Still Alive

I just watched the video. Ludicrous. I've heard about wild conspiracy stuff like this but have not actually drilled into any of it. I think it damaged my brain.

This is a must see, but make of it what you will. The part that really gives it credibility is at the 4 minute mark. And when you realized that statement at the 4:40 point was made 3 months ago, well... But that part is just what prompted me to watch the whole thing. His comments about the next couple of years are worth paying attention to as well...

Well, it agrees with a miriad of scientific discoveries. Science convinced us the earth is a globe orbiting the sun, and as far as I'm concerned, it convinced ME the earth is more than 6,000 years old. However, I've said for a while that I believe that the "age of man" is, in fact, roughly 6,000 years old. Who knows how much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. it's like saying "Johnny was born. Then Johnny went to college and then Johnny graduated from college. Before the first day and night the bible discusses, who knows how much time passed. I see the surface of the earth as a canvas. Someone put a painting on it, whitewashed it, put another painting over it, whitewashed it, and did it again and again. And archeologists peel back one painting to find evidence of the painting before. e.g. Neanderthols, various dinosaurs, etc. Each an artifact of an earlier painting. And there may be many more to come after this one gets whitewashed.

Frankly, I see him as just like all other people elected to the presidency, at least in this one way. They want to do what they want to do. And as I think I may have said this in my previous post: Biden and even Obama had their hands slapped by the SCOTUS as well. I have no problem with a president pushing the limits like a two year old, only to be slapped back by the SCOTUS. In means they are trying. And often, when you get slapped back it often means you only have to tweak what you were trying to do, and that can make it completely constitutional. And yes, I think it is almost as likely when he's re-elected, except with his experience he gained last time, he'll be a bit more careful to ensure the necessary tweaks are done BEFORE they are done, so he doesn't get overturned. BTW, though I'm a huge fan of Trump, I always get nervous about a leader being too popular. I did it with Reagan. And I find it interesting to ponder that when he is re-elected it could almost be described as the Beast's fatal head wound that was healed in Revelation 13. I don't get into all those tribulation period arguments any more. But I've read end times prophecy in the bible and simply watching and waiting. i.e. though I think about the Revelation 13 issue, it's something I'm watching for in Trump's case, rather than causing something so cryptically related to determine my vote.

But he is accountable. That's the thing. Our form of government is designed to protect us from a wannabe dictator. A simple example is his lack of experience as a president but heavy experience as a CEO. He's used to calling all the shots. But the SCOTUS became a brick wall to a couple of things he tried. And I knew they would. He had to learn in his first term that he can't just do anything, and if he tries, he gets stopped by a different branch of our government. He can't pass laws, but he can sign them once approved by the legislative branch. And if he tries to, the judicial branch stops him. Just like it stopped biden when he tried to forgive all the student loans.

Can't argue with that. It all depends on a person's schema.

Yup. One of the things I like about Trump is that he is NOT a Republican. i.e. he is not part of the Uniparty. He only joined them because he knows that to win a presidential election in the US, you have to be one of the two parties candidate. Just ask Pat Paulson.

I think the only delegates he might win will be from states that don't have an "all or none" policy. But that's just my opinion. I like some of the things he says, but honestly I think a lot of people will be put off by his voice.

Wow. Sounds a lot like our story. The only apartments I lived in was the one I lived in for a year when my first wife kicked me out at the 20 year mark, and the one my second wife and I lived in why we waited to find work to move to our rural 32 acres in Kentucky. I really hate apartments. And yeah, we get along with the "neigbors" except at certain times of year our chicken coop becomes the local smorgasbord. Racoons and Foxes. Oh, and the birds feasted on our peaches. and our "second picking" of blueberries. But still, we LOVE it here. BTW, in our last apartment our upstairs neighbor was this 30ish Russian guy that "hooked up" a lot. Sometimes it got pretty noisy up there, and sometimes I'd meet the women in the walkway to the parking lot on my way to work in the morning. I have to admit, he had pretty good taste.

Back in 1977 I lived in a duplex. The other tenant was a nurse that worked the night shift. Meanwhile, I was a hi-fi salesman with a 200 Watt per Channel Dynaco amplifier. It could get really, really loud. But I tried to be polite and kept it down. Then one day I was listening to "Go" by Stomu Yamashta, and it had this one point where a single beat of one of those huge japanese bass drums came in. The music was very quiet, but that single beat was enough for me to sense the almost subsonic quality of it. Two minutes later she's outside banging on my door. This was around two in the afternoon. I just quite playing the stereo at all and found a different place to live. Now I'm in Rural Kentucky and my nearest neighbor is several hundred yards away. We have a full rehearsal studio now and no problems.

Yep. Move. I'm being serious.

I wouldn't worry about it. In fact, the number I'd worry about is 616. Then again, I wouldn't worry about that either. The number in question is the number of a man - singular. It's like saying "the beast" lives at 1425 cherry street and anyone in the world with an address of 1425 is evil, or the beast. In one application, it calls out a person. The rest of the time it's irrelevant. The three letter security code on my old credit card was 666. Didn't bother me.

Holy cow, I could have posted that. i.e. I completely agree. The main advantage of chapters and verses, to me, is solely to quickly idenfity a verse when in conversation with people. It makes it easy to find a part. But yeah, I prefer to read a version with none of the breaks. And context is everything. I'm starting a sunday school class where we tackle one epistle a week. we'll see if that works (with the exception of Romans - too long for this format). Anyway, the way it will work is first we will talk about who wrote the epistle. Who they wrote it to, and why they wrote it, looking to issues they were trying to solve, or perhaps instruct (as in the Timothy epistles). Second, I'll ask the class to imagine they are that person or church to which the epistle was written and ask them to try to put themselves into their shoes, culture, etc. I'll then read the epistle from cover to cover, with no called out verses or chapter breaks, as I expect would have been done back in the day when it was received. I'm using the ESV and will actually print off pages from the internet with no chapter or verse breaks. Then discussion time. I'll ask what, if any, things about the epistle jumped out to them that they never noticed before. It will be interesting to see if this works. Most of the epistles can be read in under 15 minutes, even if I avoid rushing. I'm hoping that it will increase understanding of context.

My test for anger is how I respond to bad drivers. And I'm not joking. It may be my age (I'm 70), but as I get older I find myself cutting them a LOT more slack than I did in previous decades. I'm not perfect, but I'm way better than I was, by several orders of magnitude.

Regarding human beings, perfection is the enemy of excellence. As one woman said during the 2016 presidential election when asked how she could vote for a certain candidate after allegations of him having an affair, the woman said, "I'm voting for president, not husband." King David comes to mind. A murderer and adulterer, yet a great leader and a man after God's own heart. Regarding the bible quote you used, that was written for a particular people at a particular time and place.

I don't believe Trump is on a side either. He joined the side of the uniparty who's platform most merged with his own views because you have to be a member of one of those parties to even have a chance at winning. It's pretty obvious that the republicans hate him as much as the Democrats. In my opinion, it's because they are really just two branches of the same party playing "good cop, bad cop". But Trump is above it, IMO. FWIW, one thing the trump debacle has taught me: Never again will I vote for a career politician for president. I'm done playing that game.

Exactly!

I've asked this question for over a year: Regardless of which side wins, how do you think the other side will respond? Honestly, I don't know, but I strongly believe it will be popcorn time.

I have no doubt that Trump will win, assuming no cheating this time. But we'll see. And, of course, opinions vary.

I believe that if you want to know what Democrats plan to do if they win, just watch what they warn us that Trump will try to do if he wins. That's why it is scary. Remember Trump saying "lock her up"? Yet when he won, he left her alone. That is not what the democrats did when Biden "won". They're STILL going after Trump and, really, have been ever since HE won.

Though I agree with the general position you hold there, I disagree with one part. You mention death coming into the world after Adam. And I agree. But I believe the word, "world", could also be discussing the age the bible is talking about. The one that started about 6,000 years ago. But if there were any ages before that, it may not apply. That's one of the things I'm talking about. I find that often people don't differ on what the bible says, but differ on interpretation. Since world doesn't necessarily mean "earth", it is possible that "world" in the verse you brought up, death came into THIS world/age through Adam's sin. And as far as we are concerned, that is the only world that matters, from a biblical perspective. In fact, I think a lot of what the bible tells us about the past and future may need an implied suffix, "as far as humans on this planet in this age are concerned." And, most importantly, everything I said above is, IMO, outside the scope of what the bible addresses, so it's really speculation. That is, what happened before He put man on this planet.

By the way, it is argued that this is how the writers of our earliest Bible scripture viewed the earth. It would color the language they used. It's why I must constantly remind myself the bible is not a science book. That is not its function. None of it contains decipherable 24th century science.

In the vein of "science is about how and religion is about why", and understanding from where we get our book of Genesis, I'm pretty unprejudiced about how old the earth is, how Adam and Eve actually came about, the creation of the "heavens and earth", and tend to trust actual scientific discovery. After all, we're looking at pretty old translations from very old translations of mostly, if not literally, dead language. I personally interpret the phrase "the earth" as "the surface of the earth". Or even "the age of man". And I find it interesting that scientific discovery has convinced most of us that we are on a sphere orbiting the sun, which is travelling at a high rate of speed through a galaxy of quite a few other disparate "suns", yet many of us try to literally interpret the translated words of these ancient texts and therefore refuse to accept equally compelling evidence that the earth is a heck of a lot older than 6,000 years. But I'm not saying it is or isn't 6,000 years old. I'm saying the bible leaves room for both opinions and neither prevents me from living under the Grace of God and the salvation and atonement brought through Jesus death and resurrection. One might as well get wrapped around the axle about this age old question: Which is better - Ford or Chevy. So, the bottom line, at least for me, is that I am fascinated by science and it's fun to discover how creation works. But WHY we are here is the higher pursuit. And in that one word is the entire message of Christ and the history of mankind as presented in the library of books and letters spanning many centuries, languages and many diverse authors that we call "the Bible". It's a great teaching tool. But regarding the secondary* issues, it leaves room for all sorts of interpretation, even among experts in the ancient and not-so-ancient languages from which it comes. So by all means, study it, but as one scholar told me, the more a person knows and understands about the bible's message on secondary subjects, the less confident they are in their opinion on such subjects. It could be racked up as a Dunning Kruger thing. *secondary issues, from here: Primary and Secondary Issues The primary purpose of scripture is to make clear the way of salvation, therefore I believe primary beliefs are those vital to the doctrine of salvation – they are gospel issues. Gospel issues include: credal beliefs (covering the nature of God, the person and work of Christ etc.); the normative divine inspiration of Scripture without which we would not know of salvation; the explicit moral law taught in Scripture (Jesus upheld the ten commandments and their implications. The Pauline epistles and others specify sins which will, if persisted in, prevent a person entering the kingdom). I would also include clear issues of justice. I define a secondary issue as one on which numerous Christians, with an equally high view of Scripture, interpret the Bible differently, giving full weight to the traditional interpretation and using sound hermeneutical (interpretative) principles. I believe it is sinful to divide the church, or divide from the church, over secondary issues. We need to be objective about secondary issues. Any of us can subjectively elevate our favourite secondary issue into a primary issue or a shibboleth by which we judge other people’s orthodoxy. But, as we have seen, the purpose of scripture is salvation and primary beliefs are those vital to the doctrine of salvation – they are gospel issues. I am not saying these secondary issues are unimportant, but I am saying that because they are not gospel issues they are not primary.

I just happened on this thread when I logged in today. As I read through a lot of posts, this came to mind: Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 1 Timothy 6:4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 1 Timothy 3:3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 2 Timothy 2:14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. 2 Timothy 2:24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, Romans 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. Romans 13:13 Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. Proverbs 20:3 Keeping away from strife is an honor for a man, But any fool will quarrel. Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Avoid-Quarrels

blatant incompetence I'm living in "Atlas Shrugged".