Always in His Presence said:

Bravo! Sounds great

Click to expand...

Remembering the disclosure about ten years ago give or take: "fake news"......

stevevw said:

This reminds me of the 'lumpers and splitters' in taxonomy. Lumpers see any variation as within the species and splitters will see variations as a new species.

Click to expand...

Yep. Because evolution produces all sorts of intermediate states, it's often difficult to say precisely when species evolve.

stevevw said:

The group of skulls found at Dmanisi Georgia years ago threw a spanner in the neat evolution of homo sapiens by showing significant diversity within the same species of homo erectus.

Click to expand...

It was never neat. The evolution of hominids is very messy.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

American voters knew it was all BS...otherwise he would have had more difficult time getting elected OR maybe it was they were so sick of what Biden and Kamala did they didnt care...either way the Dems lost BIG TIME...

Click to expand...

Yeah, I like to think 2024 was more the Democrats losing than anything else. Democrats have long been infamous for mucking up a free lunch.

-- A2SG, Will Rogers would agree....

Totally opposed to this. Why should people have to delay care to catch fraud? Why can’t catching fraud be done in parallel to not having to do prior authorizations?

ThatRobGuy said:

To put it in perspective:

What I posted before
On average, for every +1 gang member per 100k population, the homicide rate rises by about 0.034 per 100k.
(an extra 100 gang members per 100k is associated with ~+3.4 homicides per 100k.)
-- that was looking at high confidence data from 12 different countries

That seems to be stronger than the correlation of "privately owned guns" to homicides.

We have about 400 million privately owned firearms in the US (in a nation of 300 million people), and a homicide rate of about 5.5 per 100k.

The UK has about 1.9 million privately owned firearms (in a population of 68 million people), and a homicide rate of about 1.1 per 100k.

• United States
  • 400,000,000 guns ÷ 300,000,000 people = 1.333 guns per person.
  • Per 100k → 133,333 guns per 100k.
  • Homicide rate = 5.5 per 100k.
• United Kingdom
  • 1,900,000 guns ÷ 68,000,000 people ≈ 0.0279 guns per person.
  • Per 100k → 2,794 guns per 100k.
  • Homicide rate = 1.1 per 100k.

View attachment 369425

For every +1 gun per 100,000 people, the homicide rate goes up by about 0.000033 per 100k.


Or to put in other words:
When comparing us to the UK
We have 48 times the amount of guns per capita
We have about 4 times the gang membership per capita
Our homicide rate is 5 times what theirs is.

If the gun ownership rate was the stronger correlating metric, then on a scale of 4x <-> 48x, I would expect to see our homicide comparison be much closer to the latter.

And we've actually seen that play out here in various cities.

For instance, when Baltimore implemented it's Gang Violence Reduction taskforce, they dropped their murder rate by 25% in 2 years (despite the gun laws of Maryland not changing during that time period that I'm aware of)

Click to expand...

There's no conflict in trying to reduce the number of gang members and the number of guns, why are you putting them against each other in this discussion? Does the 95% confidence interval for the gang member / homicide slope contain 0? In other words, was it significant? Why didn't you also plot the underlying data points? With 12 data points and an r2 of 0.09, I wonder how they were distributed. If you point out the dataset I can do the calculations myself.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Nothing wrong with that...what is wrong is her saying she is going TO GET TRUMP...in public...specifically TRUMP. Well we know it was found to be EXCESSIVE and against the CONSTITUTION. See Beria...that applies here...

Click to expand...

The amount of the judgment may have been deemed excessive, but not the verdict.

-- A2SG, lest we forget that little detail....

OnceLostButNowFound said:

Are we talking about microevolution or macroevolution? I think people tend to get the two confused.

I agree with microevolution (Basically natural selection within a group) but don't agree with macroevolution (apes turning into humans or wolves turning into whales.) Or the idea that we came from nothing. That there is no creator.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of the 'lumpers and splitters' in taxonomy. Lumpers see any variation as within the species and splitters will see variations as a new species.

The group of skulls found at Dmanisi Georgia years ago threw a spanner in the neat evolution of homo sapiens by showing significant diversity within the same species of homo erectus.

The features once assigned to different hominin species such as Homo Rudolfensis, Gautengensis, Ergaster and possibly Homo Habilis may have been variations within a single, widespread species, such as Homo Erectus. Therefore implying a less branching and more of a bushy type evolution where there were less species but more variation within species.

Prior to this paleontologists had relegated these variations as new species. Suddenlt several species were wiped out with this discover. Though the debate is still going on. Which is sort of the point that this is a matter of which side of the fense you sit as to lumpers and splitters lol.

Michie said:

People are addicted to Trump. And they speak of those that voted for him? I think it’s much worse on the other side.

Click to expand...

You are right, people are addicted to President Trump.

One side absolutely despises him and is quick to criticize his every action. Despite repeated criticism, which has resulted in political setbacks—losing two out of three times to President Trump—their strong opposition leads them to persistently highlight his flaws. Even though they recognize these criticisms are ineffective, they continue with this approach.

On the other hand, supporters of President Trump, denounced traditional conservative principles that have influenced national policies over the past 80 years, just because President Trump’s views differ from those previously associated with conservatism. Some Christians support him so strongly that they accept voting for a twice-divorced, thrice-married man who publicly boasts about sexual immorality.

You're correct about addiction; however, both sides share responsibility equally.

honey badger said:

the free gift of life ...

Click to expand...

" I know that his commandment is life everlasting ..."

Death panel ---> Death bots

ThatRobGuy said:

That seems to be stronger than the correlation of "privately owned guns" to homicides.

Click to expand...

That's an odd use of the term "correlation" from a statistics perspective. What you've posted indicates that gang membership might have a larger effect on the homicide rate than private gun ownership, but statistically speaking, the correlation is weak (as indicated by the low r value). A strong correlation would be indicated by an r value greater than 0.7.

Jipsah said:

I.E., you have no idea at all how there could have been "an evening and a morning" where there was no sun. Surprise, surprise. You're just reciting your demonination's doctrine, which I value at precisely at the price charged.

It is as St.Peter said - God's "days" aren't like ours. But I guess that's one of those New Testament ideas that have to be ignored lest they damage your Old Testament doctrines.

Click to expand...

So tell us. How was there an evening and a morning without the sun?

Jipsah said:

Purely symbolic.

Click to expand...

So sayeth Jipsah

The word 'safe' only appears in the headline.

The governor was joined by Mayor Johnson, who insisted that Chicagoans do not want a “military occupation” and that the city is being unfairly targeted. Both leaders argued that what Chicago truly needs is “investment,” not federal intervention.

Always in His Presence said:

It's incredible! As long as it is negative about Trump - they go crazy!

Click to expand...

Perfect example of “Pot calling the kettle black”

This example illustrates people criticizing others for behaviors they share. Most Americans are unaware of this social media story and are more focused on their weekend plans.

But here you are making a negative thread because some people on social media acted irrationally.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Catholic teaching is Christ's teaching so it ought to be clear that Catholic teaching is the norm to which others ought to move.

Click to expand...

Nope. There is much error in Catholic teachings.The arrogance continues. No unity here.

Xeno.of.athens said:

No. I have read the Gospels, but I do not intend to show you where the passages are, do your own research, it's not my job to do it for you.

Click to expand...

I've read the Gospels too, and Jesus did not teach that his mother was perfect.

You can show me where this apparent teaching is or not; I really don't care.
I would have thought you would have been eager to do so and to defend your church's teaching. I would have thought you would have produced the verses with a "see, I told you so".
Obviously not.

Of course, you can't prevent me from reaching the conclusion that you can't find them because they're not there.

In the end the only real question is that of evil and suffering, especially for Christians who claim "God is love". Even my old pastor was cynical about this saying to me once "I sometimes wonder if it is true. He seems to write people off pretty easily".

I'll tell two conflicting stories just to confuse the issue. Years ago I heard an ex-homosexual give a public testimony in the church I attended. He'd come up from Sydney with a group led by (Sir) Fred Nile.

He said at his second (serious) suicide attempt, which would have succeeded, Christ materialised in the far corner of the room. He moved towards the chap in question and somehow merged. The bloke said from that time on he never even had to struggle with the homosexual temptation, had married and had a couple of young sons. His wife and kids were present when he gave the testimony. This was despite being involved in everything going when he was homosexual. He was probably lucky he didn't get AIDS.

So why was this partcular homosexual and suicide candidate delivered by direct divine action whereas 99.9% of such attempts would be allowed to go their own way and most likely die or seriously injure themselves? Who knows?

Then there's the opposite side. I've often said my father appeared in my room the night he died. During the conversation at one point he blurted out "I always was doomed! I didn't really have any choice!" But in the same conversation he said "I was willing!" (to carry on in the cruel, stupid, bad tempered, vindictive way he did).

Now he did suffer to some extent - a child of the depression years; having whooping cough when he was a kid; leaving home at twelve to work on a cattle station; a veteran of World War II in New Guinea fighitng at Milne Bay when he was about 18; and enduring Malarial bouts for some years afterwards. As he said in the same exchange "I never had a chance to see anything like this!" (apparition turning up to apologise) and "It wasn't easy for me either, you know!"

I replied "I knew that by the time I was twelve!!" which seemed to surprise him.

But why the two radically different outcomes if God loves everybody? I don't know the answer either, and I'm not much of a fan of the book of Job.

It sounds like a fairy tale to me, with everybody living happily ever after (except of course for the original hired hands and family who all perished - no recorded restitution for them).

Nature itself doesn't show "love" as it's main premise - the lion kills the lamb, and they don't lie down together either.

And yet in the Nicene Creed we claim it was Christ, the Son of God who epitomises love, "through (whom) all things were made". He's reponsible for the created order including ruthless nature.

Always in His Presence said:

Trump Death Hoax Explained: Why the Internet Thought Trump Died​

It all started with the claim that Trump hadn’t been seen in two days, which was proven false by multiple reports. However, the White House’s silence on the rumors contributed to the speculation.

Click to expand...

I learned about this news today from your thread. I do not follow the news on weekends, and my phone’s notifications did not mention it. None of the major media sources covered it, so this is the first time I have seen information about it.

Some people post on social media, which often features conspiracy theorists spreading sensational stories. These claims rarely have real-world relevance.

As always, you chose an obscure, nonsensical news story to criticize Democrats, even though most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, ignore such news. But this kind of news serves as an opportunity to start another negative discussion and that is good enough for some.

This situation reflects the current state of our political climate. There is a greater focus on criticism and conflict than on seeking common ground.

Daniel Carlton said:

Just a reminder this is the question of the OP “What are the must have or must not have to be considered a biblical church?”

Click to expand...

You forgot to add, "according to the modern, Protestant mindset".

public hermit said:

You and I both know most all that @PloverWing does on CF is with best of intentions. You could fairly accuse me of this, but not her. Honestly, I was surprised you asked this. The fact is, the OP made claims and has made claims, and they have not been adequately answered. That's the starting place for this discussion.

Click to expand...

There was a miscommunication, and clarity has been restored. I was baffled because it seemed so out of character for everyone involved, and I don’t like to see liturgical Christians quarrel on CF.com particularly given the large number of non-liturgical Christians who seem to wish to challenge us on every aspect of our faith.

Also I have never seen you, @PloverWing or @Xeno.of.athens act with ill-intent, even though the three of us historically have had minor disagreements (for example, I support the Traditional Latin Mass and have been meaning to provide my friend Xeno with an explanation as to why I regard it as superior, and what I feel Vatican II had intended liturgically - the only aspect of Sacrosanctum Concilium that frustrates me is the suppression of Prime due to its historic cultural importance in Western Christianity, for the first book people were taught to read in Latin or in many cases in any language was a Primer, a book containing the First Hour, and of the ancient liturgical rites only the West Syriac lacks it (and the surviving cathedral rite of the East Syriac.*

I think rather they should have combined lauds and matins if they really wanted to reduce the number of offices, since in the Byzantine Rite, Lauds is a subset of Matins consisting of the Kathisma of the Psalter and the Doxology that follow the Canon (a hymn consisting of three to nine Odes, either Biblical Canticles or more commonly, hymns based on those Canticles, unrelated to the Roman Canon, in that it is not a Eucharistic prayer). But that is a minor disagreement, and I am happy to have a 1967 Dominican breviary even though it lacks Prime.


*I should note it is possible the East Syriac monastic rite had it, but it has been defunct since all monasteries of the Assyrian Church of the East closed in the wake of the genocide of Tamerlane in the 12th century, which reduced the Church of the East from being geographically the largest to being limited to the Assyrians of the Fertile Crescent and the Mar Thoma Christians of the Malabar Coast of India, who became isolated and largely estranged from each other. The East Syriac Rite is the only Rite where a Cathedral Rite survived as the main form of the Liturgy of the Hours, celebrating only the offices of Matins, Vespers and Compline.

FreeinChrist said:

Not all officers carried guns. Security officers who manned screening checkpoints do not carry guns. The mob outnumbered the police and security staff. I am still surprised that the officers did not shoot more.

Click to expand...

The tactical team that was there were all armed

DaisyDay said:

What's with the pink splotches?

Click to expand...

I like pink . Good nite

PloverWing said:

Not at all. I thought @Xeno.of.athens had been condemning the Orthodox already, along with Protestants, for the entire 16 screenfuls of this thread. I now believe I may have misunderstood what he was trying to say. See my post immediately above (#307).

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying that. I was really perplexed by your apparent hostility towards a fellow liturgical Christian, given your historic friendliness towards all of us, but it is now evident that this was all a great miscommunication.

rjs330 said:

And yet with all thise gun laws people are still dying from them.

Click to expand...

California has the same problem as places like Chicago and Washington, DC. The guns are coming from outside their borders. Most guns used by criminals in California are coming from states with weaker gun laws. California shares a border with Arizona, which has some of the weakest gun laws in the country. This again is another example of why stronger gun laws at the federal level are needed. If every state was required by law to have the same gun laws California has, the number of gun deaths and incidents of gun violence nationwide would fall significantly.

rjs330 said:

Whats rhe acceptable rate of death from guns? Is it California's rate? What's the unacceptable rate? Is it the national.average?

Click to expand...

There is no acceptible rate, but it's unrealistic to expect stronger gun laws to be a cure for all gun violence.

rjs330 said:

Are we talking strictly gun deaths or are we talking gun homicides?

Click to expand...

Both.

rjs330 said:

If you are serious about ending this then Californias actions are not good enough. You have to ban guns. Thats the only way. Otherwise you have to accept that the killing will go on and rhat you have an acceptable rate in order to hold onto the right to keep and bear arms.

Click to expand...

Gun reform is not an all-or-nothing proposal. Cutting the number of firearm deaths by 10%, 25%, or 50% by imposing stronger gun control measures is better than not taking any action and allowing things to continue on as they are.