Maine elects woman convicted of killing Canadian tourist to city council: ‘So broken’
- By DaisyDay
- News & Current Events (Articles Required)
- 105 Replies
Well, still sniping, I see.Your strawman continues. Bye
Upvote
0
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.
Well, still sniping, I see.Your strawman continues. Bye
I doubt you would select “life” as the biggest danger out of a list of other options, but I get what MacArthur is saying. In fact, it explains something Jesus said in one of His biographies that has always bugged me.“Larry King said to me, ‘What is the lesson here.’ I said, ‘The lesson is everybody’s going to die, and you’re not necessarily in control of when.’ The danger of death is around us, and what contributes to that death is both around us, and even in us. Everyone dies. A hundred years from now none of us will be around; that’s inevitable. Life is the most comprehensive danger of all; no one escapes its inevitable end.”
Appraising a favorite quote, Surely, you must have one among several that could be considered?
Here’s one of mine, ,
You cannot have the indwelling [also infilling] without turning the [Church service] gavel to the Holy Spirit and you turn to a great truth, for the Holy Spirit is the vicar of Christ (John 16:7,14:26) – C.M. Ward
If you ask it to go by Bible only, you will get better answers, which is what I did. Its the same Bible study that I have been studying for years and I am not suggesting we replace AI with our own prayerful Bible study far from it.AI is not only a summary of popular positions but also tends to be very agreeable with the position you feed it and mirrors your own bias. It's not trying to challenge you or argue with you, it's trying to help you so will often present answers that easily align with your own thought process. The answer you have feels more of a summary by the way its outlined but it could just be the style of the AI you're using.
An AI answer cannot be used as a mic drop response as I can easily ask it a conflicting view and get it to agree with me as well. In the end we still need to use the answer critically for it to have meaning. In fact, I have asked AI if using the electrical grid during the sabbath is unlawful since it contributes to a workforce demand. That's a very leading question and AI ended up applauding me for my sincerity and ethics, ultimately agreeing that unnecessary use of the electrical grid during the sabbath is indeed unlawful. But I don't see anyone turning off their lights on the Sabbath just because I got AI to say it's unlawful. Even though AI is a helpful tool for exegesis, it should not be regarded as the measure. We also carry a lot of bias that we need to recognize and we can influence AI systems even unknowingly with this bias.
In the interest of transparency, what AI did you use? and how did you prompt it to get that answer (was it one question or was this after a much longer conversation)? I don't know how unbiased you're approach was but sometimes we can carry a bias without knowing it so If you want to get answers that are less biased to your own position, use AI without a history of pervious interactions (like using incognito or private browsing mode) so each discussion is new and try and use neutral wording over leading questions because AI will happily move to where you're leading it. For example, "how does Col 2:16 relate to Sabbath" is a fairly neutral question, but saying "Is the Sabbath of Col 2:16 actually talking about a special festival over the weekly sabbath" is a leading question because it feeds the ideas first, then AI just expands upon them. You can even ask it "tell me how the Sabbath of Col 2:16 is ceremonial and not the same as the Sabbath of the 4th commandment, which is moral" this of course, would be intentionally biased where all you're looking for is something that agrees with you, not something that challenges you. You could also lean into the innate bias of AI and ask it the opposite of your position like "tell me how the Sabbath of the 4th commandment is ceremonial and the same context of the Sabbath in Col 2:16" then try and deconstruct the answer and challenge each point. The latter would be the most critically challenging for yourself, but probably the most rewarding.
With the above more neutral question, ChatGPT gave me a much different answer than you did, even equating the weekly Sabbath with ceremonial laws which is an opposite answer to what you got. Curiously, you've left your question out of the OP so at the very least I would include this so it doesn't appear like you're hiding it. My AI response I got was using a fresh ChatGPT conversation without any other history or prompts. Even this question can be leading because I'm forcing the AI to compare the Sabbath with Col 2:16 but I'm at least transparent with what I fed it. An even more neutral question could simply be "what does Col 2:16 mean?" But if you have to keep prompting AI to get the answer you want or be highly specific, then what AI is probably only parroting is your own bias.
Thank you for your observation, Richard.I think the inverse exists too, that sometimes Christians overrate their strengths and they elevate their "goodness" to levels that are prideful
drive.google.com
Jewish believers = Church, there isn't a distinction of Jew/Gentile in the ChurchDon't you see your statement here as irrational and self-contradictory? You claim an on-going conversation between Jesus and his Disciples have nothing to do with his Disciples and instead apply to a future group of Christian who are not present or involved in the conversation. Jesus is, in fact, explaining what will happen to "these Jewish believers" who he is talking to! To say otherwise appears to be irrational to me. Sorry!
Yes you are a "Partial Preterist" believing in 70AD fulfillment in Roman ArmiesYou're making a terrible prejudgment and error here. You've claimed I'm a Preterist without evidence that I am one. And I'm *not* a Preterist!
So, you're guilty of slandering me, and should apologize for your failed judgment. There are those who think I'm at least partly a Preterist because of my belief that Jesus spoke, in his Olivet Discourse, of things that would happen in his own generation. But it is true that Jesus did in fact speak of things to happen in his own generation, even if he also spoke of things that would continue on for many generations of Jews.
Jesus didn't speak of the temple destruction in his generation, yes you claim the great tribulation started in 70AD and will continue until the 2nd coming, you have taken a 3.5 year end time great tribulation and stretched it out over millennia filling a 2,000 year gapThe "Great Tribulation" Jesus spoke of was not a "gap." That is a ridiculous statement! Who ever said anything about a "gap?"
Jesus indicated in Luke 21 in the clearest possible way that Jerusalem and the Temple would fall in his own generation, which took place in 70 AD. And he said in the clearest possible way that this would be but the beginning of a long tribulation for the Jewish People, consisting of an age-long Diaspora.
It would only end, according to Jesus, at his Return. All this is explicitly stated in Luke 21, and your failure to simply read and accept the account as is amazes me. How can I argue with people who deny what their own eyes see?
I disagree, you create two peoples of God in stating Jewish believers, the Church in Jerusalem is instructed to "Flee" Jerusalem during the Great tribulation, into the wilderness of Gilead, Bashan, CarmelThe "Tribulation" is, by self-evident definition, the loss of Israel's homeland and a wandering of the Jewish People, both by believing Jews and unbelieving Jews. Though it would be due to unbelieving Jews that this judgment would come, but all Jews, including believers, would suffer as a result.
The unfortunate thing is that Jewish believers would suffer double. Not only would they lose their own homeland, due to no fault of their own, but they would also suffer from the wickedness of unbelieving Jews who bring on this judgment. They would also suffer outside of Israel where they would be homeless among the pagan Gentiles.
My issue is that when I do a Google search, the AI part often pops up with claims that are completely wrong. Now, I realize that can happen with things humans toss up, too. But if I have to fact check everything AI tells me, what good is it?
HelloI don't know if my church believes in the rapture. That is what the discussion is going to be about i.e. their stance. I was raised believing in the rapture but not sure I believe in it now.
Because the shutdown needn't affect SNAP benefits. It only does because the Republicans want it that way.The Democrats are willing to keep the shutdown going regardless of SNAP being paid out or not.
Trump can say that he "lacks the legal authority" to provide funds, but he's lying.As of November 8, 2025, the Trump administration is actively seeking to withhold a portion of the funding needed to fully pay for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November amid a government shutdown. The administration argues it lacks the legal authority and sufficient funds to provide the full amount. - Google
Only the Democrats signing the CR will result in an immediate resolution to SNAP and 1.5 civil servants finally getting paid.
You obviously have no interest in a real discussion if you can’t provide references for your own bullet points.Non responsive.
Yeah, I guess it’s like living near to railway lines, and after a while the noise of the trains doesn't bother you.For more than five years I lived less than 500 feet from a mosque. There was a second one located within a half a mile. Once you become used to it, you rarely notice the call to prayer.
Well, a man was arrested for kidnapping and rape in Chicago. That's certainly newsworthy.
Meanwhile, also in Chicago - 238 people were shot and killed at a Popeye's Chicken location within the span of five minutes. When pressed for answers as to how so many people could be killed at such a small restaurant in such a short period of time, Cook County homicide detectives replied "We're looking into it. They just keep getting more creative every day".