rambot said:

No. I mean while that may be true or not, that isn't what that poster was referring to.
At least that's not what I took.

His response to you started with "certainly not".

I believe he said that truth is just what it is and is harder to swallow. Falsehoods are usually presented very conveniently and convincingly but without substantive truth in it. That makes them easier to take.

Could be wrong but...

Click to expand...

You are correct.

Have you heard the saying, "Truth is stranger than fiction?"

That's because fiction (which is false), to be accepted, must be acceptable, it must be what people want to see and hear, it must be familiar, it must be comfortable. Fiction must make sense to the mind of the audience. Truth is what it is, and it may be far outside what people are comfortable with or accustomed to.

Fervent said:

The fact that you get upset at my acceptance of faith is evidence in and of itself.

Click to expand...

I am a woman of faith. But I also know that faith is not evidence of anything. People can and do place their faith in things that are not true, and may even be dangerous.

Fervent said:

If atheism is true, why is there any issue with me choosing to believe in things because I want them to be true?

Click to expand...

Because desire doesn't alter reality. I greatly desire that the world were just. But, it's not true. My desire didn't make it true.

Fervent said:

Why should I care about silly little things like what can be proven, when at the end of the day it really makes no difference?

Click to expand...

It depends. Make a difference for what? It makes no difference whether a story is true or fiction when it comes to learning its moral lesson. But it makes a very great difference whether a gun is actually loaded with bullets when it comes to me getting shot or not.

Generally speaking, I would put religious beliefs into the first category, and I would say it is a flaw in atheist thinking not to recognize that. But they are not without their point.

CS Lewis said we need our skeptics, because they keep us honest.

Fervent said:

If faith improves my life, why would I not embrace faith? To be left with existential angst in an uncaring universe for my short miserable life? You cite ethics, but you have no basis for any sort of ethical high horse since in your view it can only be a matter of personal preference with no reason to abide by ethical principles so long as they aren't convenient.

Click to expand...

There is a lot to be said for what WORKS. Religious community WORKS. It's a very dangerous thing for atheists to call for the abolition of religion when they have nothing that can substitute.

I would also ADD that there is a lot to be said for what is adaptive. There is a REASON that the instinct towards religion evolved.

Servus said:

Have you looked?

Click to expand...

Is that how you found it? By looking for it?

rambot said:

Really? I see none

Click to expand...

Please keep in mind social media is designed to feed us what we want to see. It’s a curated reality.

Servus said:

Immediately after the assassination Dowd said on-air, "He's been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions."

Dowd along with scores of others broke the 'too soon' rule in the worst way possible.

Click to expand...

Right but I guess joking about killing homeless people is never “too soon”.

Painting everyone as either Left or right is how we got here. Sure, it is easy and doesn’t require consideration of complexities or nuances, but have we really been dumbed down to seeing everything in simple duality?

“Us vs them” I say no. But “we”. It turns out the shooter was from a Republican family ethos. How is that? What happened?

Servus said:

The left has gone from cheering to panic mode. Now they're all over social media crying instead of laughing.

Click to expand...

Really? I see none

Servus said:

There's still Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, Benny Johnson, Erika Kirk and others. Candace Owens who's just as good at debating, and has done a lot of the same kind of college debates, was a very close friend of and worked extensively with Charlie Kirk. They've all been saying that they'll all keep Charlie Kirk's legacy going full force.

Click to expand...

I hope they keep Candace Owens out of TPUSA. She has made some terrible comments about Jews lately and I don’t care for her anymore

Hvizsgyak said:

Unfortunately, this is where it all began. We as a society started recognizing immoral practices as normal everyday things. Instead of saying, "hey Betty, you can't marry a person of the same sex, it's immoral" or "hey Louis, you can't be a girl, it's immoral" or "hey Susie, just remember you aren't really a fox, you can pretend to be one at home but when you go outside, act like the adult that you are", we say to our children, "oh, that is so cute". Children need to know the boundaries, and they need to be re-enforced by explaining it you the child. Will they always listen, probably not but you can't give in and think it not going to harm them. You might have a child who can't process right from wrong properly and being allowed to continue to seriously entertain the immoral thought only strengthens their belief that it is okay. By dealing with it when they are young, sets the boundaries for them later in life.

Click to expand...

What makes something good and another thing evil? And don't say, "God says so," because that just begs the question: WHY does God consider some things right and other things wrong? I mean, I'm assuming its not random, that God's not flipping a coin to make the moral rules of the universe. What is the guiding principle?

When you can answer that, you will understand why so many, including many Christians, no longer see things like LGBTQ as sinful, and don't freak out if someone identifies closely with a particular animal.

chevyontheriver said:

Huh? Where did THAT come from?

Click to expand...

Just my hyperbolic style. If it's getting too annoying - I'll try to reign it it. I was just making the point that you seemed relaxed about gerrymandering always being a thing. I'm not relaxed about America's democratic decline at all! Gerrymandering is just one of the many things that had to go wrong for various agencies that monitor the global democracy index to rate America "Flawed".

chevyontheriver said:

You found a new favorite rating system? One that confirms to you the American descent into Fascism? Well, cool for you.

Click to expand...

The Economist Intelligence Unit is not new, exactly - but is young. It's about 20 years old.





V-Dem - a large global democracy watch group - also gives America a similar score.


https://v-dem.net/documents/61/v-dem-dr__2025_lowres_v2.pdf

chevyontheriver said:

Redistricting goes on based on the census that happens every ten years. Gerrymandering happens when the party in charge decides to game the system like the Democrats have been doing in Illinois for a long long time. They do it in a lot of states. So do Republicans where they can. This year, last year, next year hardly matters. It just happens whenever the partisans can do it.

Click to expand...

This year matters because I'm asking about this year. Texas started it, so California replies - and MAGA screams "That's not fair! Don't do what we're doing!" I mean - huh?

chevyontheriver said:

Are you implying that no districts in California have ever been gerrymandered before?

Click to expand...

Of course not - but at least California took a step away from Gerrymandering in 2008 by creating a fully Independent (not just advisory!) electoral Commission! I have run out of blogging time today - but I started to research how many states already had Independent Commissions and apparently it's only 7 to 10. I asked AI which party had been in power to create Commissions and it said 4 Democratic controlled States vs 3 Republicans. So it's hardly definitive out of a sample of only 7 before I can cheer on the Democrats as having the edge! Again - I've run out of time.

chevyontheriver said:

Where did I say I was for compulsory voting?

Click to expand...

You didn't - I was being cheeky.

chevyontheriver said:

I'm not for that at all. Electoral decisions controlled by the apathetic? Sounds like a recipe for disaster too.

Click to expand...

Sometimes - but the political dialogue in Australia is calmer than in the USA. (But "The Social Dilemma" is happening here as well. See the doco on Netflix.)

chevyontheriver said:

I'm much more in favor of Jefferson's idea that there needs to be a revolution now and again to clear out the reigning special interests.

Click to expand...

Well - then depending on what that means - maybe we agree. What would that revolution look like in your mind? What would prevent them creeping back in straight after? Gerrymandering started within a few decades of the USA being founded!

chevyontheriver said:

I have seen this sort of work in jury selection for criminal trials. It might have some use in city councils or legislatures. Or it might lead to even less competence in government.

Click to expand...

That discussion is being had right now over here. Indeed - I can't win. The very person who lamented the loss of 'professional politicians' - and opening the parliament to the uneducated rubes - then accused me of trying to set up a technocracy when I replied that maybe we could set an educational requirement on the Sortition pool?

loveofourlord said:

just a few things, for therians many see it as more spiritual more akin to a different type of wicca/shamanism or even reincarnation, that they have the soul of the animal, others realize there might be a psychological part to it. And then like any internet thing there are all the fakers/fadders and so on.

Click to expand...

Yeap. We are not talking about furries, or little kids running around pretending they are horses. It is not uncommon for a person to believe they have a special, even spiritual, relationship with a certain animal. I don't find this threatening in the slightest.

I'm not pagan or an animist. But I can relate a little. It is not uncommon for me to have a dream in which I am visited by four creatures. One is always some kind of wild cat, and this is the one who plays the greatest role. One is always a tropical bird. One is always a beautiful tropical fish. And there are always, always ants. I always seem to get this dream just before something major (and often not so great) happens. I think there must be something in my unconscious mind that intuits this change is coming. I have always felt that these animals enter my dreams to give me strength for what is to come, kind of like angels.

That's only a shadow of what we are discussing, but it's enough that I can relate.

JosephZ said:

Why not? Muslims do.

Click to expand...

How could he be the model for all of humanity if he has to be whitewashed through claiming he is a product of historical circumstance?

Hvizsgyak said:

Look, I know you mean well by pointing out these things. I'm a minimalist type of guy (short attention span). I use the least amount of words to get my point across believing the reader is smart enough to fill in the blanks of what I write. Yes, I know there isn't a "toxic hate" label for movies, tv shows and music. What should have been a given so I wouldn't have to write all these words is that the movies, tv shows and music have labels telling people what the content contains such as violence, foul language, nudity, smoking... I really believed people reading this post would understand the connection.

Click to expand...

I got the connection, which would be why I also said: “With websites, especially social media, the type of content that could be on the site and the steps to moderate that all exist in the terms of service. Besides which, websites clearly fall under what’s called “inherent risk.”

Hvizsgyak said:

I still feel that a label on the website by a third party would be the best way to get these websites to tone down their inflammatory killing rhetoric. And that goes for both liberals, conservatives, left leaning, right leaning, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, humanists, atheists, gorgons, Klingons...

Click to expand...

You mean like a “terms of service?” Or a “user agreement?” Like this:







Those all clearly state that despite varying efforts on their part, you’re going to see things you might be offended by and you accept that risk by joining.

So please next time you read something of mind just realize a lot is implied because I dislike typing a lot. I lose track of my point and what I'm trying to say .

Click to expand...

If something you say isn’t communicated because you didn’t want to be bothered with typing, it’s not my job to try and infer your secret meaning. It’s up to you to clearly express and explain it. That’s what one does on a forum.

Especially in this scenario where I did infer what you said just fine and your attempt to patronize me is entirely your fault at not reading what I wrote beyond the first sentence… And again, making sure you read a post completely is not something I’m responsible for.

God is good to me all the time. Every good and perfect gift is from above! I became a Christian; I was in my thirties.

Fervent said:

We can't view it through a historical lens,

Click to expand...

Why not? Muslims do.

Desk trauma said:

Cricket is a century spanning snipe hunt like con the British created to confuse the colonials who then joined in pretending along with the Brits that any part of that field based farce make any sense to the human mind.

Click to expand...

It's a simple game:

• You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
• Each man that’s in the side that’s in the field goes out and when he’s out comes in and the next man goes in until he’s out.
• When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.
• When they are all out, the side that’s out comes in and the side that’s been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.
• Sometimes there are men still in and not out.
• There are men called umpires who stay out all the time, and they decide when the men who are in are out.
• Depending on the weather and the light, the umpires can also send everybody in, no matter whether they’re in or out.
• When both sides have been in and all the men are out (including those who are not out), then the game is finished.

Gregory Thompson said:

On further reflection, it's not a scary verse since the long ending in the gospel of Mark is not taken seriously. So it might just be the wrong way to read it.

.. that is if you find it scary.

It's not like I won't be saved if I don't speak in tongues or don't go "bottom's up" to snake venom and survive. (What? are you a coward, just drink the cool-aid)

Click to expand...

You’re right that the longer ending of Mark is disputed, and we shouldn’t build doctrine on a text of uncertain authenticity. But the call to proclaim the Gospel is not dependent on Mark 16:15, it’s repeated throughout the most reliable parts of the New Testament.
-Matthew 28:19–20: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…”
-Luke 24:47: “…repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations…”
-John 20:21: “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
-Acts 1:8: “You will be my witnesses… to the end of the earth.”

So even without Mark 16, the Great Commission is clear and binding. Revelation 21:8’s warning about the cowardly isn’t removed by textual questions about Mark. Christ has commanded us to be His witnesses, and shrinking back from that out of fear is exactly what cowardice looks like.

Gregory Thompson said:

The fruit of the spirit is the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

This is relevant, because prior to this verse, a similar saying as in the OP is said, "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and sorcery; hatred, discord, jealousy, and rage; rivalries, divisions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

So I don't get how acting like a street preacher who is displaying the opposite of the fruit of the Holy Spirit is the answer.

Perhaps this would help address some of the cop out answers in the poll. Which are really saying, I don't really want to discuss this.

Click to expand...

The fruit of the Spirit is critical, and that any form of evangelism done in anger, pride, or selfishness would contradict it. No one is advocating acting contrary to the Spirit when sharing the Gospel. True proclamation comes from love, gentleness, and self-control, it is never about being aggressive or rude.
-So, do not be like some street preachers who yell out, "You are all condemned!!" That would be dumb.
Being bold in speaking the Gospel does not mean abandoning the fruit of the Spirit; it means trusting God to work through our words, even when there is rejection or resistance, while maintaining a Christlike character. Paul himself warned against doing things in a way that would cause offence, yet he boldly proclaimed the truth wherever he went (Acts 20:20, 1 Corinthians 2:4).

So, it’s not a matter of “acting like a street preacher” in a negative sense, but of courageously sharing the message of Christ while demonstrating the love, patience, and gentleness that the Spirit produces in us. Boldness and fruitfulness go hand in hand when we rely on the Holy Spirit.

Also, I am not advocating that everyone be a street preacher. But all should want to share the Gospel to those they know.

Here is a great place to learn how to share the Gospel, both by street evangelism and also simply one to one evangelism with friends.
Here is a playlist with many 1 to 1 conversations that are some of the very best I have heard. There are also vids with street preaching as well.
Login to view embedded media

JosephZ said:

Muhammad was undoubtedly a warrior.

Click to expand...

Not just a warrior, a warlord

JosephZ said:

Can you provide a few examples that show the opposite of what is moral besides the one you already gave?

Click to expand...

The torturing of Kinana, the beheading of the majority of the Meccan leaders and the acceptance of the head of Mecca's conversion at the threat of beheading, the betrayal of the Medina jews by abrogating the treaty he had with them, the renunciation of his adopted son so he could marry his wife...I could go on.

JosephZ said:

Again, you have to view Islamic texts through a historical lens. Sexual use of slaves acquired through warfare was a widespread practice among all cultures in the 7th century, even in the Christian Byzantine Empire, where Roman law was followed. What we see as unacceptable today was the cultural norm then.

Click to expand...

We can't view it through a historical lens, because the koran and sunnah are meant to be timeless truths with Muhammad as the best of humanity. The way he and his compatriots behaved is supposed to be the pinnacle of humanity. What they engaged in is meant to be the gold standard, so claiming thats just how things were historically doesn't wash.

ThatRobGuy said:

Myself being a keen observer of double-standards (and quick to point them out)...

There are some major contextual differences.

The most glaring one being, people weren't just inundated with what's tantamount to a snuff film of a homeless guy with a gallon of blood gushing out of his neck while his body twitches. One is a terrible comment that only exists in the hypothetical (and was in all likelihood a tone-deaf attempt at dark humor), the other was something that millions of people just saw with their own eyes (and that probably made them sick to their stomach)

The other one being, the comments about Kirk haven't been as tame as "he said some no-so-great things", they've occupied the spectrum of
"He was hateful, so haha, I'm glad it happened" to "well, he did say some things that made people really mad, so this is partially his own fault".

Click to expand...

It’s just strictly comparing Killmead to the reaction Matthew Dowd got. Both media figures. Both said insensitive things. Dowd did not saying anything even close to “he was hateful so he deserved it.” Only one lost his job.

Clare73 said:

In the apostolic teaching (1 Co 15:25, 28)

Click to expand...

You missed verse 27
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things
are put under him,[it is manifest that he is excepted], which did put
all things under him.

Christ has not put everything under him yet, like in verses
Revelation 2:27, Revelation 12:5, Psalm 2:9, Revelation 20:3-8

After the 1000 year reign on this physical earth-

28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the
Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him,
that God may be all in all.
x

Matthew 25:31 (KJV)
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels
with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:"

Do you believe the old testament?

"And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom
under the whole heaven[not in heaven], shall be given to the people
of the saints of the most High …” Daniel 7:24, 27

Daniel 7:18 (KJV)
But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom,
and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

Daniel 7:22 (KJV)
until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints
of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Daniel 7:27 (KJV)
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom
under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of
the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all
dominions shall serve and obey him.

Sir Joseph said:

Plus, if God really did extinguish all of the bad people in the world, using his moral standard, we'd all be gone.

Click to expand...

I totally reject this all or nothing thinking. While none of us is perfect, there ARE a few extremely good people, so good that you sit up and take notice, a few really evil people who do an enormous amount of evil, and a whole awful lot of mediocre people in the middle.

According to Proverbs, it's not perfection that makes us righteous, but our willingness to repent. Repentance restores us to righteousness:
Proverbs 24:16 For a righteous man may fall seven times and rise again

jacorian said:

Alright is there anyone out there with some depth of knowledge b/c of this question: why does God let good people die?

Click to expand...

All living things die, because this is how the universe stays in a constant state of renewal. Imagine a static universe where nothing ever changes. Its like a photograph that just sits there. Compare the photo to a movie. Which do you prefer for your universe?

jacorian said:

Meaning if you look back over the history of humankind, from the apostles to the saints, to religious preachers, to well-meaning leaders or icons, they're always gunned down.

Click to expand...

Have you ever noticed that there is a certain subset of people who hate goodness? They LIKE being mediocre and selfish. When they meet someone who is altruistic, they are driven to bring that person down. Why? Because the existence of a loving person reveals their lie that everyone is mediocre and they are just fine. Their excuse has always been, "Hey, everyone does it. Why should I be any different?" You can see how someone who "doesn't do it" would threaten that.

jacorian said:

This makes it hard to poke the darkness with rays of light.

Click to expand...

It only takes a small candle to shine enough light to walk the room.

jacorian said:

It appears to me that Satan is winning. Just listened to this query on Utube given by an atheist & of course the comeback line is there is no God. We see the big loss not only that the voice is shut down & a family is left with burdens now but this was a source of hope against the evil in this world.

Click to expand...

There is a book you may be interested in called, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker. The light IS winning. The change is happening at glacial pace. It's like watching a clock and you don't see it move. But come back later, and it is changed. If the only thing you examine is the last century, you aren't going to see a change. But if you compare the world today to the way it was a thousand years ago, hey, yeah, there is less violence.

From Peter, Paul, and Mary's Chanukah classic, "Don't Let the Light Go Out"

… Light one candle for the strength that we need
To never become our own foe
And light one candle for those who are suff'ring
Pain we learned so long ago
… Light one candle for all we believe in
Let anger not tear us apart!
Light one candle to bind us together
With peace as the song in our heart
… Don't let the light go out!
It's lasted for so many years!
Don't let the light go out!
Let it shine through our love and our tears

Servus said:

If it's a political goldmine, that's due to the huge outpouring of glee from the left over what happened. Their deluge of atrocious statements. They involved themselves in the assassination, in the worst way possible.

Click to expand...

Worse than the assassination itself, I’m sure.

Fervent said:

.He wasn't just a warrior, he was a warlord.

Click to expand...

Muhammad was undoubtedly a warrior.

Fervent said:

And with the hadith every time a moral situation crops up, his advice is the opposite of what is moral.

Click to expand...

Can you provide a few examples that you believe show the opposite of what is moral besides the one you already gave?

Fervent said:

As an example is the case where his warriors wanted to r*pe their captives, but some hesitated because many of the women they had captured were married. Then an ayat was "revealed" to him saying that slave women were fair game even if they were married.

Click to expand...

Again, you have to view Islamic texts through a historical lens. Sexual use of slaves acquired through warfare was a widespread practice among all cultures in the 7th century, even in the Christian Byzantine Empire, where Roman law was followed. What we see as unacceptable today was the cultural norm then.

I assume this is what you are refering to:

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1456a
In-book reference: Book 17, Hadith 41
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 8, Hadith 3432

Chapter: It is permissible to have intercourse with a female captive after it is established that she is not pregnant, and if she has a husband, then her marriage is annulled when she is captured.

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:

" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).


Roman law allowed sexual relationships with slaves without consent, waiting periods, or consequences, unlike Islamic law, which required accountability. In the case of the hadith above, a waiting period was required to prevent acts of adultery and to ensure that the woman was not already pregnant to prevent any confusion over lineage. The child of a slave woman would be born free from slavery and could have inheritance rights of the father if the woman wasn't already pregnant at the time of capture. Under Roman law at the time, adultery wasn't considered a factor, and a child born of a slave had no rights and became a slave regardless of who the father is.

Servus said:

Charlie Kirk's assassination was politically charged. Lot's of those millions publicity thanked and praised the assassin on social media. There's no escape from that for the left. No matter how much they try to gaslight and deflect.

Click to expand...

Yeah I get there’s no escaping the broad brush you wish to paint with but my question is doing you think it helps? I get it probably feels good right now, it looks like it does, but do you think you’re going bring the country together like this or do you not care to?