Zillow st augustine

North East Florida has golfing options for you. Centrally located near Fleming Island here are the top 5 golf courses!
​

1. The Golf Club at Fleming Island: Located in nearby Fleming Island, this 18-hole golf course offers a challenging and scenic experience. It features well-manicured fairways, water hazards, and beautiful views.
2. Eagle Harbor Golf Club: Situated in Fleming Island, Eagle Harbor Golf Club is an 18-hole championship course known for its picturesque setting and challenging layout. It offers a variety of holes that cater to different skill levels.
3. Magnolia Point Golf & Country Club: Situated in Green Cove Springs, just a short drive from Middleburg, Magnolia Point Golf & Country Club is a semi-private 18-hole course. It features a traditional layout with rolling fairways, water hazards, and mature trees.
4. Eagle Landing Golf Club: Located in Orange Park, Eagle Landing Golf Club boasts an 18-hole championship course designed by Clyde Johnston. It offers a challenging yet enjoyable golf experience, with scenic views and well-maintained greens.
5. St. Johns Golf & Country Club: Situated in nearby St. Augustine, St. Johns Golf & Country Club is an 18-hole course that has received positive reviews for its challenging layout and excellent course conditions.

These are just a few options for golfing near Fleming Island, Florida. Each course has its own unique features and amenities, so you can choose one based on your preferences and skill level. Remember to check availability, tee times, and any specific requirements before visiting a golf course.

Visiting St. Augustine this weekend and it's to my understanding George St. Is the street to be on. I also see hotels along the bay. Where exactly is the best centrally located hotel or BB? I don't mind spending $$$ if it means it's located right where everything is. I'm seeing so many options that I'm not sure. I prefer a BB for old school charm but I'd consider a hotel. Thanks!

I won't post the entire section. I think that if someone explains this part to me, I'll understand the rest a lot better. This is making my head hurt. I've studied works by the Early Church Fathers before, but this passage is making my head hurt. (I took Tylenol so hopefully that helps.)
I'll post the excerpt here, and then below it I'll summarize what I'm having trouble with.
"Also the question is wont to be asked, when a male and female, neither the one the husband, nor the other the wife, of any other, come together, not for the begetting of children, but, by reason of incontinence, for the mere sexual intercourse, there being between them this faith, that neither he do it with any other woman, nor she with any other man, whether it is to be called marriage. And perhaps this may, not without reason, be called marriage, if it shall be the resolution of both parties until the death of one, and if the begetting of children, although they came not together for that cause, yet they shun not, so as either to be unwilling to have children born to them, or even by some evil work to use means that they be not born. But, if either both, or one, of these be wanting, I find not how we can call it marriage."
This excerpt is the beginning of section 5. (Link here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm )
That first sentence alone is killing me. I tried reading a summary, but this part is still a little fuzzy to me. To me, it could mean:

1. Two formerly unmarried people, getting married, solely to have sex. He begs the question if this is a valid marriage.
2. Two unmarried people who are still unmarried, having sex. He begs the question whether this makes them married.

Maybe neither of these are correct and I'm way off. The rest of the section after this excerpt starts talking about adultery. I'm lost. Please help. I want to understand what he's talking about.
Thank you so much, to anyone who helps, in advance.

She's 6 years old. She is now displaced, my grandmother passed away earlier today.
Right now, the cat is safe. My aunt lives literally next door to my grandmother. So she is feeding and cleaning the litterbox as needed. Once the estate is settled and the house is sold... We have no idea what to do. Nobody is in a position to be able to take care of the cat.
I tried a few shelters and no luck. I keep getting declined because I tell them that I don't know if the cat is socialized for other cats. And they all say their cat rooms are free range.
I'm trying to find a new home for my grandmother's cat.
She's 6 years old, had her shots and stuff, and is declawed on her front paws. My grandmother had the cat since a wee kitten. So it isn't socialized for other animals. I don't think she would do good with young children who might not understand how to interact with cats. But otherwise she is very sweet and loving.
I think she has a very sweet temperament, but my family (grandmother, aunt, uncle) say she's mean. I dont see it. I think she's just set in her ways. I can pet her and she'll come headbutt me and rub up against my legs, etc.
I think she's just used to being alone in a house with a 98 year old woman. She gets startled if I walk past her from behind, and suddenly she sees my legs as I walk past. And she'll hiss and sometimes swipe. But like I said... I think she's just over stimulated.
She loves back scratches. She will softly nip at you if she doesn't like how you're petting her but she restrains herself. She knows not to actually CHOMP.
She is fixed. Declawed on her front paws. I know she had shots but I don't know if they're up to date.. my grandmother (and aunt) are trying to find the paperwork...The cat is in St Augustine, but I'll transport her anywhere between St Augustine and Melbourne.
As a last ditch effort I think I'll need to bring her home with me and release her around my house. She'll become an outdoor cat...and hopefully won't stray too far away from my house... But she's declawed and an indoor cat her whole life so it would be a death sentence....
https://imgur.com/a/YZVl1Sg

Okay I know a lot of chatters were being annoying and recommending things, but I'm a landscape architecture student at Cal Poly and CA yards/landscapes are something I'm passionate about. This is just unsolicited advice and my opinion :p
There are generally two types of turf grasses: warm-season and cool-season. Cool-season grasses are more commonly used because they stay greener throughout the year but require more water.
Here are some potential groundcover options! :)
-UC Verde Buffalograss: Buffalograss is a common turfgrass, but this is a special cultivar made by researchers at UC Davis and Riverside that can use up to 75% LESS water!
-No-Mow fescue: California has a lot of native grasses, but they tend to be meadowy/long or bunching and ornamental, so not great for turfs. I'm planning on using CA-native (low water) grasses from Stover Seed to redo my backyard. These are cool-season grasses, mostly fescues, but generally require less water, and you can let them go dormant in the summer when they'll turn a nice golden color :) Some of them are short enough that you don't have to mow them.
-Mulch: Mulch is anything applied on top of soil, usually around 1 to 2 inches thick. It's usually a mix of things like tree bark (chips or shredded), leaf material, or even things like newspaper, rubber, or a sheet of landscaping fabric. It helps smother weeds so they can't grow, preserves soil, and obviously doesn't require any watering. A whole yard of mulch probably wouldn't be a good idea, but it can be great for pathways/sections and reduce the amount of grass and therefore water demand. I'm sure there are mulches commercially sold and many of them would be soft enough for a dog's paws :)
-Warm season grasses: These require less water but tend to go dormant and turn brown during winter. They include things like Zoysia grass or St. Augustine grass.
-Smart controllers for irrigation: These require a professional to set up, but they automatically consider factors like your zip code, current weather, type of grass, and tend to be automatic and easy to use once installed.
There are probably other options but that's my two cents! I hope I'm not coming off as parasocial, and these are just some recommendations and something I'm passionate about T-T. ALSO! California has a LOT of diverse biomes (Mediterranean, desert, mountains, forests, grassy valleys). LA isn't desert, it's considered a Mediterranean climate because the coast moderates temperature and makes it cooler than if you go farther inland. I love Mediterranean/Californian plants and I hope more people can appreciate them, drought-tolerant gardening, and the general benefits of plants :))

https://imgur.com/a/0liRb6K link to album
Initially thought it was Bermuda when we moved in, but now I'm thinking it's St. Augustine based on various grass identification websites. Definitely expands with stolons, they love to reach across my sidewalks and driveway. Currently cutting it at ~2.4" with my Husqvarna Automower 430X, which is the highest setting. Normally cut it at ~1.6", if the cutting height setting ticks are linear on our mower. Haven't killed it yet in the 2.5 years we've been here.

My wife attends a Reformed Baptist community. I am a former member there prior to my conversion. I had the below conversation with a member there after he posted something on Facebook criticizing Eastern Orthodox views on Icons.
Article Posted:
https://warhornmedia.com/2023/04/19/eastern-orthodox-apologists-bait-and-switch/?fbclid=IwAR1_ktWJ_S79vAmu2e7EftU9ZcC2lngK-ZBcAh8pcFnxe8By8IIV1pFYpxw
Him: "Stay With the Bible"
Me:
The difficulty in staying with the Bible is how to interpret the Bible.The Church hadn’t settled how to properly understand the Trinity until the early 325 ( Nicaea), didn’t formally recognize the first canon of scripture until 382( Rome) the proper nature of Christ until 451( Chalcedon) and the use of icons until 781 (Nicaea 2). Before the councils Christians often disagreed because of the lack of clarity in scripture itself. Even with icons, some were okay with it and some were against it. The Church ultimately settled that icons were appropriate because Christ had taken on flesh. The point of the councils was to clarify things that were not evidently clear.In my opinion, the heart of the issue is the concept of perspecuity ( clarity) of scripture which I think is what fundamentally separates Protestants from Orthodox (& Catholic). That is that Protestants basically believe the proper interpretation of scripture is evident where Orthodox ( & Catholic) argue that we can not properly understand all of scripture apart from the Church’s interpretation.
Him:
I disagree. The councils were only needed to correct errors that had risen. That doesn’t mean that the church didn’t have a consensus. That is completely false, and a Catholic straw man of the Church, capital C. And I believe God can and did speak with perspicuity to His creatures. He also chose to use the most common language possible at the time. There is nothing complicated about the language. The church also did NOT accept the icons as you suggest. Here is a video source that that explains with sources.Also, there are a vast number of opinions, interpretations, and denominations within the Catholic system. Even popes have disagreed over the centuries. And today, the pope could be considered a universalist. To suggest anything contrary is evidence of not fairly studying history, especially history that doesn’t agree with your presuppositions.
https://youtu.be/AkNuganI0JA📷YOUTUBE.COMVenerating Icons: A Protestant CritiqueVenerating Icons: A Protestant Critique
​
Me:
Thanks for the response.I agree that Councils were needed to correct errors but disagree with the general consensus part. Athanasius was one of the only Bishops in the East to reject Arianism and was persecuted for it. Also, the Early Church Fathers had a consensus that baptism was regenerative and that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, so an argument from consensus is two edged in this regard.If scripture is obviously clear how do you account for the dozens of branches of Christianity?If scripture is clear on most things it seems that disagreement shows:a) one denomination is more inspired than others or are better at reasoningb) people who disagree with proper interpretation have malicious motivesc) Jesus doesn’t think it’s important for the church to be unified on doctrineDo you hold one of these or something different?In terms of Catholic Dogma there is one official set. Things that are not dogma (The extent of God’s role and human freedom in predestination for example) are open handed and Catholics can hold varying opinions on those.Of course the average Catholic might believe anything but Church teaching itself is cohesive.If you’d ever like to discuss this in person I’d be glad to. It might be easier and be less likely for misunderstanding.Peace,Ryan
Him:
what is your responde to the video?No denomination is inspired. The church and humans can err. It is very clear and true. We must always go back to all of Scripture. It is grace that brings Biblical clarity. And those trusting in Christ alone to the glory of the Triune God have doctrinal cohesion because they are essential. Christ’s church is completely unified, regardless of the different names (Ephesus, Corinth, Galatia).There are essentials of the faith that unify Protestants. That’s not debatable. It is the gospel that separates the false Church of Rome, and the true catholic Church who trust in Christ apart from any works.
​
Me:
I liked that Ortland seemed very sincere, thoughtful and seemed to act in good faith. His approach was very good and I think all can learn from his gentle approach.That being said I think he is in over his head. I think he is genuinely trying to understand but this isn’t his background and he misunderstands writings of the Fathers.I think this podcast episode breaks down his misunderstandings much better than I can.You said the Gospel separates Protestants from Catholics. How do you define the Gospel?https://podcasts.apple.com/.../the.../id1354647807...📷PODCASTS.APPLE.COM‎The Counsel of Trent: #703 - Gavin Ortlund on Icons (REBUTTED) on Apple Podcasts‎The Counsel of Trent: #703 - Gavin Ortlund on Icons (REBUTTED) on Apple Podcasts
​
Him:
He has a phd in historical theology. I think to say that He is in over his head is quite the charge that is sincerely incorrect. What is your defense of your claim against a fellow professing Christian? Is it one podcast? I will listen to the podcast this week. I am not surprised at a difference of opinion with church history. It isn’t the defining category for salvation.The Gospel is the Holy God saving sinners by grace through faith in Jesus Christ’s life, atoning death, and resurrection.Ephesians 2:8-98 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Me:
It is my opinion, which you asked for. I certainly don’t know more than him on this topic but the apologists on the podcast do which is why I said he is in over his head IMO.I agree, and Catholics with this as the Gospel message.
Him:
It is the Gospel message. So do you believe that you could commit a sin today that could remove you from being justified and having peace with God (Romans 5:1)?
Me:
I do believe people, including myself, can commit a sin leading to eternal death. If “eternal security” is a necessary part of the Gospel then most Protestant denominations do not believe the Gospel as most believe one can fall out of peace with God either through sin or apostasy.
Him:
What if you never went to mass again by choice, does that matter at all?
​
Me:
Yes, I would say intentionally missing Mass in the situation you explained is a huge problem spiritually.
Tue 4:18 PM
Him
Do you believe you are justified by the Roman Catholic sacraments of the church?
Enter
Me
U gotta answer my question that I asked earlier first and then I’ll answer. Do you believe that those who don’t believe in “once saved always saved” believe in the Gospel?
Enter
Him
It actually wasn’t a question originally. No, eternal security is not a saving doctrine, but it is consistent with most heretical groups because I assure you, if any man had the ability to lose their salvation of grace, that absolutely will 100% of the time.
Enter
Him
they* absolutely will
Enter
Me
Enter
Me
So you said the Gospel is what separates Protestants fro m Catholics. However, both believe in your definition of the Gospel.
Enter
Me
To answer your question about sacraments In a sense I believe we are saved through sacraments. Sacraments aren’t magic so it’s not as if receiving the sacraments without faith justifies a person but I do believe they are normative in salvation. We view salvation as a process. Initial salvation is faith alone but final judgment includes faith working through love
Enter
Me
Philippians 2:13 is my reasoning on that. All good works are a result of Gods grace at work in the Christian. They are done by Gods grace 12 Therefore, my beloved, fas you have always gobeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for hit is God who works in you, both to will and to work for ihis good pleasure.
Enter
Him replied to you
Original message:
So you said the Gospel is what separates Protestants fro m Catholics. Ho…
I don’t believe that is what the church teaches. That faith in the gospel message, apart from anything else is all that I necessary for eternal salvation.
Enter
Him
I do believe that viewing salvation as a process is a different gospel. It’s similar to Mormonism in that their works will determine the final state of things.
Enter
Tue 5:15 PM
Me
If that’s the case the Bible should clearly articulate that we are saved by faith alone, which it doesn’t say.
Enter
Him
I don’t presume to tell God what He should have written or articulate, but grace through faith apart from works is clear as well as the faith of Abraham. He believed God and it was accounted to Him as righteousness. The Bible doesn’t say Trinity either, as you know.
Enter
Me
That was his initial salvation. 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Enter
Him
The working out of the faith is evidence of the faith existing already.
Enter
Me
From James 2
Enter
Him
Where does it say initial salvation? That’s not in the Bible either.
Enter
Me
Neither is Trinity
Enter
Me
The concept is there
Enter
Him
A person is justified before men by their works, but not by God. That’s the point of James
Enter
Me
So people are justified by men through faith and works?
Enter
Me
Before men
Enter
Him
Through works, because men can’t read hearts
Enter
Me
The chapter is not saying that. It’s saying that saying we have faith without having works is a faith that does not justify because that facility is dead
Enter
Him
Saving faith will have works associated with it. If Abraham didn’t believe God, he would not have obeyed.
Enter
Him
He begins the section of the chapter with questions about someone who claims to have faith. This is a man claiming something to another man… the he gives known examples from Scripture they would be common to them. It shows that faith will have works always. We can’t believe that the men saying they are justified actually are if their life doesn’t show any evidence of it. You’re taking it out of the context and putting into a salvific conversation that doesn’t exist and it makes you create categories like “initial salvation”
Enter
Me
Agreed to your first statement about obedience stemming from faith. If “faith will have works always”what happens if a person dies, having trusted Jesus but without a life change?
Enter
Tue 6:00 PM
Me
Enter
Tue 6:18 PM
Him
The thief on the cross is a good example of someone who is with Christ now, without a life change because of time. Someone who says they trust Jesus, but their life isn’t changed, doesn’t have any fruit that their confession is actually true.
Enter
Him
The goats aren’t sheep. They are goats. They are not believers or have faith at all.
Enter
Me
The thief did have a life change, he went from mocking him to asking for his mercy.
Enter
Me
The goats call Jesus u/Lord@
Enter
Me
“Lord”
Enter
Him
False professions of faith are very common. Not true faith.
Enter
Me
How can anyone know they are saved then?
Enter
Him
Yes, people can say whatever they want. That doesn’t mean their profession is true.
Enter
Him
The Holy Spirit testifies to the spirit of His children that they are the children of God. And, He leads them to put to death the sin in their life.
Enter
Him
God will be at work in and through your life.
Enter
Him
1 John also gives some tests of assurance
Enter
Me
Sounds like works
Enter
Him
Which part? Not sinning?
Enter
Me
Life change.
Enter
Him
The Holy Spirit testifies to your heart that you are a child of God. Life change is evidence of faith and if it continues to death, then it’s evidence that they are a believer. If they are doing it not to earn anything and out of pure love for God. The theif on the cross didn’t work at all. He was changed by God
Enter
Me
This is not far from the Catholic position, which is “faith working through love”. The difference is we believe we can choose to leave God through sin or disbelief.
Enter
Me
One should do good out of love for God and neighbor
Enter
Me
Galatians 5:6 for the reference ”For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.”
Enter
3:27 PM
Him replied to you
Original message:
This is not far from the Catholic position, which is “faith working thro…
It is different enough because works are not required for salvation at any moment whatsoever. They earn you no additional grace. Gods grace is already sufficient for Christ to save to the uttermost. Our works are as filthy rags before God. Any pure work is God working through us, and would only be accredited to Him, not to us. As well as any sacraments. If you’re adding anything necessary for perfect eternal salvation to the finished work of Jesus Christ, then you have a different gospel that cannot save. If your faith requires you to do your part to ensure you reach the finish line in Christ, I urge you to repent of the falso gospel and trust only in Jesus Christ, who doesn’t try to save or make people save-able, but saves His sheep perfectly. “Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.” Hebrews 7:25
Enter
6:02 PM
Me
I also believe grace is not earned. It is God's free gift. I also believe Christ completed the work once and all on the cross.
Enter
Me
We disagree in the application of that gift. I believe it is given through the life of the Christian through various means, whereas (I think) you believe it happens all at once at the point of belief. Either way it is from God. It's kind of like if a dad gives his kid $1 to put in the collection at church. The $1 is the dad's. The kid did nothing to earn it, but the dad knew that having the kid put the $1 in would have a positive change on the child. Good works are the "$1" in this situation. It is God working through us. We can't even desire to do good, let alone do good, unless God gives us the desire to even will good.
Enter
6:31 PM
Me
This quote from St. Augustine captures it better than I can, " “What merit, then, does a man have before grace, by which he might receive grace, when our every good merit is produced in us only by grace and when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but his own gifts to us?” (Letters., 194:5:19).
📷
Enter
Him
How the free gift of grace is applied to the life of the believer is paramount to salvation. It is a work of the Holy Spirit all at once, which is why the past tense appears so often in regards to salvation. If you’re striving to achieve or maintain or ensure eternal salvation, you believe a different gospel and the wrath of God abides upon you. It’s is grace that saves. Not grace to do works or God working through us. That has nothing to do with salvation and God’s elect. John 6:44. All that the Father gives to me will come to me and I will raise them up on the last day. They will all come and Christ will raise them up. There is no room for, if you strive by grace to complete this work. There are warnings to the believer to remain faithful because saved sinners need warnings. Please do not fool yourself into thinking that there is only a little difference between perfect salvation at once and salvation as a process. The Roman Catholic Church will always be Satan’s number one counterfeit. This is all I’m going to continue with this conversation. I’ll be praying for you.
Enter
Me
Please do pray for me. I will say a rosary for you.

So, I started diving into faith and deeper stuff due to a Reddit post meme-ing about the Lesser and the Greater Keys of Solomon.
I read about it for a while, but I wasn't interested. I had plenty of advice by demonolaters and occult practitioners; with time I got a greater perspective of faith and spirituality.
I think that there is (mostly) nothing wrong for divination and such as long as you have conviction and do it to reach a deeper bond with God (Romans 12-14), I myself practiced with tarot for a while (being cautious) and it helped me develop a ton (I always asked God and ended up seeing it as a form of extended prayer).
Furthermore, most of the things that nowadays are sin, are manmade, since Jesus just gave us two rules, which are also taught by St. Augustine (who was a bibliomancer himself), and everything outside that, maybe doesn't come from God but men desiring power.
I've lost faith in the Church as an institution; it's utterly corrupted, but I think most of the priests and friars try their best to carry on.
There is a big conflict between traditionalists and new age, and I simple view it as two ways of loving God, since those two have been (and are) corrupted during the ages.
Nowadays my faith is just simpler, I kinda took up seriously Kempis' "Imitation of Christ", and despite the theological questions I have to answer yet (which may not be that important at the end of the day), I find myself happier, I picked up my cross, despite yelling about it from time to time, and sure the yoke became way lighter.
I think that faith isn't bonded with a structure nor specific rituals (besides baptism) and that we have to develop our relationship with God through introspection, prayer and consistent changes over the time.
I try my best to help other people, to love my family and friends, to be the best person possible, even when I tend to fail more often than not. And there is where I found some sort of "inner peace" and came to terms with my faith.
I remember a friar who told me my spiritual development was stuck due to me having a girlfriend and sleeping together before marriage (life circumstances don't let us be together just yet), and I felt overwhelmed, scared about God being a force of nature able to smite me if I did something He didn't like (which may be true to some extent, don't get me wrong), that pulled me out of my faith and was the main reason I began to be interested in the occult.
I do not think any of it is necessary, like, the foresight, the summoning, etc; we just do those things (mostly) because we have fear, because we are weak and unable to ask God for mercy an strength to overcome the obstacles we face.
So, this is my spot as a christian now (if I can still be called a christian); we get closer to God not by following man-made rules and strict conduct patterns, instead, we do so by being kind, by loving each other, praying, accepting the cross and becoming kind, rejecting anger and hate.
Feel free to give me advice or just your take about my opinion.
Thank you so much for reading me; may the Lord bless you and the sun warm your face.

How do I respond to skeptics who say that God is, in reality, a tool we Humans have made to cope with our "meaningless" life? What made the article more interesting was that it claimed that we humans want something more undefined and used a quote from St. Augustine to show it.
I took note of this argument when I was reading an article in Phycology Today.

• Getúlio Vargas
• Floriano Peixoto
• Juan Perón
• Jawaharlal Nehru
• Emiliano Zapata
• Josip Broz Tito
• Gamal Abdel Nasser
• Ahmed Ben Bella
• Haya de la Torre
• José Carlos Mariategui
• Vladimir Lenin
• Joseph Stalin
• Mao Zedong
• Ho Chi Minh
• Fidel Castro
• Che Guevara
• Mustafa Kemal
• Kwame Nkrumah
• Alberto Torres
• Pope Leo XIII
• Thomas Aquinas
• St. Augustine of Hippo
• Emmanuel Mounier
• José Antonio Primo de Rivera
• Francisco Rolão Preto
• Clement Attlee

I have a St. Augustine lawn with many patches of dallisgrass.
Couple of questions:

1. If I spot treat the dallisgrass with Roundup, what diameter of the surrounding St. Augustine would be killed? I know about the paintbrush method, but there are so many patches of dallisgrass that I do not want to go this route unless absolutely necessary.
2. Is Scotts crabgrass & grassy weed preventer an effective preemergent for dallisgrass?

Thank you.