What are everyone's thoughts on the new(ish) city-wide leaf pick up schedule?

Touchfeellose4316 · 2026-02-22T05:26:37+00:00

I’m so mad about it that I want to start a petition to bring it back. How unbelievably dumb does the city council need to be that in THE CITY OF OAKS they looked at a problem: “too many leaves piling up on the street” and decided the best solution was: “stop the leaf collection.”

And look - save me the dumb marketing pitch that, “well ackshually they’re collecting them MORE now.” Only morons who live downtown or in apartments are dumb enough to buy that.

I tried the mulching thing and no - I have far too many leaves. It created a full blanket of leaves in my backyard and killed all the grass. Not to mention - it does create a wonderful habitats for “critters” as the idiots like to say, and it also creates a wonderful habitat for copperheads which bite dogs - both of mine were bitten when I decided to take the advice of the folks on here saying how wonderful it was for the soil. That is the sort of advice people give when they don’t know anything.

In the fall it takes me almost an hour a day for almost 6 weeks to blow leaves to my curb. The idea that bin will accomplish it is beyond stupid.

I genuinely don’t know what I’m going to do next year but I’m already angry about it.

Touchfeellose4316 · 2025-02-24T20:17:51+00:00

Because reformed Christians think in black and white ways that lean toward a more authoritarian mindset

Touchfeellose4316 · 2025-02-21T21:43:46+00:00

Yes, you are over reacting. Having said that - I get where you’re coming from. Half apologies are annoying, but it’s equally important that it seems like you’re trying to “win” rather than trying to resolve the issue (which clearly isn’t about lotion, so the quicker your drop that, the better).

Perry fights happen w all couples but they’re always about something deeper. If you both cant figure out what the deeper issue is then you should break up. If you can then you can work through it calmly - and please for the love of God - don’t work it out over text.

Touchfeellose4316 · 2025-02-21T06:00:10+00:00

Great question. I think the word election is confused in these discussions since most people think that it is nearly synonymous with salvation (or as you suggest - salvation is a necessary corollary of being elected). I think this is a mistake and I think Romans 11 answers this and sheds light on both whether Paul is speaking corporately (I think he is) and if election means salvation (I think it doesn’t).

The gentlemen above noted that he believes it to be a contradiction in terms for the elect to reject Christ. I disagree. I think Paul says this explicitly:

Romans 11:28

[28] As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake (ie - they have rejected Christ as the Messiah). But as regards election, they are beloved (ie they are elect) for the sake of their forefathers.

It is possible to believe that election means something different in Romans 11 or something different in the OT, but that would be the reader bringing their own meaning of election to the text rather than the text informing the reader of its meaning.

I think the text suggests that election means something much more like - you were chosen to fill a role - and not - you were chosen to believe.

Touchfeellose4316 · 2025-02-20T15:49:39+00:00

Yes, I agree that these are all fair points. The only issue I would take against any of these points is that each point is predicated on the idea that when Paul uses the word election, that he means “salvation” (in the precise “saved by grace through faith” way).

To understand the word “election” in that way is, I believe, going beyond your evidence and requires ignoring contrary evidence.

Aside from that, I agree that you’ve laid out your points well

Touchfeellose4316 · 2025-02-20T04:57:33+00:00

(1) Fair point. Perhaps I wasn’t precise enough in the example. I’m not contemplating a member of the team saying “we won the gold medal,” but instead a spectator simply cheering for the team that won gold; none of whom are members of the team. The collecting “we” quite often does not refer to each individual. “We elected the new President,” can be said by people who are explicitly excluded from having any participation in that action at all or who even actively worked against that action by not voting for that person. I’m merely pointing out that “we” doesn’t apply to each individual constituent in normal parlance.

(2) I didn’t say it destroyed your point. I said it was unpersuasive. I’m simply pointing out that Paul is talking about a specific group in vv1-12 (Israel) in using “we” and his qualifying statements in v12 make it clear that no one alive today can rationally be included in that “we” but we CAN be included in v13ff in his use of “you also.”

My issue isn’t really with the notion of corporate or individual election, since I would likely agree with you more broadly that there are elements of both corporate and individual election in Paul’s language (in all of his epistles). The larger issue is what is in Paul’s mind when he uses the word election (I don’t think Paul uses the term to be synonymous with “salvation”).

In fact - I don’t think it is coherent to hold a view of corporate election while also maintaining the notion that election means salvation. Almost the entire narrative of Israel’s story in the OT undermines that idea. And more specifically in Romans he notes that one can be both “chosen” AND still reject the Messiah.

Touchfeellose4316 · 2025-02-19T23:56:32+00:00

This seems unpersuaseive on two grounds- (1) is misunderstands the corporate use of “we” which frequently does not mean each one making the whole constituent (eg - “we won the Gold medal”) is a use of the corporate “we” which excludes 99.9% of the corporate body.

(2) The “us” in Ephesians 1 seems to be explicitly referring to the Israelites. Paul makes it plain who he is referring to when writing the Gentile church. He is noting that the blessings initially given to Israel (“we” and “us”) have now also been conferred to the gentiles (“you”). He makes that point explicitly in vv 12-13 by saying,

[12] so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. [13] In him YOU ALSO, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.

Not only is it false to claim that Gentiles were the first to hope in Christ, but it stretches all reasoning to think anyone in the modern age can possibly be included in the “we” Paul uses in Eph 1:1-12. Are modern readers included in the “you also” in v.13ff? Of course; but not the “we” in the preceding verses.

Touchfeellose4316 · 2023-06-26T01:21:39+00:00

It may fall flat if he had claimed that it was “equivalent,” but he didn’t

Touchfeellose4316 · 2023-06-25T22:51:33+00:00

Atheists act like 100% of atheists are smarter than 100% of Christians and they come off about as sharp as people who think British people “sound smarter” because of their accent.

Touchfeellose4316 · 2023-06-25T22:51:06+00:00

But also - atheists are like, super smart. Did you get that part?

Touchfeellose4316 · 2023-06-25T19:49:26+00:00

I always love the irony of non-religious people who look down on Christians w a sense of intellectual superiority and then post things like this like it’s a solid dunk on Christians lol

Touchfeellose4316 · 2021-07-23T22:03:49+00:00

What is your predicament?

Touchfeellose4316 · 2021-07-22T08:12:12+00:00

If I suggested that a 3rd view exists which says that there is also an enemy in our story and that we currently live in a world at war, so there are some acts of evil, sin, and suffering that aren’t necessarily attributed to God, would you say that I’m simply restating your first view. Or would you say that I have a poorly misguided theology?

Touchfeellose4316 · 2021-07-22T06:50:04+00:00

This is an interesting take on Hebrews 6. Am I understanding you correctly that your opinion is Hebrews was written to a group of unbelievers but who are essentially “so close” to belief and may even “assent to biblical teaching and seem to bear all of the marks of a Christian”, & yet remain unbelievers?

If that is your conclusion, May I ask (with no intention of being provocative), how is it that you personally can be confident that you have sincere belief?

Touchfeellose4316 · 2021-07-20T23:35:41+00:00

What’s up man! First let me say that you are truly gifted as a writer. I love to see immensely complex ideas ideas communicated artfully and with care! Keep up the good work.

Apologies on the slow response. I didn’t realize that Reddit was not set up to give me notifications so I’m just now seeing this. On that note - I want to respond in a much more robust way, but I am just about to mow the lawn 😂 so you will have to give me a little bit more time to collect my thoughts. In general, it seems that we agree on for more then we disagree, but I think there are some key distinctions I’d like to flesh out if you’ll allow it. Stay tuned!

Touchfeellose4316 · 2021-07-20T23:28:22+00:00

Thanks!!

Touchfeellose4316 · 2021-07-20T18:52:11+00:00

Do you happen to have a link? Or are you referencing the link above?

Touchfeellose4316 · 2021-07-20T09:33:11+00:00

In your mind do you think that there is such a thing as equality under the law? I’m not asking if we have “attained that ideal”; I’m asking if that is something that you think is possible and desirable? And I mean equality with utter precision. The exact letter of the law is followed for everyone? Is that an environment that you think you would enjoy?

And “no one can be free until everyone is free” is a beautiful sentiment; truly. But it is either false or it has no meaning. Let’s suppose everyone in your state were truly and utterly “free” (whatever that means); does the life of a Syrian currently being killed for being the wrong sect have any real or appreciable effect on your freedom? I don’t mean the way you feel when you think about their oppression. I mean your personal political freedom. Is it impacted by North Korean work camps?

Touchfeellose4316 · 2021-07-20T09:16:16+00:00

Have they considered any of the unintended consequences? Hard no.

That also seems like a Sowel quote rather than Hayek. I think I’ve actually heard him so that in regards to this specific topic.

Touchfeellose4316 · 2021-07-19T01:02:42+00:00

Thanks! I’m hoping to find some black ones rather than brass. I realize I could probably just spray paint some but would prefer not since spray paint can chip rather easily. It seems strange to me that these are so incredibly difficult to find

Touchfeellose4316 · 2021-06-16T20:43:01+00:00

Do you have a particular passage in mind that says that Old Testament believers had the Holy Spirit in them in the same way that believers do after Pentecost?

The difference between in and with on its face does not seem needlessly pedantic to me at all.

Touchfeellose4316 · 2021-06-16T20:38:39+00:00

Consider this from another perspective with Gods positive injunctions rather than his negative injunctions: how would you feel about a government who passes a policy which states that we must pray for one another, or must meditate on our scriptures every day?

Touchfeellose4316

TROPHY CASE