All Activity

First, be seriously astounded that I'm there at all, if I'm there. Then, I'll look to see if my son is anywhere around. Then, I'll take a long nap. I have no plans or intentions.

Its all in how we think

Sunday, July 26 Keep . . . building one another up.—1 Thess. 5:11. How can all of us support single Christians who want to get married? One way is by being careful about what we say. (Eph. 4:29) We could ask ourselves: ‘Do I tease those who want to get married? When I see a single brother and a single sister talking, do I assume that they have a romantic interest in each other?’ (1 Tim. 5:13) Additionally, we should never make single Christians feel that they are somehow incomplete because they are not married. How much better to look for opportunities to commend single Christians! What if we think that a certain brother and a certain sister would make a good couple? The Bible tells us to consider the feelings of others. (Rom. 15:2) Many single ones do not want others to introduce them to a potential mate, and we should respect their wishes. (2 Thess. 3:11) Others may appreciate some help, but we should not intervene without being asked.—Prov. 3:27. w24.05 24-25 ¶14-15

I don't disagree with your stance, but I am intrigued by the thought of watching a movie making you feel emotional attachment to the stories, I can't say movies have done that to me much 🤔 Edited to add: movies like this one in particular.

Y'all carry on.. my thoughts have been expressed 🫡🤐

An expectorant lives in anticipation...

How about just start a new topic about wokeness and various other political speech. That way, I'll see the title and completely avoid it.

Can you move them to a new topic? It's an interesting discussion.

Somehow, it seems some may have missed the reminder posted above to return this thread on the actual theme ... if you have seen or read The Odyssey It may also be on theme to discuss various aspects of the actual poem or the actual movie if you have seen it ... but the discussion of governments, Woke and other social and pollical subjects should not be part of this thread. Please keep/return this thread to the subject of the OP

was it the apostle paul who said.....mind yur business?

I had never heard of the "Lieutenant Dan" effort before. I had to look it up. But I am familiar with the effect of using «blue screen» and, later, «green screen» to put things that aren't there into the picture. Fascinating! Thanks for the input.

I heard he was just pretending to be sick so he didn't have to do his schoolwork

Galaxy cluster's magnetic field reconstructed for 1st time with By Robert Lea Published 21 July 2026 A record-breaking astronomy map. "We believe that the mechanism that 'turns on' these gigantic radio emissions is linked to the formation process of galaxy clusters." For the first time, astronomers have reconstructed the magnetic field of an entire cluster of galaxies, from its central nucleus to its outer limits. The record-breaking achievement is the product of the deepest-ever observations of the galaxy cluster Abell 2255, located around a billion light-years away — and those observations are thanks to the European radio telescope LOFAR (Low Frequency Array). Abell 2255 has long been known for its complexity in radio waves. Its vast, diffuse radio emissions are created by particles called electrons racing at near-light, or relativistic, speeds and interacting with magnetic fields of galaxies in the cluster. Thus, using Abell 2255 as a cosmic laboratory to study the universe in radio waves could lead scientists to a better understanding of how magnetic fields come about and evolve. These observations could also help paint a picture of the dynamics of hot gas in galaxy clusters. This could reveal how the largest structures in the universe are constructed. Article link: https://www.space.com/astronomy/galaxies/galaxy-clusters-magnetic-field-reconstructed-for-1st-time-with-record-breaking-astronomy-map Pic Description: The invisible texture of the magnetic field in the central region of the galaxy cluster Abell 2255. (Image credit: A. Botteon et al. (INAF), A&A 2026)

I'll repeat what I said: "There are many ways to classify rulership and some of them seem to be decided upon based on people's feelings about a leader." Yes, I do think describing Russia as a dictatorship can be evidence of bias or non-neutrality, which is why I won't do it. And now that I know they don't describe themselves as authoritarian and that is a label put on them by others as a condemnation, I will not use that term either because it would align me with political opinions. Condemning a country because it "suppresses personal freedom" is a political stance, not a biblical one - so I would never say it. The Bible doesn't promote personal freedom, it promotes following Jehovah. This is how it should read: Now the quote is consistent. Do you see the difference? We can reject things on the basis of biblical standards, but referencing political opinions as the reason we reject something makes it a political stance even though our underlying motive might originate with biblical standards. When the word "woke" is used, it associates you with political elements and no one sees that you are rejecting something because it is unbiblical - they see you rejecting it because it's anti-right wing (a political group).

Firefighters battle to contain France and Spain wildfires as thousands evacuated | BBC News https://youtu.be/7jbAN99Srrk?si=RfPvikugJbSL3AJ0 Europe Wildfires: Over 2,00,000 Evacuated As France And Spain Battle Massive Blazes | WATCH https://youtu.be/Hxn2HQ5nvHs?si=6MaTSMDjf1aw6Lx- More than 80,000 forced to evacuate as fires rage across France and Spain | DW News https://youtu.be/__U_VZB49VU?si=inlXxbrPNBdqWSub

Cultivating the secret person of the heart rather than focusing primarily on outward appearance. (1 Peter 3:3, 4) There's the principle. To apply that principle to this sister, you are implicitly making a judgment that she is not cultivating the secret person of the heart. I'm not sure we have enough information to reach that conclusion. Do we know how regular she is in the ministry? Do we know how meaningful her personal study is? Do we know whether she comments at the meetings? Do we know whether she prepares for the meetings? Do we know whether she has a close relationship with Jehovah? Do we know whether she is known for her kindness? Do we know whether she encourages others? Do we know whether she assists elderly ones? Do we know whether she is hospitable? Do we know whether she reaches out spiritually? Do we know whether she has a fine reputation in the congregation? Do we know whether she is exemplary in Christian conduct? Do we know how much time she spends in prayer? Do we know how she treats her family? Do we know what sacrifices she makes for Jehovah? Do we know what spiritual goals she has? Do we know whether mature sisters view her as spiritually minded? Do we know whether the elders have concerns about her spirituality? We don't know any of those things. Yet all of them are far more relevant to whether she is cultivating "the secret person of the heart" than the simple fact that she posts frequently on TikTok. Do not answer those questions for us. This is public social media. (Think before you post) Imagine how you would feel if you discovered a discussion like this was about you. I suspect she would have some 'Scriptural principles' for all of us to consider as well.

Most people, even those who live in the US, call it a "democracy", which is technically wrong, since it is actually a "republic". Democracy Direct Rule: Citizens vote directly on laws and policies instead of using leaders. Majority Control: The side with the most votes wins and makes the rules. High Participation: Everyone takes part in daily choices for the group. Republic Elected Leaders: People choose representatives to make laws and run the government for them. Rule of Law: A written constitution is the highest law. Rights for All: Laws protect minority groups so the majority cannot take away basic rights. If we call the US a democracy - are we compromising our neutrality? If we call it a republic - are we compromising our neutrality? Since, in the broadest context, both describe the US in terms most people accept as what the US is, using either of those terms does not put us on one side or the other of the pollical or social arena. Likewise, referring to any government with the commonly viewed method they rule or the way their rule is perceived by most of the population is also not compromising our neutrality. That said ... The bigger question is, since the OP asked: What do any of the recent posts have to do with the original question asked in this thread? A simple, "yes" or "no" as respects have you read the poem or seen the movie would answer the question. Discussing the meaning of "Woke" or various forms of government of various nations on this planet has no bearing on the question that was asked. To that end, "No", I have not read the poem nor have I seen the movie.

It seems even Wikipedia and ChatGPT are "woke". No wonder no one understands what it really means. Anyway, best to just stay out of that discussion. huh? Jesus said only his Kingdom is the solution. I can see yet another reason why. Edit: meanwhile we are to: Keep awake, then, all the time making supplication that you may succeed in escaping all these things that must occur and in standing before the Son of man.” Luke 21:36

And yet

The organization does use the term dictatorship to label some governments

A very aware ant is cognisant or cognizant (depending on where that ant is from)

I believe Wikipedia allows people to submit edits. This is a link to that article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia As for me, a deep dive into splitting terms and then people is time wasted. Note: Chad GPT probably took your quote from that Wikipedia article or similar. It really is just an internet search engine.

Dad said the boy spent hours trying to solve a really tough math equation.

"Authoritarian" is a condemnation of the Russia's political and social views - whereas we should be neutral. If you want to say something is inappropriate because it promotes suppression of personal freedom - that's fine - but the second you say it's inappropriate because it's "authoritarian", it becomes a political stance, not a biblical one.

I don't know. There are many ways to classify rulership and some of them seem to be decided upon based on people's feelings about a leader. I'm not sure if Russia is classified as a dictatorship. Here's how ChatGPT answers: