Latest activity

rjs330 · 2025-11-29T22:55:14-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
So how is fashion connected to genitalia or chromosomes or gamete size?

I've already explained that. I dont need to do it again.

Brightfame52 · 2025-11-29T22:50:59-0600

zoidar said:
The logical problem with Jesus only dying for the elect is you need to know you are of the elect before you can trust in Christ. IOW if you don't know Jesus died for you, how can you then trust in him? But Calvinism solves this illogically, saying if you do trust in Christ, he died for you, but that is no solution to the problem. It all seems theologically upside down.

This post is about the saving effects of the death of Christ.

rjs330 · 2025-11-29T22:49:10-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
No, but you seem to argue that sex determines clothing?

Society determines what clothing is tied to what sex. What does that have to do with your argument that sex and gender are different?

Stopped_lurking said:
But what clothing is related to which gender is a social convention, not a biological one.

But what clothing is related to which sex is a social convention. Not a biological one. I never claimed otherwise.

Stopped_lurking said:
This is an example of when it is useful to have the sex-gender distinction.

You dont need a distinction. Ira tge same thing.

Stopped_lurking said:
Their society. Then you can see them interact with each other you can, talk to them yourself. Start building a mental model of their society.

And quickly determine what sex they are.

Stopped_lurking said:
Gender.

Which is the same thing as sex. There isnt any difference. And you haven't been able to show a difference. Anytime you use the word gender the word sex can be used instead.

Stopped_lurking said:
Only a few,

Then it cannot be the cause of transgenderism.

childeye 2 · 2025-11-29T22:48:41-0600

CoreyD said:
@com7fy8 I was thinking of an illustration to demonstrate why free will is not hampered by anything, whether it be holy spirit, the spirit of the world or the spirit of Satan.
Imagine that the chains represent any one of these.

What is it that moves one to do rhis?

I imagine the chains are lies that cause sin. Ignorance is therefore the void where people have the capacity to be deceived.

CoreyD said:
In the case of holy spirit, is anyone mighty enough to break that chain, or would God need to release that one, and let them go?

The Spirit of Truth exposes the lies that enslave people to sin, just like Jesus said.

CoreyD said:
What would be the reason for releasing that person?

Because Jesus loves others as he would want to be loved.

CoreyD said:
Would it not be due to their will not to have these chains on them? A rebellion?

A rebellion against sin? Of course, any sound mind would not want to be held captive by lies.

CoreyD said:
Unless humans have the ability to exercise free will, none of the above are possible.

Not sure what you mean by free will here. When a person learns the Truth that sets them free, it's not because they exercised their ability to volunteer.

CoreyD said:
One cannot even do what God's word requires. Such as...
Joshua 24:23 . . .incline your heart unto the LORD . . .
Isaiah 55:3 . . .Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live. . .

Joshua’s command to ‘incline your hearts to the LORD’ shows the people had been deceived. Scripture repeatedly affirms there are no other gods (Deut 4:35; Isa 45:5). The ‘strange gods’ were idols -> non‑entities. So, Israel was misled into deception through idolatry. Joshua saw their need to hear correction, not their autonomous free will. Their disposition was one of susceptibility to deception, requiring exhortation to turn back to the only true God.

CoreyD said:
God could not even say this about anyone.
Jeremiah 7:24 ...they did not obey or incline their ear, but followed the counsels and the dictates of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

However, because we all have that freedom to act according to our own will, willingly, and freely, without being forced... voluntarily - of our own free will, all the above are possible.

Ignorance is the darkness where people are vulnerable to deception, which is not indicative of a will that is free. Scripture shows that idolaters ‘know not, neither do they understand’ (Isaiah 44:18), and that God’s people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6). Jeremiah 7:24 says they did not obey or incline their ear but followed the dictates of their evil hearts. That is ignorance leading to trusting in idols, not evidence of autonomous free will.

Dan Perez · 2025-11-29T22:44:13-0600

BobRyan said:
g908
βάπτισμα βάπτισμα baptisma
The text then says "NOT the washing away of dirt from the flesh" (the waters of baptism) but rather the appeal to God for a clean conscience )such as is the case with a believing adult.

The fact that it is contrasting the washing with water and the appeal to God, shows the image being used is literal baptism

Biut the Greek for WATER. // HYDOR is not in. the Greek TEXT 11

And in. Eph 4:5 reads , ONE LORD , ONE GFAITH , ONE BAPTISM

ONE. IS. THE GREEK WORD .// HEIS

It reads ONE BAPTISM , so what is that ONE BAPTISM. ??

# 1. THERE iS the word BAP[TISMOS

# 2 THERE IS the word BAPTO

# 3 There is the word SPRINKING

# 4 There is the word. BAPTIZED

# 5 There is the word BAPTIZING

# 6. THERE is the word BAPTISM

# 7. THERE is the word WASHING

So what is that ONE //HEIS. , BAPTISM

dan p

rjs330 · 2025-11-29T22:33:25-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
And you point it out, isn't that being the pronoun police?

No, because the pronoun police demand that certain pronouns be used by others. No one here has made that demand. Are you?

Vambram · 2025-11-29T22:28:44-0600

Fantine said:
How can you blow that up of proportion while excusing a tax deadbeat who billed NY taxpayers, including me for several years, of half a billion$?

He did no such thing.

rjs330 · 2025-11-29T22:27:12-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Gender genitalia? Sex genitalia? What are sex genitalia, in contrast to non-sex genitalia? I understand genitalia as the sex organs.

Now, you're just repeating the assertion.

Thats because you seem to be having a hard time with it.

Gender norms are the same thing as sex norms.

There isn't anything gender related that cannot be referred to as sex related and vice versa. That's why there is no such thing as gender that is not tied to sex.

rjs330 · 2025-11-29T22:19:45-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
So how it is connected to sex then? Did the sex change?

I don't think anyone said names where tied to sex. They could be, thats why I said "if." Such as the name Tom or Amber. Yes it is a social convention that is tied to males or females. If clothing is tied to males or females it is tied to their sex because male and female is sex.

Clothing doesn't determine sex. Did you think it did? If it is tied to male or female societally it is tied to sex.

Stopped_lurking said:
That includes social and cultural factors.

Factors of what?

Stopped_lurking said:
Names, for example. In Russia Sasha is a man's name in Sweden it's a woman's.

Ah... a man or woman. Which is a reference to sex.

Stopped_lurking said:
XY I would call male. But most XY SRY- have been called female, up until the discover of sex chromosomes and the SRY-gene, and probably even today as most places don't do karyotyping as a standard procedure on newborns.

Are you making a claim that transgender people have Swyer Syndrom? If not why bring it up? Whats your point?

All Becomes New · 2025-11-29T22:18:39-0600

Reluctant Theologian said:
Any interpretation regarding the meaning of a word in the NT should come from linguistic analysis/understanding (including word usage) - I am curious as to why you think masturbation by definition should be included as neither the TNK/OT or NT mention that AFAIK. No judgement, just curious .. (and I'm not talking about anything related to addiction/porn/immoral fantasies etc.) I'm aware early interpreters frequently refer to the history of Onan from Genesis 38 but that's an entirely different issue.

The Bible doesn't mention Trans people either.

Dan Perez · 2025-11-29T22:16:33-0600

HIM said:
Smart comments are not necessary. Especially considering it does not even apply.

1 Peter is not Acts 13:34. Two different topics. I hope you don't need that explained to you. Neither of which have anything to do with what was posted to you Here at this link

Acts 13:34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Xeno.of.athens said:
The Law, as revealed by God and fulfilled in Christ, serves as a moral compass and pedagogical guide for the Christian faithful. It includes the Mosaic Law, especially the Decalogue, and finds its perfection in the New Law of the Gospel. “The Law has become our tutor unto Christ” (Galatians 3:24), and its enduring moral precepts are reaffirmed by the Church as binding. The Catechism teaches that “the Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel” and “remains necessary for man” as it “denounces and discloses sin” (CCC §1963–1964).

The Ten Commandments, given to Moses on Sinai (Exodus 20:1–17), are “fundamentally immutable” and “engraved by God in the human heart” (CCC §2072). They express the natural law and are reaffirmed by Christ, who deepens their meaning in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5–7). The Commandments are not abolished but fulfilled in charity: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). They are the foundation of Christian moral life, guiding the faithful in their duties toward God and neighbour.

For the Christian in this world, the Law and Commandments are not burdens but paths to freedom and holiness. Grace enables their fulfilment, and the Spirit writes them anew on the heart (cf. Jeremiah 31:33; CCC §1965–1966). The faithful are called to interiorise the Law, living it not merely by external observance but through love: “Love is the fulfilment of the law” (Romans 13:10). Thus, the Commandments remain essential, not as relics of legalism, but as living expressions of divine wisdom and the way of life in Christ.

And need you if you can explain ACTS 15:1 ??

And certain ones having come down. from Judea were teaching the brethren , that you would be CIRCUMCISED after the

THE CUSTOM OF MOSES , you are NOT //. OV. IS A DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE and means you cannot EVER

BE SAVED ??

What say you. ??

dan p

Nithavela · 2025-11-29T22:14:17-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Hegseth declines to comment on report that boat survivors were killed as a result of his orders to military
According to The Washington Post, the Sept. 2 boat strike initially left two survivors clinging to the boat. The Post says Adm. Mitch Bradley, head of Special Operations Command, then ordered a second strike in order to comply with Hegseth's orders and to ensure the survivors couldn't call on other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo.

If true, it is unclear why Bradley wouldn't have ordered troops to collect the survivors and their cargo from the water, as the military did in a subsequent strike when two survivors were taken aboard a Navy ship via helicopter.

"The Department has no response to this article and declines to comment further," a Pentagon spokesperson said Friday.
--
Some experts say the alleged “double-tap” strike may violate the law of armed conflict, which forbids targeting an enemy combatant who’s out of the fight due to injury or surrender.

“They’re breaking the law either way,” Sarah Harrison, a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank who served as associate general counsel at the Pentagon, told CNN. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”

Hegseth's got a date in the Hague.

The Hague is for people who lose wars and get gethroned. People who commit war crimes and stay in power will never be persecuted.

Reluctant Theologian · 2025-11-29T22:13:53-0600

All Becomes New said:
I'm in agreement with @Michie on this. Porneia is any kind of sexual immorality. That could be porn, or masturbation, or lust, or homosexuality, or adultery, or fornication. Anything that is not sex in the confines of a marriage between one man and one woman for one lifetime.

Any interpretation regarding the meaning of a word in the NT should come from linguistic analysis/understanding (including word usage) - I am curious as to why you think masturbation by definition should be included as neither the TNK/OT or NT mention that AFAIK. No judgement, just curious .. (and I'm not talking about anything related to addiction/porn/immoral fantasies etc.) I'm aware early interpreters frequently refer to the history of Onan from Genesis 38 but that's an entirely different issue.

RileyG · 2025-11-29T22:12:38-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
And you point it out, isn't that being the pronoun police?

I don’t care if others do. I just go with biology. That’s all.

RileyG · 2025-11-29T22:08:54-0600

Lost4words said:
There are tons of evidence out there....

Just watch the links i posted...i believe they exist...

More than one or just one?

RileyG · 2025-11-29T22:08:23-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Gender genitalia? Sex genitalia? What are sex genitalia, in contrast to non-sex genitalia? I understand genitalia as the sex organs.

Now, you're just repeating the assertion.

Gender and sex are the same thing from those who don’t accept transgender ideology.

RileyG · 2025-11-29T22:07:40-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Do you also think she doesn't "pass" then? Otherwise your statements seem to conflict with each other.

I know he’s a male though. That’s the difference.

Nithavela · 2025-11-29T22:05:35-0600

Arcangl86 said:
The post also references "anything else signed by autopen." I'm pretty sure this is going after the pardons.

I would ask if one can seriously un-pardon people, but Trump can do anything and nobody will stop him.

RileyG · 2025-11-29T22:01:50-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Which pronouns did you use for Jazz Jennings?

He since he’s a biological male.

Dan1988 · 2025-11-29T21:59:29-0600

Jipsah said:
That’s “moot” you’re looking for. Just beginning the hilarity in this post

Not in any rational way, anyhow.

Because you have to read it through the impenetrable fog of your hand wrought doctrine.

Because you a, shall we say “unique” understanding of what you believe the Bible “really means”, which often has little or nothing to do with what it actually says.

I don’t think anyone will have any luck finding that one.

That’s generally referred to as “death” by native English speakers.

I’m not sure we’ve seen enough evidence to convict you of that charge.

Given that nobody talks that way that isn’t really a surprise, is it?

Is that a class on various heterodox/heretical pseudo Christian sects?

Thank you for expressing your private opinion of all the above, but may I remind you that "opinions are like noses". Everybody has their own, so your private opinion is absolutely worthless to me and it represents only 1 of 8 billion opinions.
Can you even see how weak your argument is????. none of what you claim is supported by any scripture, so yeah.

Sorry to disappoint you but I don't follow human philosophy or anything the wise guys push. I just follow the Lord.

childeye 2 · 2025-11-29T21:59:27-0600

CoreyD said:
If "on" is not correct, then "of" is what I meant, in line with the information I used.

"of" is still a preposition, so "will" is still a noun.

CoreyD said:
Synonyms for "of his own free will" include voluntarily, freely, willingly, of his own accord, by choice, at his own discretion, at his own pleasure, at his own accord, without constraint, and unforced, and self-initiated. Other relevant terms are self-initiated, self-motivated, and self-determined, which convey the idea of acting without external influence. Adverbial synonyms include at will, as one pleases, at one's discretion, and without prompting; it emphasizes an action taken without coercion or external influence. A single-word synonym is "voluntary". The phrase can also be expressed using words like spontaneously, deliberately, intentionally, or purposively. In a broader sense, the concept is related to autonomy, independent decision-making, and uncoerced choice.

Does that make a difference with you?

No. Your synonym list only muddies the waters. You’re collapsing distinct categories --> voluntariness, autonomy, and intent into one synonym set. <--That’s equivocation.

But it doesn't matter how much you switch the meaning of free will, because like I said Genesis 3:17 says Adam ‘hearkened’ (shāmaʿ) to the woman, which rules out voluntariness and autonomy. The only sense left is intent, which is a desire, not the philosophical construct of self‑determination.

CoreyD said:
Besides that, you keep changing your argument, because one time you are focused on the word will, when I am referring to the phrase free will. Another time, you are saying the phrase "free will" is a noun... the noun free will, when that is not the case in the OP.

I didn't say free will is a noun, I said "will" is a noun in this sentence -> Thus Adam acted on his own free will.

I’m not changing my argument. I’m addressing how you’re using the phrase “free will.” You’re sliding between adverbial voluntariness (“willingly”), noun level capacity (self‑determination), and mere intent, then denying the noun when pressed.

My argument is this: Genesis 3:17 says Adam “hearkened” to the woman, which denotes obedience to persuasion. That rules out autonomy and voluntariness. If by “free will” you only mean intent, then say intent. But the OP accuses Adam using a philosophical construct of self‑determination the text does not provide.

Dreyma · 2025-11-29T21:47:16-0600

A couple different synopses of the book from Amazon:

"Set at a boys' boarding school in New England during the early years of World War II, A Separate Peace is a harrowing and luminous parable of the dark side of adolescence. Gene is a lonely, introverted intellectual. Phineas is a handsome, taunting, daredevil athlete. What happens between the two friends one summer, like the war itself, banishes the innocence of these boys and their world."
"'A Separate Peace' is a poignant coming-of-age novel set during World War II at a New England boarding school. The story revolves around the complex friendship between two boys, Gene Forrester and Phineas (Finny). As they navigate the challenges of adolescence, themes of jealousy, rivalry, and the loss of innocence emerge. The idyllic setting contrasts sharply with the underlying tensions of the war, reflecting the internal conflicts faced by the characters as they grapple with their identities and the realities of growing up. The narrative delves deep into Gene's psyche, exploring his feelings of envy towards Finny's charisma and athleticism. This jealousy ultimately leads to a tragic incident that alters their lives forever. Knowles masterfully captures the essence of youth and the bittersweet nature of friendship, as well as the impact of war on personal relationships. The novel serves as a powerful exploration of the transition from innocence to experience, making it a timeless reflection on the complexities of human emotions and the challenges of adolescence."

rjs330 · 2025-11-29T21:46:03-0600

BCP1928 said:
As I remember, it is that while a trans person isn't doing you any harm, using preferred pronouns for a transwoman, say, would be a positive assertion that she is a biological female.

I knew you would know the answer. Although, you really, really had to throw in your own two cents into it. Just couldn't help yourself.

Oompa Loompa · 2025-11-29T21:40:20-0600

Always in His Presence said:
I'll give you 100 dollar's to quit the grammar patrol.

I remember reading something somewhere about, "Here. I fixed it for you." But I cannot remember where.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Hegseth declines to comment on report that boat survivors were killed as a result of his orders to military​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Hegseth declines to comment on report that boat survivors were killed as a result of his orders to military