Carborendum

Members
  • Posts

    4498
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    200

Everything posted by Carborendum

  1. It may be a question of semantics. But I don't believe it is because we tell ourselves lies. I think it is that often times we don't know the difference between truth and lies.
  2. Civically speaking, I believe we have the proper guidance on the matter: when a long train of abuses... Still, the principles will determine the results. If we truly are justified, then the Lord will be behind us. And the reverse would be the obvious corellary. So, if we really are willing to pledge our lives, our fortunes, and out sacred honor on the outcome, then rebellion/insurrection is on the table But that has to be backed up by the judgement of God to determine if it really is "OK when WE do it." And that is the real trick, isn't it?
  3. This is a true statement. But look a little deeper. Why is this true?
  4. We seem to now have a society in pretty much the entire developed world where we choose to believe falsehoods and stick with it no matter what. The fact that they're sticking to their guns is actually an admirable quality. People have the second half of that equation down pat. The problem is that too often, they don't abide by the first half of the equation. Why is that? Human beings have a natural desire for truth. Truth brings us peace. The Light of Christ tells us all that this is true. And truth provides a sense of security. Virtually any continually surviving religion today will provide a moral framework for people to determine what is truth. Religious conviction should also be slow in forming. We are raised through years of teaching. One may call it indoctrination if one disagrees with what is taught. But it doesn't matter. The child growing up in it is always curious. Some ask more questions than others. But they still take years and years to form their convictions about that religion -- even if they were indoctrinated since childhood. Whether right or wrong, they have learned There is such a thing as "truth". To reason out (whether false foundation or not) how truths fit together. They have learned how one truth will lead to another truth. To understand that knowing the truth will help guide their lives. They have put that system through their own natural curiosity of "how & why". That much at least provides a foundation for "proving all things." The problem we see today about the rising generation leaving religion in droves is not because they realize what they were taught was wrong. The problem is that they were never taught "truth" in the first place. Parents falsely believe that they shouldn't "force" their religion on their children. And there is a genuine wisdom in not "forcing" it upon them. But that often translates into "shield them from any religion at all." If you're never taught what is true (or worse, that there actually isn't a "truth" at all) how can one recognize it when they hear it? When people start off being told that there is no truth, then by default, they will believe what is false. As children of God, our spirits are fed by light and truth. We NEED truth. And if we can't find truth from our early surroundings, we desperately grab onto some falsehood as truth. "Hold fast to that which is false" becomes teh default. No such thing as "slowly forming convictions". No such thing as "proving all things". A starving person doesn't care if food is poisoned. They will ravenously eat it anyway. I would rather have a child brought up in a false religion than to have them raised with no religion at all. The false religion has a foundation of the idea of truth that we can work with. But to be raised thinking there is no truth? Exits from such a deep pit are few and far between.
  5. Well, of course. People always believe what they want to believe. There's never any such thing as "proof". People only accept things that already fit into their narrative. The ironic thing is that we're essentially supposed to think that way. I'm going to start a new thread about that.
  6. They actually form a little closer to Cuba than that. https://scijinks.gov/hurricane/
  7. So, we're apparently up to 28 attacks https://catholicvote.org/pregnancy-center-attack-tracker/ Oh, but don't worry, these are only isolated incidents. It's not like it is encouraged by political rhetoric. Nothing to see here. I wonder... 28 across a country as big as ours may not be the panic moment some take it to be. What number will it take before it is a trend? When does it become terrorism? How many before it isn't just "isolated"?
  8. This was, as you say, perfectly logical and reasonable given the circumstances -- according to the customs of men. And that is exactly why it was wrong. What happens when God says one thing and the customs of men say another? Saul (and the more part of the Israelites at the time) kept choosing the customs of men instead of the ways of God. And as innocent as some of the practices may sound, it wasn't the practices themselves, but the willingness to cleave to the customs of men and despise the ways of the Lord.
  9. I believe you probably already know the answer to this question. I have a childhood friend who is a Methodist minister who shared with me her views on the topic. And it was surprisingly in line with ours. She pointed me to several websites that had similar takes on the topic. If you already know, why are you asking the question? Why wouldn't you use this opportunity to share that concordant belief instead of point out differences? You're assuming they had such a fellowship. The verses you point to indicate similarity and familiarity. You're stretching quite a bit to infer fellowship from those verses. But you're a master at stretching meaning out of Scripture that simply isn't there.
  10. @pam I'm seeing tell-tale signs from several posters (including me) that indicates a distinct tendency to "self-quote" when trying to edit their post. Just an FYI.
  11. I see this as a perfectly reasonable position. And I don't exactly outright reject the possibility either. I hold primarily two points: 1) The reasoning and arguments used (at least the couple dozen that I read) to assume the innuendo do not hold water when you consider all the usage. I also found no evidence that some of the assumptions made about meanings and customs were even verifiable. They seemed to be made up out of whole cloth. Could it still be so? Of course. But why jump to an unseemly conclusion when the preponderance of the evidence and stronger arguments indicate the simpler explanation is probably the correct one? People seem to want to believe something just because it is sensational, not because it is more likely or true. 2) Ruth was a virtuous woman. You noticed that too? Again, you're assuming things about my intent.
  12. Most people reading the Book of Ruth tend to get hung up on the whole thing about Boaz's feet. What was up with that? What I was surprised by was how many people assume the worst and believe that Ruth was doing something untoward to Boaz. Even Matthew Henry seems to get this impression. But he relents and chooses to believe it only "seemed" that way. But it still shouldn't have been done. So, he splits the difference and blames Naomi for encouraging her. Still a LOT of commentators (both past centuries, and current ones) tend to believe it was a euphemism. Many of those pushing the unseemly narrative show their ignorance of the Hebrew language and of the customs of the people of that day. But most of the more modern ones tend to be less scholarly. The more scholarly sources seem to point out historical and cultural context that indicates that it was all above board. So, why should we care? She was human. She could sin and repent. Why bother clearing her name? Well, we certainly don't want to tarnish the reputation of someone who was deemed a virtuous woman, especially if we do so simply out of ignorance. We know that she was a woman who was touched by the Spirit. A convert to the religion of Israel, she left her homeland and all she knew to live by the commandments of a God she came to accept as her own. The Law of Moses required that her near kinsman take her to wife. And (as far as she knew at the time) that was Boaz. It was her actual RIGHT to demand that he marry her and care for her. But she didn't do that. And the way she went about it showed just how humbly she went about it. First, it was a custom for some trusted servants to sleep at or near the feet of their master (like a dog, one might say). So, when it says she was sleeping at his feet, she was really sleeping at his feet. And it was a sign of humility and submission. This was further amplified by uncovering his feet. This process has been called chalitzah. The shoe thing was part of Middle Eastern culture prior to the Law of Moses. It was a means of "sealing the deal." That's why it was added as part of the instruction for chalitzah. Nowadays it is the more common choice among Jews who have been widowed because of various practical reasons. I don't know how much they spit in each others' eyes anymore. Basically, Ruth was letting him know that she was aware of his duty under the law, but she was also saying that she was perfectly willing to accept chalitzah if he chose not to. She already began the process of rejection by uncovering his feet so it would be easier to take his shoe off. (Remember he was in the threshing room floor. One does not walk around that with bare feet). She did this to let him know that she was not embarassing him in public and forcing him into a marriage that he wouldn't want (there was a certain amount of shame when a man chose this and the woman did not). So, she just brought the choice to him in the least threatening way possible. That is what the feet thing was about. I'm not going to go into all the linguistic reasoning why the "euphemistic" interpretation would be stretching the imagination. But suffice it to say, it just wasn't so. As Boaz instructed Ruth to leave, he wanted her to remain stealthy so people didn't get the wrong idea. There was no "wrong idea" if they had actually done the deed. It is much more likely that nothing immoral occurred, and they both wanted to keep it that way. They also didn't want anyone else to think incorrectly. When Boaz spoke with the near kinsman in front of a crowd of witnesses, he took his shoe off of his foot to seal the deal that Boaz would marry Ruth and that the kinsman wanted nothing to do with her. EDIT: An interesting thing to note was that Ruth was in fact offering a proposal of marriage when she said And the "spread thy skirt" was actually a euphemism. But it was meant to be within a formal marriage. Further evidence that this was still chaste is If they had already done it, he wouldn't have to promise "I *will* do" emphasizing the fact that she is a VIRTUOUS WOMAN.
  13. So, the basic problem with Saul was that he kept trying to usurp priestly authority. While he agreed that he was only King because the Lord annointed him as such, he tends to have this idea that being king gave him certain religious privileges. 1 Sam 13 -- Saul offers burnt offerings even though he is not a priest. 1 Sam 14 -- Saul randomly declares a fast for the entire army. This leads people to forget Koshering the food and feasting on non-Kosher foods. 1 Sam 15 -- After being told to kill every living thing, Saul decides to spare Agag and the choice animals "for sacrifice". Each time, he feels that he has authority simply because he feels like it. First, it's impatience. Second, to gain attention and tout his authority. Then because he feared the people. What kind of man can he be described as? He was a large and mighty man. He was an accomplished warrior. He was anointed as a king. Yet, he keeps wanting to do things to boost his image among the people? And this is not even megalomania (i.e. power corrupting him). It seems more like a completely ineffective leader who was thrust into the position of king. A strong man who gains power will use that power to force/encourage people to follow him (whether for good or evil). A weak man who gains power will use that power to boost his own image. A man of God who gains power will use his power to provide freedom and security for his people and encourage them to follow the Lord. This last test (kill everything) was not a light commandment. To give such a commandment to Saul meant that this was the last straw for the Amalekites. And, it appears, it was the last test for Saul. Verse 8 says "Saul" took Agag alive. Verse 9 says "Saul and the people" spared Agag and the choicest animals. Verse 15: Saul blames "the people" for sparing them. He continues this lie all the way until v.21. Then when Samuel calls his bluff, Saul tears Samuel's apron (I'm guessing it was his ephod). Again a fourth time, he did a sacred no-no. Priestly robes were not to be touched by non-priests. Finally: Even when sentence is pronounced upon him, even as he begs for forgiveness, he isn't sorry about failing in the eyes of the Lord. He's sorry for being weak in the eyes of the people.
  14. Another... The Famines have already started. We're going to enter an era where it is not just one product or one type of food. Within the next 6 months we'll see: 1) Grocery chains going out of business. 2) Walmart will have entire aisles of bare shelves in the food section. At the sme time, all the first world shopping items will he overstocked. 3) Basic commodities, especially, will be out or very scarce. What we saw happen with baby formula will happen with milk, eggs, bread, fruits and vegetables, and meat. Seafood will probably disappear. Get your food storage NOW. Gasoline will follow. ** So, we have Disease, Famine. War??? Yes, Ukraine/Russia. But I feel like the end times conditions means all nations (practically speaking). And we're not there yet. Death??? Again, what type? People die all the time. I think we have yet to see masses of people dying for inexplicable reasons. So, what is that about anyway?
  15. In this week's reading, we come across 1 Sam 8 wherein "The Samuel Principle" is shewn. We discover an awful lot of detail that is very interesting. Let's see if you can detect anything familiar. 1) It starts with the children of Israel saying that they don't think they can trust the Prophets, Priests, and Judges because "Hey, Samuel! Look at your sons! We'd rather have a king!" 2) Then Samuel goes to the Lord and the Lord immediately tells him: a) They haven't rejected you. They've rejected me (The Lord). b) Go ahead and give them a king. But with a king comes some rules and responsibilities. 3) The people don't like this idea, so they reject the rules for good government but want a king anyway. 4) Samuel goes to the Lord again, and the Lord says,"Hey, go ahead." (with an implied: "You'll be sorry.") First, the people think they have a valid complaint. Samuel's own sons were corrupt. The prophet, himself, appointed these boys to be judges! And they're this corrupt?!?! Obviously this entire system is broken. We want a different system. Hey, everyone else has a king. Why can't we just have a king? Everyone else is doing just fine. So, we'll be better of without God ruling over us. We'll let a man rule over us instead. (I don't see any problems with that. heh-heh). The Lord knows Samuel's sons are corrupt. But He still lets us know that the rejection wasn't ever about Samuel's sons. It was just an excuse. Their real motivation was that they didn't like this lifestyle anymore. They wanted to be like other nations. They wanted to reject the Lord while maintaining plausible deniability. Then the Lord outlines a very scant constitution for good government. He doesn't bother with the convention and a lengthy document because... the people reject that too and want to be just like all other nations. Imagine, you're the strongest most powerful nation in the world (as far as the know). They've won every military encounter based on miracles obviously wrought by God. But they're tired of it and want to be like other nations who do not have God behind them... Then we get a response from the Lord which brings to mind the phrase "Be careful what you ask for. You may get it."
  16. I sometimes wonder if anyone really knows what "prepared for a mission" really means. And given conditions today (boy have my missionaries got some stories) I wonder if we know. But I suppose they don't yet have an experience like Ammonihah.
  17. That's a pretty new car. It looks like you took the right steps. But I see a red flag: Your pump broke (you didn't say, but I'm guessing it overheated?). Then it overheated again when there was a coolant leak. Where was the leak? Was it just the gasket? or was the block cracked. That's the difference. If it is cracked, then yes, you have to replace it. If not, just do the gasket and save yourself some money. Apart from that, I don't see any other reason to replace the engine.
  18. The only reason you'd need to change the engine out is if the engine itself is damaged in any way. If the only thing wrong is the gasket, just replace the gasket. Did they give you any description of what condition the engine itself is in? How old is the vehicle? How many miles? The damaged head gasket does not *automatically* mean you need a new engine block. Sometimes, if you've driven with a leaking gasket for a long time, it can damage parts of the engine. The longer you did so, the more likely the damage is irreversible. One thing you may want to consider is that when the gasket leaks, it can allow mixing of engine oil and coolant. That's not a good thing. So, you have to drain teh oil and the coolant and replace it with uncontaminated stuff. You may want to ask the repair shop if they have an easy way of telling whether either fluid is contaminated with the other. The fact that they wanted to jump straight to the engine replacement tells me that they may not be a reputable shop. But when they told you that the gasket replacement would be cheaper, that makes me think they might be ok. But did they only bring it up when you asked them about it? Or did they offer that to you on their own? EDIT: I just saw your post in the other thread. It seems like you got one guy there that was jumping to sell you a new engine. The other guy was offering the cheaper alternative. £1700 is a big difference. If you feel like they are trustworthy, just ask yourself if you can afford the £1700 (additional). If so, you get a new engine.* If you have an older vehicle, it could be worth it if the rest of the vehicle is in good shape. If you have a fairly new car, I'd consider what condition the engine itself is in. It may not require replacement. * Make sure they're talking about a completely new engine, not just a portion of it.
  19. https://local12.com/news/nation-world/police-believe-fire-at-pro-life-building-was-targeted-arson-madison-wisconsin-sunday-fire-blaze-structure-chief-police-shon-barnes-family-action-abortion-pro-life-pro-choice-incident-cincinnati-ohio Here's one in Wisconsin -- about a month ago.
  20. I haven't heard of others. But this "organization" had one center vandalized a while ago. And now they had this arson event. What were the others you heard about?
  21. If you've seen what was happening to the market this past week, it's pretty clear that the stock market is in trouble. If the pattern holds, the low point for the DOW will be around 24,000 to 25,000. So, we have quite a ways to go. But just following the trend, we're looking at an overall downward trend until the fall at least. I was hoping that it may partially turn around during the later fall. But I don't think it will be significant.
  22. https://first-image.org/2022/06/11/greshamcentersetonfire/ A pro-life pregnancy center was the victim of arson.