Fantine said:

The House of Representatives have wasted tens of millions of dollars on this, coming up with nothing. Plus that, if Trump has immunity for too-many-to-count crimes during his terms, would that not also apply to Biden?

Click to expand...

Only official acts as President qualify. I doubt illegal activity has immunity. Taking pay offs from foreign actors does not compare to legitimate disagreements over what documents a president can declassify.

Servus said:

The astronauts were unable to see stars due to light refraction from being on the bright side of the moon. Basically even though the sky was black due to lack of an atmosphere, it was still daytime.

Click to expand...

The astronauts saw the stars on the way to the moon and on the way back. You are correct that the daylight reflection on the moon surface precluded them from seeing stars while in the moon surface.

Oompa Loompa said:

So Jesus knew how hurtful his words would be for the woman, but told her that she had to change her sinful lifestyle anyway. No different than if I told a gay couple that their relationship is sinful and they need to end it.

Click to expand...

Nobody even bats an eye at such typical behavior from some Christians.

Apple Sky said:

Science proves that NASA faked the moon landings - Moon landing Hoax​

https://rumble.com/v2qffs0-science-proves-that-nasa-faked-the-moon-landings-moon-landing-hoax.html

Click to expand...

Nonsense

stevevw said:

More red herrings. They are anaysing the vases in 3D for Gods sake. They speak the language all through the analysis. Are they lying. They state that this was the best way to analyse the vases.

Karoyl is even stating as he is rotating the 3D image that this was the best and most accurate way to scan the vases down to the micron level. The data is on the software right before our eyes.

How can they all be wrong. It seems the only one out of kilt with all these findings is you.

Click to expand...

And my hovercraft is full of eels.
Your response does not even remotely address the bogus claim of how Max, Karoyl, Titch and Doofus have revolutionized the world of metrology coding and why has this not been recognized in any of the test standards.

fhansen said:

Well, you're the one who says we can know. And yes, I've known those who've had similiar experiences to Paul's even if it's "obvious" that I have not. And the experience I object to is the one that says the person is so overwhelmingly changed that they could not possibly fail, or turn back away. And I believe I know enough about the character of Paul to say he had a great deal of confidence regarding his final destiny while simultaneosuly having the humility and understanding to know he had to strive, make effort, do his part.

Click to expand...

I never said we can know who the list of persons God the Father gave to Christ to save. We preach the gospel to all so that those who were given to Christ can hear and be saved.

What do you mean Paul had to strive, make an effort and do his part? That sounds like you are preaching a works-based salvation. We are all created to good works in Christ when we are saved, and those works demonstrate that we are saved and we do them in gratitude for what God has done for us. But, like Paul, when God changes your heart, it is a change that HE performs, not us, not our emotions. All of us go through seasons where we follow God more closely than others, but that doesn’t mean that we no longer are saved. Christ doesn’t lose those whom the Father has given him. It is only by persevering to the end that we know, but we can have assurance that we are saved.

You should get out and meet more people and speak to them about their conversion stories so you actually meet people whose lives have been changed instantaneously by God and have lived that salvation faithfully.

Kathleen30 said:

Hentenza many of thousands of people worked on NASA projects but does that prove that they landed on the moon. You have the right to believe as you wish. ♥️

Click to expand...

My father in law was part of the team that designed the legs of the lunar lander. The lunar lander landed on the moon surface.

Secondly, thousands of people did indeed worked on the Apollo program and that would mean that thousands of people would have to be lying which s quite absurd.

stevevw said:

The problem is when any organisation or religion want to provide support in this world based on their beliefs and they conflict with secular ideology they are going to be in a hard situations to begin with.

This would not happen in secular hospitals that allow abortions as there is no determinations to be made in tricky and unusual situations. Everyone is sutomatically referred no matter what. The ethics of abortion has already been decided in favor of abortion. So its never going to come up and create ethical dilemmas.

Thats no excuse but it is a setback for religious organisations that have to navigate when the exceptional situations come up. They obviously did not think about such a situation happening and what best to do. It took such a situation to highlight the gap in their policies and proceedures.

The idea of public funding and the right to practice a religious belief depends on belief itself I think. Though there are obvious situations such as emergency health care which is a matter of life and death and the ethics should be to save life full stop if a person is in a medical emergency. Politics and beliefs are irrelevant.

But the fundemental idea that a religious organisation must conform to government regulations and laws is not necesarily a clear cut determination. Sometimes the State pushed their own ideological beliefs through laws like trans ideology in schools and DEI in workplace policy.

Or even the policy of allowing abortion can be seen itself as a bad law and policy that causes more harm than good. So the determination of what should be allowed in secular society is not always the best thing even if its codified.

The right for a religious organisation to disagree and promote an alternative approach such as traditional marriage in adoption or psycho therapy and prayer for trans or women wanting an abortion is a consititutional right. BUt today its regarded as being hateful and denying people thier rights. BUt still this is a subjective belief and not fact or relaity.

Click to expand...

Well said. I can't say that I agree with everything that you've written, but no one agrees on everything.

What I (and I imagine many others) find particularly troublesome is the people who don't seem to care when things like this happen, or don't want to admit that it points to a flaw in the system or in their beliefs. Refusing to provide medical care when a miscarriage has occurred is not something to be held up as righteous and holy. And bringing up freedom of religion in a case such as this I would argue is only a means by which to try to maintain that "righteous and holy" / morally superior stance. It ignores the issue which is actually at hand and seeks to paint the hospital / religious institution as the victim, and to make that the central issue. Since victims are typically viewed as being innocent, reframing the issue in this way allows them to maintain their "righteous and holy" stance. This is a tactic which is often employed by narcissists. That's not to say that everyone who employs these tactics is a narcissist, but when coupled with other personality traits it can be a sign of narcissism.

There is a lot that I could dive into here, but to try to keep it short I will also say that Christian culture in America (and Evangelical Christian culture, in particular) likes to create an "us vs. them" mentality which also feeds into issues like this. Things are rubber stamped as being either "Christian" or "Non-Christian/Secular". We have "Christian" music, which of course must be inherently good and holy. We have "Christian" political parties, "Christian" authors, and the official "Christian" stance which must be taken on social and political issues such as abortion. I think that God gave us intellect for a reason, and that He wants us to use it and to think deeper than that. Rubber stamping political candidates and certain political stances as "Christian" or "Non-Christian" not only prevents us from doing actual soul-searching and from growing spiritually, but also opens us up to being deceived. Not to mention the impact which it has on our social interactions and on society at large.

Apple Sky said:

No they didn't not, not one astronaut reported seeing the stars, especially on the Apollo 11 mission.

Click to expand...

All of them did. Don’t drink the kool aid.

Vanellus said:

The signing of the agreement shows the power of the US president so one wonders why did it take so long (Biden and Trump? Is this all about hopes for a Nobel peace prize?

One hopes for an end to all the needless killing and destruction but both sides have broken agreements in the past.

Click to expand...

Notice, peace can only happen *after* the release of the hostages... Not sure why people have been so dense as to not realize this, when it was being said all along.

bbbbbbb said:

Thank you. My perspective aligns closely with yours. My only problem comes from those who set themselves up as judges in the matter when Paul made it clear that we are not to judge another's conscience regarding eating food or observing the Sabbath. God alone is our judge.

Click to expand...

That applies more widely than it being said here. When we are to judge things it is for knowing sin that we ourselves should not do. If we tell others what is sin we should have the passages to show that, if they who we would tell are also believers and somehow do not know of that. But much being seen as sin is not indicated as sin from the Bible and would be thought that way only from social values or values we learn from somewhere else. So it is not good to judge individuals, that is for leaving to God, who knows what is within all of us.

I do all I can to remember this, I speak for things that are better, including to remember what God said to remember in the Bible, to do as we can accordingly. And though I get responses telling me not to judge others as it is said that I do, I am not judging anyone with speaking of what is better, and I am not commanding even when speaking of what God gave in commandments. It is left for others to see whatever they will from it, as they live before God

David Lamb said:

OK, I have not watched the film, but you seem to be saying that he claimed to include in his film some NASA footage. My question would be, what evidence is there that it is indeed genuine NASA footage?

Don't worry about the typo - most of us make them from time to time. I'm just glad you don't seem to have taken offence - certainly none was intended.

Click to expand...

David I would encourage you to watch. the canister in which the film was delivered from the archives from NASA looks genuine and it wasn’t something that Bart was expecting in the many NASA films he had searched over for his documentary. But one thing is certain it is definitely the Apollo 11 crew. As to Bart himself I’ve done some study on him. Sometimes he can be as mad as a mad hatter with his testimony. More so with all the attempted assassinations upon his life that he has claimed by the government even so much with him being sent to a mental asylum in an attempt to have him declared as insane. A little bit to much for me to swallow in that regard as being true . But that does not take away from his discovery of what he brings forth on his discovery from out of NASA reel. It is some late our part of world . I bid you the good nite from our part of the world. And wish you the nice afternoon day in your UK . Kathleen ‍

ARBITER01 said:

Act 1:17 For he was numbered among us, and received his portion in this ministry.

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take.

Act 1:25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place.


Take these passages for what you will, but I don't see any statement in our bible that Judas was an outsider and not one of the disciples. He was hand chosen by Jesus just like the rest.

I'm not going to argue with personal opinions. Either a person understands that betrayal exists in Christianity,...... or they refuse to acknowledge it.

Click to expand...

So where in the verses you are referencing state Judas believed in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life

Science proves that NASA faked the moon landings - Moon landing Hoax​

https://rumble.com/v2qffs0-science-proves-that-nasa-faked-the-moon-landings-moon-landing-hoax.html

Bradskii said:

I know why she posted it. But you saying...

'Not very empathetic is it seeing how Jesus had the audacity to tell another person to change their sinful lifestyle instead of just accepting it. Am I right?'

...is completely misunderstanding what empathy is.

Click to expand...

So Jesus knew how hurtful his words would be for the woman, but told her that she had to change her sinful lifestyle anyway. No different than if I told a gay couple that their relationship is sinful and they need to end it.

stevevw said:

What am I doubling down on lol. If I have not got the expertise to detail the metrology and analysis then what am I doubling down on. All I am saying is that the actual words., I repeat the actual words used by the researchers contradicts what you say. They clearly state they have analysed the vases in 3D and found them precisie.

Three different independent sources that state they analysed these vases in 3D and found them in the precise class. Even the skeptics agree that some are in the precise class but are fakes. Your the only one disputing that these vases are in at least a precise class that required some sort of lathing.

The only thing I am doubling down on is that I choose to go with the three independent published sources who have actually formerly done tests and published them. As opposed to your complaints on some social media platform. I think most people would go with the formal published work than some social opinion.

You are more or less asking me to take your word for it despite not being peer reviwed or even published. This is what I mean by double standards. You complain about the researched and published papers while demanding we take your unpublished and informal opinions over the published work.

Click to expand...

You double down because you do not possess the intellectual capability of understanding let alone recognizing a refutation.
If you want to double down after making idiotic comments such as part time amateurs revolutionizing the world of metrology coding, you had better support the assertion otherwise you being both dishonest and foolish.

stevevw said:

There you go and thats why I think your too biased to trust. You label these researchers as part time and amateur exposing your true colors. You have it in for anyone who dare suggest that these ancient vases involved advanced knowledge and tech. Before any credentials are checked.

They happen to be employed in precision tooling and one with over 50 years including NASA and pioneering tooling techniques. As well as actually living and being employed in the industry to see the evolution of machining from the 60s to modern times.

So if your using ad hominems then I am afraid you come out far worse on credibility. I would rather trust experts actually working in the very fields that most know about these vases and cover many more years experience and qualifications than yourself.

Click to expand...

Why do you persist with this nonsense when anyone with half a brain realises their expertise is not in the field of metrology coding?
I also did a fair amount of coding in my own line of work but was a part time amateur because (a) it only occupied a small percentage of my work time, (b) I was not paid as a programmer and (c) a dedicated professional programmer would have done a better job.

Your so called experts fall in the same category and therefore to describe them as part time amateurs is not an ad hom attack.

stevevw said:

I linked the articles and videos stating this. Go back and find it and then show how its wrong. I bet you don't even know and are just creating a red herring. This is between yourself and these experts. I want to see a formal article and they rebuttal.

Click to expand...

This is an example of doubling down with end result of confirming you have lied by making assertions you cannot support.

stevevw said:

Let me ask a simple question. When the reserachers state they have analysed these vases in 3D are you saying they are lying. When they speak of the 3D precision in circularity and for example shapes like cylinders and spheres. Are they lying that they have determined those 3D shapes in the software analysis.

Click to expand...

How many times do I have to answer this before it gets through your thick skull?
They are not speaking about 3D in circularity which becomes cylindricity, their code is not designed for 3D measurements.
Why do you have this obsession that I am insinuating the researchers are lying when the only individual I have pointed out lying is yourself.

stevevw said:

Dataset​

The source dataset consisted of 2 optical scans (for the objects O1 and O2) and 25 CAT scans processed into 3D models that were saved as STL files.

How did they rotate the vase in 3D to analyse them if they did not have 3D scans in the software in the first place. Is Dr Max lying. Is he so dumb that he thinks 2D is 3D.

Click to expand...

Your level of ignorance is astounding. Scanners come with their own software which includes saving STL files and functions ranging from rotating the 3D scans in the STL file to full blown metrology analysis.
This has nothing to do Dr Max lying as his amateur code only handles 2D slicing.

rusmeister said:

Hi, Fender,
You ought to know by now that I don’t generally say empty words.

Click to expand...

agreed, I repsect your posts and opinions, even if I disagree.

rusmeister said:

First, I think we agree that using the religion as a means of political power is bad. I had to flee Russia because of it. I am living in a very unwilling exile in the Balkans because of it. But the term “Christian nationalism” is a weapon aimed against us.

Click to expand...

Yes we can agree on all but the last sentence. Christian Nationalism, based on what I have seen, is an evangelical protestant movement toward a potentially dangerous theocracy/political power that we both agree is bad. google Christian Nationalism in Tennessee and see articles pro and con concerning the complete takeover of communities in this state.

rusmeister said:

Wikipedia is a hostile site. It is hostile to our faith, and only coincidentally supports some views you happen to like and agree with. You used the passive voice, which avoids saying who did the action. “Has been defined”. Yes. By our enemies, yours as well as mine. I reject and do not recognize the term, because it is meant to smear far more than people who use religion for political purposes. It is meant to silence Christian voices ALTOGETHER in the political arena, and would ultimately even silence you, the first time you cross them. It is a fake term. I am a language professional, and say that with the same authority as that of a doctor declaring cancer.

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced of this argument against Wikipedia. That some topics are left leaning and that the site is open to almost any/all topics - I can certainly agree. I see no evidence of it being hostile toward Christianity. There are many informative pieces on the Church, history, even the saints. That speaks to its openness to all topics and, at least, an attempt at fairness (even if it lacks).
Since you are a language professional, you know there is difference between nationalism and a patriotism.

rusmeister said:

Next, yes, I am partisan, on some things and to some extent. I am not neutral on the general question of Charlie Kirk, because I have listened to him for years, and see the vast net of lies thrown by our enemies to paint him as something he never was. But I AM fair, even to my enemies, and that means admitting good in them and their views and actions, when I see it.

Click to expand...

I have purposely refrained from commenting on the deceased because, quite frankly, I had never heard of him prior to his murder.

rusmeister said:

I think you are partially right regarding the 2a and militias, you are not wrong in quoting what they did say, and yes, the founding fathers were suspicious of standing armies, having recently fought one. But when you try to say that the purpose of the 2a was and remains specifically to protect the government, you lose the context of the fathers, that they were in fact turned on by their own government, the British government, and found it necessary to use arms against that (their own) government, and so trying to claim that the 2a was absolutely not about that is disingenuous, to say the least. The ultimate conception was to protect, not the government as such, but the people, as the Declaration makes clear.

Click to expand...

It's interesting that you call me disingenuous for something I never said nor implied. (the 2a was and remains..) That was your insertion.

I only spoke to the environment in which the second amendment was written and agreed upon, that is - it's construction and ratification. I quoted that line from your previous post when responding.

The 2A was written after the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army had been dismissed (save for a detail for Gen/Pres Washington) and the prevailing opinion was one opposed to a standing army (for reasons already discussed).
The USA did not have an army 1789-91, when the bill of rights were written ratified.

This left the country with a problem; what do we do in an invasion?
Answer: the 2A. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Third Amendment is an extension of this same thought.
The first standing Army (post Continental Army) was a limited, three year provisional Army in 1798.
The"Eventual Army" was created by Congress in 1799. By 1812, the opposition to a standing Army no longer prevailed.
I only spoke from an originalist construct on the 2A.

The changes in our country as it applies to to a standing army and the development of our advanced military have only muddied the waters of 2A interpretation imho. Recent rulings and arguments want to either; dismiss the prerequisite phrase altogether OR apply a different definition to the word "regulated" than was applicable when the 2A was drafted.
In my mind neither view is correct - but that's way above my paygrade. If that makes me disingenuous in your mind, so be it. I don't think so.

rusmeister said:

Finally, if you ask any gun owner (my brother, for example), he will tell you that the background checks, red flags, etc, already exist. I don’t think we disagree on that, and might even agree on tightening controls and stiffening penalties for people who get around those laws.

Click to expand...

I don't need to ask anyone else, I am a gun owner. I have two handguns, four rifles and a shotgun.

I know for a fact there are no red-flag laws in my state, though that could vary by state. In fact, our governor signed into state law a prohibition on red flag laws.
I also know for a fact that, even though I own several guns, I have never, not once, been subjected to a background check concerning one.
I also know that none of my guns are registered, not one (more in a moment*).
There is no requirement concerning operation (license, nothing required even for open carry) nor is there any requirement for liability insurance - although a couple of my guns were listed (at one time) in my home owners policy.
When I was underage, I did have to pass a "Hunter's Safety" course to get a hunting license.

* One of my handguns was purchased in a major southern city suburb's "Big Gun and Knife Show." I went to spend an afternoon with my father (in his town). As we were leaving, a display caught my eye at one of the exhibitor booths; "380 Automatic $75"
I inquired, and was shown the piece and I decided to purchase. At this point I was asked, "Do you want to buy one from the shop or one from my personal collection?" What's the difference? "There's no difference in the guns, they're brand new, in the box, identical but if you buy from the shop it'll have to be registered and it'll take about 30 minutes for the background check." and? "If you buy one of these (lays hand on a stack of three or four boxes) you can be on your way. I gave him $75 cash, I have a receipt made to "cash sale" that I showed to the attendant on the way out. It was a perfectly legal sale.

rusmeister said:

The overarching thing, though, is that regarding Charlie Kirk, all you can do is say that you don’t like and disagree with a few of the things thatbhe said, none of which add up to justification of villainizing him. You may very well have people in your own parish who believe in the 2a as so many of us do. Would you deny them Communion? Surely you would condemn their brutal murder in spite of your disagreement.

Click to expand...

Again, I have intentionally avoided comment on the deceased as an individual. I was unaware of him prior to his murder.

That said, Since then I find the veneration a little over the top (a lot actually) and I do find fault with some of his comments.
One comment in particular made a couple days after six of my neighbors (3 adults, 3 children - one adult was an acquaintance that I had worked with at an event) were killed in the Covenant School Shooting. I have seen several decry "context, context" but I see no context in which that one remark was acceptable.
I recently visited the Turning Point USA website - it has nothing regarding Christianity that I saw. It was recent, perhaps it has changed, but it consists of fundraising efforts and neo-liberal political points (about us says, "..promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.") I haven't seen anything to demonize him over, but the canonization seems out of place also, imho.

We do have parishoners from many political points of view in our parish. It's not my place to deny anyone Communion.
otoh, I would trust that if anyone attends our parish he/she would NOT be communed based merely on socio-political viewpoints.
Only Orthodox Christians receive Communion in our parish.

For a start the Catholic Church did not ban the reading of the Bible.

We often hear that the Catholic Church has forbidden the reading of the Bible! Have you heard this? Yeah, me too! But, this is another one of those big myths which has worked its way into the popular dialog but one that has not been proved from Church teaching and documents.
There are two good list of quotes from Church documents and leaders of the Church from the early centuries until today.

The second is a list of Catholic Bibles from ancient times that prove the charge against the Catholic Church false, since the Forewords and Prefaces prove that the Catholic Church PROMOTED the reading of Scripture.

Click to expand...

You and I have both heard the myth: “The Catholic Church has forbidden Catholics from reading the Bible!”

I am not intending to say that Catholics, especially in the United States were always big Bible readers in the past. Certainly there was a deficit in this area — and a certain shyness coming from the problems of Protestantism and their Bible-thumping ways.

But it is a MYTH that Catholics did not read the Bible until the late 20th Century — until after Vatican II. Those who could read (many could not read over the centuries and even today ½ the world’s population is effectively illiterate) did read the Bible when they had them.1 Catholic biblical scholarship did not begin with Pius XII. It seems almost ludicrous to have to say that since we Catholics have had the best and the brightest of biblical scholars long before modern times — just consider Origen, Tertullian, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Thomas Aquinas just to mention a few.

There has been a very long history of Bible reading, study and scholarship stretching back to the beginning of Christian/Catholic history….

Click to expand...

As for chaining Bibles to lecterns that was to avoid them being stolen.

The accusation that the Catholic Church chained Bibles in order to keep them from the common people, is equally wrongheaded and historically misinformed. The exact opposite is true: Bibles were chained in libraries so that they would not be stolen, precisely because they were so valued and treasured (especially before the invention of the movable-type printing press in the mid-15th century), in order to be more accessible to all. Protestants did the same thing themselves for some 300 years. For example, Eton and Merton Colleges (Oxford) did not remove their chained Bibles until the 18th century.

Click to expand...

It amazes me that some modern Protestants want to keep perpetuating the same falsehoods and myths in an age when Bibles are freely available to all in an age when most modern Westerners are literate, unlike medieval times.

I can go to the local Catholic book shop in the city and buy Bibles to my heart's content if I want to. Granted there may not be the same proliferation of translations as in a Protestant bookshop but how many different translations do you need?

Whose rhetoric instigated this?

Folks, let’s all quiet down!

Great deal

I actually prefer the terms, "eternal security of the believer" or "preservation of the saints" over OSAS because of all the negative connotations that typically get attached to it by those who oppose OSAS, like, "a license to sin" or "a license for immortality" etc..

there is chaos and uncertainty.

We must have…

ARBITER01 said:

Looks like you're trying to assert a personal belief.

Click to expand...

Yes churches are full of followers, but not many who have believed in Jesus for Eternal Life. These two are not the same.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and confined is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.