Zguy28

I cut my cable TV months ago and didn't look back. Have basic Hulu and SlingTV via Firestick.

They remind me of this guy: Hail Hydra!

Good article. DNS encryption is not for the low end user at this point. Found a cool link though: https://cleanbrowsing.org/getting-started alternative to Cisco/OpenDNS.

Could be. The fact that she yells and cries to him when she doesn't get her way though...

Thank you for taking the time to answer thoughtfully (as always). My line of questioning was more to flesh out for my knowledge of how you reason and what value you place on each kind of revelation. I believe the bible is literally true in all that it affirms as truth. That (the "literally") does not mean allegory is not present or valid interpretation. For instance, you say parables are not necessarily true, and I would agree about some of the elements; but the truth they communicate/explain in a figurative fashion is true and infallible. Example: Lazarus and the Rich man were likely not real people, but their types of actions and resultant eternal consequences are truth applicable to all people. The difference between General/Natural Revelation and Special is a big thing though. One is revealing God the Creator while the other is revealing God the Redeemer in Christ. I agree that Natural Revelation can drive interpretation, but it never can surpass what is clear in Scripture. I think we are closer than you think. A good series of articles on Natural and Special Revelation can be found here for those interested: https://www.ligonier.org/blog/introduction-reformed-approach-science-and-scripture/ Dr. Sproul's answer to age of the earth is very good theologically IMHO.

https://www.mmafighting.com/2018/4/10/17218364/ufcs-paige-vanzant-opens-up-for-the-first-time-about-being-raped-in-new-book This is one of my greatest fears now that my daughter is a teen. This happened to a girl I went to HS with. Almost verbatim.

His daughter sounds like a spoiled brat.

What I meant was about relying on human reasoning. Maybe you just came to a different conclusion? I'm not saying you shouldn't believe God exists by using reason, after all "the heavens declare His glory" and all that. I didn't ask you if you did. Not what I asked. I asked if you did in general. Theophany, Scripture, and the incarnation/resurrection of Jesus Christ are Special Revelation (applies directly to your examples of Abraham, Apostles, Paul, and Thomas). That's different than General Revelation which is nature. You are conflating belief in God through the latter with faith in Christ through the former. Christ revealed himself to Paul, therefore Paul believed what was revealed specially. Do you not think that your way perhaps puts reason above faith? And by the way, I am not against reason.

Don't you think that puts you in the same way of thinking as the skeptic who balks due to the existence of evil? You are putting your own limited reasoning before God's unlimited reasoning. Essentially, you are saying "I believe X, therefore God Y." Historic Christian faith seems to be "God Y, therefore I believe X." Do you believe the bible is true?

As long as you are willing to accept where that leads, from a right & wrong/good & evil standpoint. Namely that they are not real.

This raises a question however. Why do you interpret sacred text through the lens of nature/science but not the other way around? Especially if one believes in inerrancy and inspiration of said texts, that they are revealed truth. One might object and say you are in a sense saying that Scripture is less authoritative than nature/science which is only as true as the next observation that disproves it. For instance, Old Earth Christians believe "day" (Hebrew "yom" ) Genesis is not referring to 24 hours. Yet, if you take the text as it naturally reads, the best interpretation is 24 hour days.

Chill. I was just curious what generation he is part of. It was academic really.

Some folks seem to hold to scientism, not science itself. https://www.aaas.org/page/what-scientism

I'm curious how old you are currently?

I did as well. I don't think any of the MCU movies are bad, just some are good while others are great. I guess it lends itself to stricter and higher criticism when you consistently put out quality movies.

I learned a new term today: force majeure And the fact that his villain brother is played so well by Tom Hiddleston just adds to the majesty..

Oh wow, he's young. Sounds like what my sister did with me when I was little. She told my parents she felt like they would stop loving her when I came along. It's hard for the firstborn sometimes. Now you are no longer the center of the world.

Totally disagree. Thor is the man. Don't be jealous that he's one of the most powerful characters in MCU. And I liked Iron Man 2 best out of the three.

How old? He might be getting bullied himself somewhere like school. Also, you might try just sitting down and listening. Ask him questions and then just listen, don't give advice unless he asks. That might get you started.

He didn't. Time is part of the natural realm aka creation. God is not.

He was a great cameo in Ragnarok. Would love to see him go at it with Loki. "Ive been falling for 30 minutes!"

I love Thor, even though Dark World was weakest. But I disagree about Doc Strange, I loved that as well.

Just watched Thor Ragnarok again. It was just as good this time. Great casting, especially Goldblum.

Red Skull may still be alive? I always thought he wasn't destroyed, but rather transported to another place by the Space Stone. https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/925917/Avengers-Infinity-War-Red-Skull-Hugh-Weaving-Captain-America-Marvel

Sounds like a threeway combo of Amway, Branch Davidians, and Scientology.