partinobodycular said:

Personally, what people think, and more importantly why they think it, fascinates me. Yeah, I'm pretty apt to dismiss what people say, but like you and @Bradskii, I've been around a long time. I may dismiss the content of what people say, but the reasoning behind why they say it... ahhhh, that's one of the greatest mysteries in life... how could I possibly dismiss that? It's why I get up in the morning... the remarkable riddle of life.

Click to expand...

Just imagine a world where people who don't care what other people think somehow gain political power.

Leaf473 said:

If we look at the earliest canons, I believe they were all compiled by what we would call Catholic theologians.

Click to expand...

Evidence rather than assertion?

sow bug

Bob S said:

Paul answered part of your question with the verses that followed verse 6. We all know that if you were to answer your own question it would be the ten commandments and Paul called the ten the ministry of death. So, you believe it is the ministry of death that is written on our hearts. How is that working for you? Later in the same paragraph, Paul states the ministry of death as the guide to the Israelites was done away (KJV) and replaced with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I believe the command written on our hearts is Jesus' command to love others as He loves us.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes. God argues with Himself. The Holy Spirit and the Son are in disagreement.

John 15: 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Seems you don't think Jesus has any clue as to what He is talking about.

boy

Jeremiah

cyborg

Leaf473 said:

It looks to me like the division was caused by people dividing into camps.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 1:12 - New International Reader's Version

Here is what I mean. One of you says, “I follow Paul.” Another says, “I follow Apollos.” Another says, “I follow Peter.” And still another says, “I follow Christ.”

www.biblegateway.com

Click to expand...

And when open sin and unbelief are rife there will not be people arguing over insignificant issues? Seems your understanding of spiritual issues is really lacking.

Nagomirov said:

Paul refers to the gift of spirit that Timothy had in both I and II Timothy.

KJV 2 Timothy 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

What gift did Timothy have?

It was given by Laying on of Hands (Paul's hands by first verse quoted)

KJV 1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Click to expand...

11These things command and teach. 12Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. 13Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 14Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 15Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. 16Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Gift of teaching

Diamond7 said:

Trilobites lived in marine environments from the Cambrian Period to the Permian Period, about 542 to 252 million years ago.

Click to expand...

Trilobites did not live millions of years ago. Where your evidence and why do you so blindly accept that?

Love365 said:

If they are close to the ocean,
they can also have fish farms.

Click to expand...

That is true also.

So, fish farms, greenhouses and Solein could help deserts make food. Of course, the company that makes this stuff has to have some fancy graphics.

BCP1928 said:

But even so, the laws, in themselves, do not pronounce on the morality of those insinuations. For instance, a law allowing civil marriage for gays is not a statement that such marriages are moral, only that they are legal. It does not challenge the Christian position that such marriages are Immoral. The only challenge is to the notion that the Christian position on gay marriage should be imposed on the non-
Christian citizens of a secular state.

Click to expand...

I think it's more accurate to say that with both Moral Relativism and Cultural Relativism in view, there may or may not be an analytic distinction between Law and Morality and/or Ethics. It depends on the particular Ethics and the Philosophy of Law that a person (or a society on the whole) holds.

As a simple example, a stop-sign very well DOES imply a moral imposition upon people. If we run the stop sign flagrantly, it shows that not only are we breaking a legally applied convention, but we have a disregard for other human beings and we have little or not care about the risks and possible consequences which could ensue.

Your example, likewise, at the very, very least implies that a law should be put into place because freedom of sexual conscience and some autonomy should be morally recognized at most levels of society and it would be wrong to flagrantly impose one's self on other's relational choices between themselves and other consenting adults.

At some point, we can bring in the gamut of theories within The Philosophy of Law and in Ethics and see where there are overlays between legal thought and morality and/or ethics.

BCP1928 said:

No, I don't believe that socialist government should be imposed by violent revolution. I don't support socialism at all. You must mean something else.

Click to expand...

That's good to hear. For the time being, then, I'll just assume you're thinking along the lines of some form of Libertarian reference.

When Lazarus died, Jesus had yet to die on the cross and be resurrected and taken to heaven. Before any human could have been accepted into heaven. First Jesus had to be accepted, so no human who died before Jesus was accepted into heaven. Went to heaven when they died, they went to the paradise side of Sheol. So Lazarus may have been with Abraham in paradise and was taken away from there to finish out his earthly life.

Pommer said:

More what?

Click to expand...

Money

Diamond7 said:

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

If this were any other translation we could write this off as a translation error. But the people who believe in a literal Bible believe there are no errors in the KJV. So how do they explain the word replenish? Was there a earth here before that needed to be replenished?

We see this again in Genesis 9:1 where Noah was told to replenish the earth.

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Click to expand...

What does it mean to replenish?

make full or complete again

to make full or complete again, as by supplying what is lacking, used up, etc.

depends on the context of use ...

Guojing said:

Thanks, I will put it simply as believing Christ died for my sins and rose again on the 3rd day for my justification, aka 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

Click to expand...

This reduces faith to mere intellectual assent to doctrine, and makes faith a property of human intellect. That results in denying faith, denying faith for small children, or for people who have severe learning disabilities. It rejects that faith is God's gift, God's work, and God's power; and turns faith into a human work of intellectual assent.

Guojing said:

Once you believe that, water baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Click to expand...

I have a lot of responses to this assertion, but my chief question would simply be this: Why? I'm not seeing how one reaches that conclusion even presupposing the above premise is correct; which I don't agree with, as I don't believe that faith can be reduced to a work of human reason. There are too many problems with that, not least of which is that it denies God's grace.

Guojing said:

Since you also said yes with my first scenario, which is



you are also agreeing with that point of mine.

Am I correct to conclude that?

Click to expand...

No. You would not be correct to conclude that.

-CryptoLutheran

From ChatGPT:
In space, when two objects approach each other at high velocities, the relative speed at which they approach is not simply the sum of their individual speeds. Instead, we need to use the principles of special relativity to calculate the relative velocity.
When dealing with velocities that are significant fractions of the speed of light, the formula to calculate the relative velocity vrelvrel of one object with respect to another is given by:
vrel=v1+v21+v1v2c2vrel=1+c2v1v2v1+v2
where v1v1 and v2v2 are the velocities of the two objects, and cc is the speed of light.
Given:

• Object A's speed v1=0.80cv1=0.80c
• Object B's speed v2=0.30cv2=0.30c

Plugging these values into the formula:
vrel=0.80c+0.30c1+(0.80c)(0.30c)c2vrel=1+c2(0.80c)(0.30c)0.80c+0.30c
Simplifying the expression:
vrel=1.10c1+0.24vrel=1+0.241.10c
vrel=1.10c1.24vrel=1.241.10c
vrel≈0.89cvrel≈0.89c
So, the relative velocity of the two objects as they approach each other would be approximately 0.89 times the speed of light, cc.

What Would Happen?​

1. Impact and Energy Release: If these objects were to collide at this high relative velocity, the impact would release an enormous amount of energy, potentially causing both objects to be destroyed. The energy involved in such a collision would be much greater than what we experience in collisions at lower velocities.
2. Relativistic Effects: At velocities close to the speed of light, relativistic effects such as time dilation and length contraction become significant. These effects would need to be considered when analyzing the dynamics of the collision.
3. Limitation by Speed of Light: No object with mass can reach or exceed the speed of light relative to any other object, according to special relativity. The calculation above ensures that the relative velocity remains below the speed of light, respecting this fundamental limit.

In summary, even though individual objects are traveling at high speeds, their relative velocity will still be less than the speed of light due to the way velocities add in the framework of special relativity. The collision would result in an extremely high-energy impact, with significant relativistic effects.









ChatGPT can make mistakes. Che

Nithavela said:

I would prefer being bisexual. If nothing else, it means double the amount of people I find attractive.

I have never achieved it, though. Still heterosexual and with a 50 % reduced dating pool.

Click to expand...

Haha, agreed on that. Being bi has helped me appreciate the beauty of God's creation of humans though. But for me, I will remain single and chaste unless married to a wife, as if I was not chaste or in a heterosexual relationship, I'd be going against God's will. Hopefully you find a wife my brother, Nithavela.

I have to admit, Europe has some good looking, well dressed gals and guys.

Louis Hoffman (German Actor)

The answer as to why God created Humans may be found here...

Genesis 2:5
"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

We were created to 'till the ground'.

What does that mean? Were we created to pull weeds and plow fields all day? No.

This is what tilling the ground originally meant before the Fall...

Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

and...

Genesis 2:19
"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

The phrase 'tilling the ground' was a metaphor to describe the creation of life from dust and from the ground.

We were originally created to help God create Life. The plans changed a bit after the Fall, although it is still similar.

Remembering that Pride Month grew out of Stonewall, could you craft a meme that says that you're a conservative Christian but you stand against anti-gay violence? That could be a positive message to communicate.

I don't have the skill of turning ideas into pithy memes, though, so that part would have to be up to you.

Hammster said:

But we still have the same source document. We can certainly have discussions. What do pagans have that they agree with 100%?

Click to expand...

But we don't. The source documents are long gone and now we have various versions, There are even different Canons.

As for discussions, how is that going for you? Have the liberal Christians and the fundamentalist Christians come to any agreements lately about what the Bible tells them to do?

childeye 2 said:

I don't need the FBI to see a lie.

When the election winner had not yet been declared, and Trump saw he was losing, Trump stated definitively without any proof, that the Democrats had fraudulently stolen the election and had robbed the people of America. When Trump or anyone else says the election was stolen and they have no proof, it's a lie, and it is slanderous.

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

​

childeye 2 said:

I don't need the FBI to see a lie.

When the election winner had not yet been declared, and Trump saw he was losing, Trump stated definitively without any proof, that the Democrats had fraudulently stolen the election and had robbed the people of America. When Trump or anyone else says the election was stolen and they have no proof, it's a lie, and it is slanderous.

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

if I say it's definitely going to rain today (proof - because there are clouds in the air) .. and it doesn't rain .... is that a lie?

I don't really care who claims what .... I do believe there is most certainly ways of skewing/manipulating election results and everything possible to eliminate the possibility of elections being manipulated should be in place ... and I and many others don't trust that they are.

Clinton and the democratic party claimed Trumps first term that he was a "illegitimate president" ... the main difference is they didn't pursue anything to justify/prove that claim.

Past elections are water under the bridge.

Who knows what is true and what is not true? We live with whatever shakes out.