Learning always said:

"Emergency!!! The oceans are rising, rising and rising!!"

Click to expand...

They are - but deniers just get photos of Sydney harbour and ask "What's changed in the last few decades" and we're not even sure whether the photo is high tide or low tide. Tell me - how do they measure ocean height? You seem to know so much about it!?

In reality - that's way down my list of climate concerns. I don't think it's in my top 5. But then, I'm Australian. I'm not a Bangladeshi farmer who suddenly lost all their crops because a few centimetres of sea level rise can mean dozens of kilometres extra inland range when the wrong storm-surge gets together with that scientifically measurable higher sea-level rise - and thoroughly salts the land!

Learning always said:

The same people telling you the oceans are rising are the same people buying up all of the ocean front properties.

Click to expand...

Really? What facts have you got on this?

And what does it even MEAN? Like - so what?

EVEN IF a rich middle aged or even elderly climate activist like Al Gore happens to want to waste money on an ocean front property, what does that even have to SAY about the science of climate change? Maybe they know one day that property will be underwater one day - but they've only got 10 years before going into aged care anyway?

Can you see how utterly inconsequential and petty such an objection is?

Learning always said:

The oceans -- did they mean the money in their pockets ?

Click to expand...

Big Oil CEO's earn more in their lunch hour than a climatologist does in a year.

Who has the incentive to lie?

Oh - history has already answered that one! Exxon are currently being sued because their climate scientists CORRECTLY modelled today's climate crisis back in the late 1970's and early 1980's - over 40 years ago - and then signed their scientists to strong NDA's and fired them all.

Learning always said:

(Also, the climate alarmists never dared take part in public debates)

Click to expand...

Because people like you cheer on some dopey Nationals / Barnaby Joyce / Pauline Hanson sort when they say rubbish like your "points" above - and the meek and mild scientist - with all their years of training in academic research protocols - gets stomped on by silly memes.

But they do debate more serious and scientific objections online. But that requires reading academic scientific papers - not letting yourself be yelled at by silly "Social Influencers" after a click-baitey title.

But hey- if that's what you're into - just watch Trump. He's a very stable genius apparently.

Servus said:

If it's an insignificant percentage, why haven't the Democrats eliminated it from their demands?

Click to expand...

Eliminated what? Reimbursing hospitals for the services they provide? You feel hospitals should provide their services for free?

Servus said:

They want benefits for illegal aliens, and subsides or free healthcare and benefits for people who don't want to work or can't because they indulge in substance abuse.

Click to expand...

None of this is true.

Shane R said:

That's an evangelical buzz-word. You won't find many Anglo-Catholics in the Continuum putting a lot of thought or promotion into that. Most are satisfied with the "sufficiency" of Scripture, as per Article VI.

Click to expand...

Even Methodists and other Wesleyans (a spinoff from the Church of England) tend to shy away from "inerrancy" in favor of "sufficiency".

Servus said:

If it's an insignificant percentage, why haven't the Democrats eliminated it from their demands?

Click to expand...

Because it’s necessary.

A BIG REASON REPUBLICANS object to extending the subsidies is the cost, which works out to about $35 billion a year. But it’s not just the amount of money involved that they find objectionable. It’s also the principle: The bigger the subsidies, the more money is taken from hard-working taxpayers. (And, some on the right would additionally complain, the more money is transferred to less productive members of society, creating potential dependency.)

It’s true that, with the extra subsidies, the federal government can end up covering the entire premium for some people at low incomes, since they qualify for the most assistance. But that’s what happens in a social insurance system: Healthy people pay more to cover the costs of the sick, rich people pay more to pay the costs of the poor. And when health care is as expensive as it is in the United States, there’s simply no way to make health care affordable to everyone without a lot of those transfers.

A little math can help illustrate why. Annual health care costs in the United States are about $13,400 per person, based on the most recent figures available, according to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. That’s way more than somebody at even twice the poverty line—which works out to about $30,000 in annual income—can possibly afford. They’re going to need a ton of help.

---


This brings us to another principled argument critics make: that massive government expenditures warp the market pressures in the health care sector and contribute to runaway costs. That’s because, according to these critics, the subsidies inject more money into health care, which, in turn, induces providers of care to raise prices while reducing the incentives to resist.

To be clear, this is an argument conservatives have made about the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning. The twist now is that they say the problem got even worse with the extra subsidies Democrats added in 2021—the ones that are a central issue in the shutdown fight.

But the numbers tell a different story.

One of the best ways to measure health care spending is by looking at a country’s overall spending on medical care and comparing it to the country’s overall economic output—or, as the wonks put it, health care spending as a percentage of gross domestic product.

In the fifteen years before the Affordable Care Act became law, health care spending went from 13.4 percent to 17.2 percent. In the fifteen years since the law’s enactment, that figure has barely budged, moving from 17.2 to just 17.6 percent.

“If your thesis is that the Affordable Care Act has caused health care costs in the U.S. to explode, it’s pretty hard to square that claim with the facts,” Matthew Fiedler, a Brookings Institution economist who served in the Obama administration, told me.

timf said:

You might want to see if there is a small bible church in your city. You might find that people who spend more time studying the bible have less time for political bullying.

Click to expand...

They're not all created equal. The Bible Church in our town is as right-wing as it gets. They manage to get in their little digs at Democrats and "libruls" even in the middle of deep exegesis.

Hentenza said:

I’m not a Calvinist and was not trying to “reason” Calvinism away. However, my argument began with the verse stating that no one can come to Christ unless drawn first by the Father. You did not argue against that verse so I’m going to assume that you agree with it. The parable of the soil is a continuation of that thought.

You are basically arguing free will but there is no mention of free will in scripture. If we had free will then we would have the free will to make all moral choices but we can’t because we don’t have the free will to stop sinning. So even if we had free will it would be a limited free will to choose God at the time of the call but without affecting God’s foreknowledge and omniscience.

I don’t believe that we only have two soteriological choices, free will or predestination because both are taught to a certain extent in scripture. I believe that there is a third option that our finite minds can not comprehend.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not arguing free will. I think we have a choice, a single choice, of what will be our master, but that is not "free will." Only Christians even have this debate--secular philosophers have abandoned the concept of free will, asserting instead that every decision is determined in some manner.

And, true, "free will" as some Christians define it, is not given in scripture.

But the parable of the sower does present, if taken by itself, as an assertion that the person has no agency in his salvation. I think Jesus' intent was to make a different point relating to how evangelists should view their success as evangelist, not actually about soteriology at all.

If we interpret this parable strictly as an allegory of salvation, the implication is deterministic: People accept or reject the word based on what kind of “soil” they already are -- a condition they didn’t consciously choose. In other words, the soil is descriptive of spiritual receptivity, not moral decision.

It's not just me picking up on this. Augustine and later Calvin saw in it the evidence of divine election: Only those whose hearts God has prepared (“good soil”) can truly receive the word and bear fruit. Jesus never portrays the soil as having changed itself. The conditions are simply there.

If instead we read it primarily as a lesson to evangelists (which fits the narrative context better), then the lack of human agency among the hearers is not the point. The point shifts to the sower’s duty: to keep scattering seed without assuming responsibility for the soil’s nature.

That interpretation sidesteps the determinism issue entirely. The agency in focus is the evangelist’s, not the hearer’s. It teaches that evangelists will see wildly different results, and they shouldn’t judge themselves by those outcomes.

Hentenza said:

First I need to know what verses you are quoting. Your first post did not include any only commentary. The main verse that I would quote would be Matt. 25:46 which contrasts eternal punishment with eternal life so this is not a verse that you can ignore.

Click to expand...

The Bible explains these ones: shall be cut off, will be no more, will not be found, shall vanish away, be destroyed, will perish. but the one not obeying the Son will not see life, everlasting contempt, Plus Jesus says only few are finding life, not everyone finds life.
--Matthew 7:13-14

For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. --Psalm 37:95
King James Bible

Yet a little while, and the wicked will be no more; though you look for them, they will not be found. --Psalm 37:10 Berean Standard Bible

New King James Version
But the wicked shall perish; And the enemies of the LORD, Like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish. Into smoke they shall vanish away. --Psalm 37:20

For the wicked will be destroyed, but those who trust in the LORD will possess the land.--Psalm 37:9 New Living Translation

Those who do evil will perish. But those who wait on the LORD will inherit the land. --Psalm 37:9 International Standard Version

John 3:36
The one believing in the Son has eternal life, but the one not obeying the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Berean literal Bible

Daniel 12:2
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt. New King James Version

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. --Matthew 7:13-14
Berean Standard Bible

=============================================================================================================

Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. NIV

Mark 9:43
And if your hand should cause you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter into life crippled, than having two hands to go away into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. Berean Literal Bible

Is Gehenna, Sodom and Gomorrah eternally on fire? No. If the fire has stopped has not the torment stopped also?

Shouldn't every scripture be important to our understanding?

rjs330 said:

We become what we allow. The protestors who are blocking roads, blocking ICE facilities, attacking agents are the lowest common denominator and as long as we as a society allow this then we become this.

Click to expand...

Um - lowest COMMON denominator?

If you count the 7 million peaceful "No Kings" protestors - and the many congratulation and thank you announcements from Police Chief's in various cities - I think you'll find the behaviour of the COMMON denominator is higher than at Trump's MAGA rallies!

rjs330 said:

I've been actively watching as many videos as I can and I have to say I believe ICE is doing this wrong. Part of the reason is all they do is drive the protestors back so they can get in and out. My belief is that this doea not create law and order because they just come back. What should be done is that they should come in with trucks and then start arresting everyone they can who refuses to move.

Click to expand...

Ice are not trained in policing. They should not do anything of the sort.

Let the police do the policing - or does EVERY ROLE in MAGALAND have to be utterly twisted by Trump?

rjs330 said:

This is a way for the guard to be used without actually having to police anyone.

Click to expand...

Nope. The moment they start doing this - it's going to escalate and go horribly wrong!
They are not trained for this - and it's not their roel!

Their role? Actual REBELLION against the government. As in people who want to end the USA!
Peaceful protesters who want to see DEMOCRACY and the rule of law applied to the treatment of immigrants - many of whom you have admitted are legitimate refugees lawfully there - are NOT REBELS!

Got it?

"Emergency!!! The oceans are rising, rising and rising!!"

The same people telling you the oceans are rising are the same people buying up all of the ocean front properties. The oceans -- did they mean the money in their pockets ?

(Also, the climate alarmists never dared take part in public debates)

Bradskii said:

I was paraphrasing Plato when he said "the more we know, the more we know we know nothing". I'd suggest that it means the more we know the greater the realisation of how little we know. And I agree that there isn't one source that we should use to find 'the truth'. Like, I dunno, religion for example...

Click to expand...

I'm aware of the source, but there's more to it than just realizing that what we know is but a drop in an ocean of ignorance. And its not just being focused on one source, though if there is a single trustworthy source it would be an omniscient God. But my point is that within our sources there are nested sources we haven't vetted, any of which may contain misinformation either by design or simply through proliferation of errors. We don't know where such errors may exist, and the lack of trustworthiness only gets compounded as we increase how many layers removed we are from the information. Maybe an expert we trusted trusted an expert they shouldn't have, maybe someone we think is an expert is really being deceptive in matters that we don't have the mastery to examine. We simply do not have the resources to vet information sufficiently on our own, and are at the mercy of others far more often than we tend to realize. We don't collect our own data, and self-reports from scientists about how often either they or one of their colleagues has fudged data should at the very least raise some eyebrows especially when we start getting into experiments that are far too costly to repeat with any kind of regularity. The more one engages in source criticism, the more the tenuous nature of collaborative knowledge becomes in every form. And only someone especially arrogant would believe they themselves have had the sheer luck to not be plagued with a host of erroneous beliefs to the point where they can claim to know anything with relative certainty.

Bradskii said:

As far as moral matters go there's an infinite amount of information to absorb and an infinite variety of moral conundrums to examine (surprised that the trolley problem hasn't raised it's head again). But...there's only one person who is going to disseminate all that existing knowledge and filter it and fine tune it and...reach a conclusion. It'll be us, individually. It'll be right or wrong as far as we are concerned at that time. I added that rider because it's implicit in almost everything I'd say: 'As far as I know at this point...'

Click to expand...

May as well try to identify a specific grain of sand on the beach as the perfect grain of sand.

Bradskii said:

That said, if you keep examining the same problem, such as morality, and you listen to umpteen arguments, then over time (and I'm talking decades) then if you keep heading in roughly the same direction approaching what appears to be the truth of the matter then at some point you have to say 'Well, I guess I have to make a stand on this now and commit to a position'.

Click to expand...

The issue with moral questions is they are not really a matter of knowledge at all, they're a value judgement. The only way it becomes subject to questions of knowledge is if we have an evaluator that is objective, and the question then becomes how well we know their values. If only human evaluators exist, then morals are more or less arbitrary.

Leevo said:

I am currently a member at a Southern Baptist Church, and while I love our church, I miss taking the Lord's Supper more often than 4 times a year. My previous denomination did so weekly. I also participate in an online Discord church, where Communion happens once a month, but honestly even this is not frequent enough in my opinion. Whether symbolic or not I think the Lord's Supper is something of upmost import to us as Christians and think it can only serve to draw us nearer to Christ. Would finding/forming a group of likeminded Christians to fellowship and take Communion, whether in person or online, be something that would be okay?

Click to expand...

My wife and I take communion together on occasion.

Stopped_lurking said:

Which are the found remains of cultures that you are alluding to? Just because you can imagine it, doesn't mean it happened. It seems speculative in extreme.

Click to expand...

Gobekli Tepe is one. But there are GT all over the world from that time. Do you think that that GT in eastern Turkey is the only place where cultures went back 11 or 12,000 years. GT already put a big spanner in the orthodox narrative and archeologists are acknowledging this. Far more sophistication than previously thought for that time.

We have not begun to understand these cultures. Let me think. Apart from the predynastioc Egyptians which go back around 5 to 6,000 or even 10,000 years. Theres ongoing debate about certain aspects of the Giza plateau that show erosion beyond 5 orb6,000 years ago. The Egyptians tells us they go back well beyond this.

The famous Egyptian Labyrith could date back 5,500 to 6,000 years. Petrie and others have found evidence but no one has escavated it yet. This is said to be greater than the pyramids.

Baalbek's original monoliths go back 10,000 years. A good example of another culture reusing ancient cultures works.

The Yonaguni Monument off the coast of Japan. The rectangular, stacked pyramid-like monument is believed to be more than 10,000 years old.

Theres a lot of sites around Turkey and the Middle east.

The 12,000-year-old obsidian blades from Çatalhöyük, Turkey, sharper than surgical steel, hinting at a metallurgy precursor.
Boncuklu Tarla in southeastern Türkiye is similar to GT. A 12000-year-old monumental stele has been discovered

The Schöningen spears, unearthed in Germany: eight wooden javelins, expertly balanced, from 300,000 years ago.
In Colombia, the San Agustín statues—hulking figures from 8000 BCE—suggest a culture with sophisticated tools and thinking.

Lower Palaeolithic findings from Crete, Greece, which are believed to imply maritime capabilities of early humans before 130,000 B.P. and even as old as 700,000 B.P.

Intricate calved figurines in hard stone from 38,000 to 14,000BCE
Perspective: Upper Paleolithic Figurines Showing Women with Obesity may Represent Survival Symbols of Climatic Change

To date, the oldest wood building has recently been unearthed. From above the 2nd highest waterfall in Africa, Kalambo Falls in Zambia. Luminescence dating to 476,000 years ago
To date, the oldest wood building has recently been unearthed. From above the 2nd highest waterfall in Africa, Kalambo Falls in Zambia. Luminescence dating to 476,000 years ago -

Also many sites have been attributed to later cultures. Like those in Peru which are attributed to the Inca and they tell us they did not make these. Yet mainstream still forces the narrative that they were the builders. So many sites all over the world are much older works. I can go into the evidence if you like.

Why the Megalithic Andean Architecture in Peru and the Sacred Valley is older than the INCA!
Why the Megalithic Andean Architecture in Peru and the ...

Stopped_lurking said:

Sure there is more than empirical knowledge, it is called deductive knowledge. Logic and mathematics are both examples of deductive knowledge. But it has to be demonstrable, what are the examples of this lost knowledge that you are talking about to? Most knowledge demonstrated by indigenous groups is highly empirical.

Click to expand...

So if their knowledge is highly imperical how did they gain such knowledge before academia.

I am still optimistic about the fate of God's chosen people. Covenants are all about a subjective judgment from a fair and just God. Law is more about an objective judgment of one's past and one's behavior/action. Mosaic Law is put under the Mosaic Covenant. The main point is for God to demonstrate what Law could mean through His own chosen people. The Jews have a duty of demonstrate what God's Law could mean, such that later humans can have a better grasp on what God's Grace could mean. If you don't know what Law could mean, Grace which is relative to Law is ununderstandable to humans.

We don't know the legal details of the Mosaic Covenant. The core is that Mosaic Law is defined for the Jews to observe to their best (there is room here). The accuser of Mosaic Law is Moses (as Jesus put). Another accuser is Satan, he's not for the Jews and Mosaic Law. This is the core, however we don't know if there's other legal terms. If purely by this core, it says David may not survive as he's a adulterer and murderer. We however know that David shall be saved, the question is by what?

The bottonline is, everyone being saved is through Jesus, while all covenants being granted are through Jesus. David is saved through Jesus no doubt, how legally so remains the question. The Bible also says that the Jews will be saved after the gentiles (something to that effect). Possibly it's the same question unanswered (perhaps already answered but we have yet to be revealed what has been said).

RDKirk said:

A problem with that parable (and the reason Calvinism is not argued away) is that it opens the idea that people have little or no agency in their own salvation. The seed has no agency in what soil it's sowed into; the seed has no agency over the conditions in which it grows.

That parable cannot stand on its own, except in Calvinist thought.

Click to expand...

I’m not a Calvinist and was not trying to “reason” Calvinism away. However, my argument began with the verse stating that no one can come to Christ unless drawn first by the Father. You did not argue against that verse so I’m going to assume that you agree with it. The parable of the soil is a continuation of that thought.

You are basically arguing free will but there is no mention of free will in scripture. If we had free will then we would have the free will to make all moral choices but we can’t because we don’t have the free will to stop sinning. So even if we had free will it would be a limited free will to choose God at the time of the call but without affecting God’s foreknowledge and omniscience.

I don’t believe that we only have two soteriological choices, free will or predestination because both are taught to a certain extent in scripture. I believe that there is a third option that our finite minds can not comprehend.

BobRyan said:

I know that there is always the "all news is bad news" option for those that prefer that sort of thing.

but I find this analysis interesting as it provides some rationale for why we see some levels of cooperation these days.

I prefer good news to bad..

Click to expand...

Hasn't this deal already fallen through?

Fervent said:

Seems to me that you don't understand that dictum, because it's function certainly does call into question "past" knowledge...because what leads to the realization is just how tenuous even our most trustworthy sources of information are. So everything we think to be true at present is questionable whether we can call it knowledge, with ordinary skeptical challenges like Munchaussen's trilemma only being compounded by more recent skeptical insights like the existence of Gettier problems. The more we learn and challenge what we know, the more we realize that there isn't a single unimpeachable source to draw any knowledge from. Of course, I am not talking about ordinary truths like things that are immediately present to our perceptions but any attempt to make sense of such things. This goes doubly for moral questions, but its a challenge even for less judgment-laden issues.

Book learning, if we're reading books that challenge our perspective rather than simply shoring up our personal convictions, drives home the dependence we have on sources that can never be vetted to the point where we are fully informed without some questionable elements being adopted unknowingly. Especially when we come to appreciate just how deep deception and bias runs in the human psyche.

Click to expand...

I was paraphrasing Plato when he said "the more we know, the more we know we know nothing". I'd suggest that it means the more we know the greater the realisation of how little we know. And I agree that there isn't one source that we should use to find 'the truth'. Like, I dunno, religion for example...

As far as moral matters go there's an infinite amount of information to absorb and an infinite variety of moral conundrums to examine (surprised that the trolley problem hasn't raised it's head again). But...there's only one person who is going to disseminate all that existing knowledge and filter it and fine tune it and...reach a conclusion. It'll be us, individually. It'll be right or wrong as far as we are concerned at that time. I added that rider because it's implicit in almost everything I'd say: 'As far as I know at this point...'

That said, if you keep examining the same problem, such as morality, and you listen to umpteen arguments, then over time (and I'm talking decades) then if you keep heading in roughly the same direction approaching what appears to be the truth of the matter then at some point you have to say 'Well, I guess I have to make a stand on this now and commit to a position'.

Aristarkos said:

There might lie some truth in your above post, but "that" is not the reason we're not under the law. The law was never given to us gentiles but solely to Israel and Israel alone Exo 24. Being under Grace is not something new either, Abraham was under Grace as wel, see Rom. 4.

Aristarkos

Click to expand...

And why we are NOT under the LAW of MOSES ??

# ! Where your ALTER

# 2 Where is your PRIEST

# 3 Where is your ANIMAL for your SACRIFICE

# 4 ARE you Circum,cised

# 5 WHO is your HIGH PRIEST

# 6 ARE you ready to sprimkle BLOOD. from. the animal you killed. ?

dan p

Hentenza said:

Either both are eternal or none are.

Click to expand...

Both are eternal. It's just that both don't have life. Which is what you are inserting.

Hentenza said:

. One can’t get eternal punishment if one is dead.

Click to expand...

Death is punishment. Not sure why you are not understanding that. Even our judicial systems on earth sees that as a punishment. Only difference is this is eternal death. God is sentencing them to the second "death".

Hentenza said:

Malachi 4 speaks nothing about death although the mention of chaff and ashes might seem to.

Click to expand...

Malachi tells us what will happen to the wicked. They will "burn up". That's what a fire does. It consumes to ashes.

Hentenza said:

Look, those in the lake of fire remain in the lake of fire

Click to expand...

There's not one verse that states they remain in the Lake of Fire. We have been told they will be consumed to ashes. Which again coincides with Christ's teaching that both body and soul will be fully destroyed.

These verses are just reiterating how it's going to be in the eternity-

Revelation 22:14 "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

Revelation 22:15 "For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."


The latter verse is just telling us they will not be there. It does not state they are still in the Lake of Fire. They had their part in the Lake of Fire. They were destroyed before the new heaven and earth. Again, Christ states he makes all things new. And the former things will be passed away.

I'll take his word for it.