Latest activity

JSRG · Friday at 10:23 PM

BCP1928 said:
That's

Fine. Conservatives shouldn't mind a bit, then, if AOC was Speaker of a labor majority House.

I never said the Speaker of the House was powerless. Obviously it's an important position. But the claim you made was:

"The place for AOC is Speaker of the House--a much more powerful position in terms of policy than President."

For the reasons given up, I do not think the Speaker of the House has as much power over policy as the President does, let alone "much more." The Speaker of the House, despite having some power over policy, has noticeably less than the President does.

RDKirk said:
In the history of national politics, the Speaker of the House has been able to wield much more political influence over the course of legislation than indicated in the black and amber of the Constitution...particularly in the last half century that I've been voting and paying attention. Maybe always before that.

And for anyone else who has been paying attention, it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

I never did claim otherwise. "The President has more power over policy than the Speaker of the House" (the argument I did make) is a very different one than "The Speaker of the House has little power" (the statement your arguments appear to try to criticize).

Adventist Dissident · Friday at 10:19 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
It should be; that would elevate the conversations!

how do you figure?

Konnie King · Friday at 10:18 PM

ALF: The Animated Series

ViaCrucis · Friday at 10:15 PM

Grafted In said:
I aggree.
And I'd like to add that we no longer have it with us.

We have a far greater Kapporet, a far greater Holy of Holies than what was instructed to Moses and given at Sinai.

We have Jesus Christ, and we enter into the Holy of Holies where we receive His own flesh and blood which was broken and shed for us.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Friday at 10:11 PM

Richard T said:
From liberty univ. Some evidence prior to Darby.
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE RAPTURE
Tom’s Perspectives
by Thomas Ice
"One of the most often cited objections to pretribulationism is that it is a new teaching in church history having only come on the scene in the 1830s. It is t church history. In the last decade, individuals have found a number of
pe cholars such as John Walvoord,1
it is significant that the Apostolic Fathers, though
posttribulational, at the same time just as clearly taught the pretribulational feature of imminence. Since it was common in the early church to hold contradictory positions
without even an awareness of inconsistency, it would not be surprising to learn that their era supports both views. Larry Crutchfield notes, “This belief in the imminent
return of Christ within the context of ongoing persecution has prompted us to broadly label the views of the earliest fathers, 'imminent intratribulationism.’”2
Expressions of imminency abound in the Apostolic Fathers. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Shepherd of Hermas all
speak of imminency.3
Furthermore, The Shepherd of Hermas speaks of the
pretribulational concept of escaping the tribulation.
You have escaped from great tribulation on account of your faith, and because you did not doubt in the presence of such a beast. Go, therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord His mighty deeds, and say to them that this beast is a type of the great tribulation that is coming. If then ye prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart, and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it, if your heart be pure and spotless, and ye spend the rest of the days of your life in serving the Lord blamelessly.4
Evidence of pretribulationism surfaces during the early medieval period in a sermon some attribute to Ephraem the Syrian, but more likely the product of one scholars call
Pseudo-Ephraem, entitled Sermon on The Last Times, The Antichrist, and The End of the World. 5
The sermon was written some time between the fourth and sixth century. Therapture statement reads as follows:
Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepareourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? . . . For all the saints andelect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are
taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

This copypasta has been circulating on the internet for a while.

But it ignores academic seriousness when it comes to historical analysis of relevant texts.

For one thing, the Latin Pseudo-Ephraem text isn't 4th-6th century, it's post 7th century. Though at least the copypasta here acknowledges that it is Pseudo-Ephraem, many versions of this copypasta I've seen ignore this and assert St. Ephraem as the author.

None of the Apostolic Fathers, nor the Shepherd, even come close to indicating anything remotely like the "pretribulational rapture". But Rapturists have been passing this around online for a couple decades now.

-CryptoLutheran

sjastro · Friday at 10:04 PM

Tuur said:
Wait a minute:

Wooden cranes powered by treadmills are possible, but don't know if the available timber or ropes could handle the weight. The obelisk at the Vatican comes to mind because it was moved in the Middle Ages. What's more fun is the Romans moved it from Egypt and set it up.

Reliefs from the Temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari show large obelisks on sledges being pulled by teams of workers along lubricated paths and ramps. Obelisks were transported along the Nile on so called obelisk ships.

In another thread the claim that was made the heaviest obelisks could only be carried by a battery of modern day cranes.

Dan1988 · Friday at 10:03 PM

Soyeong said:
Psalms 119:29-30 still shows us the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith.

A gift can be the experience of doing something, such as giving someone the opportunity to experience driving a Ferrari for an hour where the gift intrinsically requires them to do the work of driving it in order to have that experience, but where doing that work contributes nothing towards earning the opportunity to drive it.

Similarly, God's gift of eternal life is the experience of knowing Him and Jesus (John 17:3), and God's law is His gift to teach us how to have that experience, not instructions for how to contribute anything towards earning it. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23. Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to teach us how to know God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life. In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit the gift of eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments.

You are now deliberately taking Isaiah 64:6 out of context. Again, it was not God speaking about how He views our works in obedience to Him.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and God's law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of Gospel and has nothing to do with insulting the Lord or robbing Him of His glory. Moreover, in Titus 2:11-13, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so doing those works has absolutely nothing to do with trying to contribute anything towards earning our salvation as the result, but rather God graciously teaching us to be a doer of those works is part of His gift of salvation. Again with Titus 2:14, becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what Jesus spent his ministry teaching by word and by example and in what he accomplished through the cross, not the way to insult him and rob him of His glory. In Matthew 5:16, Jesus encouraged us to do good works because they give glory to God.

In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Paul said that OT Scripture is profitable for teaching, correction, reproof, and trading in righteousness that the man of God might be complete, thoroughly equipped to do every good work.

"Good" is the ultimate goal at which all things aim. For example, a "square" is plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles, so something is a good square to the extent that is aimed at that goal. To say that God is good is not just to say that He is a doer of good works, but that He is the ultimate goal at which things aim, that all good works bring glory to Him by embodying His goodness, and that someone is a good person to the extent that they are aimed at embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits.

It is salvation by grace through faith that is the gift. We embody what we believe to be true about God through our works, or in other words, the way to believe in God is by being in His likeness through being a doer of His character traits. For example, by being a doer of good works in obedience to God's law we are embodying His goodness, which is why our good works bring glory to Him, and by embodying God's goodness we are also expressing the belief that God is good. Likewise, the way to believe that God is a doer of justice is by being a doer of justice in obedience to His law, the way to believe that God is holy is by being a doer of His law for how to be holy as He is holy, and so forth. The reason why God is graciously teaching us to be a doer of His law is not so that we will have something to boast in ourselves about. Christ saving us from not being a doer of God's law by graciously teaching us to be a doer of it is the way that he is giving us his gift of salvation, not us trying to save ourselves apart from him.

Yes agreed, salvation is by (the gift of grace) through (the gift of faith). As long as you agree that both of these are gifts, then you agree that saved people have nothing to do with the work of salvation and it's 100% of God and we contribute 0% towards our salvation.

Before a person is converted, God must first bring them out of their state of spiritual death. Every single person, since Adam has been born spiritually dead. And we all know that a dead man can do precisely nothing.

We are all born with a sin nature, inherited from Adam. We are all born loving our sin and hating God, we can't love sin and God at the same time, that is impossible. So as a God hater, I never would have chosen to serve God, so He had to change my nature and my will.
God had to put the old man to death and resurrect me as a new man, who became willing to follow Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to transform me into the image of the Lord Jesus.

There is nothing good in any person, so if we do any good works, it's because God is working in and through us. So our good works are not ours, but they are His.
In Luke 18:10-14 we see a good example of one who trusts in his own good works. -

10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector.
12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

We see one man admitting that he is a sinner, just as I'm admitting that I still sin and the other trusting in his good works to win Gods favour. But the Lord confirms that the sinner went home justified and not the one doing the good works.

When God saves a man once, then no amount of sin or good works can cause the man to lose his salvation. There is no sin that God won't forgive a saved man, when he confesses it. A saved man does good woks, not because he is good but because he fears the Lord and he wants please Him by obeying Him.
We still stumble and fall into sin everyday, and we never stop sinning in this life.

Born again Christians, do good works in private, they are not seeking the praise of men and they are not doing them to win Gods favour. I obviously don't believe that God considers everyone's good works as filthy rags, only those that are offered by those who hold to legalism and the works based gospel.

Grafted In · Friday at 10:02 PM

RileyG said:
Exodus 25:10-22

Notice how the Ark of the Covenant is constructed.

Was that idolatry? No.

I aggree.
And I'd like to add that we no longer have it with us.

ViaCrucis · Friday at 10:00 PM

Dan Perez said:
And 1. THESS 5:2 Says , and may youpentire spirit and soul and body !!

dan p

And Philippians 4:7 says

"And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."

So I guess that's five things: spirit, soul, body, heart, and mind. I'm sure if we want we could find more.

In fact, 1 Timothy 1:19 also mentions the human conscience,

"Holding faith and a good conscience."

So I suppose that's six things: body, spirit, soul, mind, heart, and conscience.

-CryptoLutheran

Richard T · Friday at 9:58 PM

rocknanchor said:
You sure? I mean, sounds like we barely got our feet wet.

ARBITER01 said:
There are not two different gifts of tongues, there is only one that is used two different ways, personal prayer and corporate speaking. The corporate speaking portion is a ministry, and not everyone will have that, whereas everyone who is filled with The Holy Spirit is given the prayer portion of the gift.

Paul's instructions came by revelation from Jesus, and the instructions he was given in 1st Corinthians is applicable to Acts 2. There is no contradiction.

You are right about the baptism, and the corporate gift, but I believe there is more within the gift "various kinds of tongues. "The latter a gift of the spirit as the Holy spirit wills. But what does it do? What operations can it include? How is just speaking in a tongue in a corporate setting a full ministry? So here are the various possibilities that I will list for the gift various kinds of tongues.

1. It may allow the speaker to speak in a foriegn language to hearers that understand. In Acts 2 this occurred but is it the baptism or the gift? To me that is impossible to know from scripture. How can I say that? Because later some prophecied when recieving the Holy Spirit. So they went straight to the gift of prophecy after being baptized in the Holy Spirit. So it certainly could be that some went straight to the gift various kinds of tongues and skipped their own prayer language in Acts 2 at least for the moment. This helps explain why some were seen as drunk. Acts 2 does not reveal that all those spoke in foriegn languages. That some seemed drunk does not seem to indicate a foriegn language but rather something else.

2. Here we agree that the gift various kinds of tongues may include the Holy Spirit beckoning to give a corporate tongue that will be interpreted. I do not necessarily agree that it is a ministry yet. I say that because some new converts can do this. Perhaps it later becomes a ministry but not all that prophecy are set apart, so why would all those that speak in tongues in a corporate setting be set apart?

3. The gift various kinds of tongues renders the reciever far more open to foreigners, cultures, languages etc. Just as there are tongues and tribes in the OT mentioned in Genesis, this operation of tongues if part of the various kinds of tongues is not glossollalia but rather a desire to connect to others. That just as Babel seperated people's tongues and nations, the gift various kinds of tongues brings them together. This connection is supernatural because it is consistent and it motivates the one with the gift. Here is an academic source that helped confirm this to me.

Soal, A.D. & Henry, D., 2018 ‘The reversal of Babel: Questioning the early church’s understanding of the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts as a reversal of the curse of Babel’, Verbum et Ecclesia 39(1), a1842. https://doi. org/10.4102/ve.v39i1.1842

Granted these ministers do not take the gift far because they do not believe in the other operations of tongues. Still, they have a compelling argument and one that I would include and even expand on in teaching about this gift.

There are some other diversities too. Part of the issue is that for those with the gift various kinds of tongues, especially if set apart for this, can't know exactly what is of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, versus the gift various kinds of tongues. A metaphor might be a race car driver that does not know what is under the hood. A driver that always had a blower on the engine might expect that to be on all cars. A driver without the blower might have no idea what it is. Both can drive but one has an additional gift that can operate. Similarily it is hard for a prophet to know what is simply the gift of prophecy versus the set apart position and ministry of the prophet. Add in the diversity of administrations and operations and you have a powerful set of uses for all the gifts of the Spirit which likely no man can experience or know all things about them. Certainly the bible is rather purposely silent on especially the gift of faith, word of knowledge, and word of wisdom. That over the years we think we have a sense of what they entail, but it is more experienced based than bible based for quite a bit of this. Tongues is even more complicated though because everyone can be baptized but not everyone can excercise the gift "various kinds of tongues." That is exactly why Paul said "not everyone speaks in tongues" he was refering to the gift various kinds of tongues in context, versus the baptism which all can recieve.

Here is a list of uses of tongues from the late Ernie Gruen, a pastor from Kansas. While this too is not complete, it also does not distinguish between the gift "various kinds of tongues" versus the tongue resulting from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I have thought about this subject some 40 years and I still can not unpack all of it. Again, evidence that the church does not regonize the ministry of those set apart in :"various kinds of tongues" shows that there is a long way to go. Most are likely labeled missionaries and that may also be true in some cases, but there are facilitators in the church that go about doing God's work, bringing the people to God back together and utlizing tongues in a way that most do not even consider.

Another underutilized area of tongues is the ability to pray the mysteries of God and in some cases interpret back a better revelation and understanding of the word. Dave Roberson, minister that spoke in tongues as a lifestyle suggests this and much more. https://daveroberson.org/Media/1600/2011-09.mp3 -Tape, Paul's source of revelation knowledge." It seems possible this is a gift to all, rather than part of the gift "various kinds of tongues.

The Twenty Two Scriptural Values of Speaking in Tongues
Excerpt from pastor Ernie Gruen "(What is the value of the gift of tongues? Who would need or want it?”— Personal Testimony)

1. It is a supernatural way that the deepest part of you, your spirit, is fully released to worship God.
What is the verb in this passage? I Cor. 14:14-15; I Thes 5:23 [Psychology is based on an erroneous assumption
that your intellect is the center of you! [You must see that “tongue’s is prayer by your spirit; this will change your
whole concept. [Have you ever been hurt in your spirit? [The Gift of tongues is the prayer part of the Baptism in
the Holy Spirit!] [It is not gibberish, it is prayer.]

2. It is a supernatural way to sing to the Lord Jesus, a new song of the Lord! I Cor: 14:15

3. It is a supernatural way to bless others with the Spirit, in the Spirit. I Cor. 14:16
Notice the phrase “occupy the room of the unlearned” (Greek idiots = ignoramus, illiterate, uneducated.

4. It is a supernatural way to give thanks well to God -- to keep a thankful spirit! I Cor. 14:17

5. It is a supernatural way to enhance your private devotions. I Cor 14:18-20.

6. It is a supernatural sign to those who do not believe in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 14:22

7. Praying in tongues is a supernatural means of staying free from contamination by the ungodly filthy, talk and
actions while at work or school. You can secretly, silently, speak to yourself and God. It builds a wall shutting
everything out. You can shut out unbelief and criticism also. I Cor 14:18 [John Osteen Illustration]
[Five ways to resist the devil: silence, rebuke, rebellion, quote Scripture and praying in the spirit!]

8. It is a supernatural way to speak mysteries to God which the devil can not understand.

(The only way he could understand, would be, that God gave him the interpretation). I Cor. 14:2;

I Cor 13:1--This passage is a reference to an angelic language.

9. It is a supernatural way to build yourself up in the inner man.
This eliminates selfishness from prayers; it is a perfect prayer coming from you spirit. I Cor 14:3-4

10. It is a supernatural way to give a prophetic message to edify the whole church. I Cor: 14:5, 39.
Do you agree with Paul? This message is for a particular person/group, and for a particular situation.

11. The Gift of tongues brings the “rest” of the Lord to those who are weary, yet they would not hear.
1 Cor 14:21; compare Isa 28:11-12 and (Heb 4:9-10).

12. It is a heavenly “refreshing” that lets the Holy Spirit’s life i.e. His fruit flow into you.
Isa 28:11-12; compare Gal 5:22-23. [Speaking in tongues is a Holy Ghost coffee break]

13. It is a way of preaching the wonderful works of God in a language you never learned. Acts 2:1-13.

14. It is a supernatural way of praise and worship -- a supernatural way of magnifying God.
Acts 10:44-46. Since it is worship, it is one of the most important gifts enabling you to express love to Jesus.
[If it is a way to worship, who cares if it is the evidence of anything—you want it.]

15. It is a supernatural way to make intercession according to the will of God, when you do not know how to
pray. Rom 8:26-27, “with groanings that can not be uttered” or articulated in a known language.
[Anna Flowers--Swahili--Ruby the missionary in Africa.]

16. It is a means of watching in prayer—God gives visions or mental pictures while you intercede for others.
Eph. 6:18 [Prayer is the seventh piece of armor in spiritual warfare!]

17. It is a supernatural way to build yourself up in the most holy faith. [Jude 20-21]
Faith is the only item listed both as a fruit and gift of the Holy Spirit.

18. It is a supernatural way to keep yourself in the love of God. [Jude 20-21] See also Rom 5:5 [When you feel
resentment rising up—do three things: shut up; pray in tongues secretly; and do not speak until God speaks.]

19. It is a supernatural way of staying full of the Holy Spirit! It is much more than the evidence of the Baptism in the
Holy Spirit. When a person states that tongues is the evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, it is a watered down
statement. They have understated the truth. It is the divinely appointed prayer method by which you get refilled
every day and thereby live full of the Holy Spirit constantly. [Zechariah 4:6] [Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 13:9]

20. The gift of tongues is the gateway into all the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, since it is prayer.
When you pray in tongues the Holy Spirit begins to flow in revelation and power. [See I Cor 12:7-11]
I have found that praying in tongues is the key to moving in the three revelation gifts.

21. It is the supernatural way of taming the tongue. [James 3:1-10.] The tongue that has cursed, argued,
complained, gossiped, slandered, been guilty of backbiting, boasting, and all kinds of foolishness is at last tamed.
A person praying in the spirit can pray a perfect prayer of praise and intercession. Ironically, the unruly member is
the only member of the body that can be perfect before the rapture.

22. It is a unique spiritual gift identified with the New Testament Church, being the fulfillment of the prophecy
by Jesus that believers would speak in tongues. [Mk 16:17] All the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including miracles,
deliverance, and healing occurred in the Old Testament. The two exceptions are speaking in tongues and the
interpretation of tongues. Thus these two gifts are identified with the N. T. Church, the Body of Jesus Christ"

The Barbarian · Friday at 9:54 PM

RDKirk said:
First thing I'd check for a cause would be the weather report. I'm not saying that's what it is, but I do know weather makes a huge difference.

Yes. But the mere presence of uniformed people in an area can work. Curtis Silwa (yes, he's an arrogant attention-grabber) showed this works pretty well, even with no weapons or enforcement power.

CoreyD · Friday at 9:50 PM

stevevw said:
I understand this and its sort of logic and non contradiction. Division and fighting are not fruits Chists would produce. So I agree that there are certain fruits of the spirit which will identify Christs church and its really as simple as that.

But the problem I was trying to point out is that I think the gospel and truth has been watered down so much and false teachers have become so good at creating narratives that almost seem loving and true that it takes strutiny to unpeel the decption beyond most.

A similar phenomena is happening in wider society. Which to me points to it actually being a cultural wide thing. But many have been foold by the false narratives and then some wakeup a few years later realising they were fooling themselves. Especially in politics.

Then it becames a game of which side has the least division and the right kinds of fruits of the spirit. Claiming many are being saved as proof of the good fruits. Its really becoming a minefield of hermeneutics and narratives where everyone is claiming the truth. While the truth is getting lost in all this white noise.

I'm glad to finally speak with someone who understands this.

stevevw said:
Now I know those who know God and who obey and stay true know this and can tell. But how do many out there know which church or Christian community they should belong to and not also be decieved in the name of God.

This is a good point.
The last statement seems to be a question, and it can be answered in one word - humility Luke 10:21... Or perhaps two or three, considering what Jesus said at Matthew 5:6.

When a person is really thirsty or hungry, they make every effort to fill that need, and if they are humble, they don't think they don't think they can do it on their own.

stevevw said:
This is where I think the spirit of God will cause like minded and spirited people to endup coming together.

Sounds fair.

stevevw said:
Whatever church that will be but I would say one of the more traditional ones.

Ahem.

Why?

stevevw said:
I agree and have used this same reasoning. Paul was constantly worried about the church like a shepherd who knows there are wolves lingering around and getting into the church.

That is what I think is missing. First that overseers are properly qualified. But more so that the perception is they are not really necessary at all in the sense of how the early church functioned.

Today its more an egalitarian approach where everyone makes the decisions jointly. Authority is seen as control.

Which I might add is one of the arguements for why the progressive church is the true church. Because they are not like the bully authoritive churches. So the narrative has become a powerful tool in the culture wars.

Sorry... what's "the progressive church"?

stevevw said:
No I don't think so. Not generally anyway. Maybe in pockets here and there.

But this is part of the deception. That the scriptures should not be taken literally. That cultural, experiencial and modern norms should inform us as to what is Christlike.

As I said those who do stand on tradition or any authorative aspect are seen as out of date and touch. We live in a relative world where pushing single truths is seen as control.

In other words not only are the scriptures being watered down the culture within which the church exists is watered down.

Good point.

stevevw said:
I agree. I believe that Christ installed in the disciples everything we need to build the church. To identify the good fruits of a Christian community. One of them is unity in mind and spirit. So division no matter who is right or wrong is a sign of bad fruit.

Clement I think said that division was the beginning of evil in the church. It meant some underlying issue was like cancer and if left would eat away and further compromise the church.

I think as we are now in a world which is primed for fake news, narratives and truths we cannot win anyone by just poiting out the biblical truth of the plain and clear words. As words are now themselves relative and hold multiple meanings.

Therefore I think the key destinguishing factor that can determine truth from untruths will be found in living the teachings. Paul lived the teachings. He says the members were his reference because they seen in him the teachings living a Christlike example.

I like that expression - living the teachings.
Actually, it's exactly what identifies Jesus followers today.
The pattern set in the first century is not outdated at all. If we see that pattern today, we are seeing the narrow road, and humility will put us on that road... rather than following the modern thinking - "it doesn't matter. You can get sugar at any Supermarket."
Choosing a place of worship is now like choosing a Supermarket.

stevevw said:
Peter says that a Christlike disposition of love and obedience to God expposed evil and turned people towards God and His truth without even preaching Gods words.

This means by first living the words the disposition of the person is what is empowering the words. The words don't need a rationalising re semantics. They are embodied truths that cannot be disputed.

But also another sign of truth is consistency, calmness, and as you say love. Because love is not concieted or anxious to prove right. Its patient and kind in preserving the truth and being above reproach. So that others may also see and know that truth and also partake.

This I notice of alternative ideologies. That they are overly protective and projected as a matter of life and death. It will use emotion and manipulation and even become antagonistic against opposing beliefs. Always changing to suit what is appealing to sensitivities. But many people can fall for the emotion and appeal.

I'm glad we are seeing eye to eye on this.

Grafted In · Friday at 9:50 PM

Every denomination has its worldly 'quirks' and I don't believe we'll ever be able to change that.
But Jesus Christ will set us all straight one day.

Tuur · Friday at 9:49 PM

Thinking about washing machine repair and wooden treadmill cranes.

Tuur · Friday at 9:48 PM

MehGuy said:
The Magic School Bus is blasphemous. It mixes magic with science.

Saw it with the kids; came to the conclusion that if they hadn't needed Ms. Frizzle to drive, they should have left her in whatever predicament she got them into.

Hazelelponi · Friday at 9:46 PM

Chesterton said:
Well I'm not over there. I'm American. I've been following what's been going on there in recent weeks, and I'm just happy to support a people finally uniting to fight against the dystopian police state they've been living in for too long.

Sorry for the confusion. I agree with you; It's bad from everything I have heard. Consider this:

Total Official Civil Court Locations in UK: 170 (England/Wales) + 39 (Scotland) + 7 (NI) = 216. (This counts primary physical court buildings/venues for civil jurisdiction; higher/appellate courts are not double-counted as they're fewer and centralized.)

With the 85 Sharia Councils that means (85 / 216) × 100 = 39.35% (rounded to two decimals) of all "civil courts" in the UK are sharia and not well overseen by the UK government, basically operating rogue as far as I can tell because for it to be legally binding any ruling still has to be ratified by a UK civil court.

I wonder how many people using these courts even know they aren't legal entities under English law? They say a great many Muslim marriages in England aren't even legally registered. If all their marriages, divorces and custody disputes are happening outside of English law, whose protecting these women and children?

Tuur · Friday at 9:46 PM

sjastro said:
I hope we are not going to see a repeat of predynastic Egyptian vases being figured to such a high degree of accuracy and precision they must had access to computer controlled robots or the dynastic Egyptians had cranes to move obelisks.

Wait a minute:

Wooden cranes powered by treadmills are possible, but don't know if the available timber or ropes could handle the weight. The obelisk at the Vatican comes to mind because it was moved in the Middle Ages. What's more fun is the Romans moved it from Egypt and set it up.

Grafted In · Friday at 9:44 PM

Folks, in both the UK and the U.S., as well as most of the free world antisemitism has always been high.
And I suspect it will continue ramping up as we watch Jews return to their homeland.
But, we are not of this world.

DaisyDay · Friday at 9:43 PM

Aldebaran said:
Why is releasing him better than keeping a violent person in jail where he is no longer attacking people?

He's on home detention with an ankle monitor. Jail should be for people convicted of a crime, not for those merely accused. Those people in jail are still people and people do get attacked in jails.

Aldebaran said:
We've already seen during Biden's administration what happens when violent criminals are captured and then released right away. It encouraged them and others to keep committing violence, and people died as a result.

Yeah, due process, man! Who needs trials and convictions when we can go straight to punishment!

stevevw · Friday at 9:41 PM

essentialsaltes said:
Yes, all of your examples were about "what we think about it".

The point that Wheeler and Wigner were suggesting was that it was "what we think about it" that created reality. We cannot ever remove the observer from the measuring of reality.

So what we think or observe is what we think it is. Is perhaps limited because of the senses we use to observe it. I mean objective science works well for certain measures. But not everything.

essentialsaltes said:
[Gregory Thompason] " the reality that is objective stays the same regardless of what we think of it."

But we know thats not the case. What we thought was objective reality 100 years ago was wrong. It did not stay the same.

How do we know that what we think is fixed and objective today will not also in time become wrong and even a complete paradigm shift occurs like in the past and we end up with a completely different fundemental reality.

essentialsaltes said:
No, the earth was always a sphere. Regardless of what people thought about it.

Yes but the point is to those at that time this was reality and a fact. It use to be that we seen reality as like a mechanical clock, a mechanical universe that operated on fixed points of matter reacting with a Newtonian world. This was deemed fact and reality. Then this was completely revised into Einsteins theory. This is being revised again with QM.

How do we know that is not happening right now. How do we know we are not in a simulation or there is a God. Science cannot verify this so its excluded. Which implies that they are missing something if true.

DaisyDay · Friday at 9:32 PM

ozso said:
No it's not. You're saying someone else is doing it for him.

Sure is. The account is clearly labeled as Governor Newsom Press Office. It's interesting that first he is attacked for making the satirical posts, but now he's being attacked for not making them. Damned if he does and damned if he don't.

ozso said:
Huh?

Cognitive dissonance?

ozso said:
As Newsom's ghost writers?

Sure, if that's how you want to refer to his PR staff, why not? Do you think that politicians don't have writers on staff?

sjastro · Friday at 9:30 PM

I hope we are not going to see a repeat of predynastic Egyptian vases being figured to such a high degree of accuracy and precision they must had access to computer controlled robots or the dynastic Egyptians had cranes to move obelisks.

RDKirk · Friday at 9:30 PM

The Barbarian said:
But wait, weren't they effective? After all, we've had the longest pause in homicides since 2024.

First thing I'd check for a cause would be the weather report.

I'm not saying that's what it is, but I do know weather makes a huge difference.

RDKirk · Friday at 9:29 PM

JSRG said:
Even if Congress is co-equal to the Executive, that's not the question at hand here. It's about the President compared to the Speaker of the House. And it's pretty obvious the President has more power than the Speaker of the House. Even if the branches are considered equal, the status of those two in them is not. The President has far more control over the Executive Branch than the Speaker of the House has over the Legislative Branch. It isn't even close.

It definitely seems to be the President has more power over the Executive Branch than the Speaker has over the House of Representatives... but that's not a point that needs debating. Because even if the Speaker of the House has 100% perfect control over the House of Representatives... that's only one of two chambers of Congress. The Speaker has essentially no role in the Senate. So power over half of the Legislative Branch is completely denied to the Speaker of the House. Even worse, it's the stronger one they don't have control over. The Senate gets to vote on presidential appointees, whereas the House gets basically nothing in return.

This might make congress as a whole more powerful, but not the Speaker of the House. The Speaker is one person out of several hundred and their vote practically irrelevant. But, to be fair, the Speaker has a lot of power over their party in the House. So even if their individual vote only counts as 1, they exert real power over the rest of their party in the House. However, we run into the problem detailed above, namely their lack of power over the Senate.

But even if we ignore the Senate, and we suppose that the Speaker of the House had total power over the members of their party in the House. Astoundingly, I would say the President still has more power over the passage of laws.

That's because of the veto power. If the President says no to a law, then you need 2/3 of each chamber of congress to make it a law. No party since the 1960's has had 2/3 power in the House, and it's hard to see it happening anytime in the foreseeable future. So even with the backing of every single member of their party, the Speaker of the House has less power than the President does when passing laws. They have to enlist people of the other party to do it, and they don't have control over that power. I suppose you could say they might have power of persuasion, but surely the President has that power also.

So the Speaker has less power than the President in passing laws even before taking the Senate into consideration. But when we do, it makes their power even smaller, because you need the required 2/3 of the Senate to go with. That puts it more in the ball of the President pro Tempore of the Senate (basically the Senate verison of the Speaker of the House, for those who don't recognize the term), but they have the same problem of so rarely having in their party the 2/3 needed to override the veto. They have to get the other party to sign up for it. And again, maybe they have some level of power of persuasion in trying to convince people, but the President can surely do that as well.

So it seems to me that the President has more power over the passage of legislation than the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate combined. Which is incredibly stupid, and is why I'm right with this guy in thinking they need to weaken or abolish the veto power. But that is the situation. And if the President has more power over the passing of legislation than the Speaker of the House and President pro Tempore of the Senate combined, they clearly have more power than just the Speaker of the House.

There is a lot of power in this "merely," as we can easily see with how many policies abruptly changed when Trump entered office, when Biden entered office, and when Trump came back (no doubt, the next Democrat--or even the next Republican--will do a ton of changing too).

Not only does the President get a whole lot of power in regards to enforcing law that affect policy, the President also has the ability to simply choose not to enforce a law. Don't like that something is illegal? Don't enforce it! Trump's doing that with Tiktok! There's a law on the books banning it, which Trump has just been refusing to enforce. And now the White House has a channel on a platform that is banned by law. Now, before anyone gets into whataboutisms, one can certainly point to past Presidents declining to enforce laws too (though I don't think any were quite as flagrant about it as Trump). But the fact one can say this about past Presidents also just proves my point about how much power the President has in this area.

And all this is on top of the fact the President already, as noted above, has more power than the Speaker of the House on the passage of legislation!

Except it isn't a catbird seat even in regards to impeachment.

It is true that Step 1 of the impeachment process is for the House of Representatives to refer it to the Senate. And you only need a simple majority for it, so if we assume the Speaker of the House has absolute control over all of the members of their party in the House, they could easily refer it to the Senate. But then you need 2/3 of the Senate to vote to actually throw out the President. I have considerable difficulty imagining a situation where you could get 2/3 of the Senate to throw out the President but could not get a majority of the House to do so. That means the role of the House of Representatives is a mere formality in the process. So even here, the Speaker of the House doesn't have any real power;.

Which again just goes to show how the President has so much more power over policy than the Speaker of the House does.

In the history of national politics, the Speaker of the House has been able to wield much more political influence over the course of legislation than indicated in the black and amber of the Constitution...particularly in the last half century that I've been voting and paying attention. Maybe always before that.

And for anyone else who has been paying attention, it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

stevevw · Friday at 9:27 PM

Ophiolite said:
It may not be the case, but from what you have written you appear to have little idea about what the mainstream is saying. (Unless, you mean the mainstream popular press.)

It was common for mainstream to pin the beginning of civilisation around 5 to 6,000 years ago with Mesopotamia with the rise of agriculture, settled social living and writings ect.

Mesopotamia was known as the "cradle of civilization". So it was a mainstream idea that civilisation began around 6000 to 8000 years ago. As the above link suggests.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page