch at a Mama Cass party up in Laurel Canyon who knows lol.

Lay down your weary tune got me through a rough patch spiritually.

Lay down your weary tune, lay down
Lay down the song you strum
And rest yourself 'neath the strength of strings
No voice can hope to hum

I stood unwound beneath the skies
And clouds unbound by laws
The crying rain like a trumpet sang
And asked for no applause

childeye 2 · Sep 6, 2025

public hermit said:
What is the relation between belief and moral culpability? Is it wrong to believe X if a more thorough investigation would show that X is false? In other words, do we have a moral obligation to do as thorough an investigation as possible before accepting the truth/falsity of X? If so, how would we know when our investigation is sufficiently thorough?

Love others as you would want to be loved. <--- this conveys that that the term 'moral' means 'caring' how our actions affect others. It also conveys that we must hold ourselves culpable according to the same measure that we would hold others culpable lest our judgments become unrighteous, merciless, unjust, and hypocritical.

Since 'belief' in loving others as oneself carries a positive connotation, then NOT caring would objectively be synonymous with 'unbelief' not 'belief'. Therefore, the term 'belief' in the way you are using it above implies a subjective application.

True dichotomy ---> accuse/excuse <--- Please note that this is a rare occurrence where a negative connotation precedes a positive connotation in the moral/immoral paradigm. This is because reasoning upon the accuse/excuse dichotomy only occurs as a response to something perceived as 'unethical'.

"Is it wrong to believe X if a more thorough investigation would show that X is false?" <--- The way this question is formulated one must answer yes because it infers the belief is wrong to begin with. X in this question therefore connotes a 'wrong belief'.

".... do we have a moral obligation to do as thorough an investigation as possible before accepting the truth/falsity of X?" <--- In this question, X appears to be an accusation or slanderous. So yes, love others as you would want to be loved requires that you investigate thoroughly before accepting or spreading slander. Moreover, it means that it's wrong to believe anything bad about others without proof.

RocksInMyHead · Sep 6, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
To be clear, I wasn't complaining about the lack of representation in those fields, I was highlighting that feminists weren't complaining about lack of representation in those fields like they do about the C-suite.

The reason might have something to do with the fact that, as I've already pointed out, there is no shortage of low-paying jobs for women. The problem isn't that representation isn't balanced within a field, but rather that representation isn't balanced within a pay scale. C-suite is just an easy proxy for that.

ThatRobGuy said:
I know why there's a difference in those fields, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know why... carrying 80 pound bags up and down ladders requires a level of physical strength that a lot of age 20-30 men have, but that most women don't.

And? You seem to be arguing against a strawman that feminists think that women are identical to men. I'm not aware of anyone making that argument.

ThatRobGuy said:
In terms of a "toxic work environment", that doesn't explain the lack of interest in the STEM fields.

No woman is sitting at home thinking "I'd love to be a database administrator, but that field is dominated by a bunch of hard-ass chauvinists who will talk down to me"...

No, they're thinking, "I'd love to go into a STEM field, but half the guys are creepy weirdos who can't get past the fact that I have boobs and a vagina, and most of the rest are, at minimum, casually sexist and will dismiss my abilities because I'm a woman." Toxic work environments can take many forms; they're not limited to the sort of "hard-ass chauvinism" that's prevalent in many blue-collar professions - though those sorts of people absolutely exist in STEM too.

Toxic work environment isn't the only reason why women avoid STEM careers, but it's definitely a component - at least according to my female friends in STEM. And my observations as someone who has spent the last 20-odd years in the STEM space jive with that.

The Barbarian · Sep 6, 2025

AFrazier said:
Humans, despite their micro-evolved traits, all originate from the same source species, and I would wager that the plants did too.

The difference is that there are no biological human races.
But extensive research on human genetic variation, as well as our growing understanding of the origins of the idea of race, has led experts to conclude that the existence of biological race in humans has no scientific basis. Regardless of their race, any two humans share 99.9% of their DNA (Collins, Morgan & Patrinos, 2003; Redon et al., 2006; Liao et al., 2023). Moreover, human genetic variation does not support the division of the human species into biologically meaningful smaller groups like subspecies (Templeton, 2013). Race in humans is not biologically real.

Why Humans Do Not Have Biological Races

Did you know that race in humans has no biological basis? In this text, we discuss the scientific evidence that shows...

www.labxchange.org

You are as likely to be a closer genetic match for New Guinea highlander as you are to be one for your next-door neighbor. On the other hand, speciation by hybridization involves reproductive isolation from the two original species. And of course, you don't see crosses between any groups of anatomically modern humans to be reproductively isolated.

prodromos · Sep 6, 2025

rambot said:
I cant imagine a democrat president doing this

You don't need to. Obama.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page