Bradskii said:

They are rights to which everyone is entitled

Click to expand...

Wrong. They apply when they are being questioned as part of an investigation. A police officer can not only detain, but arrest a suspect without requiring Miranda rights. It is only at the police station when the interrigator comes into the room where the Miranda rights are disclosed before questions begin. Too many entitled and ignorant people scream, "I know my rights!" when they actually do not. It is even worse when people claim that foreign nationals somehow are privileged to have the same rights as U.S. citizens. This is one of those situations. When it comes to enemy combatants, they have the right to die for their cause.

Fantine said:

Gee, one insurrection more than covers all those allegations. Policemen killed ane beaten. Federal police...extreme vandalism and destruction of the Capitol. And the treasonous traitors were pardoned.
The murder of Minnesota state officials and the kidnapping plot against Whitmer are more than Scalise's shooting.
The assassination attempts have never been completely verified--and the golf course incident has been greatly exaggerated.

Click to expand...

As bad as J6 was, the violent left has been worse. We can go around and around with it. And we can prove it based on injuries, death and dollar amounts of damage. So, its best not to try and compare.

Bradskii said:

It's not argument with which I agree. But...

...maybe you can explain why so many excuse his total lack of moral character, his mysogeny, his almost pathological lying, his denial of basic human rights, his lack of care for others...the list goes on and on. He represents your country for heaven's sake and you really would struggle to find someone worse to do it.

Why is there any support for the man?

Click to expand...

Many older Americans have always been misogynistic, racist, and nostaglic to one degree or another under the surface, and enough younger Americans were nihilistic enough that they saw Trump as their black pill, a middle finger to "the system".

Trump is really a symptom, not a cause, of American cultural decay. It's been a long process in the making.

tdidymas said:

It seems to me that you don't believe what the apostle Paul clearly states in 1 Cor. 2 and Rom. 3 about unregenerate man.

Click to expand...

It seems that you don't understand what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2 and Romans 3 about unregenerate man. If you continue reading into 1 Corinthians 3 after reading 1 Corinthians 2 you should see that even the "babes in Christ" that Paul rebuked were being carnal like the natural man and were not able to yet take in the solid food that Paul was wanting to feed them, which is comparable to the natural man being unable to discern "the deep things of God" that Paul talked about in 1 Corinthians 2. In no way, shape or form was Paul saying that unregenerate man is incapable of recognizing his need to respond to the gospel message with repentance and with putting his faith in Christ. Instead, he was saying that unregenerate man, and even carnal "babes in Christ", are unable to discern "the deep things of God" and the "solid food" of God's word.

Bradskii said:

Trump news at a glance: president floats a third term as Democrats vow ‘no way in hell’

President has not definitively ruled out seeking to extend time in office. Key US politics stories from Monday 27 October at a glance

www.theguardian.com

“I would love to do it: I have my best numbers ever,” the 79-year-old told reporters on Air Force One during a trip to Asia. Pressed on whether he was not ruling out a third term, he said, “Am I not ruling it out? I mean, you’ll have to tell me.”

Apart from him lying yet again about his numbers (they are in the toilet), how about we get a consensus on this?

Click to expand...

I love the optimism that there'll even be a USA in 2028 to have an election. I wish I had that level of optimism.

-CryptoLutheran

ThatRobGuy said:

While I can't speak for anyone who voted for him, the basic gist I get from talking with people who did, would indicate that they viewed what the left was selling as a bigger stray from American societal norms. (particularly on some of the social issues)

On a recent episode of The Young Turks (a progressive show), they delved into the topic a bit. They were reporting on these findings

Left-wing ideas have wrecked Democrats’ brand, new report warns

The center-left group Welcome relied on polling of hundreds of thousands of voters over six months for its findings, shared first with Semafor.

www.semafor.com

The group called "Welcome" (and the guy who ran Biden's 2020 campaign) surveyed hundreds of thousands of people over six months (quite a robust sample), and found that the Democratic party messaging and alignment on certain social issues were only gaining traction with one particular demographic, affluent white liberals.

Obviously you can read the report for yourself, but the general summary is, the Democrats have an economic message that resonates, but their alignments on the social issues are putting people off.

Left-leaning economic populism is pretty popular, but not when it's bundled as a package deal with "shout your abortion", the modern form of LGBTQ activism, "Climate justice", and left-wing philosophical viewpoints about the "patriarchy"


Basically what the report highlights is that
- Paid family leave
- Stronger unions
- Expanding Medicaid
- Increasing the minimum wage

....all popular ideas among a plurality of people in the US, but not at the expense of having to go along with the precepts of "abortion rocks!", "drag queen story hour is completely normal", "men suck", "capitalism sucks" (basically, bending a knee to the multi-colored hair college philosophy majors)

Click to expand...

Except Democrat politicians didn't generally run on those issues. Kamala Harris' policy positions, such as they were, were almost all about "kitchen table issues" such as what you mentioned.

It's really down to the fact that the Right has been able to harness grievance through various media channels, and to shape a narrative that's portrayed Democrats as being more extreme than they actually are.

DragonFox91 said:

I was reading up on those different theories @Reluctant Theologian mentions were floating around (& became more popular). It's like they didn't have access to the Book of Hebrews back then. Or, more then likely, they did but they weren't reading it.

Click to expand...

Theologians in the early church did read Hebrews, yet still the currently dominant theory in Protestantism - Penal Substitution - was not the most dominant one in the early church - so it's actually the other way around.

The Atonement Debate (as it's called) has been going on for a very long time - Five Views on the Atonement of Christ (I'm not affiliated with the author in any way) has as nice overview.

The 'Penal Substitution' theory is struggling these days in apologetics with Jews, Muslims and Atheists as it yields some logical and moral issues that are difficult to resolve. Personally I do see the value of the 'Christ Victor' and 'Ransom' theories ..

E.g. see the recent book by Eitan Bar (a Messianic Jew) The “Gospel” of Divine Abuse - this book certainly is not the only one formulating a critique to 'Penal Substitution' but it is the most recent one I believe - it's not for faint-hearted Protestants/Calvinists.

Be blessed ...

Hazelelponi said:

Constitution.

Click to expand...

That old thing? Who needs it.?

Our glorious president certainly doesn't. Neither do the masked thugs illegally detaining people have any use for it. And certainly not the Republican-owned Congress who are content to let Boss Baby have his way.

He's been president since January. It's not even November yet.

Everything that's been going on, that's all been in just the last 9 months. Nine. Months.

There's still over three more years to endure. That's assuming there'll even be an America three years from now.

-CryptoLutheran

prodromos said:

I can give many examples of objects set in solids that cannot move. Perhaps you are able to provide counter examples?

Click to expand...

But the moon, sun & the stars are not set solid in the firmament, they move freely around in it.

Reluctant Theologian said:

Homeless people in the countries I know:

• usually are burdened with more than one type of shortcomings (physical, mental, etc.)
• for Bible study the required attention span sometimes is difficult
• discussion/questions can be sensitive and can easily derail
• because of the common load of mental issues there is very little empathy and patience
• once some become believers they require a lot attention and care

But yet - God loves them as much as anyone else. In growing churches usually a certain balance is needed between believers with stable lives and the capacity to give/organise, and those that primarily need to receive a lot to heal. Not all churches are internally ready to host/welcome homeless believers in their fellowship (thinking of The Visit (Adrian Plass), 1999). They're usually the opposite of the ones who are welcomed because they can easily grow into leadership and pastoral roles, or contribute financially.

They're the ones young, modern and trendy churches find too difficult - but be blessed in your ministry ! Jesus also visited the outcasts more so than the elite.

Click to expand...

Homeless people are welcome at my church. I can't imagine why it would be otherwise for a Christian. Jesus didn't say "love your neighbor as yourself, unless it's socially incovenient". As a result, I have left churches before because the people there showed contempt towards homelesss people, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a fellowship and communion breaking issue.

prodromos said:

How can you make such a claim?
Were you pondering the possibility and then the heavens opened and a voice of authority spoke to you saying, "That's not what I meant!"?

Click to expand...

When God said there is water over the firmament, I believe him.

Valletta said:

It was the same when Judas betrayed Our Lord, there was no mass exodus of followers of Jesus.

Click to expand...

There was until 3 days later

Dikaioumenoi said:

Your objection assumes a bifurcation the text itself never makes. Why should we believe that "initial faith" should be categorically distinguished from "continuing faith"? Where does John make that distinction?

Click to expand...

I have no idea of what you're trying to say here. Obviously, someone who currently believes has previously been born again. How does that prove that they were born again before they first believed? You have not addressed that as far as I've seen.

Dikaioumenoi said:

There is no biblical category of "pre-regenerate belief."

Click to expand...

Again, I have no idea of what you're talking about. Try to speak more clearly, so I don't have to guess as to what you are intending to say. Jesus indicated that sinners are sick and He calls them to repentance, right?

Mark 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

When someone is regenerated, they are made righteous because that involves the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit in a person's heart. But, Jesus said He did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance. That means He calls unregenerate sinners to repentance. You try to say that sinners need to be regenerated first before they can repent, but Jesus gave no such indication at all. All people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), so that means Jesus calls all people to repentance. If only people who have been regenerated could repent, then it would make no sense for Jesus to call all sinners to repentance and would make no sense for God to command all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).

Dikaioumenoi said:

If you wish to assert there is, the exegetical burden is yours to identify a passage where this is described. Scripture consistently teaches the opposite: the natural man does not and cannot receive the things of the Spirit (John 6:44; Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14).

Click to expand...

Read my post #48 in this thread. I see that you too are taking 1 Corinthians 2:14 out of context.

Dikaioumenoi said:

What is your argument for understanding the "sealing" as regeneration? σφραγίζω ("seal") denotes ownership. It's a mark of assurance of salvation, not the act itself of imparting new life.

Click to expand...

Why would regeneration and sealing not happen at the same time? How could we be regenerated by the Holy Spirit without also being sealed by the Holy Spirit? That makes no sense. What do you think, that the Holy Spirit regenerates us and then takes a break until we repent and put our trust in Christ and then He seals us?

Stopped_lurking said:

Where did I say that? I think I have made it clear that it would be finding the tools that would be the positive evidence for their use.

Click to expand...

Ok must have got you mixed up with another poster. I am posting to 4 or 5 people at once lol. But they made a common sense case that it is unnecessary to find the advanced tech to prove it was made by advanced tech.

If we find a Porche embedded in a rock 5,000 years ago we don't need to know or find the tech to see that it involved advanced tech. The problem with this view is the expectation of exactly what that tech would be and look like. You may be assuming it has to be like we understand today.

But like I said with stone softening it may be something that does not require a device like we think. It may be a manipulation of stone physics or chemistry ect that they came to know. Like ancients did with medicines and other aspects of nature.

Stopped_lurking said:

The above picture is of low resolution to say whether the striations were made abrasively or by turning. For all you have presented this fragment might be from the time after the known date of the potters wheel and the hand drill or the core drill.

Click to expand...

This vase is in the Petrie museum under predyanstic vases. Are we now going to question the provenance of all vases that exist including in museums.

Stopped_lurking said:

But these fragment was found at Giza, they are not predynastic.

Click to expand...

We don't know. Once again this is the idea that where ever something is found it must come from there. Yet we see all over that stuff came from other places. The precision vases under the Stepped pyramid don't come from Djoser or the 3rd dynasty. They were inherited. So why not vases in Gizeh.

We just don't know. But because we have the exact same vases under the Stepped pyramid and in grave pits well before the Gizeh works we know they are early.

But it doesn't matter because the level of tech is even too advanced for Gizeh. We are still talking 2500BC and the very first potters wheels and bore sticks were rudimentary slow and wobbly. We have the vases made from them and they don't have these signatures of lathing and machining. Do you understand what Petrie is saying about the level of tech in the cutting.

Stopped_lurking said:

Why couldn't those marks be made by some abrasive boring? They are not the marks from something close to modern machining.

Click to expand...

For many reasons to do with the reverse engineering of the marks. Look how Petrie describes them similar coincidently to the modern testers. The circularity is exact and uniform as though the cutter was fixed and did not move to keep its line.

The Bore stick is well known for the tubular drill cores. Funndy enough Petrie also describes them as being created by some other mechanism that has tremendous pressure and could cut into granite with ease and not abrasion as this wears down rather than cuts and leaves specific signatures.

But to hollow out vases in some plaves 6 or 8 inches or more wide with exact uniform arcs is not from a bore stick. They are designed to wobble for their momentum and will cause erratic grinding and abarasing. Two completely different signatures. As Petrie said these were pretty sophisticated lathes that had a fixed cutter that could create a near exact arc repeatedly.

Stopped_lurking said:

These look like marks that could happen if someone polishes around the perimeter of the vase, they don't look like precision machining, IMO.

Click to expand...

They look more like something produced by a fixed cutter that it leaves such uniform bands. Someone rubbing or polishing won't be so uniform and be in all directions. Its classic witness marks to something pushed onto the vase as the tool or vase was rotating. In fact Petrie mentions that for smaller vases the vase may have been turning rather than the tool.

Stopped_lurking said:

What tells you about sophisticated lathing from these pictures you present?

Click to expand...

Just as Petrie says
Such an appearence could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process
cut by a tool sweeping an arc from a fixed center while the bowl rotated.
the centering of the tool was shifted, but with exactly the same radius of its arc, and a fresh cut made to leave a lip to the bowl.

That this was certainly not a chance result of handwork is shown, not only by the exact circularity of the curves, and their equality, but also by the cusp left where they meet. This has not been at all rounded off, as would would certainly be the case in hand-work, and it is clear proof of the rigidly mechanical method of striking curves.

Not only was the rotating tool employed, but the further idea of rotating the work and fixing the tool was also familiar to the earliest Egyptians.

Plus all the other follow up investigation which says more or less the same thing and agrees with Petrie such as the tests I linked ie

The metrological evaluation of the Naqada period basalt vessels from the Petrie Collection clearly shows that these objects are made with the degree of technological sophistication unexpected from the late Neolithic peoples. This technological sophistication is evidenced in the precision of rotation that was used to shape these objects.

Aryeh Jay said:

Clean coal is king.

Click to expand...

I love Nat Clean Coal! Unforgettable is a great tune.

Spiritual Jew said:

This doesn't address how someone comes to believe in Christ in the first place. You are talking about someone who now believes having previously been born of God, but that doesn't at all prove that someone was born of God before initially putting their faith in Christ.

Click to expand...

Your objection assumes a bifurcation the text itself never makes. Why should we believe that "initial faith" should be categorically distinguished from "continuing faith"? Where does John make that distinction?

There is no biblical category of "pre-regenerate belief." If you wish to assert there is, the exegetical burden is yours to identify a passage where this is described. Scripture consistently teaches the opposite: the natural man does not and cannot receive the things of the Spirit (John 6:44; Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14).

Spiritual Jew said:

Scripture is clear that one is not sealed by the Holy Spirit until after first putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. We're not sealed by the Holy Spirit until we're born of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

What is your argument for understanding the "sealing" as regeneration? σφραγίζω ("seal") denotes ownership. It's a mark of assurance of salvation, not the act itself of imparting new life.

Bradskii said:

This is a fact, this is the value I associate with it. That's what morality is. A statement of our personal values. You can hardly use someone else's...

Click to expand...

That's not reasoning, it's sophistry.

Bradskii said:

Hitting you upside the head IS going to cause you unnecessary pain and distress. That's the fact. Therefore (in my opinion) I OUGHT not to do it. That's the value I associate with it

Click to expand...

You've presented a non-sequitor, or else you've simply inserted your concluion into your premises. The gap remains, as there is no reasoning involved only the insertion of your opinion.

Bradskii said:

.

That was easy. Ask me another.

I hope I clarified my clumsy response.

Click to expand...

You haven't, you've simply presented sophitry and an invalid form of pseudo-argument.

Guojing said:

OSAS is only found in Pauline epistles, so its part of the revelation of the mystery to the Body of Christ.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Does this look like OSAS to you...

Romans 11:19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

Guojing said:

The gospel of the kingdom always require works to show faith. (James 2:24)

Jesus never preached faith alone for salvation during his first coming to the nation of Israel (Matthew 5:17-19)

Click to expand...

No one ever has or ever will be saved by their works. Salvation is by God's grace through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Period. Yes, our works show our faith, but that doesn't mean our works save us. Ephesians 2:10 says that good works are prepared for those who are saved by grace through faith. So, the good works come after we are saved. If our works saved us then we wouldn't need Jesus and His work on the cross to save us. You have no idea of what you're saying here and how insulting it is to the work of Christ on the cross.

Matthew 5:17-19 does not teach that works are required for salvation. Where are you getting that from?

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Notice that Jesus talks about someone breaking one of the least of the commandments while teaching others to do so "shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven". He didn't say they would not be in the kingdom of heaven at all. He said they would be called least in the kingdom of heaven. If they have faith, then they are still in the kingdom of heaven, but if they think it's okay to break one of the least of the commandments while also teaching others to do so, will have a lowly position in the kingdom of heaven.

There is only one gospel! Your belief in more than one gospel is a doctrine of demons.

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Fervent said:

Reason how? How do you make the leap from facts to value statements?

Click to expand...

This is a fact, this is the value I associate with it. That's what morality is. A statement of our personal values. You can hardly use someone else's...

Fervent said:

What non-fallacious argument do you have to bridge the gap between is and ought?

Click to expand...

Hitting you upside the head IS going to cause you unnecessary pain and distress. That's the fact. Therefore (in my opinion) I OUGHT not to do it. That's the value I associate with it.

That was easy. Ask me another.

Fervent said:

Considering your statement, yes it needed to be spelled out because you twisted one as if it were identical with the other.

Click to expand...

I hope I clarified my clumsy response.

John the baptist, said the same and he was not Christ.

Could you possibly send me a link to that post?