bundyw @dfziklag

@GordonFielden You think further proving he's turning his back on Britian is a win?

@DPGBehler BTW, my heart failure was afib, not a blockage.

Third example, me. I'm pretty healthy, always have been. But I've always avoided diet junk and seed oils, just because I grew up in the south on lard, etc. Somewhere in my 30s, I went on a "health kick." Cut the lard. Cut the meat. Eat lots of bready stuff, crisco, use all vegetable oil, etc. No change in exercise/physical activity, but I gained around 50 pounds over a period of 5 years. Chlorestorol, blood pressure, etc. up. Doctor wants to put me on heart medicine. Believes I'm getting close to a partial blockage. Decided to reverse course. Switched back to natural oils, modified my exercise routing, reduced carbs, went into intermittent fasting. Dropped 80 pounds. Last year, I spent 6 seeks in the ICU in Nashville (St Thomas) because of heart failure. Directly told there were three causes by two doctors on my cardiology team and my primary care doctor: genetics, the Covid vaccine, and a steroid prescription. Got out of the hospital, starting serious exercise again, dropped carbs (moved more to meats), dropped all artificial sweeteners, returned to serious intermittent fasting. Seriously ... I'm a bit heavier than when I came out of the hospital, but my body fat percentage is much lower, and I have a ton more energy. Had an ablation done. During this process, they took pictures of my heart. Previously suspected blockage is completely gone. Completely healthy, on just one med for slightly high blood pressure. I eat almost nothing with seed oils of any kind. I restrict eating carbs to a very narrow window of about 3-4 hours/day. I exercise almost daily. I will eat or drink /nothing/ with any kind of artificial sweetener of any kind.

So you can have you belief that all three of these cases are "just coincidence," etc. ... that everyone's body reacts to seed oils and artificial sweeteners in precisely the way yours does ... that your body doesn't change as you get older ... I know you think you're right--this is all just a big conspiracy theory. My experience, however, is that you're wrong. Maybe some people can get away with it at some stages in their life. Maybe some people can get away with this stuff their entire lives. But there are a lot of people who cannot "get away with it."

Second example, my good friend James. Heart attack (partial blockage). They told him he needed to lose weight. Doctor put him on a low-calorie diet, moderate exercise, etc. He started losing weight ... very ... slowly ... He wasn't happy. Changed doctors. New doctor put him on an elimination diet. Dropped diet soda first. Rapid weight loss--no other changes in diet or exercise. Continued with reducing carbs, increasing exercise. While he has stents from his first encounter with the big heart disease, he's alive and thriving today. But, trust me ... the diet soda had "nothing to do with it." Except his doctor said it did. He's in his late 50s now, btw.

First example. My Stepfather. Was constantly depressed, very overweight. Rather than taking meds, his doctor started eliminating items from his diet. First step--diet soda. Eliminated his depression, and he lost 20-30 pounds over a 6-7 month period. His doctor started trying other things, but he "felt better," and was not longer interested in these other steps--exercise, reducing carbs, etc. He died of a heart attack several years later ... but he still dropped the depression medication and lost a few pounds.

So you think ... "Group A throws things. I tink they were going to burn down a house, and the police should only allow such things when they believe the riot and burning and looting is jusrified. Riot was not justified, so police are justified in attacking someone clearly not in group A out of frustration, and clearly attemtping to kill him." That is seriously your argument?

@EdwardJDavey Yoh only care about division when people are "dividing" themselves from your power.

This seems to conflate two things... The first seems perfectly valid--we cannot know the state of someone's salvation from the outside (assuming we are examining adults past the age of accountability, and short of direct revelation from God). We might think we know, but we cannot with full certainty. The second is--are children under the age of accountability saved? How are these two related questions?

I guess you cannot follow a train of thought. 1. Modern culture holds "words are violence." 2. The belief that "words are violence" has consequences in the real world. 3. Given beliefs have conaequences ... 4. Christians should spend more time considering what they believe. By inference: christians should, specifically, spend more time thinking about the things they accept from culture, such as "words are violence," or "we can build a close-to-perfect world if only we are put in charge," or "material wealth is dignity," or salvific fatalism. Maybe it's not "stupid speak." Maybe you're just too dull to engage without insulting people.

It's also a weird argument because "modern Hebrew" was intentionally developed from Biblical texts. Give it another thousand years, and there /might/ be an argument in there someplace, but ... In fact, that it was a 'dead language' for so many years helped it stay consistent for a very long time, much like Latin has.

@Camoguy8 @Elohim_Gadol Let me explain. Jesus is a Jew. You hate Jews. Hence, you hate Jesus. It's very simple.

@BethanyMcGrew @tomascol Did you forget what the note said, and your response to the note, so quickly?

@Mazelit_ Other than the Bible ... Just finished "Finance and Philosophy," and reading "Pagans on Christians in the City."

@gregbagwell "Racial slurs," clearly meaning something you don't agree with. "Subjucation" made me laugh. It appears to mean some myhthical "Press" that largely HATES Trump somehow falls in line when "ordered." Weird.

BTW, one of the problems here is you think the "whole thought" is 1 Timothy 2:1-4. The "whole thought" goes all the way back to at least v18 of the chapter previous, and way beyond v4. I know the magical Calvinist hermeneutic can only handle the Scriptures in really small snippets, but maybe it's better to outline the entire argument from Paul's letter, rather than shredding it into little pieces, each of which can be "explained" in just the way you like. Watching Calvinist do this is like watching someone choose 1800 as the beginning of a climate chart, or 1690 to explain the history of slavery.

@OwnYourWrldview @MonradMonsen @Soteriology101 Accusing me of not reading the text is a lame response. I've read it. I've read commentaries and journal articles on it. You are still wrong.

@OwnYourWrldview @MonradMonsen @Soteriology101 The context supports "all people," not "all kinds of people."