Latest activity

Shane R · Friday at 10:13 AM

There's a huge difference in protocol between cities and rural areas in the US. When I lived in the city, the hospital required clergy to register with their chaplain's office before doing visitations. This meant bringing in a copy of my ordination certificate but after they entered me in the system I was cleared for 1 year. I think this was largely meant to weed out some of the cult-like groups and a lot of the Pentecostal churches where anyone with some personality is made a bishop or apostle.

Here in the countryside, they don't get too stressed. If you look like you are somebody, they generally let you do what you came for. The other thing is, if the person or a designated family member makes a formal request for their pastor to visit, that person will generally be given access. The hardest places to get into, generally, are substance abuse rehabilitation centers.

tampasteve · Friday at 10:12 AM

Amo2 said:
Evidence is a fickle thing. Many different people viewing the same evidence, all think it supports their very different theories. Revealing the presuppositions of all so called objective "scientists". Thereby allowing each to claim the "evidence" supports their own theory, views, or faith. As a YEC, I frankly admit that my faith or theory, is based upon a literal reading of the creation account in the book of Genesis. What are the presuppositions of your faiths or theories?

I agree about your evidence statement. I take a middle of the road approach, I don't know how old the Earth is or how it all happened. However, I continue to research it and I may never have a solid answer. Both sides, YEC and OEC or Evolutionists ignore facts and evidence that don't support their hypothesis. YEC tend to ignore or use flimsy explanations to explain away evidence such as gobekli tepe, fossils, clear stratified layers of creatures from different times not mixing. OEC or Evolutionists often will ignore issues like soft tissues in dinosaur fossils, c14 in diamonds, etc.

We need to look at everything, including our creation narrative and explore this incredible world.

Clare73 · Friday at 10:10 AM

fhansen said:
Better get together with the Spirit, then.

Yes, that would be the conclusion.

However, man has absolutely no power over that, the Holy Spirit being sovereign (Jn 3:3-5); i.e., as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

fhansen · Friday at 10:09 AM

Clare73 said:
That would be the reasoning of man regarding the wisdom (Ex 4:21, Ro 9:17-18) of God (Is 55:8-9).

No, that would only be to acknolwedge that God, Himself is rational. You haven't demostrated that, by His wisdom, God wanted Adam to sin when He commanded Adam not to sin. The account of the Fall doesn't say, "God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree but (wink, wink) we know better, we know how to read between the lines: God really wanted and caused him to do so", So the reasoning of man is all yours.

Clare73 said:
Your God is too small.

Your duplicitous God is too small, and petty.

fhansen · Friday at 10:07 AM

RileyG said:
If it’s ok to ask, do you accept double predestination or no?

Good question. And the Church has always rejected the concept that God predestined any of His creation to eternal torment. That's not even consistent with His nature.

Clare73 · Friday at 10:05 AM

A2SG said:
Of course. You, and anyone else, are perfectly free to hold whatever opinion you like, regardless of whether that opinion comports with reality or not. It just strikes me as strange when some people will proclaim "Trump is innocent until proven guilty!" and even extend that presumption after he has been proven guilty, but will not extend that same presumption for others. Accusations are not proof of guilt, after all.

I"m smelling a double standard here, with which the plurality of the electorate who put him in office seem to agree.

fhansen · Friday at 10:04 AM

Clare73 said:
"The man without the Spirit (non-elect) does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually (of the Holy Spirit) discerned." (1 Co 2:14)

Better get together with the Spirit, then.

Amo2 · Friday at 10:01 AM

Evidence is a fickle thing. Many different people viewing the same evidence, all think it supports their very different theories. Revealing the presuppositions of all so called objective "scientists". Thereby allowing each to claim the "evidence" supports their own theory, views, or faith. As a YEC, I frankly admit that my faith or theory, is based upon a literal reading of the creation account in the book of Genesis. What are the presuppositions of your faiths or theories?

essentialsaltes · Friday at 10:00 AM

essentialsaltes said:
One of the three former police officers arrested last year in the beating death of a Black motorist was found guilty of civil rights abuses, while two other officers were found guilty of witness tamperingThursday in federal court.

Officers convicted in Tyre Nichols case will get new trial

It comes after lawyers argued the original trial judge was biased against them

Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith were found guilty in October 2024 on federal charges of obstruction of justice through witness tampering in the case. [the above]

The men still face second-degree murder charges in state court.

In a separate state trial, Bean, Haley and Smith were acquitted of second-degree murder for the fatal beating.

Hentenza · Friday at 9:58 AM

Xeno.of.athens said:
The whole thread is about Unity - except for the diversions where people keep throwing in their opinions and criticising whatever I've written because they think it's somehow naughty to say forthrightly what Catholics believe - The majority of posts are about unity in one way or another.

It can’t be about unity if it is about the primacy of the Catholic Church. Unity requires respect, understanding, and a degree of middle ground. It also requires humility not arrogance.

Aseyesee · Friday at 9:54 AM

BelieveItOarKnot said:
If 1 Cor. 15:53-54 had transpired already I might agree.

In the meantime there is the reality of all people being placed in a position of genuine need of God's Mercy

We'll be "made" at that point of transition. Til then people are actually incapable of honesty

If no one can be honest, truth as it is in christ, is no more then an illusion ...

I am no widow is the testimony of confusion …

Who the Son sets free … whatsoever measure you mete ...

“And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.”

To me this is the summation of the war in heaven … indicative of losing your soul, which is the fall of Babylon … the city that comes down from God out of heaven the finding of it …

JosephZ · Friday at 9:53 AM

BPPLEE said:
No one was breaking into a home.
They were at the Capitol

If I remember correctly, you have said in the past that you were once in law enforcement. If you were the officer on duty that day and assigned to the same position and found yourself under the same circumstances, how would you have reacted?

Clare73 · Friday at 9:53 AM

RileyG said:
If it’s ok to ask, do you accept double predestination or no?

All those of Adam being born guilty of the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17), just as all those of Christ being reborn with the imputed righteousness of Christ (Ro 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, Php 3:9), wouldn't that be a necessary conclusion of predestination; i.e., those not predestined to salvation are nececessarily predestined to damnation?

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 9:48 AM

rambot said:
Why should it matter how popular the people in power are when there are people with 0 power?

Yes. If you ever wish for your party to EVER be trusted with any power in the future. The midterms may not look to good for the Democrats with that perspective. Your question only reveals two things. 1. A lot of people dont like Trump. 2. More people dont like the Democratic Party.

rambot said:
You think I care HOW much people like Trump?

You should considering more people like Trump than they like anything the DNC has to offer. And I am will to wager, less a miracle, that they will not be able to provide a suitable candidate in 2028 that will carry them over the finish line and into the white house. So I look forward to President Vance. Heck, as of today, I think Trump Jr has a better chance of becoming president than the best the DNC can provide. But if your party's strategy is just being the losers so they act as political martyrs for their dying cause, I am not going to stop them. I just wonder what new political party is going to replace them.

Clare73 · Friday at 9:48 AM

Hentenza said:
God has already made that judgement.
Jesus tells us who they are and scripture nowhere tells us to be concerned with our status of elect vs. non-elect. Rather, God calls us to believe, to receive Jesus Christ as Savior, by grace through faith (see John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9). If a person truly trusts in Jesus alone (seed fell in good soil) for salvation, that person is one of the elect. . But what is sure is that belief is evidence of election. No one can receive Jesus as Savior unless God draws him or her (see John 6:44). God calls or draws those whom He has predestined or elected (see Romans 8:29-30). Saving faith is not possible without divine election. Therefore, saving faith is evidence of election. The idea of a person wanting to be saved but being unable to, due to not being one of the elect, is absolutely foreign to the Bible.

Indeed!

"The man without the Spirit (non-elect) does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually (of the Holy Spirit) discerned." (1 Co 2:14)

Hentenza · Friday at 9:45 AM

RileyG said:
If it’s ok to ask, do you accept double predestination or no?

I do not.

Hentenza · Friday at 9:43 AM

Larniavc said:
Did you ignore the section that you posted? The finding about deaths when access to guns was reduced?

IT WENT DOWN!

So saying ‘yeah but we’re not allowed to restrict gun access because of a rule made 250 years ago’ is beyond stupid.

But go ahead America; keeping letting kids get gunned down in schools. America society has failed its most vulnerable.

Larniavc said:
Did you ignore the section that you posted? The finding about deaths when access to guns was reduced?

IT WENT DOWN!

So saying ‘yeah but we’re not allowed to restrict gun access because of a rule made 250 years ago’ is beyond stupid.

But go ahead America; keeping letting kids get gunned down in schools. America society has failed it’s most vulnerable.

We are not the UK. You have no room for criticism. In the US gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right.

BTW- freedom of speech is also a constitutionally protected right in the US not as it is in the UK.

Your country is better than mine is a non sensical, and short sighted argument.

Tropical Wilds · Friday at 9:43 AM

BPPLEE said:
No one was breaking into a home.
They were at the Capitol

Oh well that’s better then.

The Barbarian · Friday at 9:43 AM

(Trump's "Big Beautiful Wall" utterly fails to stop illegal immigration)

ozso said:
What we really need is a fleet of armed AI drones patrolling the border.

Another multi-billion dollar boondoggle? What exactly do you think "armed AI drones" are going to do for us?

PloverWing · Friday at 9:42 AM

Good. He is one of the major Christian thinkers of his time, and he deserves the honor.

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 9:41 AM

Bradskii said:
Nah, they'll just deny you entry into the country. This is one example of very many indeed: Australian travellers warned of US border phone searches

'The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has issued a warning to Australian travellers to the US as an increasing number of would-be visitors are being turned back at border control.

A French scientist was recently denied entry to the US after immigration officers found messages on his phone critical of President Donald Trump’s cuts to research programs.'

Nevermind, I forgot you live in Australia. It is unfortunate that your country does not give you the same liberties that the US provides its citizens.

BPPLEE · Friday at 9:38 AM

JosephZ said:
If someone is tresspassing and breaking a window to gain entry to someones residence, in many states that is enough of a threat for a homeowner to shoot them. Below is how the law is written in Texas:

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

In the state of Texas, the person attempting to enter does not have to have a weapon, and the homeowner doesn't have to give an audible warning to the trespasser.

Ashli Babbitt was part of a mob whose intentions were unlawful and whose intent was to do harm. The officer did his job and stopped the threat. He did the exact same thing that many homeowners would do if found in a similar situation. I don't know if you personally agree with the law in Texas or states that have laws similar to that of Texas, but I find it ironic that many of the same people who think it's alright to shoot a person who is breaking through a window to enter their home have a problem with an officer of the law doing his job to protect people inside the capitol from a violent mob of people.

No one was breaking into a home.
They were at the Capitol

GoldenBoy89 · Friday at 9:36 AM

Every day we get closer and closer to Idiocracy.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Officers convicted in Tyre Nichols case will get new trial​

It comes after lawyers argued the original trial judge was biased against them​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Officers convicted in Tyre Nichols case will get new trial

It comes after lawyers argued the original trial judge was biased against them