A New Dawn said:

No. A crime is an action taken that is against the law.

Click to expand...

True enough. They are codified and defined in law books and in statutes.

A New Dawn said:

A criminal is someone who breaks the law.

Click to expand...

Yup. After that has been proven in a court of law. Until then, the defendant is alleged to have committed a crime, but is presumed innocent until the state can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No one is considered a criminal if they've only been alleged to have committed a criminal act. Just ask Donald Trump.

A New Dawn said:

If someone sets a building on fire, it is a crime whether anyone was hurt or not or whether the criminal was caught or not.

Click to expand...

Sure. The act is defined as a criminal act by statute. It's usually called arson. If someone is accused of committing arson, they are still presumed innocent until guilt is proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

Seriously, this is pretty basic stuff. Watch any cop or lawyer show on TV and you'll figure this out.

A New Dawn said:

A criminal doesn’t follow the law because they are criminals. Innocence in the eyes of the law doesn’t mean they aren’t criminals, it just means they haven’t been caught yet.

Click to expand...

If guilt hasn't been proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt, they are only alleged to be criminals. The are presumed innocent.

A New Dawn said:

Them being caught, indicted and found guilty in court, satisfies the legal justice system, but they are criminals no matter what.

Click to expand...

Tell that to everyone who complained about calling Donald Trump a criminal before his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Heck, there were quite a few who objected to the term convicted felon after he was convicted. They claimed you can't call him a felon until after sentencing. Me, I'm content with conviction.

A New Dawn said:

One of the words that has been redefined is the word crime.

Click to expand...

Nope. Still means what it's always meant.

A New Dawn said:

The left now defines “crime” to mean only actions that harm another person.

Click to expand...

Who says that? While I suppose it's possible some individual made this claim, it isn't a blanket opinion held by everyone on "the left." I was there when all of us on the left met recently, and that was not on the agenda.

A New Dawn said:

If nobody is harmed, then it’s not a crime. To the left. We’ve seen it repeatedly.

Click to expand...

When? Cite specific examples, please.

I know there have been quite a few who made this claim regarding Donald Trump's recent civil fraud guilty verdict, but I don't believe that claim came from "the left." Maybe you have your sources confused.

-- A2SG, double check them and get back to us, mm'kay?

Sabertooth said:

ASD1? Yes, but not ASD2 & 3.*

Click to expand...

Where is your evidence? Your source does not discuss this.

Jamdoc said:

So you're saying God changes His mind?
God only forbid marriage and children in cases like Jeremiah where he'd be going through the siege of Jerusalem, and to some extent it was a mercy.

Click to expand...

You already answered your question there. It's situational.

Just like what Jesus did on the Sabbath. These rules/law's ultimate purpose is to serve a good purpose for people, not the other way around - people serving these laws, rules, commands, etc as if they're absolutes and can never change depending on situation.

AV1611VET said:

Just out of curiosity, was this in science class?

If so, why is science asking for your opinion?

Did you feel pressured to say Pluto was no longer a [full-fledged] planet?

Click to expand...

Yes. It was 5th grade for a writing project or something. I don’t remember the exact details because it was so long ago.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

My guess is Out of sight, out of mind. Apparently most people would benefit from therapy.I hope all the people involved in January 6th. And other acts of violence should have to have therapy.

Click to expand...

Yes, many do. Unfortunately, therapy can be incredibly expensive for some.

This woman needs help, regardless. That’s not a healthy mentality to have. Yikes!

Pommer said:

Part of the gerrymandering problem is the fact that the United States (for whatever reason(s)), fixed the number of representatives in the house at 435. This was originally done over a century ago, and set in stone in 1929, when the population was a mere 121,000,000.

If we (again) tied a representative’s seat to a fixed number of constituents the House would likely swell to a few thousand and most of the gerrymandering problem would melt away.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it would go away.

Let's suppose we were to increase it to 3,000 (you suggest a few thousand). The US population is about 300 million, so that's 1 per 100,000 people. Now let's consider North Carolina. It has a population of 11 million, and its lower house has 120 people. That gives about 90,000 people per representative, which is less than that... which hasn't stopped it from being one of the most gerrymandered states in the country.

The most guaranteed way to end gerrymandering would be to enact proportional representation, at least partially. Obviously, fully proportional representation would instantly end it, but that brings in its own problems (I think there's strong benefits to having geographic-based representation), so it's better to have a legislature be partially proportional and partially district-based. While this leaves gerrymandering as a possibility, it's much harder because if one party tries to gerrymander, voters can just vote for other parties in the proportional part of the vote to kick that party out, and the new ones can change the maps. However, to manage this, you'd need an increase in the house. Which brings us to the next point.

Pommer said:

This isn’t likely to happen unless the salaries & perks of the job were severely reduced…by the very people who would need to vote to make it so.

Still, a boy can dream!

Click to expand...

It's unlikely salaries or perks would need to be reduced. The increased amount of money would be a drop in the bucket compared to US federal spending.

Members of the House of Representatives get $174,000 each year. You suggested a few thousand, but let's go extreme and go for ten thousand (the original goal, back when the country had a much smaller population, was to have 30,000 people per representative, and with a population of about 300 million, you'd need to go that high to match that). That many people would be $1.7 billion per year, and of course there's presumably other expenses to factor in. I'm not sure how much those other expenses would make it, but but let's double it and suppose we're talking $3.4 billion. That is, to be fair, a lot of money. However, the United States government spent $6.8 trillion last year. This means the payment of a House of Representatives with ten thousand people would be about 0.05% of the money the US government spent last year (1/2000th). That's a fairly small percentage.

And that's of course a crazy 10,000 members, which, while having some potential benefits, seems like it could easily lead to a lot of logistical issues (one would have to, at least, build an all new House of Representatives building). A more modest increase to a few thousand, as you suggest, would be less. Supposedly, the House of Representatives building can hold about 1750 people... or, at least, that's what I saw someone say and link to this article, but it's paywalled so I can't verify it. If that is true, it could at least be increased to that (or, if someone wants a more even number, increased to an even 1500). At the very least I see no reason why it can't be increased to 800, which would actually still be less than the House of Lords in the United Kingdom (828), which is the largest chamber of any legislature in the world if you don't count China's largely for-show legislature.

Spiritual Jew said:

First, Revelation 12:10 indicates that, before being cast out of heaven, Satan is accusing believers before God day and night. This implies that when he is cast out of heaven, he can no longer accuse believers before God day and night since he is not allowed entry into heaven any longer.

Click to expand...

I don't think this follows at all. If Satan can accuse believers while in heaven he can also accuse believers outside of heaven. What is apparent to me is that Satan continuously accuses believers, wherever he is. That is who he is--the "accuser of the brethren."

Spiritual Jew said:

So, how do we determine the timing of this event of Satan and his angels being cast out of heaven? By asking the following question. Is Satan accusing us before God in heaven now? The answer is no.

Click to expand...

Of course Satan is still accusing us. The Apostles warned us to avoid condemnation, as it comes from the Evil One.

Spiritual Jew said:

Romans 8:31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Click to expand...

You are now talking about God Himself, who neutralizes the ongoing accusing of the Evil One. Obviously, if we fail to close the door and trust in Christ, the Accuser can still get to us. What Paul is saying is that as long as we remain true to Christ and trust in his protection, no accusation can succeed in knocking us off of our position and Salvation.

Spiritual Jew said:

The next thing to notice about Revelation 12 is that the only children of the woman that are referenced are Jesus Himself (Rev 12:5) and those "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev 12:17), which is a description of born again believers who belong to Christ.

Click to expand...

True. The children of the Woman are referencing those who believe in Christ. But it does not describe who the Woman is. She has 12 stars in her crown, indicating either the 12 tribes or the 12 apostles. I tend to think they represent the 12 Jewish Apostles, indicating that the Woman was Israel who conceived them as spiritual children. The rest of her children would likely be the product of what those apostles accomplished among the nations--the International Church.

Spiritual Jew said:

So, the children of the woman are those who make up the church which has Jesus Christ as its cornerstone (Ephesians 2:19-22). The woman is not national Israel, it is spiritual Israel because her only children are those who are believers.

Click to expand...

National Israel gave birth to the 12 Apostles and to Christ himself. And through their ministry the other children came into being. The Woman is, in my view, Israel. And though she has gone into ages of great tribulation and diaspora, she has produced, via the Apostles, millions of other children--other than Jewish children.

Spiritual Jew said:

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Click to expand...

This is saying that the true children of Israel are the faithful ones who remain true to their God. These refer to Jewish believers--not Gentile believers. This is not redefining "Israel," but rather, pointing out what Israel is intended to become, namely faithful Israelis.

It's sad when Christians try to redefine the "Israel" of the Bible, simply because Israel fell. A good part of the Biblical Prophets' writings were devoting to claiming God's promises to Israel are good and will never be revoked. The "Woman" will, I believe, continue to exist, if only through a Christian remnant today. But the fact the whole nation will be politically restored is on the front pages of our newspapers.

Hentenza said:

Good question. Maybe we should ask George.

Click to expand...

I think it’s my iPhone and not just on here.

Hans Blaster said:

I don't know how.

Beta Pic was imaged in 1983 with a dust disk of the kind where planets were expected to form, and the ESO (remember ESO) imaged a planet in the gap of the disk in 1996.

File:Beta Pictoris system annotated.jpg - Wikipedia

Ongoing star formation (which is easier to detect and where we should find forming planets) has been identified for longer.

My favorite bit of current astronomy is ALMA's ongoing imaging studies of young and forming planetary systems.

Click to expand...

I don’t remember learning much about the solar system beyond elementary.

Last thing I remember was writing an opinion piece on Pluto no longer being a planet in 2006 when I was in 5th grade.

Our universe is endlessly fascinating, for sure.

seeking.IAM said:

There isn't any psych test that can accurately predict if someone is going to become a mass murderer.

Click to expand...

Its not about deciding that. Nearly every mass murderer has a mental illness. So keeping guns away from the mentally ill would be the thing.

seeking.IAM said:

Millions of Americans are on psychotropic drugs and pose no risk. I do think red flag laws have some promise, though, if someone reports someone of concern.

Click to expand...

Millions of Americans pose no risk at all for any reason. Yet we still have lots of gun deaths and it isnt stopping anyone from relying to limit their rights to a gun. What we do know is that the majority of these mass shootings or even self inflicted gun deaths are committed by those who have mental health problems and are often on drugs for the conditions. So, it we are really serious about this, limiting them from having guns will have prevented the majority of these shootings and will prevent a whole host of gun deaths.

essentialsaltes said:

More background and comment.

42 Percent Of The World Is Buying China’s Anti-U.S. Narrative​

Most Americans have probably never heard of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. But 42 percent of the world’s population are members of this Anti-US club. As the organization meets in Tianjin this weekend, Xi and Putin are rehearsing an anti-U.S. narrative to divide the U.S. from important allies and partners. Xi and Putin used the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit to tell a coherent fiction:The U.S. and its allies are “militarizing” the Pacific, cyberspace, and outer space.

Click to expand...

Some more context is important here.

Jill Goldenstein is a law professor at the DoD-funded National Defense University and has been migrating towards a very strong anti-China position for the past five to six years. She's a compelling writer, and very knowledgable on these topics. However, I think that she has deliberately omitted some key and uncomfortable facts in this opinion piece in order to further her narrative.

These sentences for instance are telling in their omissions:

"China and Russia are positioning the organization to play a diplomatic and military role that will counter other international organizations that have been traditionally led by the U.S."
....
U.S. allies and partners are increasingly joining China-led organizations and initiatives.

What's being left unsaid is why this is happening. Yes, China is actively working to increase its influence. And it can be a malign influence (although not from its own perspective).

But the US does exactly the same thing, and is increasingly seen as a malign actor. The US is also actively pulling out of international partnerships and agreements. Further to this, the Trump administration's diplomatic, legal and economic stances are damaging its soft power relationships and undoing ~65 years of international consensus building.

America First is all well and good, but what's happening now is rapidly putting America last everywhere else.

A New Dawn said:

How would Paul know who is a true believer and who isn’t? Do you know things like that?

Click to expand...

I'm talking about who Paul was intending to address regardless of who might read that letter. He was addressing anyone who fit the description of being holy and sharing in the heavenly calling. Do any unbelievers fit that description? Of course not. Is this all you can say in response to what I said? How about actually addressing the points that I made and answering my questions? I'll try again.

Hebrews 3:12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,

How can someone who isn't a true believer depart from God if they have no relationship with God in the first place? Who else would be told to "exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin" except for true believers? That's not something you would say to someone who isn't a true believer. That is a warning to not become "hardened through the deceitfulness of sin", so it's obviously not a warning given to people who are already hardened. Also, verse 14 is not something that would be said to anyone but true believers because it is addressed to those who have steadfast "confidence" in Christ and talks about the need to hold (keep) it "to the end".

A New Dawn said:

How does a dead person humble himself? How does someone who has not been given the gift of the Holy Spirit accomplish spiritual acts? They don’t, and they can’t. Because the gift of the Holy Spirit comes with regeneration.

Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read my post #1066 addressed to Brightfame52. I'll just basically repost what I said there.

Jesus said that sinners are sick, not dead. Nowhere does scripture relate being dead in sins with total inability. Being dead in sins means to be separated from God. That is what death means. Separation. When someone physically dies, their soul and spirit separates from their body.

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

Jesus calls sinners, who He said "are sick" to repentance. Who are sinners? All people (Romans 3:23). So, Jesus calls all people to repentance. You contrast that by claiming that He gives repentance and faith only to certain people while thinking that He is satisfied with leaving everyone else in their lost state and destined for eternal torment with no opportunity to repent and believe and be saved.

A New Dawn said:

The gift he gives us in Ephesians 2 is salvation through faith. It is ALL the same gift.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree. If that was the case then why was Jesus amazed at the great faith of the Roman centurion who asked Him to heal his servant?

Matthew 8:5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.” 7 Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?” 8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

Jesus, being God, would certainly not be amazed by anyone's faith if it was the gift of God. Yet, He was amazed by the centurion's faith. How do you explain that with your understanding of how faith comes about?

A New Dawn said:

He gifts you saving faith through which he saves you (that’s why it’s called saving faith).

Click to expand...

No, it's called saving faith because God requires people to have faith in order to be saved.

Acts 16:30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Without knowing if the jailer was elect/chosen or not, Paul and Silas told him that what he had to do to be saved was "Believe in the Lord Jesus". If faith was given to people then they would have been lying to him because, in that case, they should have said there is nothing he can do to be saved.

A New Dawn said:

Prior to that act of God, we cannot and do not seek God. AFTER that act of God, we diligently seek him for the rest of our lives.

Click to expand...

You are just making things up. Where does scripture teach this? Why does Jesus call sinners to repentance if they supposedly cannot seek God? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). Once someone hears the word of God then they have the choice of pursuing it further and seeking God or not. Nowhere does it say that God has to give someone saving faith before they will seek God. If that was the case, then it makes no sense that He would reward anyone for seeking Him (Hebrews 11:6).

eclipsenow said:

As an Australian concerned for the fate of the world should America get a bit 1930's Germany, I should not expect someone who probably endorsed everything in Project 2025 as "Democracy" to have any concerns in the first place.

Click to expand...

Ah, Project 2025, the boogeyman of Democrats. A document so awful that... they have to actually make up stuff about it to attack it.

Now, I sure haven't read much of the thing; it's obscenely long. Maybe there's some absolutely horrible stuff in it. But I can't help but notice that people make all kinds of claims about it that... aren't true. Now, if Project 2025 was so awful and so extreme, why don't people actually point to the horrible and extreme things in it instead of making stuff up about it?

At the Democratic National Convention, they had comedian Keenan Thompson do a presentation about how bad it was... except as is well explained in this article, the stuff he presented was mostly misrepresented:

So I'm left again with the question: If it's so awful, where is the awfulness? Yeah, there's a whole lot of stuff there that a liberal or Democrat would object to, given it's bunch of policy suggestions by conservatives, but the dramatic claims people make just don't seem to hold up.

Of course, now you have liberals or Democrats make up big lists of stuff that is in Project 2025 that Trump is doing to prove that Trump was totally into it despite him saying he wasn't... except now they're (much more commonly) talking about the stuff that's actually in it, rather than the exaggerations made formerly. More importantly, a Republican president is always going to have some crossover with the suggestions of other Republicans. As was well pointed out here (same author as above):

This gives us a fairly simple heuristic you can use to see whether it’s even plausible that Trump got one of his ideas from Project 2025:

1. Did he do it in his last term, before Project 2025 existed? If yes, then it obviously didn’t come from Project 2025.
2. Did he actively campaign on it in 2024, the same campaign where he repudiated Project 2025? If yes, then it obviously wasn’t a secret he foisted on an unsuspecting public, and he probably didn’t get the idea from Project 2025 at all!

When you go through the 37 executive orders Politico cites as “evidence” that Trump was lying on the campaign trail, this simple heuristic eliminates 35 of them.

What's funny is--and this is also noted in the article--it looks to me like the things people complain the most about Trump's actions (including the ones you go on to complain about) are things that aren't even in Project 2025, or that Project 2025 suggested a far more measured version of.

Spiritual Jew said:

No, but that is irrelevant. The author of Hebrews (probably Paul) was addressing people who he knew were true believers. That's why he called them "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" (Hebrews 3:1). You are trying to do anything you can to deny what is clearly taught in Hebrews 3:12-14, which is that true believers are warned not to turn away from God.

Hebrews 3:12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but [b]exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,

How can someone who isn't a true believer depart from God if they have no relationship with God in the first place? Who else would be told to "exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin" except for true believers? That's not something you would say to someone who isn't a true believer. That is a warning to not become "hardened through the deceitfulness of sin", so it's obviously not a warning given to people who are already hardened. Also, verse 14 is not something that would be said to anyone but true believers because it is addressed to those who have steadfast "confidence" in Christ and talks about the need to hold (keep) it "to the end".

Click to expand...

How would Paul know who is a true believer and who isn’t? Do you know things like that?

Spiritual Jew said:

This is absolutely false. Show me where scripture teaches what you're saying. You can't do it.

The jailer asked Paul and Silas what he had to do to be saved (Acts 16:30-31) and they didn't answer by saying "Nothing". Nowhere does scripture teach that faith is one of the kind of works that Paul was talking about when he said that faith is not by works in Ephesians 2:8-9. He contrasted faith with works in that passage, so believing that we must use free will to choose to have faith and trust in Christ in order to be saved is NOT a works-based salvation.


You are rightly concerned about anyone believing that they can take credit and boast of playing a part in saving themselves, but my view is that everyone must choose to humble themselves and admit that they can't save themselves and need Jesus to save them instead. Where is boasting in that? Nowhere. I don't know for sure if what I'm describing lines up with Arminianism or not, but you certainly don't have to be a Calvinist in order to have a doctrine that removes the possibility of boasting about one's own salvation.

Click to expand...

How does a dead person humble himself? How does someone who has not been given the gift of the Holy Spirit accomplish spiritual acts? They don’t, and they can’t. Because the gift of the Holy Spirit comes with regeneration.

Spiritual Jew said:

You showed scripture from Romans 3 saying that no one seeks God and acted as if no one ever seeks God, yet Hebrews 11:6 says that God rewards those who diligently seek Him. So, I wanted to know how you reconcile the two verses. That should have been obvious.


Nope. That is not what Ephesians 2:8-9 says. The gift God gives us is salvation which is by His grace through our faith in Christ. The gift of God being salvation lines up with Romans 6:23 saying that the gift of God is eternal life. Not faith. Faith/believing is something that we are responsible to do. When the jailer asked Paul and Silas what he had to do to be saved they didn't say "Nothing" and that God is the One who does it all. They said he had to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. God does not do that for us.


Why does our faith please Him and why does He reward people for seeking Him if it's not our faith and seeking Him isn't in our own volition? That makes no sense. If He is the one who gives us faith and He is the one who causes us to seek Him, shouldn't He be pleased with Himself and reward Himself instead?

Why was Jesus amazed at the great faith of the Roman centurion who asked Him to heal his servant if faith is given to people by God?

Matthew 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, 6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. 7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. 8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. 9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. 10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Jesus is God. Was He amazed at the faith that He supposedly (according to your doctrine) gave the centurion? That certainly would not make any sense. The only way it would make sense for Jesus to have been amazed at the great faith of the centurion is if the centurion willingly chose to put his faith in Him.

Click to expand...

The gift he gives us in Ephesians 2 is salvation through faith. It is ALL the same gift. He gifts you saving faith through which he saves you (that’s why it’s called saving faith). Prior to that act of God, we cannot and do not seek God. AFTER that act of God, we diligently seek him for the rest of our lives.

Dan Perez said:

And you got , one out of two !!

And 1 Cor 1:22-24 , says the Jews always seek SIGNS , BUT Greeks // HELLENS are always seeking Wisdom

dan p

Click to expand...

In Paul’s usage, sophía here is most likely shorthand for the intellectual traditions and philosophical inquiry of the Greek world. Greeks look for reasoned, elegant explanations--philosophical wisdom that accords with human reason. “Wisdom” (sophía) in this verse carries the sense of “philosophical reasoning” or “intellectual system,” not just everyday common sense.

There was no logical argument as the Greeks understood logic to explain how crucifixion equals victory.

The Liturgist said:

I would assume and hope that Lutheran anti-enthusiasm is more about opposition to, for example, the Charismatic movement and those who define their faith by signs and wonders rather than testing every spirit, than about downplaying those miracles which do occur.

Click to expand...

Enthusiasm doesn't relate, per se, to anything miraculous. Enthusiasm, in its original sense meaning "god-within" is the notion that experience of God is purely immediate (literally, as in without mediation); the Lutheran confession is our experience of God is mediated through Word and Sacrament, through the Church; because Christ our Mediator is here with us in His Church, in Word and Sacrament.

A classic example Enthusiasm from the Reformation era would be Thomas Müntzer/Müntzerism. Essentially, the idea that I have direct, personal access to God through my own interior experience of God entirely apart from Scripture, apart from the preaching of the word, apart from the Sacraments--through immediate revelation and experience. One does not, properly, need Scripture, or need the external operations of the Church's ministry--one need only have direct immediate experience of God. Thus personal revelation through dreams or visions were equal, or even superior, to Scripture.

Where the miraculous comes into play here is the idea that alleged miracles, or "signs and wonders" provide evidence of doctrinal or theological truths entirely apart from the received faith. That is, to say that I can reject solid biblical exposition and teaching and the received confession of faith because "such and such" miracle, or sign, or wonder "proves" the "truth" of the alternative. This is precisely why, we Lutherans, would insist on why it is so important to test the spirits. It's also why Luther went so far as to say that if something claims to be God or from God, but is apart from God's own Self-giving of Himself in Word and Sacrament, then it's not God at all, but the devil. God would never lead us away from Word and Sacrament to something else, they are His precious Means of Grace, He is there, present in these Gifts for us. So a miracle that denies the truth is no miracle at all, but can only ever be a charlatan's trick or a diabolical delusion. What my Orthodox brethren would identify with prelest.

-CrypptoLutheran

She's awaiting trial, so the charges weren't dropped. OP falsely implies she was let off.

prudent_commenter said:

That was an interesting read. I believe it is true. But I think this maturity is something that we do. Your actions determine whether you are ready for maturity or not. And, they determine whether or not you need to be mature. What happens if you live your life in a manner where maturity is not required? Remain a child, with child-like innocence for the rest of your life? I wonder if this would preserve it.

Click to expand...

personally i don't believe God intended me to remain in a child like mental state, but that is what happened between age 8 and age 30 and a lot of harm came of it.

if it works for you, i will not be offended.