Latest activity

RocksInMyHead · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
What we are seeing might be the reason to make a fundamental change so that there is some limit to any ideology controlling all three. The executive branch does not admit a diversity of ideological positions like the other two can. Whoever has the office of President controls the whole branch. Maybe that's where we need to mix it up. And, perhaps, the way we choose judges needs to change.

Perhaps - but effecting that level of change requires the cooperation of the government. Which isn't happening.

Or revolution.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
That's not what I'm talking about.

It actually is. You want to protect this couple from the consequences of their actions by making them feel less bad. Why should infidelity be treated lightly? Why do you have more to say about the reaction to this couple than what the couple themselves have done?

Hentenza · Jul 20, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Which doesn't say that Real ID is proof of citizenship. All RealID actually proves is lawful residency.

I know you dont have a comprehension problem but if you have to show a birth certificate from a US state, territory, or the District of Columbia or an unexpired passport then that would show your citizenship. Does it not?

Hentenza · Jul 20, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
An emotional response to the suffering of millions is not only acceptable, but is an indication of having a healthy moral compass. What does it mean when we look at evil and suffering in the world, and our response is ?

The problem with the left is that everything becomes a political drama. I would suggest that you look beyond the liberal media and rely on facts rather than emotional circular logic and fallacies.

Pommer · Jul 20, 2025

Careyap87 said:
I'm a Trump supporter I never hate his EO he signs.

Great, then you agree with President Trump that just because a person is born in the United States that that event doesn’t automatically confer citizenship upon that person, right?

Hentenza · Jul 20, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
So are you admitting that everyone born on US soil is a automatically a citizen? That would put you at odds with what this administration has been saying.

-CryptoLutheran

There is a comprehension problem here. Never did I said that. I merely posted what documents are required to get a real id in Texas. Not only that but if you have to present a passport then it would define WHICH country you came from not just American citizenship. I sense a hostile tone from you since the other thread that we talked.

Richard T · Jul 20, 2025

Fantine said:
How about ending tax breaks for millionaires and setting up matching funds from the federal government. For every dollar donated to Catholic Charities, for example, the government matches that 100% or even 50%. The government needs to have skin in the game because they have the deepest pockets.

the Heritage Foundation, architects of Project 2025?
I consider the plan to be Machiavellian, subverting our Constitution and form of government.
Climate change is responsible for most of the famines in equatorial Africa. Forest fires. Floods.
Starvation. Displacement.
I'll stick with clean energy instead of listening to a foundation in big oils pockets.

Your idea if truth is based on the source without greater investigation? The idea that corn ethanol gas and biofuels starve others is well documented. Here it is from the ny times

How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor

Print

By C. FORD RUNGE AND BENJAMIN SENAUER
Published: May 7, 2007

How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor - New York Times

Summary: Thanks to high oil prices and hefty subsidies, corn-based ethanol is now all the rage in the United States. But it takes so much supply to keep ethanol production going that the price of corn -- and those of other food staples -- is shooting up around the world. To stop this trend, and...

archive.nytimes.com

Fantine said:
How about ending tax breaks for millionaires and setting up matching funds from the federal government. For every dollar donated to Catholic Charities, for example, the government matches that 100% or even 50%. The government needs to have skin in the game because they have the deepest pockets.

the Heritage Foundation, architects of Project 2025?
I consider the plan to be Machiavellian, subverting our Constitution and form of government.
Climate change is responsible for most of the famines in equatorial Africa. Forest fires. Floods.
Starvation. Displacement.
I'll stick with clean energy instead of listening to a foundation in big oils pocketsi

I

The Barbarian · Jul 20, 2025

Fervent said:
Evolution is incidental, the issue is that fundamentalists on both sides insist that Christianity cannot accomodate an evolutionary account. So when faced with the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution, they figure it demonstrates Christianity is false. So complaining about evolution because it conflicts with your interpretation increases the likelihood that people will walk away from the faith on the basis of the strength of the evidence for evolution. There are many of us who are able to accomodate evolution while remaining Christian, so the problem is the false dilemma that fundamentalists present.

Today's winner.

Pommer · Jul 20, 2025

eclipsenow said:
E: Said of his own MAGA base asking these questions - "Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don’t even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don’t want their support anymore!"

F: ALL OF THE ABOVE!
30 seconds thinking time...
...
...
...
...
ANSWER:
The correct answer is E - all of the above!

Which is it, E or F?

RocksInMyHead · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
I want to say some serious restraints need to be placed on the executive branch. Congress has the purse strings but the way its dispersed seems to depend on the executive branch. Maybe that's the problem?

The problem is that the current edition of government is fully captured (all three branches) by people in ideological agreement with each other. This means that the restraints placed on the various branches of government are largely irrelevant. I don't know how you deal with that without fundamentally changing the way our government works.

public hermit said:
I still wonder about institutions like Harvard that have huge endowments. I take it, much of the funding they receive is tied to research and not necessarily every day operations.

Correct - when universities receive grants from the government, in most cases, those grants are actually given to researchers working at the institution. The university itself generally takes a cut of the grant money to support the ancillary operations around the researcher/research group, but the grant itself goes to the researcher to fund their work.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
It's one thing for a person to feel shame for what they have done. It's another for for those who rely on grace to pile on shame. That's my point. You seem fine with that. I disagree. You can save the rest of your questions for someone who needs an interlocutor.

I am fine with people who do shameful things feeling shame. You are too for certain sins. Just not infidelity.

Say it aint so · Jul 20, 2025

ozso said:
At the end of that you finally got to my question, but didn't really answer it.

The answer is the DOJ in normal presidencies is not the presidents consigliere.

JimR-OCDS · Jul 20, 2025

Well, it seems we're talking past each other.

That being said, I need a break from this forum.

So, God Bless!

HIM · Jul 20, 2025

bbbbbbb said:
There are many professing Christians who hold to a synergistic view in which God does His part in salvation and we are required to do our part.

I don’t believe there is one poster here posting here that does not agree with this quote

HIM said:
I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ. By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: For The just shall live by faith. And this faith establishes the Law and speaks on this wise, say not in your heart who shall ascend up into heaven, that is bring Christ down from above or up from the deep. But what sayeth it? The word is nigh thee. In thy mouth and in thy heart. THAT IS the word of faith in which we preach. As God had said, A new covenant I will make with you. I will put my Laws in your hearts and in your minds I will write them. I will give unto to you a new spirit. For it is I who works in you both to will and do my good pleasure.

Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down [from above]
Rom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Richard T · Jul 20, 2025

Skipper80 said:
You attribute success to being aligned to the will of god. Is being rich and wealthy a sign of being aligned to God's will?

Another question is: how does one know they are not acting on emotional inclination rather than hearing the will of God?
I don't think God reveals Himself through personal experience. If someone believes that, then they are saying that the Bible is not sufficient to understand God. God has revealed Himself sufficiently throughout the Bible. To say otherwise is heresy.

Heresy? Seems extreme to suggest that.

Skipper80 said:
You attribute success to being aligned to the will of god. Is being rich and wealthy a sign of being aligned to God's will?

Another question is: how does one know they are not acting on emotional inclination rather than hearing the will of God?
I don't think God reveals Himself through personal experience. If someone believes that, then they are saying that the Bible is not sufficient to understand God. God has revealed Himself sufficiently throughout the Bible. To say otherwise is heresy.

Success in God to me is defined by the amount if love and compassion that you can show to others. In other words you increse in being like Jesus. Lots of sinners are rich and wealthy.
But yes God does give personal exoeriences. One i failed to touch on is the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Here the Holy Spirit may point out personal wrongoing. Sins and specific instances of unforgiveness or judgment. Calling into the ministry too is personal revelation. "The human spirit is the lamp of the LORD that sheds light on one’s inmost being." Consider too that "faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God. The word there is rhema (spoken word) not logos. Why would anyone go into ministry, go to a mission field or even try a business or occupation without some assurance from God? If its not done in faith its a sin. It is not about being fortunate or random for major life decisions, its about connecting to God and finding his guidance. This is not heresy it is normal communication. I am not saying everday, but if you seek God on a matter he will generally respond. Paul for instance sought God to remive his thorn in the flesh on three occasiins. The answer was no.

Can it just be our emotions? Yes, especially if one has little discernment.
Heb 5:14 "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."
I would suggest the sheep hear his voice and every Christian can have their senses trained.

MarkRohfrietsch · Jul 20, 2025

pastorwaris said:
You’re right to point out that salvation is by grace, and Baptism is a means of grace. But the mention of the "Age of Accountability" isn’t meant to replace that—it’s more of a theological framework some Christians use to grapple with the fate of those (like infants or young children) who die before they can consciously respond to the Gospel or receive believer’s baptism (as in Credobaptism views).

For Credo Baptists, who hold that faith must precede baptism, the Age of Accountability becomes a way to explain how God might justly deal with those who die before reaching moral or spiritual responsibility. They believe God, in His mercy, covers such children under grace—without denying the necessity of faith for salvation.

Now, that’s different from Pedobaptism traditions, which see infant baptism as part of God’s covenantal promise, tying it more directly to saving grace.

So to your point—while the AoA isn’t tied directly to the sacrament of baptism, it is often brought up in place of it within Credo Baptist theology when discussing the fate of infants. That’s why it showed up in this context.

Hope that helps clarify! I’d love to hear your thoughts on how different traditions reconcile God’s justice and mercy here.

Baptism is a sign of the new covenant, circumcision was a sign of the old covenant. Circumcision took place 8 days after the child was born. This is a pretty good indication that infant baptism should be the norm, not the exception. The baptism of the Roman Centurian (and his household) shows that adult baptism is important also., but does not exclude the youg.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
So you think adulterers need more shame. At what point do they deserve grace?

They deserve grace only after demonstrating they have changed. Not immediately after to satisfy your delicate sensibilities and sympathy for adultery. Why do you have more of a problem with people condemning these two than the adultery itself?

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
Yes, I think forgiven sinners should start of with grace and compassion. You think they need more shame than they have already experienced. At what point do they deserve grace?

I think cheating deserves a serious amount of shame. I don't think once you repent that's a ticket to not feel bad for your actions or be judged by others.

Would you use the same logic for a murderer or a man who abuses his wife? He repented therefore no one should shame him?

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
I didn't condemn. I offered an in-house critique. I'm still making the same critique.

So you have more condemnation for the people condemning the sinner than the sinners themselves? Why?

Latest activity

Latest activity

How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor