• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Evolution, one more argument against

I hope you will note that everything you just wrote is from your imagination -- no facts involved at all.
Did you not read the post? I expressly invited readers to "imagine". Similar to the beginnings of arguments from evolutionary biologists.

Here's some mathematical evidence:

Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to survive​

There has been limited progress to the modern synthesis. The central focus of this perspective is to provide evidence to document that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution. Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms.


Where? Give an example.
Go through the thread and search the word "fact" and you'll find many examples.
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry N.
Upvote 0

Eric Trump on Charlie Kirk’s Legacy and the Radical Left – “This Could Have Been the Greatest Mistake These People Have Ever Made” (VIDEO)

I said no gun purchasing regulation is going to keep people from getting guns.

You said There are countries who are able to do just that.

But there aren't. China has the strictest policy, that's been in effect since 1949 or earlier. But that doesn't mean it's impossible for a citizen to get a gun.

I'm actually all for certain gun ownership restrictions. But at the same time I know there are a lot of people get and own guns off the record and radar. Robinson used a standard hunting rifle, and it would be pretty hard to ban those in the US.
Obviously Japan, and Australia. Rather than musing "what's possible" given those countries. The results are in.
Upvote 0

And one more scandal developing

Seems the voters don't see it quite that way. . .
How can we make such claims without proclaiming that this was an important issue for voters? I sense that revenge is prematurely being justified in the absence of knowledge. God sees it all and He is no respecter of persons, so it wouldn't matter what the people think, God is not subject to our vanity.
Upvote 0

Kathy Hochul endorses Zohran Mamdani’s bid for mayor

Mamdani said the cost of hiring enough social workers to take over the cases where cops are not needed at first is part of his $1 billion estimate to get DCS up and running. He does not expect challenges finding enough people to fully staff the department.

IMO, that's an appropriate use of government resources. Too often, police resources are called into situations where a social worker would be better equipped to handle the situation.

Here's an example of such a program: Mesa, AZ

"In June of 2021, the Mesa Police Department created a program with Behavioral Health Service Provider Solari. This program provides a Solari clinician to work alongside 911 call takers in our Public Safety Dispatch Center. 911 calls that can be worked by Solari’s crisis network call center are transferred away from Police and Fire dispatch.

Solari is the highest volume crisis call center in Arizona, taking over 25,000 calls per month. As of June 2021, this initiative has transferred an average of 300 calls per month to the Solari crisis call center.

In 2022 there were over 3500 diverted 911 calls for service from Police and Fire to Solari."

  • Like
Reactions: iluvatar5150
Upvote 0

Trump Orders Flags to Half-Staff for Charlie Kirk

Bondi faces criticism for saying DOJ will 'target' anyone who engages in 'hate speech'

Attorney General Pam Bondi faced bipartisan backlash Tuesday over her comments that the Justice Department "will absolutely target" anyone who targets others with "hate speech" in the wake of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

"There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society," Bondi said.

[Reminder: Hate speech is free speech.]

Bondi's comments quickly gained traction across social media, with some users replying with a 2024 post from Charlie Kirk, in which he wrote: "Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free."

[Bondi later moved the goalposts a bit] "Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It's a crime," Bondi wrote.

Well, she shoulda said that in the first place; criminal threats are pretty distinct from hate speech.
A lot of them were never really into liberty to begin with. "Liberty" was just a slogan they could ride into power.
Upvote 0

Here’s the No. 1 fallacy on eternal security

There is no threshold mentioned for the amount of sin required to lose salvation or any other conditions.
Think I'd read Gal 6:7-8 for starters. Poor soil all begin as believers.
This is not losing salvation. This is turning away from God. It is a reverse repentance.
Salvation means to be with God; that's what faith does.
Upvote 0

The fascinating reformed theology paradox of Hebrew 6:4-6

Nevertheless, and more importantly, it is Biblical reasoning which, apart from witnessing the eternal counsels of God before creation, Biblical reasoning is the only kind of reasoning that applies to foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification and glorifiation (Ro 8:28-30), where we know the cause by its divine effects.
“Appealing to ‘Biblical reasoning’ doesn’t solve the problem—it just avoids it. You’re using predestination in Romans 8 as a trump card to reinterpret Hebrews 6, but that’s not reasoning from the text, that’s importing a conclusion and forcing Hebrews to fit it. Calling it ‘Biblical reasoning’ is really just a way of baptizing circular logic. The real issue is: Hebrews itself uses very strong language for these people. If they were never truly in Christ, why would the author describe them in terms that sound exactly like genuine believers?”

Here are the arguments and rebuttals surrounding Romans 8:28-30:

Premise: Romans 8:28–30 proves people have no free will. God predestined everything.

Rebuttal: I see why you’d say that, but notice—Paul’s point here isn’t about erasing choice. He’s giving comfort: if you’re in Christ, nothing can break God’s saving plan.

Argument: But it says those He foreknew He predestined. That sounds locked in.

Rebuttal: True, but “foreknew” in Scripture often means “loved beforehand,” not “mechanically fixed every choice.” For example, God says to Israel, “You only have I known” (Amos 3:2). He obviously knew about the other nations, but He set His love on Israel. That doesn’t erase Israel’s ability to turn away—which they often did.

Argument: But the golden chain—predestined, called, justified, glorified—that sounds unbreakable.

Rebuttal: It is unbreakable—but notice, Paul is speaking about the destiny of the whole group “in Christ.” He says in Romans 11 that branches can be cut off if they don’t continue in faith. So the chain gives assurance to believers, but it doesn’t deny that individuals can reject God.

Argument: But doesn’t that weaken the text?

Rebuttal: Not at all—it strengthens it. Because it means Paul is giving real assurance without contradiction. Believers have confidence in God’s power to save, but the call to faith and perseverance still matters. Otherwise his many warnings about falling away would make no sense.
Upvote 0

White men...u ok?

Well there certainly be nothing rude about the thought of puzzlement and admission of ignorance. But you did not write that in your post 9. You wrote ( can you use some further words to explain your seemingly absent logic ) Perhaps by simply asking someone for more information would have received a more respectful reply than writing about my ( seemingly absent logic ) But thank you for the explanation. Ophiolite you mention your signature. Your signature being a ( recalcitrant procrastinating ape ) you be referring to that as your signature ? Well me not know if you be so . But are you an ape ? And If so. Then you be the first talking ape me do ever know : ) Wishing you a pleasant morning in your UK . Kathleen
Well, I'll apologise again for conveying a message to you that was not my intent.

Now, my signature is not the words below my avatar, but three observations below the text of each message, which the forum chooses to call a signature. The relevant observation reads:

If you have not understood what I have posted the fault is probably mine. Ask for clarification. I expect the same courtesy from you.

You can view it by hitting the words Toggle Signature. at the bottom of this post.

As to being a talking ape, scientifically that is beyond dispute. Humans are classified as apes. When you look in a mirror you see an ape. If that offends you I can be of no help in the matter. You would need to take it up with hundreds of thousands of zoologists, anthropologists and the like. If you wish to debate that, best start a new thread, we've derailed this one enough.
Upvote 0

It Backfired - Huge Surge in New TPUSA Chapters

"Make sure to hate on them" is all you, along with the insinuation that I'm out to hate others.
Is it? Your posts in this thread have broad brushed all "leftists" and claimed they "hate" Charlie Kirk. Does spreading malicious innuendo constitute good will?
Upvote 0

Several senior FBI leaders ousted without explanation, sources say

Patel in the Senate today. per atrupar

SCHIFF: Did you tell anyone at the FBI that employees who worked on cases against Trump would be fired?

PATEL: People are not removed for case assignments

S: Answer my Q

P: I would never tell anyone they're being removed basically for case assignments [ok, you wouldn't tell them, but did you do it?]

S: This is in the complaint against you
Upvote 0

Eric Trump on Charlie Kirk’s Legacy and the Radical Left – “This Could Have Been the Greatest Mistake These People Have Ever Made” (VIDEO)

What country has been able to keep everyone from having a gun, is 100% gun free, especially one as large and diverse as the US?
No one is saying 100% other than you. What I am saying is there are countries where they are far more successful than the wild wild west here in the states. Heck, even back then in some cities guns were down right illegal.
Upvote 0

THE GREAT CONTROVERSY in Baltimore, Maryland

The people of Baltimore will have a preponderance of tissue paper now.

-CryptoLutheran
Very true. According to the NPR program many of the folks in Baltimore have been depositing their copies of THE GREAT CONTROVERSY in their recycling bins. Paper of all sorts which is recycled is frequently converted into the lovely toilet tissue we use.
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist

THE GREAT CONTROVERSY in Baltimore, Maryland

Considering you said you never read the GC not sure how you came to that conclusion. I disagree she points back to the Scriptures and what she teaches is from the Bible.

I understand you don’t like the Adventist church, nothing will change your mind. That’s okay we can agree to disagree.
We have been drifting here and I apologize for being part of the drift. Perhaps you can share with us your understanding as to why the SDA went to the extreme action of mailing copies of THE GREAT CONTROVERSY to every postal address in Baltimore. What was the primary purpose?
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist

Dealing with perfectionism in an imperfect world?

Mo Isom Aiken

Hi, I was watching this video and thought of your situation, particularly in the part where Mo Isom Aiken, the speaker, talks about becoming a leader in your circumstances. Perhaps it may be that God is asking you to take a role of leadership in this situation. What do you think that would look like?
Upvote 0

Trump says ‘we have to beat the hell’ out of ‘radical left lunatics’ after Kirk killing

Unlike church shootings, Temple shootings, school shootings where you will hear the right say, "it's too soon, let's not politicize this". Given the death of Kirk they are making a heyday with the politicizing of his death.

VANCE: There is no unity with people who scream at children over their parents' politics. There is no unity with someone who lies about what Charlie Kirk said in order to excuse his murder. There is no unity with someone who harasses an innocent family the day after the father of that family lost a dear friend. There is no unity with the people who celebrate Charlie Kirk's assassination.

STEPHEN MILLER: With God is my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks, and make America safe again for the American people. It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie's name.
Upvote 0

Ted Cruz torches Tim Kaine for describing God-given rights as 'very, very troubling'

Are you aware of the doctrine of dar al-harb and dar al-Islam? Or taqiyya? If you aren't, I'd suggest you read up on it.

When they are few in number, Medina verses are heavily emphasized. These are the ones like "you have your religion, I have my religion" As they grow in numbers, they shift to the Meccan verses "slaughter the pagans" sort of verses.
I'm aware of everything you mentioned here, and you bringing these specific subjects up as an attempt to show that Islam teaches intolerance and violence proves that you didn't learn about Islam from the sources you mentioned earlier.

the doctrine of dar al-harb and dar al-Islam
In very simple terms, Dar al Islam (House of Islam) historically was a Muslim land with a Muslim government where Islamic law governed. Dar al Harb (House of War) was a land not under an Islamic government or Islamic law, which was openly hostile towards Muslims. Since there are no countries that fit these definitions today, the terms are rarely used by Muslims, with the exception being primarily Islamic extremist groups to justify their actions.

Let's take a look at what the Qur'an says about taqiyya.

First off, the word taqiyya isn't found anywhere in the Qur'an, But here is the definition:

Takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.”

That definition is very specific as to when a lie is permissible.

Below is the ONLY verse found in the Qur'an that mentions lying as being acceptable and even then it is better to choose death rather than to lie as the hadith below it states:

"As for anyone who denies God after having once attained to faith - and this, to be sure, does not apply to one who does it under duress, the while his heart remains true to his faith, but only, to him who willingly opens up his heart to a denial of the truth upon all such falls God's condemnation, and tremendous suffering awaits them" (Qur'an 16:106)

"There is a consensus that whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license to deny one's faith under duress, but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that instead of choosing death." (Sahih al-Bukhari)

This following hadith makes it clear that lying is forbidden:

"Avoid falsehood, for falsehood leads to wickedness, and wickedness to Hell; and if a man continues to speak falsehood and makes falsehood his object, he will be recorded in God's presence as a great liar. And adhere to the truth, for truth leads to good deeds, and good deeds lead to Paradise. If a man continues to speak the truth and makes truth his object, he will be recorded in God's presence as eminently truthful." (Sunan Abu Dawood vol. 3, no. 4971)

So as you can see a Muslim is only permitted to lie about one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution, imminent harm or death. In all other cases lying is forbidden and will lead to condemnation.

The following hadith says it is one of the greatest of sins.

"Beware I inform you regarding the greatest of the mortal sins: Associating anything with Allah, disobeying parents and lying!" (Wasaelush Shia)

So based on the above, what do you thing the average Muslim's position would be on lying?


There's a playbook, the behavior and teachings depend on the population. When they are few in number, Medina verses are heavily emphasized. These are the ones like "you have your religion, I have my religion" As they grow in numbers, they shift to the Meccan verses "slaughter the pagans" sort of verses.
You can't take single verses from the Qur'an and apply them without including the surrounding verses and the historical and cultural context they were written in, as I mentioned earlier. The verses were revealed during specific battles that took place around 1400 years ago and are not applicable to Muslims living today. There's also not a single verse in the Qur'an that calls for the killing of non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslims. I'll provide a couple examples of what you would call "'slaughter the pagans' sort of verses" to show this below:

Qur'an 2:191: "And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you... kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."

The historical context behind Qur'an 2:191 and its surrounding verses came after the followers of Muhammad were forced to Migrate from Mecca to Medina due to persecution from the Meccan idolaters leaving everything behind in the process. These verses were instructions to Muhammad's followers telling them that it's permissible to fight back, not just to reclaim what they had lost, but to also insure that the Meccan idolaters could never oppress others in the future.

And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors.

And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and persecution is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful.

Fight them until there is no more persecution and until worship is acknowledged to be for God . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
(Quran 2: 190–193)

These instructions were self-defensive and restrictive in nature and clearly don't advocate the killing of non-Muslims simply for the act of disbelief.


Qur'an 9:5: "kill the polytheists wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush."

Verse 9:5 was also revealed to address particular groups of people and their relationship with the Muslims at that time. Qur'an 9 starts by saying "A declaration of immunity from God and His Messenger to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty." This was addressed to Quraysh who broke the terms of treaty that was made between Muhammad, representing the state of Medina, and the Quraysh tribe in Mecca in March 628 AD.

The verse in Chapter 9 where it says "Once the sacred months have passed kill the polytheists wherever you find them" is referring to a very specific group of non-Muslims, the Quraysh which Muhammad had made a treaty with. It's not talking about all non-Muslims.

At the beginning of Chapter 9 we can see which polytheists are being talked about.

1. A declaration of immunity from God and His Messenger to the polytheists [the Quraysh] with whom you had made a treaty.

4. Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term. God loves the righteous.


As seen in these two verses, it's not talking about all polytheists. Since verse 4 says "Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you," then this automatically tells us that some of the polytheists have broken their treaties.

7. How can there be a treaty with the polytheists on the part of God and His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? As long as they are upright with you, be upright with them. God loves the pious.

8. How? Whenever they
[the Quraysh] overcome you, they respect neither kinship nor treaty with you. They satisfy you with lip service, but their hearts refuse, and most of them are immoral.

10. Towards a believer they respect neither kinship nor treaty. These are the transgressors.


In the above verses we again see a distinction between polytheists, Those who upheld their treaties (Verse 7) and those who didn't respect their treaties (Verses 8 & 9). Those who didn't keep their treaties are the transgressors.

13. Will you not fight a people who violated their oaths, and planned to exile the Messenger, and initiated hostilities against you? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear, if you are believers.

The above question wouldn't have been asked had there not been polytheists who had already broken their treaty. So when you read verse 5:

When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayers, and pay the alms, then let them go their way. God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.

When it says "Once the sacred months have passed kill the polytheists wherever you find them," it's obvious that it's only talking about those who have already broken their treaties, the Quraysh, and not all polytheists.

When you take verse 5 out of context it sounds like a command to kill all non-Muslims:

9:5 kill the polytheists wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.

But with the added context, it's clear that it's not saying that at all. It also becomes clear that Qur'an 9:5 is not a command for Muslims living in 2025.


What makes you think it is only 1%?
Simple math. In 2021, 580,000 people in the world died violently. This includes conflict deaths, intentional homicides, and killings during legal interventions. If every violent death in 2021 came at the hands of a Muslim, they would represent only 0.025% of the Muslim population. Also, if you add up all the members of ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas, Jemaah Islamiya, and even the lesser-known groups like Gama’a al-Islamiyya and Jaysh Rijal Al-Tariq Al-Naqshabandi from the US Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism 2023, there are less than 1,000,000 known Islamic terrorists in the world. Even if you double that number to 2,000,000 just to be sure every single terrorist is counted, like lone wolves, etc., it would only add up to 0.1% of the Muslim population. To reach 1%, there would need to be 20 million violent jihadists.

Using common sense, if less than 1% of the followers of Islam are engaging in violence, then this must not be what Islam teaches.

Are you aware of where the Zakat goes?
Where do you think it goes?

Who do you think funds the ones who actually engage in violent jihad?
Based in The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Comprehensive Update on Terrorist Financing Risks, most lone wolf actors are self funded. Large terrorist groups rely on a mix of state sponsorship, illegal activities, and donations, and smaller ones through criminal activities like kidnapping, piracy, and extortion. Private donations only account for between 10-30% of the funding and these donations mainly go to long established terror groups like Hamas.

You keep mentioning 2 billion followers, and seem to be ignoring the political landscape of the majority muslim world. Why do you think there are so many Islamic refugees?
War and conflict are the primary factors.
Upvote 0

Here’s the No. 1 fallacy on eternal security

Yes, the knowledge is revelation which, itself, is a gift of grace- and the faith to believe those revealed truths is a gift of grace as well
The Holy Spirit does not give the gift of saving revelation to those who will not believe it,
for belief (faith) in the gifted revelation is likewise a gift of the Holy Spirit (Php 1:29, 2 Pe 1:1, Ac 13:48, 18:27, Ro 12:3).
Upvote 0

The USCCB’s Woke Moment Exposed Over Charlie Kirk Moment

The
@USCCB
posted this 4 days after the death of career criminal George Floyd. It’s now been 4 days since the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk and the USCCB is silent. Disgusting!

Continued below.
The USCCB’s Woke Moment Exposed Over Charlie Kirk Moment
:mad:
  • Agree
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

Gender ideology is choking the truth in school shootings

I've never seen a study done on it, but it might be enlightening to see the percentage numbers for "transsexual" killers in the total "transsexual" population, as juxtaposed against the number of "cisgender" killers in the total "cisgender" population, and see if the "transsexual" numbers are greater within their specific population as a whole. I.e., are they more prone to violent behavior due to the fact of their specific psychosexual abnormality?

I'd like to see the numbers on something like that, but I have no idea where to look, and I'll be hanged if I'm gonna try to crunch those numbers myself, LOL! ;)
Upvote 0

Trump Orders Flags to Half-Staff for Charlie Kirk

Bondi faces criticism for saying DOJ will 'target' anyone who engages in 'hate speech'

Attorney General Pam Bondi faced bipartisan backlash Tuesday over her comments that the Justice Department "will absolutely target" anyone who targets others with "hate speech" in the wake of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

"There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society," Bondi said.

[Reminder: Hate speech is free speech.]

Bondi's comments quickly gained traction across social media, with some users replying with a 2024 post from Charlie Kirk, in which he wrote: "Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free."

[Bondi later moved the goalposts a bit] "Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It's a crime," Bondi wrote.

Well, she shoulda said that in the first place; criminal threats are pretty distinct from hate speech.
  • Informative
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,876,875
Messages
65,390,274
Members
276,308
Latest member
anthea222