Latest activity

JSRG · Sep 18, 2025

RocksInMyHead said:
See post #104. The issue isn't that ABC chose to cancel his show after what he said. The issue is that ABC chose to cancel his show after the chairman of the FCC threatened them with legal action if they didn't.

How would you feel about the chairman of the FCC under Biden threatening Fox with fines and suspension of their broadcast license if they didn't fire their commentators who perpetuated the lies about the 2020 election?

While the indefinite suspension was announced after Brendan Carr's threat, it happened so quickly afterwards I don't think ABC's announcement was a reaction to it. And Carr's statements were given on a podcast, not as part of an actual public announcement that would have gotten ABC's attention more quickly. And even if they were worried about his comments, there wasn't an immediacy to them that required them to take action mere hours afterwards.

Much more plausibly, the reason was the affiliates saying they wouldn't air Kimmel's show. That requires a more immediate response to deal with than Carr's statements, and (as far as I can tell) ABC would have fewer legal avenues to fight the issue with. I also strongly suspect that they were experiencing problems with advertisers pulling out of the show due to the controversy, again an issue they would have to deal with far more immediately than anything from the FCC. I feel like at most Carr's statements just accelerated what ABC was already considering or even already planned to do.

I should note, however, this was not a cancellation, but an indefinite suspension. That phrase can lead to a cancellation, but by itself simply means something is on pause for an undetermined length of time. Things put on indefinite suspension or indefinite hiatus can come back. ABC most likely is trying to figure out if there's a way they can fix the situation to appease the affiliates and advertisers, and if so the series could come back (contrariwise, if they can't appease them, then the show could indeed become cancelled), but in the meantime they needed to fix those issues right away so they just suspended the series in the meantime.

stevevw · Sep 18, 2025

GoldenBoy89 said:
Kirk said some number of deaths are acceptable to keep the second amendment.

Ok so how does that negate that a mentally disturbed person murdered Kirk. That no matter what it is the act of taking another persons life that is the wrong in this situation full stop.

The idea that all the narrative is about whatever it is that people percieve that are justifying the murder is a secondary issue and really one that obscures truth of the cold blooded murder regardless of what is said. People should not be murdered for what they say.

Its the fact that no matter what murder is murder and that the complaints are all about Kirk and not the murderer and his actions that is the very problem that is fueling the fire for more of the same.

Put it this way if there was more agreement that Kirks death was tragic and a henious act that breaks Gods commandment and then respected that alone without having to qualify it or justify it then that would be a good sign the nation may possibly heal despite their differences. Because they at least agree on one fundemental truth.

Simple as that.

MarkRohfrietsch · Sep 18, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
And what are you saying by that comment? That they also don't have the Holy Spirit among them?

Please, don't put words in my mouth.

MarkRohfrietsch · Sep 18, 2025

The Liturgist said:
Don’t forget the Confessional Lutherans, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East. The latter two will permit NIcene Christians to receive the Eucharist, but only if they believe in the real presence, which I think is as open as any of the traditional liturgical churches that believes in the real presence can safely be.

The bitter irony in all of this is that the aforementioned churches with the possible exception of the Confessional Lutherans are among the least likely to bother you over any issue of natural science of evolution; indeed the idea of the BIg Bang as an explanation of Hubble’s discovery of the increasing distance between galaxies was articulated by a Roman Catholic priest who engaged in astronomy (and not even at the Vatican Observatory, if memory serves, although that is a very good scientific institute).

The doctrine you’re being asked to accept by the way as a precondition to receiving our Eucharist - not even to attending our services, mind you, or receiving a blessing, or in the case of the Orthodox, antidoron (blessed bread) but merely receiving the Eucharist, is that you believe what Christ our True God said about it, that it is His Body, broken for us and for many for the remission of sins, and His blood of the new covenant, and that the Eucharist is an anamnesis of our Lord, in which we participate in the Last Supper - there is indeed only one Eucharist, and one Baptism, and that is what we participate in.

Also in the case of the Orthodox an Orthodox Christian cannot be an Iconoclast, a Nestorian, a Eutychian, a Monothelite, or otherwise an adherent of a doctrine contrary to the faith of the ecumenical councils (the Oriental Orthodox did not participate in the fifth, sixth and seventh council and disagreed with the specific wording adopted at the fourth, but did agree with the fourth in terms of having anathematized Eutyches, and with the Sixth and Seventh also anathematized monothelitism and iconclasm despite not participating in the councils; indeed unlike the Eastern Orthodox the Oriental Orthodox never had a Patriarchate come under the control of Iconoclasts).

Even with regards to the Eucharist, what matters to the Eastern churches, with our emphasis on apophatic theology (using the via negativa rather than affirmative statements of doctrine) is that people do not believe a theology that denies the real physical presence of Christ; as far as how that presence occurs, we have no official explanation, other than it is a sacred mystery, although on occasion some of our saints have used the word Transubstantiation, but primarily to differentiate our position from that of Calvinists who admit only a spiritual presence, or Zwinglians who reduce the Eucharist to a sign or symbol, or Memorialists who deny even that, or Receptionists.

And there are scriptural reasons for not believing in Zwinglianism, Memorialism or Receptionism, for our Lord did not say “This is a symbol of my body” or “This is not really my body in any meaningful way” or “This will not become my body until you partake of it” but rather “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” Which is why Martin Luther famously carved HOC EST CORPVS MEVM into the table at the Marburg Colloquy.

Sidebar... LCMS is more stuck on "natural Science than LCC; but neither do we or they see this as a stumbling block to fellowship, since, as you know, we are in full fellowship with each other. We view this as Adiaphora.

MarkRohfrietsch · Sep 18, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
That's funny, because if I were to invite you to one of the Restorationist churches I used to attend, they'd have zero problem with you joining in Communion as long as you've already been baptized "somewhere" in a Trinitarian church.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the Pascalian style invitation.

Because they have no Eucharist, no real presence, that is why they could care less who attends.

iarwain · Sep 18, 2025

rambot said:
Wait what?
Is there a reason why conducting yourself in a Christ-like manner would be problematic?

I am saying I have heard many a leftist try to use Christ as a way to manipulate conservatives, but they are not believers themselves. And as such, of course, most of them don't really understand Christianity. A common way they do this is to say "Jesus never brought up homosexuality" while ignoring the rest of the Word of God. Or they point out Christ forgave the adulterer, while ignoring that He told her to "Go and sin no more".

Chesterton · Sep 18, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
Others have already correctly zeroed in on 'most sacred' and 'fully assimilated' as the most overtly creepy portions.

But what's creepy about them?

Paul4JC · Sep 18, 2025

CerebralCherub said:
I could really use some scriptures regarding prayer.

My questions are:

How formal do we need to be when addressing God i.e. should we be fully clothed and/or have our heads covered?

Is it appropriate to ask God for blessings or deliverance from ill health or anything else?

These questions have arisen because I am not familiar with the scriptures regarding prayer but I know different denominations have different beliefs which I assume are biblical in nature?

I was raised to view prayer as relatively casual i.e. it's okay to pray in the shower, in bed (even if you accidentally fall asleep!) etc.

I feel uncomfortable asking God for anything to do with increasing or maintaining any of my comforts in this world. This is because Jesus refers to spiritual healing, blessings etc and even redirects a mans priorities when he asks Jesus to assist with his issues with inheritance What does Luke 12:15 mean? | BibleRef.com:

Context Summary
Luke 12:13–21 records Jesus taking advantage of an interruption to explain a proper perspective of wealth. Jesus has been warning the disciples that faithfulness to Him may require their deaths. A man in the crowd, possibly shouting in the middle of that teaching, demands Jesus settle a family conflict over an inheritance. Jesus declines that request but warns the crowd against temporary, earthly treasures if they distract from their relationship with God. He will return to this theme, telling the crowd to reconcile with people and God or risk earthly and eternal ruin (Luke 12:54—13:9). This parable is unique to Luke's Gospel.

Chapter Summary
Jesus teaches the disciples about proper priorities. This includes recognizing that God knows all things, even secrets. Believers should honor God more than they fear death, or than they worry about things like food and clothes. Christians are to remain ready for Christ's return, even as faith separates those who believe from those who do not. These ideas revolve around the central theme of verse 34: that a person's heart reflects what they value most.

I have a genuine concern that people view Jesus as a genie, who is there to grant wishes, and they are angry and bitter and turn from Him when their requests aren't answered or not answered in the way they expect. In fact, this happened to me when I was young and, as a result, I turned from God for over 20+ years.

Praise His name, He did not abandon me and I was a lost sheep which was again found!

But, I feel like the purpose of prayer may be misrepresented/misinterpreted.

I would like to hear others views on this point because, currently, I only ever pray for:

Endurance - to retain my relationship with Jesus Christ through all temptation and tribulation

The salvation of unbelievers and particularly those who are close to me

The ability to ensure that I am representing myself in a way that that glorifies Him to believers and non-believers

Thank you all and God bless.

There are no rules to prayer; it is an inner act, not outward, [Luk 20:47], but we should realize who we are praying to and how our prayers are acceptable through Jesus our great high priest. [Heb 4:14-16] Pray real prayers.

We should be praying for any and everything - 18 With every prayer and request, pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be alert with all perseverance and [every] request for all the saints, [Eph 6:18 NASB20]

Some prayer is for ourselves - but a lot of prayer is for others. It is "our father," not "my father." 1Ti 2:1-4

We should always give thanks for answered prayer. [Luk 17:12-18]

MehGuy · Sep 18, 2025

Advance Wars 1+2 remake.

Sad to see they still haven't added an update to save vs. battle games you are playing. Some of these dances can stretch in fur a while .. no reason for a fame not to have this feature in this day and age. Especially a tactile games with a simple grid.

iarwain · Sep 18, 2025

seeking.IAM said:
A political martyr, yes. A martyr who was a Christian, yes. But calling him a Christian martyr to me suggests he was martyred for the faith. That's not how I see it based upon what I have read.

I disagree, I think he was killed more for his Christian views, which would be that LGBTQ behaviors are sinful. That is a Christian view. As a Republican, he certainly did not turn away gay or trans people from wanting to be conservatives.

The Barbarian · Sep 18, 2025

So would sexual assault be a sexual deviancy? I'd really like to know what you think.

Oompa Loompa said:
I bet you would.

I think we've all got the picture now. And yeah, the question was to see if you'd realize that your definition says that Donald Trump is a sexual deviant.

essentialsaltes · Sep 18, 2025

Tuur said:
What, though, in the cited portion did you find creepy?

Others have already correctly zeroed in on 'most sacred' and 'fully assimilated' as the most overtly creepy portions.

Hentenza · Sep 18, 2025

Akita Suggagaki said:
So more like code words for a larger agenda. Instead of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion we now hear LGBTQ rights. Affirmative action, gay pride, and hiw unjust we have been in the past?

DEI is inherently racist so I’m glad is coming to an end.

Chesterton · Sep 18, 2025

DaisyDay said:
"American citizenship is the most sacred citizenship in the world ..."
Citizenship is not a religion or a sacrament.

Look up words.

Chesterton · Sep 18, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
This sacredest honor and Sen. Schmitt's speech on What is an American are both redolent of precious bodily fluids that must not be adulterated or diluted.

Which citizenship is more sacred?

Dan Perez · Sep 18, 2025

Aaron112 said:
It is not good.
Maybe same, maybe different ,
Another 'curse' is, anyone who puts their trust in the flesh, I /YHVH/ curse.
biblehub.com› jeremiah › 17-5.htm
Yahweh says: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man, relies on strength of flesh, and whose heart departs from Yahweh.

Can a believer, a follower of Jesus, fall sometimes, fall ever, fall routinely , and be cursed by YHVH even though , if possible, also 'saved' ?

and I looked up the Greek and means to be EXCOMMUNICATED. , G331 IN STONGS GREEK CONCORDANCE ,

dan p

Christworshiper · Sep 18, 2025

Hi,

I just recently started my renewal in Christianity and the Catholic faith. I am of Spanish (Castilian) decent and my parents and grandparents were "holy rollers". My parents never did the rosary, but my grandparents did it every day. I can still remember as a chlld when they would stay with us. I received my rosary today and I decided to give it a shot. I bought the little book, "Pray the Rosary" and a Rosary Prayer Card by KeepGodinLife. The prayer card states to say the Fatima prayer after Glory Be to the Father. The booklet leaves it out and says only to say the Glory Be. I'm planning on getting my rosar

y blessed next week.

Anyone know which way is more common? Thanks

DaisyDay · Sep 18, 2025

Tuur said:
What, though, in the cited portion did you find creepy? I'm quite sure both the naturalized US citizens I have in mind wouldn't find it creepy.

"American citizenship is the most sacred citizenship in the world ..."
Citizenship is not a religion or a sacrament.

Chesterton · Sep 18, 2025

Bradskii said:
I'm aware of the full context of what he originally said. I've read the whole conversation. The video clip was him trying to double down on that. Effectively saying that an airline would employ a less qualified person, a less able pilot purely on the basis of their colour.

That is abject nonsense and we all know that.

What DEI does in this case is to give more people the opportunity to qualify. It increases the number of people who try to become pilots. And basic common sense will tell you that that will raise standards. Any given airline is going to take the best of any given group.

Basic common sense will tell you that if someone wants to be a pilot, and has what it takes, there's no need for DEI.

Richard T · Sep 18, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
America is starting a “multi-step overhaul” of the naturalization process, which will include changes to the test immigrants need to pass in order to become citizens, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced Wednesday.

The naturalization test has existed in some form since the early 1900s, USCIS said, and has changed several times over the decades. The test has since been standardized, and the list of [current] possible questions are publicly available so people can study in advance. The questions are not multiple choice, but some questions have multiple correct answers.

It will be interesting to see what new questions appear.

From the creepy USCIS announcement:

"American citizenship is the most sacred citizenship in the world and should only be reserved for aliens who will fully embrace our values and principles as a nation. By ensuring only those aliens who meet all eligibility requirements ... the American people can be assured that those joining us as fellow citizens are fully assimilated and will contribute to America’s greatness."

I am not worried about the questions but I would worry about other ongoing changes not yet announced. Seems rather vague on the goals, except it seems to prefer maga immigrants because otherwise, what values are to talking about?

Also, what is "fully assimilated." I would argue that most in Congress are not fully assimilated. Most likely don't know the price of a gallon of milk. or what it means to live paycheck to paycheck, or how hard it is for some to access medical care.
Additionally I would argue that state or even city assimilation is the best one can hope for. Take dance as an example of assimulation. In Texas it is the two-step, in North Carolina clogging and in New York ballroom? I can't even say for NY because I obviously am not USA assimilated.

I have to say also that I think this somewhat violates the spirit of the Constitution too from this statement, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". The term "sacred" as an adjective for citizenship implies as it pertains to God. Maga too is about imposing certain cultural ideas and values on all of America. Dig deep and you will find that such ideas are not always conservative, and the method, tone and use of money lacking in traditional Christian values.

Chesterton · Sep 18, 2025

Bradskii said:
When I say 'us and them' I mean you and me. People like you and me. Those of us who don't support violence or celebrate it. Those of us who don't shoot people or break into the Capitol or excuse those who do.

You are I are irrelevant, up to the point where "them" forces us to take up arms. At that point, you need to pick a side.

Bradskii said:
Me too. Trabaja in la casa blanca.

You neglected to capitalize the first letters of casa and blanca. That doesn't narrow it down much. There's probably millions of white houses in America.

Plus, have you ever seen me insult your Prime Minister? You foreigners are so uncouth and boorish. smh

Carl Emerson · Sep 18, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
It has been a cause for some to go into schism for many many centuries. Why would it be otherwise now?

So much for the hope of unity...

When two or three are gathered in My Name, He is there.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page