Castin

About that, this appears to be something else some people I read previously do not understand in this thread. There is a difference between a whataboutism, and issuing priority.

From what I see, the conservative side of this thread isn't deflecting from issues, but critisizing the hyperfixation upon a specific issue as insignificant to the greater American predicament. 

Democracy is integral to the survival of the nation.

Absolutely not. There is nothing about Democracy that ensures individual survival. It's mob rule. Thankfully the USA is a Republic.

Tribalism is just how our brains work. The brain always calculates what is best for survival before it calculates what is best independently of survival. 

That's why inflation is such an important issue over all others. Survival.

Why do most people I come across either agree with the left on all of these issues or agree with the right on all these issues?  Why are there few people that look at each issue individually?  Is it because people are partisan hacks?

Sadly, the people who most need to see these hearings probably will not, since Fox won't air them.

They probably want to hear shows about inflation since 36% of Americans say it's the most important issue.

“EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5)

"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says."  (1 Corinthians 14:34)

• Before this passage, Paul openly speaks of women praying and prophesying in church (1 Cor 11:5). He probably wouldn't acknowledge women speaking in church and then immediately forbid them from speaking in church. Strike one.
  
• Paul cites "the Law" here, which is uncharacteristic of his ideology -- he believed in justification through faith, not the law. Appealing to the law for authority is simply non-Pauline. Strike two.
  
• If you remove this passage from the text, it flows perfectly; the passage is, in fact, intrusive. Strike three.
  
• The passage moves around in different ancient manuscripts; sometimes it appears at 14:34 and others after 14:40. This is a tell-tale sign of interpolation, a.k.a. tampering by little shits. Strike four.
  

TRUE Christians like myself have to accept the biblical FACT that women are 2nd class citizens at best.  They were put upon the earth in the beginning as a helpmate for man (Genesis 2:18) and are to be ruled by man with his authority over the woman (Ephesians 5:22-24), notwithstanding, and as the JUDEO-Christian bible promotes, there will be NO woman in heaven, since we had to put up with the woman while upon earth, praise Jesus!

• I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well. (Romans 16:1-2)
  
• Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. (Romans 16:7)
  

SILENCE WOMAN!  (Timothy 2:12)

is it possible for there to be a purpose for suffering? yes. it can help us make progress to end suffering.

it can give people the perspective to appreciate no suffering.

also, asking why we still have suffering is like asking why darkness exists.

FFS. In 2020 I had a choice -- I could vote for weakness or for cancer.

Most cancers are benign, they just look scary. Weakness ensures even the common flu will kill you.

All of this is happening because of Biden’s weakness and incompetence in foreign policy. Period. Full Stop.

Blocked. You've established yourself as a disingenuous and dishonest interlocutor. I will devote no more energy toward you while that remains true.

- What is to you the undeniable proof that the Bible is true? What does truth mean to you?

I probably have more cultural and ideological ties to the average Russian than the average American. Which is why I am supporting Russia.

And just when I was about to get back on this site ...

This comment goes against democracy (which the Ukraine is), against an international treaty that Russia swore to uphold, against decency and against what the Ukrainians WANT FOR THEMSELVES!

Over 90% of their country voted to become a democracy, to become independent. That is 44 million people who DO NOT WANT a dictator telling them what to do.

I am not a regular here, so I can say this.

ANYONE WHO SIDES WITH OUR LONG-TIME ENEMY, PUTIN, OVER A DEMOCRATIC NATION IS A TRAITOR.

If I get banned for this, I get banned. Democracy is WORTH IT!

I probably have more cultural and ideological ties to the average Russian than the average American. Which is why I am supporting Russia.

List a user you would like to mate with.

It is a pretty terrible username

Gender: female

Opinion: discarded 

You mean, I shouldn't just lurk and stare at them in accusatory silence until I'm sure they're not Wylted?

I don't understand.

This is exactly what happened to me and I swear to Locic, I'm not Wylted!

Do you agree or not on that 

jesus true father would have been known if they had DNA tests back then ?

instead of this garbage about god's son .

• Mark, our first Gospel to be written, mentions nothing about a divine virgin birth. Scholars usually consider it more adoptionistic -- God adopts Jesus as his son at Jesus's baptism. My guess is the Markan community was unaware of the virgin birth narrative. Maybe it hadn't developed yet, maybe it hadn't circulated to that community.
  
• John, our last Gospel to be written, is also mum about Jesus's virgin birth. It even refers to Jesus as the "son of Joseph." The Johannine community may have been unaware of the virgin birth narrative too, or they may have just been uninterested in incorporating it. The progression sort of goes:
  
• Mark: "Jesus was special from his baptism on" --> Matthew & Luke: "Jesus was special from birth" --> John: "Jesus was special even before his birth."
  
• Matthew and Luke are the only two books in the entire New Testament which attest to the divine parthenogenesis, and their accounts conflict.
  
• Matthew, at least, seems to have based his virgin birth narrative on a misunderstanding of an Old Testament prophecy. Matthew was reading the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which renders the Hebrew almah ("young woman") as parthenos (which is apparently more ambiguous, like "maiden" -- it could mean "young woman" or "virgin"). So Matthew, who was kind of obsessed with prophecy fulfillment, said, "Ah! The prophecy says he must be born of a virgin!" even though it doesn't say that. It wasn't even really a prophecy, by the way. Matthew just sort of took one bit of Isaiah out of context and called it a prophecy.
  
• Paul, our earliest and potentially best-informed source on Jesus, whose writings predate even the Gospels, also says nothing about the virgin birth, even though he directly addresses the issue of Jesus's birth: he says only that Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the law" -- as if Jesus was born like any other Jew. Bart Ehrman notes that Paul only needed to change one word ("born of a woman" to "born of a virgin") to incorporate the virgin birth story. He didn't. Paul claims to have met Jesus's brother James, and I actually believe him. He does not appear to have come away from this meeting with any knowledge that Jesus's birth was out of the ordinary.
  
• Jesus's original followers were Jews, who likely believed in the messiah as Jews of that time and place understood the term: a human hero, born to human parents, descended from David, and chosen by God to rule his kingdom on Earth. In Jewish scripture, the messiah was never supposed to be born of a virgin. They may have indeed called Jesus the son of God -- but this is a term we see applied elsewhere in the Old Testament with no implication that God literally fathered that person (except in the sense that God is everyone's father).
  

"I think Christianity is the ONLY true and correct religion".  #48 

But then say: 

"I don't agree with religion;#60   "I have never believed in religion. Religion ought to be abolished from my point of view".#52 (except his own  can we presume?)

 Although Paul was considered by some to have been "Gnostic".

The doctrine of Christ was not founded in the life and teachings of Yeshua, but rather, it was the invention of Paul.

Unlike the false “Gnostics” of ages past who considered themselves to be “Gnostic Christians” or “Gnostic Jews”, the True Gnostic is simply a True Gnostic.

Neither are we representative of those Gnostics which early church fathers argued against in their efforts to establish a single church orthodoxy with its attendant ecclesiastical authority.

A lot of people just saw the prominent figure for Max (Mikal) dishing it out at RM and just thought, is this how the presidency is going to be?

What's rational about this madman, he doesn't like to think

Ego so fragile he that he needs to see a shrink

Sure he's mad and not a not a man so the name is out of sync

He claims I'm abusive and he likes it, he's into some weird kinks

It's a shame he likes to pray to mods while he plays the prey

This ain't abuse it just happens to be in a zone thats gray

i paved the way for those  that say they are lost and stray

What's rational about a madman that's mad it's just a walking cliche

I don't think he's stupid. I would argue that most people are not receptive to lessons that come from a place of hostility or ridicule.

This is stupid. If your enemy puts sugar in your coffee, than your coffee tastes sweet, but if a friend even accidently poisons your coffee, you still die.

Don't think about how the message is packaged, just think of how useful it is.

That is fair and I will take that fully. I just refuse to let him go off on fully blatant rants and lies about max. Specifically because max refuses to address it since it's more of a bother than anything. So a lot of new people don't know him, see what RM is posting and assume it's true. I'm just here to troll him till he stops

They told me you are below my weight class and not to punch down on you. They are not sympathizing with your position, they are saying you are to stupid/stubborn to learn the lesson that is being taught. 

I could see how that is how you would take it without full context and I respect that, and I promise in all honesty its not taking advantage of him for amusement. The goal of this is to show him he can't just blindly insult and swing and not expect to receive shit back. For example he has went through posts and reported every thing someone posts when he disagrees with them just so moderation will hopefully eventually listen to him. He wants to be able to block you and say bad things about you without the consequences of someone calling him out or responding to him. When he does it someone it's fine because to him he sees it as a critique but when someone does it him, then they are a bully etc. I promise you if it was so one sided whiteflame or moderation would have stepped in and I ask them constantly if I'm going to far etc and they are fully aware that he dishes as much as he gets which is why they have not intervened. I know slapping on the hand publicly is probably not the best way to handle most situations like that but for him, it's the only way you drive it in his brain. 

I just don't take his bullshit victim mentality and instead of being just mean to him, usually meming him drives the point much harder because he responds poorly to it.