ClaytonB
Member

Sure. But then they wouldn't be able to say, "We did not instruct our informants to be there." It's the ol' FVEYs trick: "you illegally spy on our citizens for us, and we'll illegally spy on your citizens for you" aka, scratch my back, I'll scratch yours...

Uninstructed by the FBI. Try to keep up...

'Tis the Season for the minor key...

Ah yes, the Macho Man Randy Savage wing of the Libertarian Party... :tears:

Happens to be on-topic:

It's time to retire this old wives' tale: "That's your economic theory. Our economic theory says different." This is as retarded as having "your physics" and "my physics". Economic theory -- actual economics, as exemplified by the Austrian school -- isn't about opinions. It's about unalterable facts of reality. If you increase the MW, you will increase unemployment, all else equal. That's not an opinion, it's an unalterable fact. Much of the political discourse consists of opinions for which there is no easy method to find out who is right (doesn't mean it's impossible, it's just not easy). But when it comes to basic facts of economics, there are clear and relatively easy answers to be had, all one has to do is read a good book on economics. Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson is a great starting-point and I believe Milei has recommended everyone to read that. The meteoric rise of Argentina on the world stage is a concrete demonstration of this reality -- real economists are not just grumpy apologists for country-club Republicanism which I hate anyway. No, they are explaining the facts of reality, and you can live in denial of reality (and have a collapsing, fiat-money-based, debt-enslaved country)... or you can listen to the truth, accept the unalterable facts of economic reality, and make policy decisions accordingly. This is the same dilemma facing all ~200 nations in the world today. Keep living in denial, if you choose, but you and your people will continue to pay the penalty in the form of ever-increasing destitution. The global plutocracy are the only ones who are winning from the status quo. American elites -- both Democrat and Republican -- have more in common with European elites than with ordinary Americans. This is true for the plutocrat class of every nation. Until this lesson is really absorbed by The People, nothing is ever really going to change. Stop allowing globalism to destroy your economy so that some random precinct governor in South America can add a third yacht to his collection in Barbados. That's where all your "foreign aid" is really going. Yacht collections. WAKE UP

Truly moving. Yes, all believers are united in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether that be through martyrdom or other suffering on the narrow path to Life. Since you love icons, if you haven't heard of Jonathan Pageau, I'm sure you will enjoy his channel:

I'll try to come back later and reply in detail, but I'll give a quick response here -- I agree that we must measure all branches of the church by the fruit they produce. The problem that I perceive in both Rome and Orthodoxy (as an outside observer), is there is a tendency to just assume "we are the people we are waiting for." As a Reformed Christian, my challenge to both of the main traditional branches of the church is this: What if God's plan includes something more? Something that you didn't think of? Something that is in the Word of God (not a novelty), but which Jesus chose, for his own reasons, not to fully explain to you? This question is not arbitrary, nor is it mere partisanship or apologetics for the Reformation -- it is the four gospels all over again. Who sits in "the seat of Moses" today? (Matt. 23:1 and context) If anyone could be described with that language it would be the Pope and I would include the Patriarchs of Orthodoxy, also. There is no equivalent in Reformed Christianity unless you want to mention the Archbishop of Canterbury, for Anglicans. There is a universal tendency among the leadership of church institutions to assume that God's plan is to make the whole world into church, and heaven is basically church forever. But what does Scripture say?: "I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp." (Rev. 21:22,23) "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." (Jer. 31:34) "It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me." (John 6:45)

True, however, Scripture is still the highest authority because it is the word of God, full-stop. The Holy Spirit, being the author of Scripture, never contradicts himself, so his prophetic work is always consistent with the Scriptures. Human tradition is a safeguard against error, but it is not a greater authority than God's own Word. This is actually played out in the gospels themselves... a central point of contention between Jesus and the Jewish authorities is that they have tradition, so he cannot disagree with them. After all, they sit in Moses's seat (Matt. 23:1), so they are the final court of appeal (in their opinion). And how did Jesus prove them wrong? In two ways: (a) prophecy and (b) the crucifixion. Thus, the answer to the errors of tradition that have crept into the church over time (yes, there are errors in tradition) is (a) to prophesy against it (which is a work of the Holy Spirit, and no man) and (b) to suffer patiently as a witness to those within the church whose hearts have grown hard by whatever trick of the enemy, causing them to regard tradition above the Word of God himself, whose word is given to us in the holy Scriptures. The purpose of this patient witness is not to "win the argument", it's so that God will woo them back to his flock and the Holy Spirit will correct their errors in the perfect way that only he can do. Human pride and ego-contests over "whose tradition (or doctrine) is THE ONE TRUE tradition/doctrine" can only lead to schism between brothers (spiritual fratricide). I think of the churches of apostolic succession (Rome, Orthodoxy) as battle-hardened veterans who easily fall into grumpy "get off my lawn" combativeness against younger churches (from the Reformation) who really are their allies, but whose approach is different not in order to be innovative, but because this is simply the work that the Holy Spirit is doing in the world, whether anybody likes it or not. So, the very thing that gives the churches of apostolic succession their honor and dignity (their war-scars) can also lead them to be overly defensive and to treat everybody as a heretic, even when they are really and truly on the same team. Arianism is one thing. Ecumenism is one thing. Eroding away the authority of the bishops is one thing. Tearing down traditions for the sake of novelty is one thing. But "you're not of the same stock as us" is another thing altogether. Where is the Holy Spirit in that? Where is the love in that? Where is the determination to know nothing but Jesus and him crucified, in that? Is it not partisanship and factionalism? I won't unify with a Mormon church, but I'm pretty sure there are individual Mormons out there who sincerely love Jesus and are on the narrow path that leads to life. To say otherwise is to attempt to place manacles on the wrists of the Holy Spirit, which is absurd. So, there is a way to unify without devolving into base ecumenism. It is possible to be discerning, without becoming institutionalized. PS: All of this is written in the spirit of unity and love, not argumentation...

As a Reformed Christian, the filioque is a little bit like when your parents are fighting, and they're both wrong. Rome says, "The Scriptures teach the filioque!" and they're right. Orthodoxy says, "We don't agree. We still love you anyway, but you're being a jerk about it!" and they're right. So, Reformed tend to disagree with both sides, on different points. We disagree with Rome for being a jerk about the filioque. We disagree with Orthodoxy because their doctrine on this point is simply in error. Yep, I'm familiar with the Orthodox view of the Schism and, again, if I had to choose between the two at gunpoint, I'd choose Orthodox because, "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (1 Cor. 13:2) The Truth is of utmost importance, but it's still better to have love than to be right. :) Amen, Jesus is the Cornerstone, the Foundation than which none other can be laid, and the Martyrs are the first course of stones laid upon that foundation, upon which we all rest, to the glory of God alone.

Between Orthodoxy and the RCC, I'd be less disappointed to see someone go to an Orthodox church. I can't personally recommend it because there are other issues that Orthodoxy has (they are actually wrong on the doctrine of the filioque, even though they are right to have separated with Rome over it), but God will have to deal with them on that, it's not my place to try to correct an entire branch of Jesus's church. No fighting here. It's a fair point and any Protestant theologian/pastor/etc. who doesn't take that seriously isn't worth paying attention to. The break in apostolic succession is a big deal. One response is to just go full-Mormon, "You guys were all wrong from the very beginning" but then you might as well be Mormon! But there is another response, which is to ask why did God himself arrange for the Reformation to occur in history, as it did? Because he is surely sovereign over all things. Major historical events in the church matter, even if they make us squirm in our seat. I would argue that the Reformation was essentially the beginning of God's judgment on the church of Rome itself. From the standpoint of succession, the Reformed churches can fairly argue that they were not dishonoring their spiritual father and mother, rather, their spiritual father and mother abandoned them. If the choice really is between obeying God or obeying men, then the prophetic voice, moved by the Holy Spirit, will always choose to obey God rather than men. "But even if he does not , we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up." (Dan. 3:18) The Orthodox long ago separated from Rome due to its prideful self-idolatry. It is kind of strange that the Orthodox expect the people of the West to remain in submission to a known and denounced group of prideful self-idolators.

They are God's all-stars in the sense that HE chose them and THAT is what makes them a special people. But the situation is more complicated today than it has ever been, and it was never simple! - At Mount Sinai, the people of Israel immediately broke God's covenant with them. The appropriate metaphor, here, is that the wife cheated on her husband on the wedding night, sleeping with an old beau from back in the day! People often misunderstand why God is so angry -- he's literally doing the thing that every single atheist says that God should do if he wants people to believe in him... a collective, mass, supernatural manifestation to the entire congregation of Israel, demonstrating to them his unequivocally divine power and nature, to the point that they are literally scared to death of God! (Exo. 20:19) And in that context, they choose to make a golden calf and worship it, right in the sight of the mountain on which God's glory rests. - In the Wilderness, the Israelites rebel against God several times, the worst of which is when the 10 spies return with a report that there are giants (Nephilim) in the land of Canaan. At this, they decide to call it quits and resolve to return to Egypt. Moses stops them but God sentences all Israelites over the age of 20 to die off there in the Wilderness (except Joshua and Caleb), which is why they wander for another 40 years. Only the new generation is allowed to enter (this is important for the present subject, so remember it). - After entering Canaan, they are ruled by judges (Moses and Joshua being the first two judges) for a time and they devolve into various kinds of idolatry. Finally, they resolve to have a king. Samuel warns them that the king will abuse them:

This is the moving-goalposts fallacy. The whole point in contention is that the national election is shot through with fraud, so the very sources you're pointing to as "fact" (the various States with their never-ending "vote counting" processes) are the prime suspects in the national election fraud! The bigger fallacy, of which your verbal trickery here is just one example, is the "Prove It" fallacy. You walk into your house to find your house robbed. There are two masked men sneaking out the back, each with a stuffed bag over their shoulder. You hail them, and say, "Hey, stop where you are! That's my stuff! You robbed my house!" but, to your shock, the shameless crooks turn around and say, "Prove It". In every rational sense, they are caught red-handed. But to meet their shameless demand, you would need to inspect their bags. Upon which attempt, they will loudly profess their 4th amendment right. This is precisely what the Deep State has been doing to America. They are a gang of shameless, lawless crooks. And even when they get caught red-handed on-camera, as they did in Fulton County, GA in 2020, pulling out a cart full of hidden ballots from under a skirted table, after hours, after the doors were locked, after all the other votes had been counted... they just shamelessly turn around and say, "Prove It".

What in the world requires 1+ month to count simple votes? The deadline is Election Day, meaning, anything after that is late and doesn't get counted. So, which government bureaucrat's desk are these mail-in votes (OR, my home-state is 100% mail-in voting) sitting on?? If you think there is something normal about it taking 1+ months to count the votes for the most important election in the nation, you've lost the plot. The higher the technology, the longer it takes to count the votes. Obviously, somebody's playing with loaded dice. I don't know who (names/addresses), but I have no doubt that somebody is!!

Possibly the single best commentary on the AI-takeover I've seen yet:

Or fix a pothole.

Glad to have you back on board! :toady:

Just remember, kids:

Wow, the online dictionaries sure do update fast nowadays:

Nature teaches us that all members of a species are intrinsically interested in the reproduction of that species. For fertile males and females, this means finding a breeding opportunity as soon as possible. Other members of the species play one kind of support-role or another. While intra-species violence can occur -- especially between fertile males competing for access to fertile females -- it is typically much less extreme than inter-species violence because reducing your own numbers is obviously insane. Even Nature understands that. When you see fertile, biological women who are not interested in reproduction, that is a sign of a deep sickness in society. It may be a very well-hidden sickness, but still very real. And this bizarre "ceremony", if it can be called that, is particularly instructive in this regard, because the reality is that the fertile biological women who are suffering from blue-hair disease have not actually lost their drive to reproduce. Rather, the question is what is it they desire to reproduce? They no longer desire to reproduce humans: "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose... The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." (Gen. 6:1,2,4) Witchcraft. The real thing, not the cute/sexy Hollywood/Halloween version. They are, indeed, reproducing. They're just not reproducing our species. Marrying a fallen angel, or marrying a brine-shrimp ... is it really so different?