The_Patriot21

For a ghost to be a ghost it first needs to be born, die, then come back and be reborn as a ghost. 

But, since ghosts don't exist, then obviously your dead.

Well...they're right...

So basically he's been preventing republicans from securing the border, but is now securing it and blaming the Republicans for not doing it. Hmmm sounds about right.

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I agree with the federal government,  in principle anyway, that presidents shouldn't be immune from prosecution. The law needs to apply to everyone equally or it's not the law.

But, on the other I see the left grossly misusing the law, and using it as a political weapon to crush resistance, and not to enforce justice, especially in this farce of a trial against Trump, and it sickens me to see how low our country has fallen.

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Hmm... sounds pretty unlikely.   Can you find a checkable source for that?   

 I would have thought something that unlawful would have been all over Fox News and other right-wing outlets.   But I can find nothing.   What do you have?

I couldn't find anything anything, either.   Neither Reuters nor Fox reported it.   That would have been an easy appeal.    And it would have been everywhere on the news and Trump's minions would have it on Fox and every other right-wing outlet.  

 

Naturally your not finding it...it's not a surprise. With the amount of censorship going on these days, like you mentioned it would be something the right would jump all over it. So it would make sense the news agencies either took it down, or Google buried the results so they couldn't be found.

With that said a lot of trumps followers, are so biased and blinded by their belief in trump that they can't be bothered to do any research and a once off article would easily be overlooked.

I know I'm not dreaming though as I have several liberal friends, who not only hate trump, and who not only agree with the verdict, who saw the article and agreed with the judge and said that the judge was justified in his comments. So I know I'm not the only one who saw it.

In any case, I know what I saw. I know it to be true. But, I cannot prove it right now, and I know how that looks, and that I can't convince you without said article, so I'm not going to, and will now out of this conversation until such time as I find it. Have a good day.

1 hour ago, Marathoner said:

 

Mr. Trump wasn't convicted of bribing a porn star. He was convicted of 34 counts related to falsifying business records. 

Tomato tomato....34 counts of falsifying records concerning paying off a porn star...it's actually pretty petty compared to all the things they have accused him of.

It's akin to spending years accusing a man of murder, only to convict him of jaywalking once no evidence of murder could be found. Reeks of desperation.

38 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Hmm... sounds pretty unlikely.   Can you find a checkable source for that?   

 I would have thought something that unlawful would have been all over Fox News and other right-wing outlets.   But I can find nothing.   What do you have?

 

What part is unlawful? It's actually legal for a judge to judge contrary to the jury, and does happen time to time, albeit it's rare. 

Or for his comments showing his extreme bias? I read it on a Reuters article at one point I believe, might have been fox, back when the trial was just getting ready to get fired up. Judge said it in an interview. Article then naturally, got buried and never hit front page news (shocker) that was some time ago, but I will see if I can find it again.

One could argue though that that wasn't necessarily "illegal" in that judges are human to and could argue he was just venting his feelings, but it does show his clear bias beforehand which judges arnt supposed to have.

I'll see if I can find it again. Not that it matters, the entire thing was obviously a kangaroo court from the get go.

I mean they threw everything they could at him and the only thing they could get to stick was bribing a porn star...I mean that's not a good thing to do, but it does seem pretty desperate on the lefts part. 

I knew he was going to be convicted...the judge flat out stated before the trial even began that he was going to find trump guilty, even went so far as to say he would ignore the jury if they found him innocent.

Lol according to the ethics of their resistance. He's not lying...raping and killing is indeed part of their ethics.

10 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi Pat,

Now can you give a scripture for that thought as the OP asks? Otherwise........

Sure John 1:1 clearly says God likes baseball because in the begINNING was the word ;)

You all are discussing what you think they're doing...but maybe they're just tossing a ball around. :)

To me I guess it depends on what you define as accept. Your friend is right we can't force someone to not be gay anymore then we can force anyone to come to Christ.

But neither should we just say that's ok.

From a legal perspective, I don't think the government has any business in marriage. They shouldn't define it or regulate it in any way. If they stayed out of it then yes, gays could legally be married all they want.

But, no God fearing church should marry them nor condone the marriage. Doesn't mean they arnt welcome In church, they absolutely should-but they shouldn't be teaching nor in any place of authority nor have any vote in how the church is run.

14 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

If you're allowed a monkey I'm allowed a diorama. I'll have the monkey in it but no Lilith. 

Fair enough lol

25 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

What about the monkey you mentioned?

It was some redneck humor thrown in. Around here, the running joke is when a guy wants to go and do something stupid without thinking, the guy turns to his buddy and says hold my beer, and then goes and does it. 

I was referring to the fact that in scripture Adam didn't even think about it he just took the fruit. 

So I was basically trying to use humor to drive home a point and apparently I didn't do as good of a job as I thought lol 

2 hours ago, Michael37 said:

I've seen a few dioramas. The Garden of Eden makes a good one. 

Getting it just how God set it up is dramatic . . . Tree of Life here. Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil there. Serpent close by . . . and of course Adam and Eve. What could possibly go wrong?

Copilot Capsule: A diorama is a fascinating form of display. It’s like a miniature world captured within a confined space, allowing viewers to peer into a specific scene or setting. Here are some key points about dioramas:

1. Definition:

   • A diorama is a three-dimensional model or display that represents a scene, landscape, historical event, or concept.
   • It often includes miniature figures, objects, and detailed backgrounds.

2. Common Uses:

   • Educational purposes: Dioramas are frequently used in schools and museums to illustrate historical events, ecosystems, or scientific concepts.
   • Artistic expression: Artists create dioramas as a form of visual storytelling or to evoke emotions.
   • Hobby and recreation: Many enthusiasts build dioramas for fun, using various materials like clay, paper, wood, and plastic.

3. Construction:

   • Crafting a diorama involves careful planning, creativity, and attention to detail.
   • Elements such as lighting, perspective, and scale play a crucial role in making the scene realistic.

4. Themes:

   • Dioramas can depict anything from ancient civilizations and natural habitats to futuristic cities and fantasy worlds.
   • Some famous dioramas include historical battle scenes, wildlife habitats, and architectural models.

Remember, the magic of a diorama lies in its ability to transport us to another place or time, even if only for a moment. If you’re interested in creating one, feel free to ask for tips or ideas! 😊

Indeed, but I fail to see what a diorama has anything to do with the topic at hand here, as we're discussing whether Adam had more then one wife. According to scripture, the answer is a resounding no, the location of such and such a tree is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

If we're talking about Adam taking the fruit, there's two sides there-one that Adam was standing next to eve and saw it took place, the other that he was elsewhere in the garden.

But again, it doesn't matter because Adam still took the fruit-without any trickery. The Bible says through one man sin entered the world (Romans 5:12) which leads to the responsibility actually being on Adam which definitely implies a conscious decision on his part, and since there's no mention of trickery on eves part and no mention of Adam being deceived, then the logical assumption is there wasn't any (why would they list the conversation between the serpent and eve and not even and Adam)

So the logical conclusion is Adam took it willingly and knowingly, regardless of where he was in the garden at the time.

So even there I fail to see what an diorama will explain, that scripture has not.

I don't go by traditions, but by the word of God. Word of God says that Adam only had one wife. It also says point blank that sin entered the world via Adam and eve. Had Adam had an earlier wife who got ejected from the Bible then the Bible is lying, as it was by this Lilith that sin entered. Since I don't believe the Bible to be lying I'm going to stick with the Biblical account and assume the tradition to be straight up nonsense.

And to address the sexist comment towards women, let's not forget Eve had to be convinced to try the fruit and actually argued with Satan before finally trying it. Not Adam. He didn't even ask why. Eve offered it, and he was like if she can do it so can I, and was like "hey monkey, hold my beer! I got this!"

 And the rest is history.

Just read this...am going to say it is scientifically unsound. Any event large enough to seperate the continent would have destroyed all life on earth.

A flood, as described in the Bible would fit that bill while allowing those on the ark to survive.

As far as to how the people traveled to different parts of the earth after babel isn't really that hard. It could easily have been frozen between Alaska and Russia. They could (and likely did) sail across. We know the Vikings certainly beat Columbus over, so it's not beyond the realm of possibilities someone beat the Vikings over by sailing. 

But to suggest something happened post flood is highly unlikely. Something of that nature would be a worldwide catastrophe, of which there's no mention of such a event in scripture.

So instead of imagining a overly complicated scenario in how the continents could have seperated one should just stick with the easy solution and assume the flood seperated it, and mankind was smart enough to figure out how to cross an ocean.

3 hours ago, RdJ said:

That's not good. Paul uses it in a good way though. But yes it can go wrong. One guy at the office didnt get it and then the guy who made a friendly joke was offended that he thought he meant it nasty and we just quit it altogether. If someone does not get the joke just don't do it. I don't think it's necessarily bad or fleshly though if it's just friendly and the other one understands. Or maybe that's irony.

Indeed. My dad always told me that a joke is only funny if both parties find it funny, so knowing your audience is very important.

If you say something that hurts someone, then your intention means nothing 

Which means if me and neighbor ever meet up in person, "no doh" comments are probably off the table lol.

7 hours ago, Neighbor said:

Umm sarcasm is the poor cousin of wit. Sarcasm never encourages nor bears fruit, it just chops up being an unkind cut that stings; while wit can tickle the funny bone even as it shares a teaching or caring  moment.

One cuts and loses friendships, the other can be cherished as part of building  up many a friendship.

I disagree. Well, not entirely. Sarcasm can indeed be used unkindly, either to hurt or to divide, or even if used to much.

But, a well placed sarcastic comment between two good friends working on a project can indeed be hilarious and tighten a bond.

Heck me and my best friend when we're together not only do we smart off to each other but we spend hours roasting each other and our taste in pickups, all in good fun of course.

We've even had people who don't know us well (especially if they're not from around here) ask us if we're actually friends...yeah, actually. Either one of us would drop whatever were doing at the moment to help the other out no questions asked...

Perhaps it's just a culture thing.

Well, I'm going to address first martin Luther's comment, in that it's wholly wrong. Now I like luthor...but to say that there is an error In free will is to say God made a mistake in giving it to us, which God cannot do.

The better phraseology is the consequence of free will is sin, which isn't a special doctrine of the antichrist, but THE doctrine of the antichrist.

As far as your comments about sarcasm and facetious comments...I'm assuming the correlation is you think they're sin.

And they can be if used improperly. But there is a time and place for sarcasm. Even the apostle Paul used sarcasm in his letters. The key factor is love.

Id leave them someplace where the only way to get to them is through a loaded 12 gauge.

Humor aside, if the thieves are indeed violent, truth be told a car isn't worth anyone's life and leaving the keys outside would save on property damage. Shame the Canadian government can't crack down harder on the thieves though.

Haha lower utility bills. They've done nothing but skyrocket since he took office. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

On 4/13/2024 at 11:15 AM, Henry_iain said:

Let's try this one:

 

 

"And the head coach wants no sissies,

So he reads to us from something called Ulysses"

 

 

Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh by Allan Sherman.

Now, let's try something from this century and see if anyone can get it.

All the promises and lies
All the times I compromised
All the times you were denied
You have forgiven

15 minutes ago, Jayne said:

You are precisely right.

Getting "wet" for ceremonial cleanliness/purity was well known by Jews of the Old Testament.

The tvilah and mikvah were well known.  Baptism would not have come as a surprise to Jews.

The meaning behind baptism was certainly new, but not the act itself 

13 hours ago, Mr. M said:

Don't forget that there were many false Messiahs at that time that may have used baptism for initiates. This makes John's baptism all the more significant, and was emphasized often by the Lord.

Acts 5:

34 Then one in the council stood up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people, and commanded them to put the apostles outside for a little while. 

35 And he said to them: “Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men. 

36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. 

37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. 

38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 

39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”

Note: Gamaliel was Paul's teacher. Acts 22:3

 

Again I think your misunderstanding my point. But I won't argue further.