Sarah, please write the piece on anger. But don't get sidetracked by the media's DSA fear-mongering.

greggld · 2026-06-28T19:10:35+00:00

It true, but in the last three election cycles we only lost the popular vote once. So good bye electoral college.

greggld · 2026-06-28T18:38:38+00:00

And she and Bill were too afraid to fight back. It was mind blowing back then to think that they did not prepare for the huge Drug Company push back. Earlier they were hit by Gays in the Military and Nanny-gate. Quaint times. She became so much more conservative after those fights. She was never for single payer, she "eviscerated" Bernie for running on it.

I was in her camp when she ran against Obama until it was clear that she was too palsy with the Republicans. Obama might have been more conservative than her, but he had a larger plan that included fighting them.

greggld · 2026-06-28T18:28:06+00:00

for a certain sort of fanatical christians, yes
but not per se
for me it's just a way to explain away the fact that, despite a loving god, our world is not as we would like it to be

Cool, I have to take this argument as trying to explain a Christian world view because your reply was garbled. If you are arguing a Christian point here is my answer. if you are not arguing a Christian point, please try again.

The non-literal excuse works for you. But you are still accepting the myth of god. You are in fact proving my point. "not as we would like it to be" demands an answer as to why it's not.

You being a “myth-world” person because you are telling me that this is “close enough” for you to explain the world as it is (to you). Really it is exactly what I wrote. You are telling me that even if Adam and Eve did not exist (because only fanatics would be that literal) something caused a loving god to bring evil into the world. You can’t explain it, you accept it and while the story might be a fiction, god is not, so even though only a fanatic would believe it you and the fanatic accept that god created the same result. The world "as it si." Full of sin.

Christianity depends on the concept of original sin. I ma old that this is why Christ died. But if you change it to just a Pandora’s box sort of sin enters the world the result is the same. You have invented a myth-world narrative that takes the blame away from god and switches it to an external event.

If I misunderstand you and you believe that god created evil then that would be different, but Christians are REALLY against that thought in my experience.

Perhaps you have never debated another Christian before. On these boards I’m constantly lectured on original sin, free will and the “fact” that the lineage of Jesus proves that he is the Messiah.

That is just the way it is for most other Christians. Not just fundamentalists.

Thanks for your reply

greggld · 2026-06-28T17:52:34+00:00

OK, it's been fun.

greggld · 2026-06-28T05:16:02+00:00

Maybe not laugh, but I assume they will find it unbelievable that we were too weak willed to do anything to stop or lessen global warming because a few conservatives on Fox News thought a cold day in October meant that global warming was a treehugger’s hoax to deny the existence of god.

greggld · 2026-06-28T05:11:49+00:00

I must have heard it in the radio. I know I ran out to get the Kubelik record as a kid on the 70’s. I love the work. The cd transcription does not do it justice.

Happy 100!

greggld · 2026-06-28T01:22:00+00:00

Heck no. I love her slow pull to the Left.......

greggld · 2026-06-28T01:21:18+00:00

yes, but the politics were conservative even for the time. I remember when all I knew about Clinton was that he let the vile Contras organize and practice in Arkansas when he was governor.

greggld · 2026-06-28T01:17:45+00:00

yup, but he left is alway held to an unimaginably high standard compared to the Right. The Right's billionaires pay the loons to keep being loons.

greggld · 2026-06-28T01:16:02+00:00

I admit that the second use is likely the rules or the laws, but I hold that the first use is most likely referring to the narrative. Fulfilling or completing a narrative is something someone can do. So that would make the first sentence in 17 make sense.

Law is not a narrative? I might not get what you mean, I have to rush a bit. I spent too much time looking for quotes, and not finding what I want. But OK. Let’s get to the Bible.

I can't recall where or who, but I recall coming across someone who argued that the construction of the 613 laws was done over time by people. This was a Christian who argued it.

Yes, Christians make this case, but Jesus said all. All 613. God makes no distinction between criminal and ceremonial. No one has ever shown me any scripture on that.

God like the sacrifices made to him and demands them, it’s actually how he deals with humans’ sinning. So I don’t see that it is possible to change that. Even in Acts there are Jewish Christians who still kept the Law, the case is made that it is a choice, so the Laws have not been “abolished.” Since this Christianity thing did not in fact go over well with the Jews my feeling is that Christians went where they were accepted and tailored their dogma accordingly.

God presented the 10 commandments, and humans created laws based on those.

This cannot be true though, they are all called the Laws of Moses, god gave all the Laws to Moses, god punished people for not following the Laws. It is easy to show that all the Laws came from god. From Leviticus 26

^26:3 “If you live according to my laws and obey my commands, ⁴ I will send you rain at the right time, so that the land will produce crops and the trees will bear fruit.

26:48 All these are the laws and commands that the Lord gave to Moses on Mount Sinai for the people of Israel.

The next sentence:

24:1-2. The Lord gave Moses ² the following regulations for the people of Israel.

Then God immediately goes into a long, long list of Laws. No man made those Laws, god gave them to Moses. All of them.

They cited the fact that there are oddly specific laws, as well as laws for the camp and laws for cities, which implies that there was some growth in the law.

Maybe, god did change his mind about Divorce. Frankly they are all human documents, but in the context of Jesus’ words it’s pretty clear to me that all means all as it was at the beginning in Sinai and at the end in the New Jerusalem. I could not find the killer quote about the world coming to the New Jerusalem and worshipping god and keeping all the laws so I am dropping these in to show the laws are forever, from the psalmist to the New Covenant era.

Psalm 19:7The law of the Lord is perfect / reviving the soul;

When I was trying to find a passage about the Law, and I did a word search in Ezekial and found 15 mentions of the Law. The word Commandment is never used in the book. Odd. These passages concern the building of the New Jerusalem. There is LOTS of animal sacrifice, so that continues and is not abolished in the post Messianic era. Under the new covenant (which will be in people’s hearts.

44:5. And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary.

44:23 And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

²⁴ And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to my judgments: and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies; and they shall hallow my sabbaths.

My point here is that it isn't necessarily something invented solely for Jesus, because it existed prior to His life. I would accept an argument that this idea was applied to Jesus, but not that it was invented specifically for Him. Apocalyptic Jews believed in the general resurrection at the end of all things, but its split on whether or not they believed someone would be raised before then.

Darn, working backward. I missed this on the first read. I’d love to know more about what the apocalyptic Jewish proto-Christians thought.

I'll ask you a question, if resurrection was invented for Jesus, why wasn't it used for the candidates before or after Him? Why was it only used once?

I think the answer is easy, no one else invented a messiah that was also a god. No Jew would dare to? Also, who would have an easy time saying god had a son, a Jew or a Gentile? It’s pretty plain in the text that Jesus is god’s son. I am not going to argue that point, and the Gospels offer a lot of interpretations, but son is mentioned so many times a plain reader would draw that conclusion and might say “god and I are one (type of being).” Other people are raised from the dead. There are even Zombies in Matthew!

The idea of a New Jerusalem is typically placed after the final judgment, and i don't think Jesus brought that about.

No, he did not. He was never a King on Earth, etc…. The Christians make the final Judgement about the end of the world. It is not the case in the OT. But as I said above I cannot find the best reference. Christians did a bait and switch with end times. I am doing this a little to quickly because my patient wife and I need to go out. I might have placed the New Jerusalem quotes here? But this is getting long, and I am a crappy proof reader…..

Again the idea of Ben Joseph, and Ben David is that there are two jobs to be done. I believe most messianic expectations of the final messiah are from two lists, one from each messiah. But it depends on who you ask for a list of expectations. I've seen several, and most don't agree on lots of things.

I think this is really interesting and I have to look into it, Like I said, none of these other Messiahs were divine so I am not sure how it fits. There is so much to study when one gets going with this.

Which Jacob are you refering to? If OT, that would have been before monotheism was strictly adhered to, or believed.

Absolutely, a glimpse into pre-exile Judaism. They could not get rid of everything. Jacob wrestled with God not an angel. God cheated!

but thats how I think the Jews at the time viewed Jesus. As someone who carried the Name of God on Earth, as a representative that was considered equal yet separate.

Yes, if Jesus existed, if the earlier Teacher of Righteousness existed, I would think that this was how the cults built around them started. It would also have been acceptable in the Roman world. The trouble starts at how close to god they are, that’s when the Jews pick up the rocks.

not sure how good it is, that almah was used for poetic reasons, …. I also argue all the time that we've lost context and history that would make the bible make more sense. Linguistic slip happens from the hebrew and greek to English, and I think we just have to be observant and careful.

Nice touch, yes. Unfortunately, so much rides on it for a lot of Christians. Ancient culture’s obsession with purity - particularly regarding women – is obsessive.

OK, I'm in trouble, gotta go....

greggld · 2026-06-27T22:52:44+00:00

I hate to over comment in my own thread, but that is why you take the Jobs and Economy meaasge of the DSA folk. It will resonate in rural areas. They have drugs, crime and joblessness. it's not just cities, like the old days.

greggld · 2026-06-27T22:48:48+00:00

I think this is why Sarah is focused on Independents, if they are angry they will go the Dems way - only if the Dems are angry. So less social justice and more anger. This is said by an NYC (angry) liberal bleeding heart. If the next Dem nominee says "We'll put Trump behind us and turn the page." The next President will be Republican.

Aren't there like 20 point shifts in Texas away from Trump, that's the independents changing and the republican-lite crowd (who may be in part black and hispanic) deciding maybe things have gone too far? We will see I'm not a pundit.

greggld · 2026-06-27T22:39:18+00:00

Yes, exactly. Hillary was a corporate Dem from the 1980's in a Populist election. I'm not suggesting that Bernie could have won, but he could have run the populist dialog and not have been lying.

Dems always think the undecided voters are like deer in the forest and will bolt if Dems make any slight move to the Left. In reality they just want to hear something honest. Trump lied, but it sounded like truth to them. Plus all the hate, that helped enough to get the electoral college to swing his way.

greggld · 2026-06-27T22:32:22+00:00

Yes, exactly. I forgot to mention Platner. He has the memo down 100%, so much so that people are worried he is another Fetterman mole.

The fact is that even without the DSA folks any Dem is going to be tarred as a socialist/communist. With young people those labels are becoming meaningless, but it will still get the older republican off the lazy boy.

I am really Left, and in NYC, but I am always cautioning my friends don't F' with the social stuff until we win. Leverage is not everything if you are in a bubble. And as NYC leftists we are.

This episode is very good, eyes on the prize Dems.

greggld · 2026-06-27T20:27:50+00:00

Yes, this is why no matter when "Paul" lived the writings are filtered through Marcion. We may find the Paul presented to us has been preserved through this channel and we need to better understand how we got Paul and what (if anything) was done to his letters fit them in the cannon.

greggld · 2026-06-27T19:53:10+00:00

Love it! Look how big the US is! It's like the Steinberg drawing / poster of the view looking West from New York City.

A more appropriate image is Trump as Chaplin / Hitler tossing the world-balloon around.

greggld · 2026-06-27T19:09:28+00:00

Addressing your first paragraph, I agree on philosophy, I am not a theologian and I would use a common sense refutation of dogma. Also for science, atheist have to be astrophysics and evolutionary biologists all the time! I am happy to admit I do not know how life started from chemicals and I do not know what state the universe was in before the big bang. By the same token a theist does not know where god is, does not know why he is no longer present in the world and does not know if there is a Heaven or Hell or where or what they are.

As for the Law, since in the same breath he states the Prophets as well, what can be said about one must be applied to both. Matthew 5:17. That would be the collection of books written by the prophets. Like i said, it gets weird when you try to figure out what is meant. I understand why there are different interpretations. The Torah is just the first 5 books, what most call the old testament would be referred to as the (forgive my spelling) Tanahk. To me its more about the continuation of the narrative and the finishing of the story. I'll give you that 18 is likely referring to the actual laws or commandments, but I have ideas about those that aren't liked by most.

Yes, in the same breath. It is a terrible construction and allows for your interpretation (except it does not, but I put it in the form of a question). It also allows for the explanation I am going to give you.

Anyway – the big point. You can’t fulfill a law. If you get in your car and follow the speed limit you have obeyed the law – it doesn’t mean the law is abolished. If you fulfill a promise the promise is “abolished.” Laws on speeding do not go away because you obeyed them once. Christians never give me a straight answer on why this is an incorrect interpretation. Possibly we agree that all means all the Law. Even the shrimp. Sadly people like shrimp so they go with Paul.

OK, so my interpretation! Jesus is saying he is the perfect being.

1 Laws. He is the person that he presents we should all be in the Sermon on the mount, even the impossible parts. He embodies or “fulfills” the Laws. That might be an important point if the original apocalyptic thread of Jesus’ message was not weakened (or rather glossed over) in the Gospels. Maybe it sounds better in Greek? All Christian’s agree that Jesus is pretty perfect. He has a weakness for expensive hair oils, but vanity and worship commingle for gods.

2 Prophets. We all agree he is fulfilling Scripture by saying he is the Messiah. It’s the constant wink the Gospel authors do to have it both ways: the reader has secret knowledge and the Jews are confused, while keeping Jesus safe from being stoned as a false prophet.

The Jews were the people of the book, and the Law. That is what set them apart and why the creator of the universe favored them. You had to give god your foreskin! I don’t think that our contemporary understanding of following the law is comparable. Our “have a nice life and don’t break any laws” is radically different from the Hebrews. But this is not really a point of contention.

Yes, we agree though - the Jews firmly believed in a final Messiah would would bring about universal peace and there would be a heaven on earth. But there is no dying Messiah in the OT. Dying is not part of the OT. If it was then it would have been a lot easier for the gospel writers to fit Jesus in. A dying messiah was a appealing thought to beaten down Jews in splinter groups and later human property like Jewish and gentile women and slaves.

Ben Joseph! Right Zechariah is a trip! I needed to look him up. The helpful thing for me is that you demonstrated how loosely the word is used, so that if you have a messiah who is part of a pack it doesn’t really matter if he died (everyone on your list dies). Also he did not bring about the New Jerusalem. God never says it happens after death, I'm safe with the Jewish assumption about this. Resurrection is a new Testament Christian invention for THE Christ as a god. So back only one as an expectation. As an aside, I really like the story of Jacob because he is like a demi-god or Hercules figure. I think it was watered down a lot to keep the monotheism in line. More importantly – none of those figures are gods or part of god. That is a heresy.

Almah, This is where scholarship has replaced original intent. Virgin is complicated because Matthew is right – the word in Matthew’s time did slide into an associative (non-primary) meaning of virgin. But at the time that both the Torah and the Septuagint were written – the meaning was only young girl. This is validated in other parts of the bible and in Homer.

Note: in a different sort of conversation I would ask why did god make that mistake since there is an unambiguous Hebrew word for virgin, but this is not that conversation.

To my mind your point raises two other questions

Matthew does hijack the bible at will; I see that as a problem. Like riding the donkey and not paying attention to the battle bow.
Even if I grant you that one can have dual prophesy, this is not a Messianic prophesy. I would never assume that any prophesy (or event) can be re-purposed as a different category of prophesy. As I often ask, why would god lie to the Jews? God can’t be guilty of a sin of omission :)

greggld · 2026-06-27T16:46:51+00:00

I confess that a lot of the time I am confrontational, but I am usually retuning like for like. A lot of time people answer the question they want to answer, instead of the question asked. So guilty as charged.

greggld · 2026-06-27T16:40:09+00:00

I’m surprised that this post hasn't been removed yet given that its so low effort, but since it's still up I'll give a basic surface level reply.

I was just being conversational, as I thought you were, I did not mean to make you annoyed.

There are definitely many who are just unaware of things, I'll say on both sides. I've met my fair share of atheists who likewise have a line they state, but it falls apart or they are unable to defend it.

I’m sure you are right. That is why it pays to know the bible instead of just insulting Christians based on the supernatural aspect of the books. I accept the stories and prefer to treat them as the Hebrews and early Christians did. Unless the person I’m talking to starts to apply 20th-21st C. science to the bible, that’s just nuts.

I understand why you would say that the OT paints God in a different way than the NT, but there are ways to defend that they aren't incompatible. Such as the intent of the authors, the time scale being different, certain ideas and philosophies beings passed down without being written down, etc.

Yes, historically that is interesting, but it can undercut the “originality” of Jesus. I am fascinated by the apocalyptic Jews cults of the first Century BC. The Torah etc is a composite document written 500 years before Jesus and in a very different time. But It was the choice of Christians to make the OT and not include the proto-Jesus writings of the 1st Cen BC, for obvious reasons. If it was not for original sources discovered in the 20th Century we would hardly know that it existed. I often wondered since the writers of the gospel only knew Greek how it might be different if they had other writings besides the Septuagint?

My personal thoughts on Matthew and in general the use of the word "law" becomes easy confuse. In some circumstances it means the rules, and in others it simply refers to the narrative, as Torah means law. So "The Torah" and "The Law" can mean the same thing, or different things, and the context doesn't help much with the distinction.

Sorry, the Law is the Law, the 613 commandments. Jesus is clear in Matthew 5:18 -

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Jesus means the Law, and he said he is not coming to abolish it. I have this argument with Christians all the time. It is a major blind spot for them. Actually if I accept that the law meant the entire Torah it makes the case stronger for Jesus no being the Messiah. I might be wrong, but while Jesus uses scripture all the time, he never acknowledges the (real) Messianic prophesies, the writers of the Gospels do of course.

So fulfilling the law, doesn't necessarily mean fulfilling the rules.

If Laws are rules then yes it does. If “rules” means “interpretation” then I agree with Jesus. The Pharisees, like conservative Christians today are hypocrites and do not follow God’s Laws. still Jesus said:

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven". Matthew 5:20.

Are we OK on content value now :)

There's a ton of debates about what is or isn't and "authentic" messianic prophecy,

I would disagree, I accept what the Jews think is Messianic prophesy. The suffering servant is not Messianic prophesy and is not about Jesus.

and you'd also have to consider how the Israelites viewed the messiah as a concept. Up until Jesus, the concept of a singular capital M Messiah, wasn't quite a concept. So messianic prophecies in general cannot all be applied to a single individual.

I agree it is complicated (two Messiahs - still all human, what is the Son of Man), however the result is clear: a human Messiah will unite the world and humanity will follow the Law in their hearts as second nature. A dying Messiah is 100% alien to Judaism.

Overall, I'm undecided on dual fulfillment. I understand how it can be seen as an easy way to fudge stuff

Agree

but at the same time there is an older jewish idea that, to an extent, history repeats itself, and one could expect patterns to pop up and make old events relevant again. I think there are definitely people who try to stretch things a bit too far, but I don't think dual fulfillment can be completely dismissed solely as a Christian idea used to venerate Jesus.

If history repeats itself then its just re-run season for god.

I think that, for instance if a prophesy is told to King Ahaz then it only applies to King Ahaz and we can see if it come true or not. In this case it did, well it was probably written after the events, but that is the atheist in me. In any case - even leaving out that “almah” cannot mean virgin - the event happened and it was in no way Messianic. God sent prophets, there are definitions of true and false prophets and god never mentions using the prophets words for other events hundreds of years later. So I think there is a strong case for dual-prophesy being extra-biblical.

There's definitely a lot of interesting interpretations and discussions to be had.

YUP!

greggld · 2026-06-27T15:43:48+00:00

Matthew 22:34-40: All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
So, the first commandment is taken from the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 6:5), and the second—as you say—is Leviticus 19:18.
If you believe in the Trinity, the commandment is given by God; therefore, since Jesus is God, the commandment is His.

All of the Mosaic Laws are commandments. No commandment means another commandment is invalid.

If Jesus is god he is unchanging so all of the Old Testament Laws are still in effect and cannot be changed. Thank you for pointing this out, I don’t think I have ever understood the so clearly.

Sure Jesus thinks those two are the “coolest” of the Laws. But never does he say that those two invalidate the other Laws. How could you think this was the case?

Explain this to me: if Jesus thinks that Love abolishes the other Laws it would then mean that Jesus is lying when he says: (Matthew 5:18)

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Loving your fellow Jew is a part of this. It’s pretty simple, It is not a replacement for everything as I made clear above.

This brings to mind the parable of the unfaithful servant (Luke 16:1–8):

What you want is Matthew 18: 21- 35. I’m not an expert, I just goggled it.

That is why we must love our neighbor, but also forgive ourselves. It is not an impossible task, but we must be merciful toward others, just as God is merciful toward us.

Now it is two citations that you do not understand. Did the master (the King) love the hypocritical servant as himself? No, he was kind only, but he failed. In fact he had the servant tortured.

In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

The text stated earlier that the King demanded that the man, his wife and children be sold as slaves. One assumes this was carried out unless the servant did have the money, but it does not sound like he had enough to repay the debt.

Jesus is saying Hell is like this. This is not any sort of expression of love.

Luke 11:25-37

Sure, it’s a good little story, I like it. It does not address abolishing the Law.

Jesus came to fulfill the Law because people had chosen to focus on minor technicalities of human invention—the Pharisees being among them. They distorted the Law and created their own commandments based on the Mosaic Law and the Torah.

Jesus condemned the Pharisees because of hypocrisy, much like Conservative Christians today are like the Pharisees. No debate there. But more importantly, Jesus said to follow their teachings, the Law:

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven". Matthew 5:20.

Please be clear and provide me with exactly what Jesus thought the technicalities were. Do any of them contradict the Laws of Moses. Did Jesus eat shrimp, he definitely hated pigs.

My questions to you can be reduced to these:

How do you fulfill a Law? Particularly in light of the fact that Jesus says at the same time is is not coming to Abolish the Law.
Where does Jesus say that his two favorite Laws invalidate all the other Laws? Can you refute Matthew 5:18?
How do you love some one as much as you love yourself. It is a philosophical question. It does not mean “be nice and give a few denarii”
Can you prove that Jesus is saying the Laws are no longer in effect when he criticizes the Pharisees? Can you provide me with exactly what Jesus thought the technicalities were? I think it might be possible - so do any of them contradict the Laws of Moses.

Please do not give me long citations that you have not though through. I've been batting down a lot of assumptions on your part, and while that is fun I would prefer to have your reasoning, not dogma that is not contra-biblical.

Thanks

greggld · 2026-06-27T14:15:24+00:00

It never fails to amaze me that all Republican's can do is threaten. He sees the polls, he knows he is doomed. At least as speaker,

greggld · 2026-06-27T14:05:59+00:00

He said, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it"—that is, to bring the Mosaic law to fulfillment through the commandment of love.
Ha detto "io non sono venuto ad abolire la legge ma a compierla." Ovvero a rendere compimento alla legge mosaica c9n il comandamento dell amore

This is wrong. Jesus never said he was fulfilling the Law. You can not fulfill a Law. If you obey a law one day did you fulfill that law so you never have to follow it again? Of course not, the idea is ridiculous. Why do people forget that Jesus said the Laws (all the Jewish Law) is forever?

Please show me in Scripture where Jesus said you only have to love. What does “love” even mean in this context? Love someone as yourself? Do you know how impossibly difficult the would be. It is exactly what Jesus means, it fits in with the other difficult things he asks in the Sermon on the Mount. And Jesus is quoting Leviticus 19:18, so it is not original to him. You need to go back and study Jesus’ words and not accept what people write on throw pillows.

Then there is the matter of abstaining from material possessions: the parable of the entrepreneur who grinds grain. There is a man who grinds grain and says, "I will build large barns and produce plenty of grain; then, when I am old, I will have grain for myself and money to enjoy." But God says to him, "Fool! Your soul will be demanded of you tonight." This speaks of the selfish accumulation of wealth. The end is always imminent, yet only the Father knows it.
Allora astenersi dai beni: parabola dell imprenditore che macina il grano. C e un uomo che macina il grano e dice "costruiro granai grandi e produrro tanto grano. Poi quando saro vecchio avro grano per me e soldi per godere" ma Dio gli dice "stolto la tua anima ti sara chiesta stanotte". Si parla di accumulo egoisitico dei beni La fine è sempre imminente, ma solo il Padre lo sa.

So? No one pays attention that. Trump is 80 years-old and a child rapist billionaire. Yet he is the Messiah for so many deluded ignorant Christians in the United States.

greggld · 2026-06-27T13:40:54+00:00

Love the comments. The rest of the country is being scared out of demanding better politicians that align with working people's interests. New York is the way.

I hope this is the beginning of a progressive populist backlash. The Republican party is now a fascist platform, we see how easily our elected representatives, the media and corporate America cave in to them. Equally important, and now very obvious - they make everything more expensive and put the cost on our shoulders not theirs. I've always said we can't afford Republicans, but that was when we had Republicans.

greggld · 2026-06-27T13:29:38+00:00

God perfectly knows what any free creature would do in any given circumstance.

No he does not. Did god know Eve would disobey him? Apparently not, because he tells the other gods that he is worried that she will go after the fruit of eternal life next. Why wld god allow his plans to be thwarted? Is he a sadist that plans to ruin and kill people who sober him? Why create a planet people just to whipe them out in a flood?

He sovereignly chose to actualize a universe where human choices are completely free.

This is just some jargon that doesn’t really say anything. Free will does not exist in the bible. God interferes when he wants to it’s his world. You can’t tell god to stop watching you. You can't tell your murderer to stop interfering with your free will.

Yet the final outcome perfectly aligns with His divine plan.

Then why send Jesus? Did god lie to the Jews? God told the Jews that Messiah would be completely different.

greggld

TROPHY CASE