Larniavc said:

If that’s really the case which circumference is greater: the Tropic of Cancer or the Tropic of Capricorn?

Click to expand...

I you really want to know Just google it.

Hans Blaster said:

Beliefs are opinions about what you think to be true or not true or unproven.

Click to expand...

Sure, but there isn't confusion about what a belief is.

Hans Blaster said:

Exactly! The correct answer is Butter Pecan and failure to agree represents a moral deficiency.

Click to expand...

Cool, I suppose from your perspective it may as well be.

Hans Blaster said:

Hardly.

Click to expand...

You're playing a game by reducing your belief to an "opinion" as if you don't for all intents and purposes take it to be true objectively.

Hans Blaster said:

It is my best understanding of reality. I am not infallible. (That I leave to popes.) I could be wrong, but I am satisfied with my conclusions, so I shall act as if they are correct.

Click to expand...

My question wasn't about your behavior, it's about your beliefs. Keeping room for doubt doesn't alter whether or not you believe that it is objectively true. I can only assume that you don't believe that your belief has any effect on whether it is true or not, so playing at the margins isn't really relevant.

Hans Blaster said:

When I joined one of the choices I had was to be an "atheist" or an "agnostic" or even a "seaker". I am not seeking anything "spiritual", so that was off the table. Since I believed in none of the claimed gods, even the ones I hadn't heard of (prehaps especially as how can you believe in a prospect before you hear it), I went with the correct label of "atheist" even though I *knew* that some posters would mistake that for an assertion that no gods exist. I have no desire to be considered an "agnostic". If someone wants a more "soft" designation, "non-believer" works fine.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what this is supposed to have to do with what I stated, as there doesn't appear to me to be much of a difference between believing that no gods(that you are familiar with) exist and an assertion that no gods exist. It's a distinction without a difference, and generally only serves to engage in arguments from ignorance and special pleading about burdens.

rstrats said:

How do you reconcile that with Mark 14:68?

Click to expand...

Mark does it himself. He writes:

“A second time the rooster crowed. Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” And when he thought about it, he wept.” (Mr 14:72 NKJV)

Mark gives the extra detail that when the rooster had crowed twice, Peter would have denied Jesus three times.

Mockingbird0 said:

Jesus was exaggerating when he said "three days and three nights". If the contradiction did not bother Matthew, it doesn't bother me.

Click to expand...

I don't believe it was exaggeration. He likened it to Jonah being three days and three nights inside the great fish. You would have to say that the account of Jonah was an exaggeration, too.

Apple Sky said:

So in other words God didn't bind up the seas and set the boundaries & he didn't put a firmament over the earth to protect it.

Proverbs 8:29​

Genesis 1:17​

Click to expand...

Not according to what we see today. But it is not impossible that God made it flat and then changed it after the fact.

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of our death.
Amen

Apple Sky said:

Nothing.

Click to expand...

If that’s really the case which circumference is greater: the Tropic of Cancer or the Tropic of Capricorn?

Hans Blaster said:

I don't recall claiming that. It's pretty clear that my non-belief in gods generally and my assessment against the existence your god specifically are opinions. That hardly makes them objective as those opinions are dependent on me.

Click to expand...

So you don't really believe they are true? They're just opinions, like your favorite ice cream flavor? You're being disingenuous again.

Hans Blaster said:

Boo hoo. For most gods I know too little to make an assessment, and without any positive evidence of existence I lack belief in them -- that negative you find to be a dodge. For a few claimed gods I know enough to see that the claims about the god are incompatible with my understanding of reality. Therefore I believe those few gods to not exist. Unfortunately for this conversation, one of those few gods is the only one I once actually believed in.

Click to expand...

Do you believe what you believe is true, or do you not? Your process is irrelevant, only whether or not you believe that your understanding of reality comports with objective reality in such a way that they are either true or false, and you believe them to be true. If you do, how is that not a mark of arrogance while your former belief would have been?

Hans Blaster said:

So do you believe in agnostics or not? You seem to think I am playing something that does not exist. Your post lacks consistency in this aspect.

Click to expand...

I believe there are atheists who use "agnostic" as a shield and argument tactic, but I have never met anyone who truly lives up to the title of "agnostic" and doubt I ever will.

Strong in Him said:

The only part of your post that is correct.

Click to expand...

So in other words God didn't bind up the seas and set the boundaries & he didn't put a firmament over the earth to protect it.

Proverbs 8:29​

Genesis 1:17​

That article is exceedingly dumb. This paragraph is just telling on yourself:

"The Democratic Socialists of America is a de facto communist organization, which means that Mamdani joined a communist enterprise prior to becoming a U.S. citizen. No meaningful difference distinguishes socialism and communism — only trivial, superficial divergences that amount to distinctions without differences."

If you can't recognise that there are varieties of socialism that are vastly different from each other, and that those are vastly different to the form of Communism advocated by Marx, Engels and Lenin, then you really shouldn't be writing an article about political economics.

For those who don't want to waste their time, the TLR of the article is: "Hur, dur. Socialism is Communism. Therefore, deport populist politician and brown person".

Aseyesee said:

Did Caiphas believe Jesus was the christ ... the son of the living God, and understand he was the final passover sacrifice, the fulfillment of what all the other Passover's spoke to? Was he aware the Spirit of God was speaking through him?

Click to expand...

the angel, Balaam and his donkey is interesting because the donkey saw the angel when Balaam could not and yet it does not appear a strange thing to Balaam that his donkey spoke to him ...

Larniavc said:

What’s wrong with Wales?

Click to expand...

Nothing.

public hermit said:

That sounds like fear and I get it, but I don't think that is best. If the Lord is Lord, then it will be fine, that's why we have joy. You have to let it all go, even your certainty. In my prayerfully considered opinion, your (my) best idea of Christ is a trifle compared to the reality, much less compared to your (my) fears of getting it wrong.

Click to expand...

It's not born of fear, my convictions on such issues are hard-fought as I am typically a live-and-let-live kind of person. But if we truly believe that God exists, then ultimately His dictates must be central to us. Not the Jesus that is friendly with the world because of His welcoming attitude, but the one who is hated because He testifies the world's deeds are evil. When we serve the crucified Lord, we must carry our offense with us and testify to the world's evil. Gently, and with humility, but firmly and with conviction. Walkin the line is difficult and requires us to pay attention to the Spirit's leading, but we must remember that being friendly with the world is being at enmity with God.

Apple Sky said:

God thought of everything before he created Adam.

Click to expand...

The only part of your post that is correct.

public hermit said:

Yeah, I do think we grasp way more than we know. But I am comfortable with that for a number of reasons, none of which are important.

Click to expand...

Yeah, me as well.

public hermit said:

We are human, that is the base line. Imago dei, for my taste. What follows? I think certain good things will obtain, but hardly any of them dwell in the realm of certainty. That's not a problem (especially for pragmatic Americans). Value has to come into the picture if there is to be meaning, and I think that can be done in very broad strokes. Moreover, I think those are sufficient for the observing, even though there will be disagreements. Is that a bleak picture of humanity? I don't think so. I don't need everyone to be Christian. I would like if Christians would fulfill that role. But, I do believe we can all be human, and that entails all we need to get along. I think there is solid ground for a common humanity, even if they don't agree on a common deity.

Click to expand...

Sure, but there are also clear causes that at the very least would call on those who believe in Christ to not associate with certain individuals and practices. There's room for common humanity, but questions about deities cannot be trivialized nor can those of us who call ourselves Christian give any indication of approval for the sort of lawlessness that is all too frequent among a culture where morality is treated like a buffet line. If Christ is true, then there are clear moral lines that a Christian cannot cross. And there are many anti-Christ philosophies that people often bring to the faith that lead us down the garden path.

Hoping2 said:

There were bishops/pastors, and there were deacons.
But apostles fulfil neither of those callings.

Click to expand...

Did not the disciples appoint bishops to continue their ministry. Like Timothy, Titus and Clement. Christ gave the disciples the power and authority to ordain bishops to continue building and protecting Christs church.

Hoping2 said:

Ugh.
The emulation of a failed OT regime is one of the major mistakes made in the NT.

Click to expand...

What does this mean. Are you saying the New Testament is misstaken in its teachings.

Hoping2 said:

Jesus is our high priest.
Bishops/pastors are the church's shepherds.
You are over-glamorizing the office of a servntant !

Click to expand...

I am merely destinguishing the two as its a common misrepresentation to say that the priesthood ministry within Christs church is the Royal priesthood. They are two seperate things and both are vital to the church. That is why much of Pauls letters are about order and keeping the church true to the teachings.

Christ is the High Priest and it is His representatives that speak His words and remind the church of them. That is what overseering of the church is. Ensuring the church stays true to Christs teachings.

Hoping2 said:

Our versions of "priest" is different.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "Our versions of "priest" is different".

Hoping2 said:

His example had no, what is presently defined as, "priests".

Click to expand...

Why does how we presently define priests matter. Or matter more than how Paul or the early church defined priests.

Hoping2 said:

God's bishops/pastors are just like Paul would have had them.
The ones who are not...are not of God.

Click to expand...

You would hope so. I am sure there are many Christlike examples behind the scenes. That is ine thing Clement mentions. That the more quiet and meek a bishop is the more they are Christlike. It was their disposition rather than their words and what whats they did say were powerful and respected because people could see Christ in the Bishops.

There was a very high execution rate of the early church bishops and leaders. They were not afraid to stand on Christs truth even if that meant death. We do need more Pauls leading the church to take us through the increasing of wolves knocking on the door. In fact already in the church.

Hoping2 said:

Peter is referring to Jerusalem.
The bible has no mention of Peter being in Rome.

Click to expand...

I don't think Peter would call Jeruslam the Holy city of the Jews as Babylon the heathen city. Babylon at that time meant 'those opposed to Gods people'. This city was Rome as Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire and was the persecutor of Gods people under Nero.

1 Peter 5:13 is often interpreted as a reference to Rome, using "Babylon" as a code name. This verse, along with other historical and traditional accounts, suggests Peter's presence in Rome.

d taylor said:

-
​

Probably nothing, but i did not post those verse to show how evapotranspiration work in God's creation. But i posted the verse showing how God creation functioned.

Click to expand...

Yeah but it doesn’t work. With no rain and only ‘mist’ none of the plants would survive. So it’ not how God’s creation functioned.

AV1611VET said:

Question: Yes or No?

Since humans share approximately 85% of our DNA with mice; if mice were the only animal on earth that ever existed and still exist today, would evolutionists claim we came from them?

Click to expand...

No, if mice were the only animals that ever existed, then we wouldn't exist, so no one would be able to make that claim.