Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/26/22 in all areas

  1. I've heard of this in variant forms, primarily about plain old-fashioned homosexuality specifically. Since then, I've spent some time thinking about it. And there may be a logic to it. But when we bring in the Plan of Salvation into it, the picture changes quite a bit. Scientifically, naturally, according to man's understanding: It is possible that nature has some mechanism that says that the available elements, nutrients, resources, etc. can only successfully sustain evolutionary natural selection trends to a certain point. After that point, some nutrient deficiency will trigger a trend of increased non-heterosexual behavior. Perhaps, a look at all the nutrients required for human biology have a limiting element that specifically effects heterosexual tendencies. It's within the realm of reasonableness. Counterpoint: If we believe only in man's science as described above, then it stands to reason that non-heterosexual individuals are specifically NOT supposed to reproduce. They are specifically NOT supposed to raise/rear children. Nature itself is demanding that this be the case. So, why would we allow these individuals to propagate the species? Their argument completely falls apart on their own terms. Yet, trans men are being placed in jail cells with biological women and impregnating them. Gay couples are being allowed to adopt and use surrogates to make babies just so they can be raised by homosexual couples? Consider the Plan of Salvation: The Lord has told us: Multiply & replenish the earth. There is enough and to spare. If these are both true, then the theory should not be used to justify non-heterosexual behavior. Either way, homosexual propagation, raising, or rearing is not justified.
    2 points
  2. I missed this thread the first time around. Not sure I have anything new to offer. Discovering in my early 20s that "trusting my gut" was always, at least almost always, the most enjoyable and least painful option was a revelation to me. Learning to implement that insight into my life decisions has occupied a significant part of my life since that time. I am grateful to a kind, merciful Father for allowing me these experiences, experiences that humble me and let me recognize my dependence on him.
    2 points
  3. https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-senate-abortion-protest-hostage https://nypost.com/2022/06/25/arizona-abortion-protest-police-release-tear-gas-lawmakers-held-hostage-in-senate-building/ https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-senate-abortion-protest-hostage https://foxmetronews.com/news/breaking-arizona-senate-evacuated-after-pro-choice-rioters-and-teachers-breach-security/ https://www.12news.com/article/news/politics/dozens-gather-at-arizonas-state-capitol-protesting-roe-v-wade-ruling/75-aa642eee-e41a-4cb0-858f-835e31ed2818 And a a Twitter Video https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1540548828696150016?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1540548828696150016|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.12news.com%2Farticle%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fdozens-gather-at-arizonas-state-capitol-protesting-roe-v-wade-ruling%2F75-aa642eee-e41a-4cb0-858f-835e31ed2818 It was declared a "hostage situation" when state senators were not allowed to leave their chambers for fear of their lives. This really was a literal insurrection. It was not just a random mob people with similar interests. It was not a bunch of people protesting and letting their emotions get the better of them. It was organized with people wearing uniforms and carrying weapons drawn (not just concealed carriers keeping their self-protection close to their chest). Their intent was to destroy property, vandalize, intimidate (and likely kill) senators. The police response was proportional and reactionary. The main tactic wasn't to arrest large numbers of people. The tactic was to disperse and allow the senators to be free. Compare that to how they treated Jan 6th. NOTE: From CNN WP, etc. They headlined the fact that police used tear gas rather than the danger that was posed to the senators. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/24/us/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-protests/index.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/roe-protest-disrupts-last-hours-of-2022-arizona-legislature/2022/06/25/7dce1366-f47f-11ec-ac16-8fbf7194cd78_story.html They don't dare show the videos of just how bad these actors were.
    1 point
  4. Just today elsewhere I saw someone propose that the rise of the LGBTQ lifestyle was nature's way of culling the species. I largely think most of it's a cultural trend myself, but it was an interesting idea. But how much, then, does nature want to cull? "Children of Men"'s civilization lost childbirth for around 20 years and it was a social/political disaster. Fictional, sure, but it can be considered. Unless we can achieve a working cloning situation in a timely manner to satisfy this Prideful population you speak of, I don't see these Primal Instincts being easily dismissed.
    1 point
  5. There was. I can't find it anymore. Thanks, Twitter (I'm guessing). The "uniforms" were a group of people all clad in black with masks -- like you'd see from ANTIFA, but you could see by their mannerisms that they were not ANTIFA. They were something else. The weapons were the wood posts that some were using to carry signs that were then used to try to break the glass on the buildings. That was the point where they shot the tear gas at the protesters. And there was video of the palm tree outside smoking. But it isn't clear if that was from the police or the protesters. From the police website: So, just like Jan 6, the majority were protesting peacefully. But there were agitators. And I believe it was those agitators I saw in black.
    1 point
  6. It was a comet that had not been discovered at the time of the transmission. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-wow-mystery-space.html This was apparently disputed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal I have no idea why they cited the second source (New Scientist) as discrediting the comet theory, when it clearly supports it. The other two make some good arguments. But they are no stronger than the arguments made by Antonio Paris. And the biggest problems they have with the comet idea can be explained by the fact that two of them were in the vicinity at the time and there was some interaction.
    1 point
  7. Balancing my faith in the leading of the Holy Spirit with the spiritual caution that the human heart is deceitful above all else, I must constantly seek the Spirit's guidance while remaining vigilant against blaming my own cravings on God. 😉
    1 point