I started a thread on it, but revised jobs numbers for June show that the US lost jobs that month, the first time since 2020. August added 22,000 jobs.

Tuur said:

From my own anecdotal observation:

I started getting the flu vaccines after 1993. I had noticed that the older I got, the longer it took to recover, I used to could count on on getting the flu every other years, with a few back-to-back years. I started taking the vaccines, and haven't had the flu since. My parents had the same experience. The one break-through inflection happened after the virus was found to have mutated, and they had lower fevers than a nearby family who hadn't vaccinated. Make of it what you will.

Click to expand...

From my own anecdotal experience:

I did not take the flu vaccine until around 2010. That's when I was diagnosed with mild asthma, and my doctor recommended it. So, I started getting my annual flu vaccine at his recommendation. I did not regularly get the flu prior to 2010. I provably only had the flu 2-3 times my entire ife. But I figured with a new respiratory diagnosis it would be wise. I had the flu almost every year from 2010-2019 while I was getting the vaccine. In 2020, I had my flu vaccine scheduled, but. because I was staying home during COVID, I canceled it. I did not get sick that year. I haven't gotten another flu vaccine since, and I haven't had the flu since. Make of that what you will.

Now here we have two completely different experiences. It's easy for me to see why you get your annual flu vaccine, and I hope it's easy for you to see why I don't get my flu vaccine.

I also had a very negative experience when I got my two-dose Pfizer COVID vaccine. I had severe adverse events that I reported to VAERS and V-Safe. When I got my COVID vaccine, I did so only because it was mandated. I already had and recovered from COVID, so the vaccine really wasn't necessary as I had already acquired the same or better protection from that prior infection. That mandate caused me to introduce my body to unnecessary harms for no benefit. I will never get another COVID shot again after what happened with my second dose.

Hopefully you're getting the point. Everybody's anecdotal experience is different. While you are wise to continue getting the flu vaccine because it helps protect you from infection, I am wise to NOT get the flu vaccine, because I seem to be more prone to infection when I get the vaccine. Why? Because our bodies are unique. Because not everyone responds the same way to the same intervention. But mandates don't care about any of that.

A New Dawn said:

You proved my point. If someone turns to God for fear of retribution and then falls away later, that is not turning to God. God changes the heart and because of that, there would be no falling away later because love takes the place of fear. The Law was given to show that the law doesn’t save, but that is what the Israelites wanted. Just like the Israelites wanted a king instead of judges, so God gave them kings and we see how that worked out. We do not know what is best for us and yet reject what God has for us unless HE steps in and changes our heart.

Click to expand...

1 Kings 18:21” Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.” But the people said nothing. “1Kings 18:39 “When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The LORD—he is God! The LORD—he is God!”” The people feared God because of what they saw. Proverbs 9:10 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” My point is that man has free will to fear God, even if it doesn’t lead to salvation, but we don’t know if everybody turned away after they learned to fear God. It might have been the first step to faith. God reveals Himself in all of creation and has given most people a conscience. This can lead to learning more about God and making a free will choice to seek His will. The Holy Spirit does the rest. If they are spiritually dead and unable to seek knowledge of God, this would not happen. Even fire from heaven would not make them seek knowledge of God. Fear of God’s retribution has led many down the path to salvation. Then you have the verse that has been listed before: “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” (Revelation 3:20). God might allow us to hear His voice, but we must open the door to our heart. God isn’t breaking down the door to save us like a fireman. He asks to be let in with a knock. Even Calvin knew this.

Vambram said:

It was the Department of War for well over 200 years. Why not go back to the precedence of those 200 plus years?

Click to expand...

That's inaccurate in two ways. The current Department of Defense was never the Department of War. The War department is now the Department of the Army. In addition, the Department of War existed for around 160 years, not over 200.

Well you just need to look at the exploration and setting of Earth for your answer.

Did all the nations work together to explore and settle the planet?
Or, was it every nation for itself in a race to conquer, claim and colonize?

Our toys have gotten bigger and more complex, but mankind hasn't changed very much in all that time.

ThatRobGuy said:

Or, as a backup option, rather than packing up and moving to another country, the Democrats could focus on forming a constructive message aimed at young men so that their only two choices aren't "embrace postmodern feminism" or "watch Andrew Tate podcasts"

Click to expand...

In the 8-10 demographic, I highly doubt that kids are making a conscious decision to watch people like Andrew Tate because of his thoughts on women. They watch their favorite video game streamers, many of whom share Tate's beliefs and repeat them on stream, and the Youtube algorithm leads them to people like Tate. They are thus slowly indoctrinated into those beliefs.

The onus is on parents to monitor what their kids are watching and on streaming services to make sure they're not promulgating harmful information.

caffeinated.hermit said:

It's the "walking in newness of life" that might be closest to what I am trying to describe here. It is still a walk, and does require some degree of effort, submission, and choice on our part, as you mentioned.

Click to expand...

I agree that walking in the newness of life is a walk. But it is not something we do to for merit. It is something we do to avoid fulfilling the lusts of the flesh and reaping the associated fruits.

caffeinated.hermit said:

We are also told that we "put on Christ" through baptism

Click to expand...

Being baptized into Christ per Galatians 3:27 is not talking about water baptism. This particular misconception reveals a certain degree of unfamiliarity with basic spiritual things. And not knowing basic spiritual things hinders our understanding of deeper spiritual things.

caffeinated.hermit said:

, can "abide in Him", can allow that which He has given to "abide in us", and we are asked to "keep His words". How is all of that not, in many senses, becoming more like Him? Not in Deity, of course, but in our outlooks, love, humility, and a spiritual (instead of carnal) mindset.

Click to expand...

Like I said, any comparison of ourselves to Christ is flawed. He is infinitely superior to us in every respect. Let's take "love" for instance. I love you enough to try to help you without being mean-spirited. Today, I might be convicted that I wrote something mean to you yesterday. Then I apologize and commit to not making the same mistake over again. This happens every day for 25 years. Through it all, my mindset and application of love improves. My progress might be measurable on a "love" meter. Yesterday it measured 1 out of 10 (human scale). 25 years from now, it measures 5 out of 10 (human scale). That's great progress, but there remains a great deal of work to be done. Compared to other people, I might be in the upper 95% with a score of 5. But how does that compare to Jesus? His score breaks the meter because His love is not measurable. His love is infinite. An no matter how much effort a person puts into "love", his score will never approach Jesus' love. The difference will always be infinity (infinity minus anything always equals infinity).

caffeinated.hermit said:

My last point was simply, as far as I know, all Christians accept that a true Christian bears fruit and reflects his Savior to some extent. Except for, perhaps, some extreme "free grace" proponents who assert that one can be truly saved and yet bear no discernable fruit over time.

Click to expand...

I don't care enough about either side of the "free grace" argument to figure out whether there are any people who say they are "free grace" advocates or if term is just a slur. But I can honestly say I have never heard anyone say that salvation produces no fruit.

But if we are talking about fruit, I would say fruit is always produced by a person, lost or saved. That's a principle of life. But producing fruit does not make the tree what it is. The tree determines the kind of fruit. Bad fruit comes from gratifying the flesh. Good fruit comes from gratifying the Spirit. If anyone wants the good fruit, he must walk in the Spirit. It is the only way to avoid the bad fruits produced when a person gratifies the flesh. Tying this back to sanctification, I would say the bad tree never improves and the good tree never degrades.

ThatRobGuy said:

It depends on what you're referring to as "education".

If you're referring to what's being taught in schools, then I'd argue they were one of the parties that had a hand in creating the backlash being discussed.


Colleges (and to a lesser degree, High Schools) were complicit.

Postmodern feminism and popularization of terms like "Toxic Masculinity" came out of the halls of academia.


"Let's spend a decade talking about how bad Steve is, and celebrating the virtues of everyone but Steve"
(10 years later)
"Hmmm...why doesn't Steve like us? And why does he seem to be so drawn to the polar opposite viewpoint from ours? ...must be something he heard on a podcast"

Click to expand...

Does this falling view of the value of women hold true in other developed nations or is it just America?

ThatRobGuy said:

Or, as a backup option, rather than packing up and moving to another country, the Democrats could focus on forming a constructive message aimed at young men so that their only two choices aren't "embrace postmodern feminism" or "watch Andrew Tate podcasts"

Click to expand...

What does "equal pay for equal job" and equal job opportunities have to do with postmodern feminism and Andrew Tate podcasts? Pretty sure they were both in what could be called second wave feminism.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

There is a significant challenge in current political discourse: the desire for one side to prevail often overshadows the importance of reasoning and factual evidence. Your argument lacks factual support and appears subjective and biased.

Instead of considering the rationale behind updates to laws, the discussion is frequently reduced to partisan criticism, such as negative generalizations about liberal states.

Below are some AI-generated explanations regarding why petty theft thresholds change periodically across various states. Typically, these changes are influenced by factors other than crime rates.


Petty theft thresholds are updated often to adjust for inflation, manage prison resources, and ensure punishments are fair and proportionate to the crime. By raising the value at which a theft becomes a felony, states address the following key issues:
Inflation
The value of money changes over time, meaning a fixed-dollar threshold from decades ago becomes less significant with each passing year.

• Decades-old laws: Some states, such as New Jersey, had felony theft thresholds that remained unchanged for decades. A $200 threshold set in 1978 does not have the same purchasing power today.
• Overcriminalization: Without regular adjustments for inflation, an increasing number of minor theft offenses can be charged as felonies. This results in harsher penalties for crimes that were originally considered less serious.

Prison overcrowding and cost management
Felony theft charges often lead to costly prison sentences, straining state budgets and resources.

• Prioritizing resources: Raising the threshold helps to reserve expensive prison space for more violent and serious offenders.
• Reducing costs: By decreasing the number of people sent to prison for low-level property crimes, states can reduce the financial burden on taxpayers.

Fair and proportionate punishment
The legal system aims to match the severity of the punishment to the severity of the crime. When inflation erodes the value of money, the punishment can become disproportionately harsh for less serious offenses.

• Avoiding felony consequences: Misdemeanor charges have less severe, and often less permanent, consequences for an individual's life than a felony conviction. Felonies can permanently impact a person's ability to find jobs, secure housing, or vote.
• No link to higher crime rates: Studies by the Pew Charitable Trusts have found that raising felony theft thresholds does not lead to an increase in property crime or larceny rates. This evidence allows policymakers to safely enact these reforms without compromising public safety.

Click to expand...

The reason petty crimes increase is because of the left’s desire to keep the (mostly) black population enslaved. They keep them enslaved by keeping them in poverty by giving them just enough money to barely survive without giving them enough to escape poverty. They threaten to cut govt. funds if they get a job to help pay the bills and refuse to create programs to teach people needed job skills so they can get a job that pays a living salary. And all of that will lead to situations where people need to join gangs or take matters into their own hands (illegally) to find a way to live in this current society.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

There are enemies, adversaries and adverse powers unseen presented in great detail in scripture

Where things get interesting is understanding these operations in our own sorry hides, necessitating taking every thought captive

Lying hypocrisy merely shows captivity

Ignorance seems to be bliss

Click to expand...

You said a couple of things worth discussing

You say we are captive and not collaborators, that is true as scripture says anyone that sins is a slave to sin. Romans 6 gets interesting some translations say when you were slaves to sin you were free from obligation to do good. That sounds like we would not be punished, but it rather reflected our inability to be obligated to righteousness because of our slavery to sin.

Jesus sets us free from this bondage if we wish it, or rather use our free will to choose Him. When we give ourselves freely to Christ, we become slaves of righteousness. Our old man passes away and all things become new.

We cannot do good works to earn God’s favor; He does not need our help. We need His. When we offer ourselves to God, He hears us and takes away our slavery to sin and makes us slaves of righteousness and we do good works. If we lack strength, we just need ask God who gives liberally to all who ask.

The devil or the adversaries are crafty, so they mix truth with lies in order to deceive. They say hey you can’t be saved by works(truth ), so don’t do them. If works cannot save you then it does not matter if you sin or do right, just believe and you will be fine. (Lie)

This deception fools souls into thinking that they are “saved” while they remain slaves to sin. Scripture says God has prepared for us good works that we should walk in them

We lack ability to do good of our own, but God grants us free will to choose whom we will serve.
When we are born again we are set free from our obligation to sin and our conscience becomes slave to righteousness. It does not matter the magnitude of our work, the smallest thing done gives glory to God, for He says if we are faithful in little, we will been given greater things to do, remember the woman with two pennies.
As we walk in good works, we learn from them, and learn of God. The basics are prayer, fasting and almsgiving. We do not do these things to boast, but to undergo training in righteousness
You will find, that the more you learn in good works, the more service you do, and the more joy you get from service. We do not seek honor, for what good is honor is those around us perish and their death causes grief in Our Lord?

God gives us joy in service, or we can listen to Satan who says works can’t save you don’t do them, and persecute everyone that tries to encourage you to do them

Be not deceived. Jesus calls us to work, but His yoke is easy and His burden light

ThatRobGuy said:

Or, as a backup option, rather than packing up and moving to another country, the Democrats could focus on forming a constructive message aimed at young men so that their only two choices aren't "embrace postmodern feminism" or "watch Andrew Tate podcasts"

Click to expand...

Education is key. Which is another thing under attack in America.

As others have said, I think it would be mostly as cosmetic change, and going back to the old name.

But, it does represent a bit of a mind-set shift.

Consider this, two people sign up for martial arts classes.
One says, "I'm learning self defense".
The other says, "I'm learning how to beat up someone."

Same martial art, different application mind-set. That is what this reminds me of.

essentialsaltes said:

American boys have become less supportive of gender equality​

A survey of 8th and 10th graders shows a sharp drop in the percent of boys who believe that women should have the same opportunities as men​

The long-running Monitoring the Future study has been surveying 8th and 10th graders since 1991, and shows a sharp drop in the proportion of 8th and 10th graders that believe in gender equality in the last five years.

In 2018, 84% of 8th and 10th grade boys agreed that women should have the same job opportunities as men. But in the last five years, the number dropped to 72%. The proportion of boys who completely agreed (as opposed to “mostly agree”) saw an even steeper drop, from 63% to 45%.

The share of boys agreeing that women deserve equal pay also fell from 87% in 2018 to 79% in 2023. The share who agreed completely fell from 72% to 57%.

[Many variables that you might think are correlated don't seem to be, or not very strongly -- use of social media, dad-in-the-home or not, video games (in fact, "it was the non-gamers who had the largest decreases in beliefs in gender equality since 2018.")]

However, one correlation stood out.

View attachment 369546

[Oops maybe I shouldn't have cropped it so tightly, but the left edge of the graphs starts in 1990.]

Click to expand...

America drifting listlessly towards fundamental Islamic views on women.

Bodily rights for women are already under attack with prison sentences or risk of death.

America really is becoming the land of the straight male WASP.

A New Dawn said:

Then you aren’t paying attention to the discussion.

Each state has the right to set it at whatever limit they want to impose. It’s when it isn’t working that it needs to be re-evaluated. And at a time it wasn’t working, California re-evaluated and went in the wrong direction. Instead of clamping down on crime and bringing it under control, they changed the law to make it easier to get away with looting and violence by raising the level it takes for the criminal action to become a felony.

Texas doesn’t have the same crime problem because they are hard on crime, in general.

Click to expand...

There is a significant challenge in current political discourse: the desire for one side to prevail often overshadows the importance of reasoning and factual evidence. Your argument lacks factual support and appears subjective and biased.

Instead of considering the rationale behind updates to laws, the discussion is frequently reduced to partisan criticism, such as negative generalizations about liberal states.

Below are some AI-generated explanations regarding why petty theft thresholds change periodically across various states. Typically, these changes are influenced by factors other than crime rates.


Petty theft thresholds are updated often to adjust for inflation, manage prison resources, and ensure punishments are fair and proportionate to the crime. By raising the value at which a theft becomes a felony, states address the following key issues:
Inflation
The value of money changes over time, meaning a fixed-dollar threshold from decades ago becomes less significant with each passing year.

• Decades-old laws: Some states, such as New Jersey, had felony theft thresholds that remained unchanged for decades. A $200 threshold set in 1978 does not have the same purchasing power today.
• Overcriminalization: Without regular adjustments for inflation, an increasing number of minor theft offenses can be charged as felonies. This results in harsher penalties for crimes that were originally considered less serious.

Prison overcrowding and cost management
Felony theft charges often lead to costly prison sentences, straining state budgets and resources.

• Prioritizing resources: Raising the threshold helps to reserve expensive prison space for more violent and serious offenders.
• Reducing costs: By decreasing the number of people sent to prison for low-level property crimes, states can reduce the financial burden on taxpayers.

Fair and proportionate punishment
The legal system aims to match the severity of the punishment to the severity of the crime. When inflation erodes the value of money, the punishment can become disproportionately harsh for less serious offenses.

• Avoiding felony consequences: Misdemeanor charges have less severe, and often less permanent, consequences for an individual's life than a felony conviction. Felonies can permanently impact a person's ability to find jobs, secure housing, or vote.
• No link to higher crime rates: Studies by the Pew Charitable Trusts have found that raising felony theft thresholds does not lead to an increase in property crime or larceny rates. This evidence allows policymakers to safely enact these reforms without compromising public safety.

o_mlly said:

Yes, that is why the authors noted the assumption as "extremely generous". How would you modify it?

Click to expand...

By allowing for many possible mutations that would have the same effect -- as I already said.

o_mlly said:

Have you run simulations?

Click to expand...

Yes. More to the point, I've written many simulations, including simulations of natural selection acting on beneficial mutations, simulations which I then used in various studies (all of which were published in genuine scientific journals, by the way).

o_mlly said:

Assumptions are necessary. So, tell us precisely how many "numerous mutations" are necessary?

Click to expand...

Of course assumptions are necessary. But if you make assumptions that are obviously wrong in a way that will massively skew your results, you're not simulating reality -- you're just pretending.

o_mlly said:

So, tell us precisely how many "numerous mutations" are necessary?

Click to expand...

Necessary for what? What are you talking about? The question is, how many mutations are possible that would lead to the same phenotype? No one knows for this phenotype, but the number is almost certainly much bigger than 1, and probably much bigger than 10. Since this choice, which is not justified in any way or based on any data, is critical to the result, why do you think it's the right one? What's your basis for thinking it's a good one?

o_mlly said:

What sample size would be necessary?

Click to expand...

Sample size of what? Again, what are you talking about?

o_mlly said:

And "earlier versions" mutations did not work ... so what's your point?

Click to expand...

Huh? I'm talking about the time when the eye with a flat retina (in this model) became functional -- that's when the selective pressure for a curved retina would have kicked in.

o_mlly said:

Attack the messenger instead of the message?

Click to expand...

If you're going to use a peer-reviewed study as the basis for an argument, the fact that the study wasn't in a real peer-reviewed journal is indeed relevant.

o_mlly said:

SCIRP merely republished the cited article

Click to expand...

No, SCIRP is the publisher of the journal in which the article appeared.

tturt said:

Cindy1995, I dont think I can message you & you respond since you're a new member

Welcome to CF.

Prayer is vital. Hopefully, folks will realize that we can pray to our heavenly Father about any concern. Based on Scriptures such as I Pet 5:7; I Sam 1:11, 19, 20; Psa 32:8; Philippians 4:19; Col 3:23).

As believers, we are the church (Eph 1:22).

Yes, any meaningful relationship involves our hearts. We're to be diligent to guard and trust God with all our hearts. {Psa 19:14,; Pro 3:5).

Hope you find your times here rewarding.

Click to expand...

Thank you so much for the warm welcome!
I truly agree—prayer is such a precious gift, and I’ve also experienced how God comforts and guides us when we bring everything to Him. I look forward to growing and learning together here.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Unity requires three things at least.

1. unity in doctrine
2. unity in sacraments
3. unity in governance

Protestants vary in their views of all three so unity with all the various Protestant groups hasn't happened among the Protestants and one cannot expect unity with Catholics in that state.

Click to expand...

And, again, you missed the MOST important which is unity in Christ. He happens to be the reason for anything we do and the existential reason for ALL of our churches. Do you think that your definition of unity is going to get you to Heaven any different than us poor Protestants?