Oompa Loompa said:

They can dress however they want. I may still think they are weird.

Click to expand...

you think they are weird? Just because of how God created them? They aren't trans...they just happen to not look like thwir gender. Not by some statement either...just existing.

Oompa Loompa said:

. But if anyone expects me to agree to their "gender identity" delusion, I will not hesitate to stand my ground.

#superstraight

Click to expand...

Whatever you need

Bradskii said:

There were guys in the water whose ship had been wrecked.

Click to expand...

This. If they are in the water without a ship in the middle of the ocean, they are no longer a threat and therefore no longer a target.

If you want to remove them from the board, you send out a craft and detain them. You don't send another missle their way.

com7fy8 said:

First, about porneia > I think this is listed in Colossians 3:5 as a thing to put to death >

"Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry." (Colossians 3:5)

Here, "fornication" is porneia. And we are to put it "to death". So, I see this does not only mean to stop the outward and physical immoral actions, but put to death the spiritual depth of it including feelings and emotions and desires that are spiritual but immoral. So, it is stuff that is keeping a person away from relating right with Jesus as our Groom, and with brothers and sisters in Jesus the right way. It means stuff that keeps us from living in God's love. It gets our attention away.

So it is, then, an anti-love thing which needs to be put to death . . . getting rid of what in my heart would have me being immoral. Kill it so I can be alive in God's way of loving, instead. My experience is that interest in immoral activity has different things operating, and which keep me from loving the way I should >

*Interest in the pleasure*, even if I don't act on it, can keep my attention away from personally submitting to God in His peace . . . all the time > as we are "called in one body" to do >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

God's peace is so better than the feelings of pleasure of sexual stuff. To be intimate with nice feelings is not as great as being intimate with God and one another in His peace ruling us. I have found how I can use a woman for pleasure, but my intimacy is not really with her, but with the feelings I like. So . . . it is anti-love . . . using someone, instead of really loving her. And what contributes to this? >

*beauty discrimination* > I can favor a nicer looking woman, instead of loving every woman the way God wants. And immoral attraction can be brought on by how nice a woman acts and looks; so it is not really getting to know her and share deeply. And look what happened when Jacob discriminated against Leah because she was not beautiful like Rachel >

"When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren" (Genesis 29:31)

Jacob did not want Leah to be his wife; he got tricked into getting her. And he favored Rachel more than Leah, because of what they looked like. And I see how the LORD expected him to love her dearly and completely; and so the LORD enforced this, by not allowing Rachel to have children. And yes I have seen how my way of loving women can be connected with what they look like and how nicely they talk and move.

And a couple of women I have fallen for "the hardest" have turned out to have major personal and character and emotional problems. But they were "extravagant" looking and acting.

But Jesus says >

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

So, it is anti-love if I favor someone only because of how I can use her for pleasure . . . physically, or just to look at her, and/or because of how she can charm me. Yes, God "gives us richly all things to enjoy," we have in 1 Timothy 6:17; however, this does not mean for me to discriminate in how I love each person.


Paul says how to relate >

"not in passion of lust" > in 1 Thessalonians 4:5.

I think this goes even for in Christian marriage. There can be a difference between lust, versus desiring one another in intimate and tender caring for one another . . . in God's love. God's love is so better than just lust for the pleasure and what the companion looks like and the charming voice.

"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)

"All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." > in 1 Corinthians 6:12.

So, even in holy matrimony . . . it seems to me that God wants us to be first about sharing with Him in His love, all the time, and in this intimacy with God we discover how He has us sharing with one another in marriage and our other close relating as brothers and sisters in Jesus.

So, if I am just thinking about using someone, and only using someone to look at . . . this is getting me away from loving her . . . including how instead I need to be blessing and praying for her. And it has me away from staying submissive to God in His peace ruling us in our hearts > Colossians 3:15.

Click to expand...

That is all true yet it remains essential to understand there is no Greek word 'lust' in the NT. In the English the word 'lust' is inherently immoral/bad, but the same cannot be said for the underlying Greek word for 'strong desire'. And even strong (physical) desire within marriage should be considered good with the morally 'right' attitude. The LXX even uses the word 'agape' in Song of Songs in an erotic context. Strong physical desire in marriage without the proper holistic love is selfish and probably ends up hurting the other party. But there is a Christian tendency to Asceticism (growing very strong already in the 2nd century AD) that seems to depart from the Jewish perspective, and that views physical desire by definition as sinful, or at best just tolerated for the sake or pro-creation.

Oompa Loompa said:

He either lacked the intellectual honesty to answer the question honestly,

Click to expand...

I did answer the question honestly. Please refrain from such accusations.

-- A2SG, it would be appreciated....

keras said:

Isaiah 49:1-26 Listen to Me you peoples far distant,...... But Zion [the Holy Land] said: The Lord has forsaken me, and my Lord has forgotten me…. The children which you will have, after you have lost the former ones, shall say to you: This place is too small for us, give us more space to dwell . Then you will say to yourself: Who has begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am alone and desolate, and where have they come from? Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders, for they shall not be ashamed that have faith in Me.

Click to expand...

There's a sense in which this is all fulfilling the oldest of promises and prophecies, before they even ENTERED the land in the first place!
Yes, I'm talking about Deuteronomy, where God promises that he will judge them if Israel rebel and expel them from their land.
But even then he will remember them - and bring them back.

That's exactly what happened.
Israel was expelled by the Babylonians, and returned by the Persians!

keras said:

Hebrews 12:22-24 But you have come unto mount Zion......
We Christians are the latter children of Zion, Spiritually of the twelve tribes, the true Israelites of God, all the faithful Christian peoples from every tribe, race, nation and language. Revelation 5:9-10

Click to expand...

Now let's try something a bit different.
Let's try reading it in context - not just plucking it out of context to justify our own little Nicholas Cage movie!

If you look in context - it's full of warnings and encouragements to the Christians reading the letter - not a prophecy about the future - not at this point anyway. The bit you quote is about their current relationship with God. It's a metaphor for how Christians are the current expression of God's kingdom on earth right now as we await his return when heaven and nature meet!

If you strip out Mount Zion to the future - you do irreparable damage to the rest of the passage and make it nonsensical. Because it's all part of the application to the immediate readers!

This is one of the classic verses that illustrates how the apostles saw the "Kingdom of God" in eschatological tension.
The church, representing the kingdom, in the 'now but not yet' nature of our era.
The overlapping outbreak of God's kingdom on earth while earthly rulers still frustrate, and sometimes even persecute us.

They pray, from where-ever they are scattered across the Roman empire, and it's as if they've come to Mount Zion!
It's that simple and beautiful!

Hebrews 12:
14Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. 15See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. 16See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. 17Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done.
18You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.” 21The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.”
22But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
25See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? 26At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” 27The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.
28Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29for our “God is a consuming fire.”

And you want to turn this into a Nicholas Cage movie?

Oompa Loompa said:

Let him speak for himself.

Click to expand...

I already did.

Oompa Loompa said:

His answer seemed pretty clear to me. "It looks like a human, but who am I to judge."

Click to expand...

That was not my answer. Please refrain from attributing quotes to me I never said.

Oompa Loompa said:

Correct. Just like a transgender woman is a man with a bunch of weird looking body mods.

Click to expand...

Most aren't really all that weird, you know.

-- A2SG, but I've seen weirder stuff at comic book and sci-fi conventions....

Servus said:

Funny how they end up as supposedly mediocre and also supposedly strongmen who are putting fear into the democrats they're supposedly out to get.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? I have never feared a person who is truly strong. They know themselves and tend to be fair and generous. It is those who are weak who must bully, brutalize, and pretend to strength who are to be feared.

Oompa Loompa said:

Yes. One can never truly tell if the Emperor is wearing clothes or not.

Click to expand...

Everyone could always tell. Whether or not they had the courage to tell the Emperor so and face reprisals, that's another story.

But enough about that irrelevant fable. Let's move back to the subject at hand.

Oompa Loompa said:

The posters answer was that it appeared to be human, but "looks can be deceiving." In other words, "It looks human but looks can be deceiving. So it could be a cat."

Click to expand...

Good thing you added "in other words," or people might mistake that quote for something I actually said.

-- A2SG, but you're doing a mighty fine job beating down your own strawmen, keep it up!

Priscilla.

Oompa Loompa said:

That does not answer the question. What order was given that was illegal?

Click to expand...

Don't play me for an idiot. There were guys in the water whose ship had been wrecked. Even if you were at war, which you aren't (you really should check to see who decides that), then killing unarmed men in the water, apart from being absolutely morally reprehensible, is murder. Those that support actions like this really need to take a good hard look at themselves.

The Barbarian said:

Texas Senate passed a bill that forbids public schools from teaching history and current events about race that might upset students.

Click to expand...

How dare they try to upset students at a time like this! Don't they know there's a war on? We're at war with Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

-- A2SG, report to room 101, immediately!

essentialsaltes said:

GOP faces a familiar dilemma: What to do about Obamacare?​

Republican leaders have found themselves in a familiar place: pledging to make major changes to the Affordable Care Act, citing rising health care costs and a looming deadline - but far from agreeing on how to do it.

Republicans promised a mid-December vote on how to proceed on the expiring subsidies, in exchange for support from some Democrats for ending the government shutdown in November. Democrats have argued that the simplest and most politically popular option is to extend the subsidies, which were implemented in 2021 and meant to help defray the cost of health coverage during the covid-19 pandemic. But many GOP lawmakers have campaigned for years on pledges to “repeal Obamacare” and say that continuing to fund the subsidies is a nonstarter, calling instead to shift the money to Americans in the form of health-savings accounts.

“The White House has a solution for cost-sharing,” [can we see it? The last one the WH rolled out vanished in less than a day] Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” predicting that “people are going to work this out” by Christmas.

“We don’t want to cause panic for the folks who are worried that they’re going to lose the thing that they have,” Hassett added.

Thirteen House Republicans, mostly from liberal-leaning states, sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) during the shutdown warning that a failure to extend a version of the subsidies would “risk real harm to those we represent.”

However, many Republicans oppose extending the subsidies - arguing that they are a pandemic-era relic - and instead see the debate as an opportunity to revisit health care reforms the party has sought in the past.

Click to expand...

The problem lawmakers of both parties face is they don't want to lose the millions of dollars the for-profit health insurance industry funnels into their reelection campaigns. This money is largely why the GOP first promoted the Heritage Foundation plan as it was market-based and relied on private, for-profit health insurance. It's also why Democrats supported it later on, and that's the only reason the GOP now has a problem with it. But, the problem there is, they haven't come up with any idea that actually provides health care coverage AND relies on for-profit health insurance (protecting their own campaign bottom lines). The only idea I've heard floated about is health savings accounts, which seem like a good idea...if you have money. If you don't, it isn't.

Then again, when has the GOP ever really cared about people who don't have money?

-- A2SG, except when they vote Republican, of course....

Aryeh Jay said:

And speaking of politicizing, when is the President going to order the flag lowered for the death of one of our troops?

Click to expand...

Too divisive. It's not like she was some important podcaster or Youtube personality known for pushing politics.

GoldenKingGaze said:

Porneia, sexual immorality and romantic love, committed love in marriage

Click to expand...

First, about porneia > I think this is listed in Colossians 3:5 as a thing to put to death >

"Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry." (Colossians 3:5)

Here, "fornication" is porneia. And we are to put it "to death". So, I see this does not only mean to stop the outward and physical immoral actions, but put to death the spiritual depth of it including feelings and emotions and desires that are spiritual but immoral. So, it is stuff that is keeping a person away from relating right with Jesus as our Groom, and with brothers and sisters in Jesus the right way. It means stuff that keeps us from living in God's love. It gets our attention away.

So it is, then, an anti-love thing which needs to be put to death . . . getting rid of what in my heart would have me being immoral. Kill it so I can be alive in God's way of loving, instead. My experience is that interest in immoral activity has different things operating, and which keep me from loving the way I should >

*Interest in the pleasure*, even if I don't act on it, can keep my attention away from personally submitting to God in His peace . . . all the time > as we are "called in one body" to do >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

God's peace is so better than the feelings of pleasure of sexual stuff. To be intimate with nice feelings is not as great as being intimate with God and one another in His peace ruling us. I have found how I can use a woman for pleasure, but my intimacy is not really with her, but with the feelings I like. So . . . it is anti-love . . . using someone, instead of really loving her. And what contributes to this? >

*beauty discrimination* > I can favor a nicer looking woman, instead of loving every woman the way God wants. And immoral attraction can be brought on by how nice a woman acts and looks; so it is not really getting to know her and share deeply. And look what happened when Jacob discriminated against Leah because she was not beautiful like Rachel >

"When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren" (Genesis 29:31)

Jacob did not want Leah to be his wife; he got tricked into getting her. And he favored Rachel more than Leah, because of what they looked like. And I see how the LORD expected him to love her dearly and completely; and so the LORD enforced this, by not allowing Rachel to have children. And yes I have seen how my way of loving women can be connected with what they look like and how nicely they talk and move.

And a couple of women I have fallen for "the hardest" have turned out to have major personal and character and emotional problems. But they were "extravagant" looking and acting.

But Jesus says >

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

So, it is anti-love if I favor someone only because of how I can use her for pleasure . . . physically, or just to look at her, and/or because of how she can charm me. Yes, God "gives us richly all things to enjoy," we have in 1 Timothy 6:17; however, this does not mean for me to discriminate in how I love each person.

Reluctant Theologian said:

Just be careful with the English word 'lust' - the Greek does not have a dedicated word for that; the underlying word usually translated to 'lust' in English just means strong desire, and is also used in a positive sense (use your concordance to look it up).

Click to expand...

Paul says how to relate >

"not in passion of lust" > in 1 Thessalonians 4:5.

I think this goes even for in Christian marriage. There can be a difference between lust, versus desiring one another in intimate and tender caring for one another . . . in God's love. God's love is so better than just lust for the pleasure and what the companion looks like and the charming voice.

"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)

"All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." > in 1 Corinthians 6:12.

So, even in holy matrimony . . . it seems to me that God wants us to be first about sharing with Him in His love, all the time, and in this intimacy with God we discover how He has us sharing with one another in marriage and our other close relating as brothers and sisters in Jesus.

So, if I am just thinking about using someone, and only using someone to look at . . . this is getting me away from loving her . . . including how instead I need to be blessing and praying for her. And it has me away from staying submissive to God in His peace ruling us in our hearts > Colossians 3:15.

BCP1928 said:

No one has that intention. Regardless of the "law of armed conflict" once upon a time it would have been considered an atrocity to sink an enemy vessel and then machine gun the survivors in the water.

Click to expand...

And once upon a time it would have been considered mass murder and horrific that boat loads of drugs were killing a million people in a generation. More than all the major wars in the 20th century.

Once upon a time we were tough on drugs and crime. Now more people are dying than in wars because we allowed drugs and crime to get out of hand. Its all subjective and depends on what you think is the greater wrong.

BCP1928 said:

Once upon a time Christians would have lamented their deaths, even though they were the enemy. I guess we were just just inaccurately informed about the Gospel of Christ.

Click to expand...

Actually once upon a time Christians and most people supported the death penalty and supported a war on evil. Understoof that sometimes evil is met with bad consequences.

Now there's an adversion to even acknowledge there is such a thing called sin. That wrong doing cannot be helped because someone has been oppressed and never had enough love. So we have to go soft on crime and wrong doing. Let people steal as they are disadvantaged, give them 20 chances before we jail them because they are misunderstood.

I think its time reality came back and part of that is there are consequences for bad behaviour and let those consequences happen and stop protecting people from them. It just makes it far worse.

BCP1928 said:

Kill 'em all, right? OK, this is a Christian forum and it's good of you to instruct us about the Christian position on the incident.

Click to expand...

No just a couple of boats and suddenly the drug trade stops and we are saving 1,00s of lives. No one dares try that again. Its easy. Rather than all this compromise and cotton wooling that just covers up the bad and lets it continue.

Otherwise whats your solution. Some diplomatic talks, yeah sure when the government has their finger in the pie. What about reeductaing the Narcos. Nah don't think thats going to work.

So your alternative is also "Kill 'em all, right?" except in this case its allowing the drugs to come in and kill and destroy another million people over the next generation.

So we have a situation where a few Narcos are killed or a few more million Americans are killed. An ethical dilemma. So lets just stick our heads in the sand and let it continue.

I actually think its a bold and brave move. But also one where you have to be ready to backup the words if its going to work. But it will work and save millions and change the course of societies future for the better if even half the drug trade would stop.

I guarentee if this was something Biden or Obama did everyone would be supporting it. But because its Trump it must be bad.

Servus said:

Hegseth called it "fake news".

Click to expand...

Originally, yes, but the story has evolved with the WH acknowledging it.

Wow that was really good. About taking the kingdom from the Israelites, and giving it to the nations that bear its fruit which was 30-70 AD. And about Pentecost when the new covenant church the Israel of God was born in a day. I will make a post about it.

linux.poet said:

Moderators always win.

Click to expand...

feels good doesn't it.

bob121 said:

Steve, thank you for laying out that graceful-exit roadmap. My own Tokyo witness has never hinged on clever rhetoric: I simply raise Jesus’ name, share the freedom He offers, and leave the growth to God. Online, my blogs try to encourage deeper thought, but the depth always points back to the One who deserves all praise, life, and love. It’s a daily struggle for us all—yet plant, witness, and bow we shall. Grace and peace to you, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

I remember when I was younger and just reflecting on how the gospel was preached it was simple. There wasn't all the counter and alternative ideas and rationalisations for not believing in God.

It was a case of 'oh well if thats what you believe in, good for your'. People were more open to at least hearing the gospel and it was often framed as one of the ways people could find what they were looking for compared to other ways.

So if a person is lost and had no hope they were open to at least hearing the hope and life Christ offered. This was how I came to God.

But now the culture is full of all these voices proclaiming a better way. Along with the fact that the church was exposed for abuses and coupled with the fall away from God in the public square its become a mindfield of counter ideas and skepticism against religion and especially Christianity.

Thats why I think the simple gospel is more important than ever and not engage in the semantics and arguements over its truth. It is a truth and we are speaking and living that truth exactly as it was taught.

Today I think churches want to water this down to try and accommodate the world because the same gospel and teachings that had previously saved many was not as appealing today due to all these counter arguements and modern norms encroaching on the church.

But really its the very thing that has always saved. It may seem more outdated or in conflict today but the message is still the same. It still works the same way. People thirst for the truth even if it may seem too hard to believe or outdated to todays ears.

So telling that truth just like it is is exactly how we should preach the gospel and not be afraid of embarrassed about it. If people reject it that is up to them. But to then try and water it down to appease others is selling the gospel short.

Servus said:

I think that's what's being read into it. But it seems more likely that Hegseth was referring to the boat strike period.

Click to expand...

And that whatever was done (and they are no longer denying the "double tap"), Bradley was in charge.

Isaac the Recluse said:

I like the response of just calling it "growing up". Also, a large draw of SciFi was the concept, the what if. I guess that when the ideas are nearing a quarter of a century old, and have been growing in familiarity all that time, they just lose their shine a bit.

Click to expand...

Some recent Sci-Fi is awesome.
The Expanse, Last of Us, 3 Body Problem and even swashbuckling fun with "Mech's meet Mad Max" in Fallout.

Let alone the new Sci-Fi books!

But I do drift between genres, and there are also seasons of life. Younger, more idealistic versions of myself were obsessed with the more utopian versions. Older, more cynical versions of myself hope for the best for my kids, but kind of look at the dystopian stories like The Road, Blade Runner 2049, Last of Us, Fallout, and various Cli-Fi (Climate collapse fiction) as warnings of possible futures if we are not careful.

Tim Winton is a literary author in Australia who usually writes about life in small Western Australian country towns and is quite philosophical. (He's also a Christian - but you might not know it from his writing because he keeps his characters real, using real 'Aussie vernacular' if you know what I mean.)

He just wrote a Cli-Fi called Juice.

Seriously! It was like reading Ernest Hemingway writing about climate change!
Set 200 years from now - it was so bleak!


Then I'll go through a phase like yours where I feel guilty for reading or watching any fiction - and go nuts for various research projects and blogging.

I guess it depends on which version of myself gets booted up for that month!

Everything I said is correct. Revelation is in chronological order, and Rev 13-22 is future. The new Jerusalem coming down to new physical heavens and earth, final judgement lake of fire in rev 20-22 is future still. Rev 13-22 won't happen until 4400-4500 AD based on 1 Enochs 10,000 year starting at creation 5500 BC prophecy.
Whatever the abomination of desolation was mentioned by Jesus happened 70 AD. He was referencing the one in Dan 9, and 12 both ended 70 AD. Dan 8 ended in Maccabees, and Dan 11 ended before 70 AD whenever it was. . The man of sin in Thes had to happen before 70 AD whatever it was. The believers body is the temple of God now.
The language about mountains is found in the old testament too. Paste 1 Enoch 1:1-9 into chat GPT, and ask it to show all the same language from the OT. In some cases it is metaphor for judgement other cases literal eg earthquakes the day Jesus died, and more leading up to 70 AD. All the stuff chat GPT will show was about the Babylonian or Maccabean judgements in the OT but some was about 70 AD too. Jesus about 70 AD-
Luke 21:22 NIV
For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

There are NO issues with what I said. Rev 13-22 is future still.
Christians are supposed to love neighbor, and God help the poor sick needy etc or teach the bible preach. Not supposed to love money and focus on worldly gain.
The last kingdom of Daniel 2, and 7 is still future. It overlaps with Rev 13. It is the country "Israel", and the mark of the beast is the hexagram.