#Wordle 1,613 4/6

⬛⬛🟨🟩🟩

⬛🟨⬛🟩🟩

🟩⬛⬛🟩🟩

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Dad and kids 🤙

#NowReading

Finkelstein and Birn, _A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth_

#books

Knots(not-your-file-server) is funny

😂

nostr:nevent1qqs8ltn64ldp8fey8cctwfan4f66mvy3uwgz9z8q84kh6uaefwguj4spz4mhxue69uhhwmm59enkjunfdehjummjvuhsyg8jwk4n04j0d0sr0x59eetnvpswze93x6sgclc70r02vvat4kztlcpsgqqqqqqsw4jz7n

Equating Zionism with 'Semitism'

is **exactly what the Zionists want**

Don't be stupid

I said don't worry

'bout a thing

'cause erry little thing

gonna be arright

🤙

Yes

Nope even dumber

Alex, 'What is Veganism?'

from my #openwrt router's kernel log

meanwhile, I cannot even ping 8.8.8.8 from the router (i.e., oddly enough, it's not a DNS issue)

`ip link show` has everything `UP`

#Wordle 1,611 4/6

⬛⬛⬛⬛🟨

🟨🟨⬛⬛⬛

⬛⬛🟨⬛🟨

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Dad and kids 🤙

I appreciate the optimism. But I think most people that should be interested or at least open to bitcoin won't know that bitcoin isn't the same as bitcoin _core_ -- they'll just hear "bitcoin" and "Epstein" too close to each other in the same sentence and say "Uh, I'm out."

If this info goes mainstream (whether verifed or not) bitcoin is in for a pr nightmare

fact it that bitcoin is subject to alchemists

Saylor nailed it: devs are its greatest threat

oof

nostr:nevent1qqs8c5rkezmlct9h8n6egksdl2f9x20paqh68yszhkvqfqsugctvjcqpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtczypxhsss9z7pwp5l7kq6dz59dc2mt4e8w8dyhseunhlaydzm0twttxqcyqqqqqqg7xelt7

ISP device > DNS = ok

OpenWrt > ISP > (Custom DNS+VPN) = fail

it's not the VPN (Proton), and it's not the DNS (Mullvad) either. Tried 4 different DNSs, even without VPN, same resulti Was working fine for a year up until last night, and I changed nothing. I think they're blocking.

*shrug*

#Wordle 1,610 5/6

⬛⬛⬛🟩⬛

⬛🟩⬛🟩⬛

⬛🟩🟩🟩⬛

⬛🟩🟩🟩🟩

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Dad and kids 🤙

#OpenWrt router won't resolve any hostname from any #dns

frig frig frig

GM and happy Saturday 🤙

"There's a double-meaning in that."

SEMPER PRAESTO

Latin, "Always Ready"

Compliments of the Tuttle Twins newsletter:

https://youtu.be/V6CLumsir34?si=UVouechmp4mp5P7b

Don't stop now...you're already halfway there. 🤙

I wish you success in your endeavors today, and peace in your relationships.

GM

## My Hope Is Built on Nothing Less

```

My hope is built on nothing less

than Jesus’ blood and righteousness;

I dare not trust the sweetest frame,

but wholly lean on Jesus’ name.

On Christ, the solid rock, I stand;

all other ground is sinking sand,

all other ground is sinking sand.

When darkness veils his lovely face,

I rest on his unchanging grace;

in ev’ry high and stormy gale,

my anchor holds within the veil.

On Christ, the solid rock, I stand;

all other ground is sinking sand,

all other ground is sinking sand.

His oath, his covenant, his blood

support me in the whelming flood;

when all around my soul gives way,

he then is all my hope and stay.

On Christ, the solid rock, I stand;

all other ground is sinking sand,

all other ground is sinking sand.

When he shall come with trumpet sound,

O may I then in him be found,

dressed in his righteousness alone,

faultless to stand before the throne.

**On Christ, the solid rock, I stand;

all other ground is sinking sand,

all other ground is sinking sand.**

```

Amen. GN! 🤙

It is not "unloving" to dismiss _ideas_ one disagrees with, and _being_ loved is more important than _feeling_ loved.

Sometines the truth hurts.

You were clearly drawing a parallel between what Christians mean by "faith in him" and _submission to the will of God_ or surrender--and they're opposites. The latter is a religion of obedience and works. Ours is a religion of grace despite demerit. I am not meaning to insult you personally here, only offer a correction about what we believe.

Ok, fair point: I haven't heard your exact theories about baptism (and I still haven't, because I only scanned your long reply). I should have said that I've heard variations on the same "pagan-origin" themes. Either way, I'm not interested. Again, I wasn't talking about you or your views in my original post.

I don't think you're pushing Islam, I know what that word means, I know you're not Muslim, and Christianity is still _sui generis_--which was the point of my response.

I'm not sure I even read your replies in that thread so this seems a tad bizarre. The careful reader will notice that I (too?) was pushing back a bit on his post--leaning against the pendulum, as it were.

That said, I've heard all that about baptism before, and it's irrelevant. It means what God says it means even if the pagans meant something different and earlier. Not interested in more here because revelational authority trumps ever-tentative "science."

Wrong. Christianity is diametrically opposed to Islam.

We're saved by grace through faith _in the perfect and completed work of Christ alone_. We are saved by his perfect work on behalf of his elect people--not because we've achieved something within ourselves 'like he did'. No other religion teaches this, and any philosophy that tries to peddle Christ as analgous to a Jedi channeling the Force is pure nonsense. Jesus is not merely "an example" of our faith--he is the _object of it_.

Clarke and Dawe - Quantitative Easing

https://youtu.be/j2AvU2cfXRk?si=rP0zLJsj_dd9i0bW - 14 years ago

Nice work. Solid at-bat. 🤙

I'd say that's a false dichotomy, my friend.

Natural Law *is* God's law -- and that's the basis for a just civil society. This law, written on every heart (Romans 2), has been known as the _lex talionis_ (the law of retribution), "eye for an eye," the "light of nature," the "law of nature," etc. Even the pagans know this law ("things that ought not to be done." [Gen. 20:9]). If this is all one means by "theocracy," that we ought to have civil laws like "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff," then--while I'd quibble with the terminology--fine. But normally "theocracy" is used quite differently.

Scripture and its story of redemption is for the church. The theocracy of Moses is over, and its civil laws were never meant to be an example for setting up a civil society--its civil and ecclesiastical laws, as the divines put it, "expired together with that state."

In other words...I'll see a "Bahnsen," and raise a "Vos."

🤙

...respectfully...which kind of theocracy? Muslim? Jewish? Christian? If Christian, then which sect, Roman? Baptist? Presbyterian? Episcopalean? The Christian Zionists?

Will we imprison people for their views on the sacraments? Or on Zionism? Or for their loyalty to (or rejection of) Rome? Or on some other finer point of doctrine?

...no. We started a country and fought a war of independance precisely to escape religious civil wars "over there." We have separation of church authority and state authority, and freedom of religion, _for good reason_.

"The Church grasps not after the sword the State."

The gospel is the solution.

Not coersion.

✌️

...well then you are clearly smarter than me on this question and I'll stand down...I defer... 😅😂

Fair point. That's strange, either way...hope they fix it.

🤨

I'm running Proton Drive right now on my #GrapheneOS Pixel 9a without Google Play Services installed...

installed via #obtanium

It's the only logical conclusion.

"Truth judges authority, not the reverse." Banger!

Right on.

Paul outright anathematized anyone who preached "another gospel (which is not another)" - **himself included** - so it seems rather important, I think, that we ask the question: _who gets the gospel right_? And don't miss the vital point that he included himself in this warning: that means the most important thing is not "who is saying it" but "what is being said."

GM!

True. Marriage gets even better on the other side of difficulty. Difficulty + perseverance = strength & growth. So many 'jump' just before things could get better than they can imagine.

Guess that's what 'swipe right' trains people for: quitting, taking the easy path, treating others like a to-be-rated consumer product.

You can believe this - a variation on the Serpent's theme of "Did God really say...?" - or you can embrace the interpretation of the devil that Christ gives us:

```

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

```

[Jhn 8:40-44](https://blb.sc/002lwc)

There is no mixing or blending of Christianity with gnosticism. They are mutually exclusive.

As you wish

Also, cancel Netflix.

...here's another one on in the same vein:

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpmdfdjun4mxavxk7ps0e62lal9d8uak0rj5fsgxr3ehye6j4crq9qyt8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yetvd96x2uewdaexwtcpzdmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuef0qqsquqf3suz6htug42zyd903kdglqkydzc83v4vspnc95apjq87gz0g34g3c0

Hear J. C. Ryle (1816-1900):

```

(c) Let us now go a step further. There is no real bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or in the consecrated elements of bread and wine.

This is a point which it is peculiarly painful to discuss, because it has long divided Christians into two parties, and defiled a very solemn subject with sharp controversy. Nevertheless, it is one which cannot possibly be avoided in handling the question we are considering. Moreover, it is a point of vast importance, and demands very plain speaking. Those amiable and well-meaning persons who imagine that it signifies little what opinion people hold about Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper,—that it is a matter of indifference, ­and that it all comes to the same thing at last, are totally and entirely mistaken. They have yet to learn that an unscriptural view of the subject may land them at length in a very dangerous heresy. Let us search and see.

My reason for saying that there is no bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper or in the consecrated bread and wine, is simply this: there is no such presence taught anywhere in Holy Scripture. It is a presence that can never be honestly and fairly got out of the Bible. Let the three accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and the one given by St. Paul to the Corinthians, be weighed and examined impartially, and I have no doubt as to the result. They teach that the Lord Jesus, in the same night that He was betrayed, took bread, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take, eat: this is My body; “and also took the cup of wine, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink ye all of this: this is My blood.” But there is nothing in the simple narrative, or in the verses which follow it, which shows that the disciples thought their Master’s body and blood were really present in the bread and wine which they received. There is not a word in the epistles to show that after our Lord’s ascension into heaven the Christians believed that His body and blood were present in an ordinance celebrated on earth, or that the bread in the Lord’s Supper, after consecration, was not truly and literally bread, and the wine truly and literally wine.

Some persons, I am aware, suppose that such texts as “This is My body,” and “This is My blood,” are proofs that Christ’s body and blood, in some mysterious manner, are locally present in the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper, after their consecration. But a man must be easily satisfied if such texts content him. The quotation of a single isolated phrase is a mode of arguing which would establish Arianism or Socinianism. The context of these famous expressions shows clearly that those who heard the words used, and were accustomed to our Lord’s mode of speaking, understood them to mean “This represents My body,” and “This represents my blood.”

The comparison of other places proves that there is nothing unfair in this interpretation. It is certain that the words “is” and “are” frequently mean represent in Scripture. The disciples, no doubt, remembered their Master saying such things as “The field is the world the good seed are the children of the kingdom “(Matt. xiii. 38). St. Paul, in writing on the Sacrament, confirms this interpretation by expressly calling the consecrated bread, “bread,” and not the body of Christ, no less than three times (1 Cor. xi. 26-28).

Some persons, again, regard the sixth chapter of St. John, where our Lord speaks of “eating His flesh and drinking His blood,” as a proof that there is a literal bodily presence of Christ in the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper. But there is an utter absence of conclusive proof that this chapter refers to the Lord’s Supper at all! The Lord’s Supper had not been instituted, and did not exist, till at least a year after these words were spoken. Enough to say that the great majority of Protestant commentators altogether deny that the chapter refers to the Lord’s Supper, and that even some Romish commentators on this point agree with them. The eating and drinking here spoken of are the eating and drinking of faith, and not a bodily action.

Some people fancy that St. Paul’s words to the Corinthians, “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? “(1 Cor. x. 16), are enough to prove a bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. But unfortunately for their argument, St. Paul does not say, “The bread is the body,” but the “ communion of the body.” And the obvious sense of the words is this: “The bread that a worthy communicant eats in the Lord’s Supper is a means whereby his soul holds communion with the body of Christ.” Nor do I believe that more than this can be got out of the words.

Above all, there remains the unanswerable argument that if our Lord was actually holding His own body in His hands, when He said of the bread, “This is My body,” His body must have been a different body to that of ordinary men. Of course if His body was not a body like ours, His real and proper “humanity” is at an end. At this rate the blessed and comfortable doctrine of Christ’s entire sympathy with His people, arising from the fact that He is really and truly man, would be completely overthrown and fall to the ground.

Finally, if the body with which our blessed Lord ascended up into heaven can be in heaven, and on earth, and on ten thousand communion-tables at one and the same time, it cannot be a real human body at all. Yet that He did ascend with a real human body, although a glorified body, is one of the prime articles of the Christian faith, and one that we ought never to let go! Once admit that a body can be present in two places at once, and you cannot prove that it is a body at all. Once admit that Christ’s body can be present at God’s right hand and on the communion-table at the same moment, and it cannot be the body which was born of the Virgin Mary and crucified upon the cross. From such a conclusion we may well draw back with horror and dismay. Well says the Prayer-book of the Church of England: “The sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural body to be at one time in more places than one.” This is sound speech that cannot be condemned. Well would it be for the Church of England if all Churchmen would read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest what the Prayer-book teaches about Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper.

If we love our souls and desire their prosperity, let us be very jealous over our doctrine about the Lord’s Supper. Let us stand fast on the simple teaching of Scripture, and let no one drive us from it under the pretence of increased reverence for the ordinance of Christ. Let us take heed, lest under confused and mystical notions of some inexplicable presence of Christ’s body and blood under the form of bread and wine, we find ourselves unawares heretics about Christ’s human nature. Next to the doctrine that Christ is not God, but only man, there is nothing more dangerous than the doctrine that Christ is not man, but only God. If we would not fall into that pit, we must hold firmly that there can be no literal presence of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper; because His body is in heaven, and not on earth, though as God He is everywhere.

```

excerpted from J. C. Ryle, "[The Real Presence: What Is It?](https://www.biblebb.com/files/ryle/real_presence_what_is_it.htm)" - which is worth reading in its entirety.

TL;DR: "real" presence != "bodily" presence. His _spiritual_ presence is real.

I ONLY FLIRT WITH DANGER, BREH

"There is at least one good thing we can say about Marx--he wasn't Keynes." -- Murray Rothbard

John Maynard "a bed and a boy" Keynes, the self-professed "immoralist."

One sick pup, that guy.

Fact:

nostr:nevent1qqsg5va7ezgl2a758v222hjcce09qmmfntw8y49xtrhsz0a0lst470qpr9mhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet59upzpl3vaaqg0y0am80t63p2jjf58mad3etz2mf6mlxk3x8kx5v0gh8dqvzqqqqqqyglx57k