RileyG said:

Does anyone here pray the peace chaplet or own one?

Peace

Click to expand...

I’ve never heard of it before. Tell us about it.

essentialsaltes said:

President Donald Trump has sent a campaign fundraising email with the subject line "I want to try and get to Heaven".

The email framed his political survival and legal battles as evidence of divine purpose and asked supporters to contribute $15 during a "24-HOUR TRUMP FUNDRAISING BLITZ."

No, no. That can't possibly be true! <checks email>

View attachment 369495

Certainly the solicitation quickly segues into safer Trump-y ground rather than a direct appeal to buy his way past the pearly gates.

That’s why I’ve launched a 24 HOUR TRUMP FUNDRAISING BLITZ, and I’m asking everyone to chip in $15 to make it one for the record books!

So if you’re with me all the way to the end, join with MILLIONS of your fellow PATRIOTS by chipping in $15 to keep the wins rolling in!

STAND WITH TRUMP

Click to expand...

Whether true or not, he’s a real piece of work.

Beelzebub approves.

Always in His Presence said:

Correct and I provided the link to their website where their goals and objectives are plainly stated and there is ZERO about sending military's troops anywhere -

Click to expand...

A claim I never made. Let's not forget that.

Always in His Presence said:

ah.... seems like taking two different things and because they both mention guns, but one never even mentions sending the military anywhere - there is an obvious connection. 1+1=Banana

Click to expand...

Hey, you brought the military bit into this, not me. Just sayin'.

Always in His Presence said:

BTW - you are the one who brought it into the conversation -

Click to expand...

I only mentioned the NRA as an aside. A lot of people, you included if I recall correctly, claim to ignore my little sigs.

Always in His Presence said:

you can't just drop an unfounded and now demonstrably false statement and then try to back out because you realized you made an off topic accusation.

Click to expand...

It wasn't demonstrably false. Does the NRA promote guns? Yes. Does the GOP support the NRA and it's goals and objectives? Also yes. The rest is stuff you added, not me.

Always in His Presence said:

Here is a hint - how about we both stay on topic?

Click to expand...

Hey, I tried. You insisted on continuing this digression.

-- A2SG, will gladly discontinue this little tangent....if you will....

RandyPNW said:

A Jew who fails to display genuine faith does not cease being a Jew. He just ceases being a "true" or "faithful" Jew! This is not a matter of defining who a "Jew" is. Rather, it is God's way of showing who among the Jews are being rejected for final placement in that assembly

Click to expand...

This means that virtually every citizen of the Jewish State of Israel, is not a true Jew. Confirmed by what Paul says in Romans 2:26
Also confirmed by the historical record, by how people of many races have infiltrated the House of Judah, from the Edomites to Ethiopians today.

Therefore: the common belief of a modern Jewish redemption, is false and cannot happen.
What is beyond rebuttal, is how Judah has lost the Kingdom, Matthew 21:43, and those who were born to the Kingdom; will be thrown out; Matthew 8:12,

all I needed to say. Need I to . . .

public hermit said:

That makes sense. Putting the powerful to the side for a moment. Let's pretend we're genuinely interested in the truth or at least well founded beliefs. When does one know if they've made a thorough investigation?

Click to expand...

public hermit said:

Haha, okay. Is it morally wrong to stop short of pursuing all the discernable evidence?

Click to expand...

public hermit said:

Yeah, it's kind of murky. My intuition is that we tend to stop an investigation once we're satisfied with the answer we find. And that satisfaction may be for epistemic reasons or not. Maybe I stop investigating because it seems I've looked at all the available evidence, or I stop because I found an answer I like, or maybe I'm not satisfied but stop because I have other things to do, etc.



I think that's right. It doesn't seem that beliefs, per se, are morally culpable states. I say that partly because I don't think we can, willy-nilly, choose to believe just anything. We tend to believe what strikes us as true. But I'm still not sure about that. If I believe something because I would rather not believe it's false, then isn't that a form of self-deception? Don't I have an obligation to the truth?

Click to expand...

I've mentioned some of this before.

When I was active duty as an intelligence analyst, my job was to determine the strength, cabilities, and if possible, intentions of the enemy and present that information to my operators as they planned their missions.

One of my early commanders had cautioned me, "Tell me what you know and tell me what you think. But be sure to tell me the difference."

That's a profound epistemological question with no easy answer. In my real world, it meant that I collated as much information as I could, but I always held off coming to conclusions until the moment I had to begin preparing the actual briefing (my "information cut-off minute").

Why did I forestall conclusions? Because early conclusions tended to be unnecessarily premature "information cut-off minutes." Once a conclusion was reached, the tendency was to ignore later information, particularly information that didn't coincide with those conclusions.

That was a rule as well: "Never fall in love with your own hypotheses."

After giving the briefing, intelligence collection began again and later new conclusions as well. That brought up another caution from the same commander: "It's okay to be mistaken but never be wrong. Mistaken is when you tell me, wrong is when you don't."

I would add that "wrong" is also when you cease to collect information to come to better conclusions.

So, even now I keep beliefs relatively fluid, freeze them when necessary to make decisions and take action, then let them go fluid again.

Underdog

Bradskii said:

But that doesn't apply to you I'd guess.

Click to expand...

I question everything and trust nothing mankind holds dear considering our world is built upon the principle of take over give UNLESS there is advantage to be gained by giving

Clare73 said:

Does God care as long as our choices are in agreement with Jesus' teaching?

Click to expand...

I believe God cares about many things : sparrows, the hairs of our heads (Lk, 12, 6-7)
But i 'd add, since He prescribed men to subdue the earth (Gn 1, 28), my feeling is that it's earth that's actually subduing mankind, through tornadoes, cyclones, cataclysms.

However, i hope this concern for environment is not distracting men from the Word of the Gospel

ozso said:

I think those who partake should at the very least in all sincerity say "this is the body of Christ broken for me" when partaking of the bread, and "this is the blood of Christ shed for me" when partaking of the wine.

Click to expand...

That's the heart of the Gospel.

Richard T said:

I knew a case where a retired police officer was home invaded. He was woke up by three men all with guns that put a gun to his head in his bedroom.

Click to expand...

You should make sure you bring up that anecdote when anyone suggests that they need guns for protecting their home and their families.

public hermit said:

What is the relation between belief and moral culpability? Is it wrong to believe/not-believe certain things?

Is it wrong to believe X if a more thorough investigation would show that X is false? In other words, do we have a moral obligation to do as thorough an investigation as possible before accepting the truth/falsity of X? If so, how would we know when our investigation is sufficiently thorough?

I assume the answer may differ depending on the belief in question. Beliefs that lead to right/wrong actions will clearly have a moral component. But what about beliefs regarding evolution or that the earth is flat/spherical?

Do we have a moral obligation to seek the truth? I'm not sure that we do. Is it wrong to believe what is false?

Please avoid theological subjects such as whether one is morally culpable for belief/non-belief in God since such subjects are not allowed in this forum. I know that's a big ask, but I believe we can do it! Maybe I'm wrong in so believing, i.e., such a belief is false, but is it morally wrong for me to so believe?

Click to expand...

An immoral act is one that causes harm. If a belief is prompting you to cause harm then you'd better be sure that you are right. Exactly how much time and effort you put into making sure will vary from situation to situation.

NxNW said:

I thought the GOP claimed to be concerned about the lives of children?

Click to expand...

An observation comes to mind about a certain political party that supports abortion on demand and puberty blockers for those who are born. That would likely get me banned. This might, anyway. Probably make some here happy.

Be that as it may, there's this mistaken idea of vaccines causing more harm than good. Those who believe that are concerned about the wellbeing of children, just they're terribly mistaken.

Spiritual Jew said:

That made no sense. Moving on...

Click to expand...

Sure it did. Sometimes Paul uses literary conventions that don't always seem to make sense at face value. As Peter said, "Sometimes Paul says difficult to understand things that some get confused about." (paraphrased)

In this case, Paul most obviously is not saying that Israel is not Israel. That should be a clue that Paul is using some kind of literary convention. It wouldn't make sense unless you're following his train of thought. Or, perhaps you have to understand his Hebrew background.

A major factor in Hebrew life is the threat that if they refuse to live by the Law of Moses, they will be "cut off" from the people. It would mean that they stopped being assembled with "Israel." They should have to join another culture, or even be killed.

It is like telling a wayward son, "You are no longer my child. I disown you!" The child does not stop being a son, but he is being treated *as if* he is no longer a son.

Paul is therefore not denying that wayward Israel is "Israel." Rather, he is saying that for the sake of identifying Israel's unworthiness he is identifying them as "Untrue Israel" or "Wayward Israel."

Paul uses the example of Ishmael being rejected from being Israel as an example of how one unworthy of the name "Israel" might be looked as if he is another nation entirely--perhaps even a pagan nation? It isn't as if Paul is saying that any Jew is not "Israel" but that in acting like a pagan nation it appears as if they are not Israel any longer, lacking the faith they were called to display.

Spiritual Jew said:

Ugh. Again, Paul said "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children." and he also said "In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children". Where do you get from any of this text that Paul was saying that being "true to Israel" or being part of the Israel of which not all who are descended from national Israel are part, has anything to do with one's nationality? He is saying it has nothing to do with one's nationality or having descended physically from Abraham at all. But, you are making it as if he said one's nationality has something to do with it, but just not everything to do with it. His comments in Romans 9:6-8 do not support the idea that it has anything to do with one's nationality at all.

Paul: It is NOT the children by physical descent who are God’s children.

You: It IS the children by physical descent who are God's children, but only those who believe.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand Paul, in my view. He is saying that *for purposes of establishing Faith* physical characteristics of Israel is not the exclusive basis for determining that. Faith is displayed on top of physical characteristics--physical characteristics are not being rejected, but only in terms of the exclusive means of establishing faith in Israel.

You have changed the equation. You are now saying the litmus test is for "God's children." That was not the litmus test being discussed. It involves "True Israel," which is concerned only with faith in Natural Israel.

It is not a matter of identifying who is Israel, but rather, who is "True or Faithful Israel." A "true Jew" must be both a Natural Jew (or a converted Jew) and be a Jew who has genuine faith. Being a Natural Jew is insufficient to establish his faithfulness.

A Jew who fails to display genuine faith does not cease being a Jew. He just ceases being a "true" or "faithful" Jew! This is not a matter of defining who a "Jew" is. Rather, it is God's way of showing who among the Jews are being rejected for final placement in that assembly.

durangodawood said:

I dont think so. Guns are so easy to get illegally that it wouldn't make a difference. Change that, and it would help.

Click to expand...

If illegal guns are so easy to obtain, why are you for banning some. If you aee passing laws to make it illegal to have certain guns aren't you doing the same thing? Won't criminals just be able to obtain them anyway?

timothyu said:

The only advantage in denying impartial and thorough investigation, goes to the powerful whose only means of power is to control the narrative. You will be told what is true and must accept it. Most people willingly comply.

Click to expand...

But that doesn't apply to you I'd guess.

probinson said:

Florida isn't ending vaccination. They're ending vaccination mandates. I guess the people making these apoplectic predictions must believe that the majority of people are vaccinating their children simply because they MUST.

Click to expand...

Even though, while growing up, I didn't know of anyone who opposed vaccinations, that schools had a mandate that such and such vaccinations must be done by such and such grade meant some were dragging their feet or never got around to it. In our current age, several generations removed from graveyards with little graves, I doubt some really grasp the importance.

GoldenBoy89 said:

On the plus side… fewer Floridians.

Click to expand...

And that statement got a like. Yep, this is the "Christian" Forums.

Bad news: no one likes to hear bad news.

Swirling tornadoes are terrifying.

WIRL

Hentenza said:

Tell you what. I’ve been chasing your posts for a while why don’t you chase mine for a while. I’m not going back to your posts. If you want to put a defense of your argument then do it here. We are now over post 150 and you are yet to actually address scripture objectively instead of subjectively. You have no idea what exegesis means and how to apply it. Read Hebrews 5 again and find teachers that can teach the word of God not some uninspired saints of antiquity.

Click to expand...

You haven't done any great exegesis here, especially considering that you ignore Scripture that conflicts with your view. And exegesis isn't the answer anyway. You can take two equally erudite and sincere, educated, bible scholars, theolgians, bible language experts, etc, etc and have them diametrically opposed on major Christian tenets, each with plausible arguments based on the same bible. Until you learn and acknowledge that simple truth you're dealing in speculation and best-guess theology at best. Keep seeking.

essentialsaltes said:

“Who am I as a government or anyone else, or as a man standing here now, to tell you what you should put in your body?"

Well, you're supposed to be the state's top public health official.

Click to expand...

Which is a rather disturbing thing to say, both by overlooking the legal basis behind vaccine mandates and implying any state official has near dictatorial control over his state's citizens.

Here's the legal basis for vaccine mandates for any state: A state has the right to set the requirements to attend state funded schools. A private school has that same right. It's not a matter of the state saying children must be vaccinated by such and such an age; it's that students must be vaccinated to attend. State's schools; state's rules. It's just that simple. If someone wanted to homeschool, the state couldn't dictate that the children be vaccinated. It would be a bad idea not to vaccinate the children, but the state couldn't demand it.

That's the legal basis. It's reasonable (a requirement to attend schools paid for by the state) without dictatorial powers.

I'm a strong proponent of vaccinations for a very simple reason: I grew up beside an old cemetery and remember the little graves. A funeral home director in the 1980s commented that the biggest change he'd seen was he didn't sell as many small caskets. I was just after that era, but knew someone who had a withered arm from Polio and heard about what was once called childhood illnesses. All this was known to my parents and theirs, and there was no opposition that I can recall to vaccines: people remembered life without it. We had heard stories about ailments like lockjaw to the point where we were glad to be vaccinated. The generation after mine likely heard less. And people forgot, forgot what it was like, forgot when the old folks had the superstition "Bright Christmas; fat graveyard" because deaths due to illness were much more common then than now.

They've also failed to notice what happens in every school from the moment it starts: waves of illness from colds to intestinal ailments to influenza to strep. Easily passed along in the close confines of classrooms and playgrounds. It's why college students in state schools are often required to have meningitis vaccinations. That was a big reason state schools required vaccinations in the first place.

This is an example of how it used to be: One afternoon, when my mother was a little girl, she fell ill, and when the doctor saw her, he said "I already know what it is. [Name forgotten] is in her class and he's come down with measles." Sure enough, it was measles, and every student in that class contracted it. Vaccinations ended such. Without vaccinations, that's going to return.