Amo2 said:

And the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of these United States of America do not allow for religious persecution or slavery.

Click to expand...

The Declaration of Independence has nothing at all to say about slavery.

Hentenza said:

And this is relevant how? You are yet to properly address scripture. Your evidence please?

Click to expand...

Its kind of simple. If Paul, a mere man, can know and predict with 100% certainty who will persevere to the end, then I'd think anyone with "saving faith" should be able to do so. as well.

Amo2 said:

Delusional is, as delusional does. Nobody is claiming that slavery is or was a good thing.

Click to expand...

Trump is angry at the Smithsonian for making slavery look bad.

Amo2 said:

The issue is regarding those who weaponize exaggerated and or revisionist versions of history which lump all Americans into evil slave supporters or those who deny such ever happened or was evil.

Click to expand...

Don't see any of those. Must be like those cancer-causing windmills, um? But if I'm wrong, link to the evidence of people saying all Americans support slavery. What do you have?

Of course the Founders were mostly Christians, with some deists, Jewish believers, and some "free-thinkers." None of them wanted a system based on Christian, much less Protestant belief.

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution....Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State.9 If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly...
James Madison, Against Religious Assessments

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.
Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography

Valletta said:

Since a much higher percentage of trans individuals commit mass shooting than the regular population, a much simpler and effective way to save lives is to stop the government from promoting transitioning to children and monitor those who have transitioned.

Click to expand...

Where has this been shown to be true? (Bolding Pommer’s)

Carl Emerson said:

The letters to the 7 Churches confirm that Churches had failed seriously in different ways within 50 or so years.

Click to expand...

You are aware that those seven churches were not the entirety of the Christian church at the time, but were rather seven specific churches that were having problems; what is noteworthy are the numerous churches which were not addresseed, for example, the Church in Antioch, the Church in Alexandria, the Church in Kerala, the Church in Edessa, the Church in Damascus, the Church in Nineveh, the Church in Jerusalem, the Church in Cyprus, the Church in Rome (actually, the churches of Jerusalem, Cyprus, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome were the autocephalous churches since the first century - all of the churches that were criticized in Revelation were at the time most likely party of the Patriarchate of Antioch, later under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, for they are mostly in Asia Minor).

The Church as a whole, by which I mean the entire collection of churches that are legitimately Christian, that people define in different ways according to ecclesiology (most Anglicans subscribe to either Branch Ecclesiology, Invisible Church Ecclesiology, or the Orthopraxis Ecclesiology of Martin Luther), cannot be in error, but individual local churches can (this is a problem for the Local Church Ecclesiology when taken to an extreme, favored by Baptists and historically by Congregationalists; in my work with the Congregationalists I never adhered to the idea that the Local Church was the Church for this seemed to be confusing a tree with a forest).


Indeed that is a rather good metaphor - the entire Church is like a forest, which we are promised will never be burnt down (the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, in Matthew 16:18), but individual local churches like those in Revelations can fall into error, and thus become diseased or perish, or be cut down by schismatics and heretics, as happened to the churches in Boston which were converted to Unitarianism in the 18th century, and thus rejected Christ.

fhansen said:

Oh, no contemporary folk you can point to?

Click to expand...

And this is relevant how? You are yet to properly address scripture. Your evidence please?

Hentenza said:

Don’t have to. Paul has already done that.

Click to expand...

Oh, no contemporary folk you can point to?

Strong in Him said:

I've read the Gospels too, and Jesus did not teach that his mother was perfect.

Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone would assert that - what we assert is that the Theotokos did not engage in voluntary sin and was a pure virgin, and is exemplary among human beings, and worthy of our veneration.

Ironically the text that some Protestants who subscribe to neo-antidicomarianism and to Nestorianism use to criticize the Theotokos is the same one read by Orthodox and Catholics as praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary. When our Lord said “blessed, rather, are those who hear the Word of God,” he was praising His mother for hearing Him, the incarnate Word; indeed she had heard Him before anyone else, as is demonstrated by the Water into Wine story in the Gospel of St. John; it took the Disciples a very long time to work out that our Lord was the Christ and the Son of the Living God, but the Mother of God was aware of the divinity of Christ our True God, who she had carried in her holy and immaculate womb, and thus told the stewards of the bridegroom to follow His instructions (and is telling us to do as He says as well, for what is written in the Gospels is mostly applicable to us as well as to the person being addressed).

Thus we venerate the Theotokos, because she points us to her Son.

RileyG said:

May God judge him justly.

Click to expand...

God absolutely will.

fhansen said:

Ok, well, keep track of everyone who you're sure is a saint and double-check when you get up there and I'll keep trackof everyone I think is probably a saint and if I make it up there too we'll compare noites.

Click to expand...

Don’t have to. Paul has already done that.

Hentenza said:

Nah. Just following the words as spoken. You are the one that denies the simple interpretation to support your particular theology.

Click to expand...

Ok, well, keep track of everyone who you're sure is a saint and double-check when you get up there and I'll keep trackof everyone I think is probably a saint and if I make it up there too we'll compare noites.

SavedByGrace3 said:

AI is a scam. It deceives people into thinking it is a super-intelligent source of information that will tell us what to do and think.

Click to expand...

Not true - all reputable AI providers such as OpenAI disclose that their systems can make mistakes, and anyone who has used these systems is aware of their technical limitations.

AI is nothing more than a database system that responds to your questions with canned answers provided by whoever it is that wants to control you and society.

Click to expand...

Completely false - LLM systems like chatGPT do not make use of a database, nor do they provide “canned answers.” In fact, their output is non-deterministic in that the same prompt, entered twice, will produce slightly different outputs.

The way they operate is to take the user prompt and apply pattern recognition to it, and then generate an output text or image based on the prompt. They developed out of image-recognition systems developed in the late 2000s, which use a neural network to implement in software something called a peceptron, which was an experimental pattern recognition hardware concept from the 1950s, but we lacked sufficient compute power in order to build large enough neural networks to do this kind of analysis and predictive generation of responses based on weighted inputs until recently.

We have a saying in Data Processing. GIGA. Garbage in, garbage out.

Click to expand...

With AI systems, while this still applies, systems like chatGPT have a remarkable ability to compensate for user garbage. Indeed, “hallucinations” in their present form on chatGPT tend to be the result of the system trying to come up with a usable response rather than saying “I don’t know”, but the hallucination rate varies dramatically between models.

Nothing new is coming out of AI. It is all and only information provided by _someone_. It is like the Wizard of Oz. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." There is no such thing as AI. It is just someone trying to elevate their ideas and ideology above the rest with the promise of technology.

Click to expand...

This is completely false. We’ve had AI in more primitive forms for decades. For example, simpler AI systems have been used to make more challenging opponents in video games. The new AIs are actually able to process language, translate from one language to another (including between human language and programming languages) and also translate human language into visual expressions.

If you’re going to criticize AI, there are valid criticisms that can be applied to the current generation of systems, as well as to the hyped overuse of the technology (for example, I’m concerned about some aspects of the incorporation of AI into the latest generation of Cisco and Juniper networking hardware - while it could make fault diagnosis easier, it could also lead to complacency among network engineers which could make solving serious issues more difficult. I am also frustrated with the optimization of AI systems for individual answers as opposed to extended length interactions. ChatGPT provides noticeably better output when one develops custom GPTs which are trained based on one’s individual needs and preferences. There also remains the difficulty of diagnosing faults in an AI system due to the complex nature of their code. But let us criticize AI for what is actually wrong with it, rather than the entirely unwarranted accusation that it is some kind of modern-day Mechanical Turk.

fhansen said:

And IMO you're engaging in an unnecessary wooden interpretation to support a particular theology.

Click to expand...

Nah. Just following the words as spoken. You are the one that denies the simple interpretation to support your particular theology.

timothyu said:

How many are in the Bible? God makes it simple, man purposely confuses it for self-interest

Click to expand...

I would say single ... and man, man makes merchandise of everything ... this was the temptation of Adam, as it was for Christ ... to gain what all along was yours ...

In the end, it's all abut who your Father is ( whose seed you are), and the process by thought to this end ...

Everything starts out as a seed (in a garden) in the ground of humanity's soul ... the city of the great King ... the Bride of God ...

Jerry N. said:

So Adam had free will and we don't? It is time for bed, so I'll get back to you tomorrow afternoon.

Click to expand...

Yep mans will became a servant of sin once we sinned in adam, because death was the wage for sin, that death put man under the slavery of sin.

caffeinated.hermit said:

Well, again, read Ps. 2 and Rev. 12. Read together, it does seem as though the Woman of Revelation is Mary.

Click to expand...

Even if she is - and I see that some disagree - that doesn't make her my spiritual mother.

caffeinated.hermit said:

Ok, so... assuming the Woman is Mary (as the Woman gives birth to Christ), this means that the "remnant of Mary's seed" are those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (Christians).

Click to expand...

I don't know how you come to that conclusion - but everything I said is Scriptural.
God created us, gave us life, gave us new life and made us his children through his Spirit.
This happened to thousands/millions of people before Mary was even born.

caffeinated.hermit said:

Now, you don't have to believe this or see it this way, but I can see a case to be made in Scripture for Mary being the Mother of Christians.

Click to expand...

Anyone can make "a case in Scripture" for anything they like - and they do.
A case can be made in Scripture for not eating meat/eating meat, keeping the Jewish law/not keeping it, having believers' baptism/allowing children to be baptised.

Sorry, but two disconnected verses do not constitute a "case in Scripture."
But you are free to believe what you wish.

Jerry N. said:

So Adam had free will and we don't? It is time for bed, so I'll get back to you tomorrow afternoon.

Click to expand...

Yes. Adam is the only person who walked and talked with God and lived with Him in glory (glory in this sense being defined as the absence of sin or the power and presence of sin)(pre-fall state). He, alone, had the power to make a free-will choice.

The only kind of choice we can make is out of our nature. Prior to being redeemed, we have a sinful nature, and can only choose from out of that nature. Only after we are redeemed and have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit, can we make a choice out of our redeemed nature.

RileyG said:

No. I have no problems with responsible gun owners. Period.

Click to expand...

But how do you know who is and isn't a responsible gun owner? You dont really know until its too late. If we are actually serious about stopping gun violence we cant pay lip service. We have to get tide of guns. Period. Otherwise its just lip service.

Valletta said:

These irreversible interventions euphemistically referred to as lifesaving “gender affirming care” paired with rhetoric from Democrats who undoubtedly incite violence by insisting Republicans are “erasing trans people” have had more than a decade to take effect.
The results, as seen in both science and culture, are less than ideal. Not only are more people than ever struggling with the social contagion of the LGBT movement, but more of those people are also resorting to deadly acts of violence often linked to and motivated by their struggle.

We Need To Classify Gender Dysphoria As A Mental Illness Again

Curbing the rise of shootings committed by gender-bending people starts with treating transgenderism as a serious mental health issue.

thefederalist.com

Such violent movements indeed need to be stopped.

Click to expand...

The issue addressed here is highly contentious in contemporary society, with both sides often taking uncompromising positions. Nevertheless, it is important to seek areas of common understanding.

Irrespective of political affiliation or perspectives on the Second Amendment, I hope we can come to consensus that individuals with mental disabilities should not be permitted to possess or purchase firearms. Likewise, those convicted of crimes involving the misuse of firearms—such as robbery or intimidation—should face restrictions on gun ownership. Furthermore, individuals with a history of domestic violence should be restricted from gun ownership to ensure the safety of household members.

However, law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns for recreation or personal protection. Unless the constitution is amended, this remains a citizen's right.

The question, therefore, is: rather than removing firearms from law-abiding and responsible individuals, what measures can be implemented to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands?

keras said:

He had to give the Jews first option, so to speak. They rejected and killed Him, but not before He taught the disciples the Gospel. They went to the lost tribes of Israel, who gladly accepted the Salvation offered. The Christian peoples, now as many as the sands of the sea.

In Gods infinite grace; the Jews still have a chance to redeem themselves, but this won't happen and their virtual demise is Prophesied. Romams 9:27

Click to expand...

And Gal 5 :6 backs up what Gal 6:15 has said and here is what Gal 5;6 what the Holy Spirit wrote by Paul !!

For in Christ NEITHER. , Circumcision. (. are the Jews ) NOR ( UNcirumision are t he Gentils ). is of ANY FORCE but

Faith operating of itself through Love .

And He has given no FIRST OPTION to the Jews NOR FIRST OPTION. to Gentiles , and , SO TO SPEAKS has COLLAPSE. .

Permise and then context and the Conclusion and just DO NOT see them ??
dan p

Hentenza said:

You have zero evidence for your interpretation.

Click to expand...

And IMO you're engaging in an unnecessary wooden interpretation to support a particular theology.

THE 2026 HOUSE RACES
There are lots and lots of local races. The national policies of the Democratic Party are largely irrelevant.

BUILDING FOR THE 2028 PRESIDENTIAL RACE
2028 is a long way off. Democrats will likely face Vance or Disantis.

Democrats have a tradition that will be hard to break. After losing an embarrassing race bigly, they seemingly cannot keep the left from determining the candidate. I think that it will be very, very difficult for the left to allow the nomination of anyone that could win. If theoretically, such a candidate were to be nominated, then I would expect the left to support the candidate but not work very hard for him or her (hello Hillary). Of course, this would result in the victory of the Republicans and the left saying that they would have won with their candidate. It is a lose-lose situation for Democrats who are anywhere to the right of Sanders.

Tuur said:

Then what changed? It's harder for a US citizen to buy a firearm than it's ever been, so why are such incidents more frequent now than 60+ years ago?

Click to expand...

Is it actually harder now? Sure, now you have to go to more of a specialist store instead of a department store, but you can also buy them online and, if you’re into that sort of thing, on the black market.

Firearms are, on average, a lot better and more capable now than they were 60+ years ago. Ergonomics and reliability have improved a lot while magazine capacities and potential fire rates have increased. Semi-autos existed then but had much less market share among civilians. It’s hard to do a mass shooting with a lever action rifle or a 6-shot revolver.