Latest activity

pasifika · 2025-11-15T13:02:43-0600

HIM said:
I see you are not actually addressing his points. Not that he is right or wrong but you haven’t posted anything that is objective that addresses anything he said.
Why post at all?

I did address it.

HIM · 2025-11-15T13:02:27-0600

pasifika said:
Romans 3:27 for the two laws (Faith & works) and Chapter 4 is regarding Abraham in respect to the two laws (works & Faith)

Not quite

Unqualified · 2025-11-15T13:01:36-0600

I had heard that axis are accurate. My friend had one in 22-250. He only loaded it with unique. The barrel seemed a little heavy. It did pretty good. Do you like the creedmoor round? I think it’s kind of cute, but never shot one. I like anything 6.5 . Have only tried old calibers like 6.5x53.5R. They sure need jacketed bullets though and to go pretty fast. They are heavy enough to slow down a little but small enough to have slight recoil. Anyway I like the accuracy.

pasifika · 2025-11-15T13:00:33-0600

HIM said:
Says nowhere in scripture and you know it. Otherwise you would have posted it and not try to state Rom 3 says it.

Romans 3:27 for the two laws (Faith & works) and Chapter 4 is regarding Abraham in respect to the two laws (works & Faith)

Arcangl86 · 2025-11-15T12:58:18-0600

JimR-OCDS said:
To vote for the nuke option would've changed the senate for future issues.

True, though they could have limited the change to only apply to CRs.

JimR-OCDS said:
There was no choice but to oppose changing the filibuster.

Nope, there was a choice. The other option wasn't palatable, but it was there. Whereas the Democrats working alone could not pass the bill.

JimR-OCDS said:
Uhm, the Republicans in the House and Senate already voted for the CR bill.

They voted for a CR. The CR that finally passed in the Senate was a different bill because of significant amendments made to it.

JimR-OCDS said:
The Democrats voted no 14 times

Well yes, because every time the vote was held on the same bill they had already rejected. After the first rejection the GOP should have offered some kind of compromise, which is how our system is designed to work.

JimR-OCDS said:
and even voted no on the
proposal bill to fund SNAP, military and federal workers pay.

What are you talking about? The Democrats not only supported those things but introduced to implement them.

HIM · 2025-11-15T12:57:42-0600

pasifika said:
I can see you also promoting the law of Moses the OC law. I hope the Spirit will take that veil off in order to see the Glory of the Son through the Gospel.

I see you are not actually addressing his points. Not that he is right or wrong but you haven’t posted anything that is objective that addresses anything he said.
Why post at all?

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-11-15T12:57:15-0600

Hans Blaster said:
You can't expect them to limit their tariffs to only existing countries. Exports from Narnia need high tariff rates.

By Trump's good grace we will even out our trade deficits with the penguin nation of the Heard and McDonald Islands!

JPPT1974 · 2025-11-15T12:56:13-0600

JPPT1974's Weekend Thoughts 11/21-11/23/2025:
Really don't like it when people
See others for their bank accounts
But not for their worth and for
Their actions as really when others
See those beneath them it says
So much about them and not about
Us and knowing God sees hearts and
We need to do so as when people see others
Over beneath them, really they are the ones who
Are "blind" not just in eyes but hearts, minds, and souls.

johansen · 2025-11-15T12:56:06-0600

The Barbarian said:
Vaccines don't change genomes. There is the issue of epigenetics, which can last for a generation or two, but don't persist long-term. So no.

that is what everyone thinks today, which is fine, that is their right.

the whole point is a prediction of unforeseen consequences on the order of past our lifetimes.
We don't know what vaccines will morph into, but i think we're going to have a problem when our vaccine schedule reaches 300-500 different immunizations.

jonojim1337 · 2025-11-15T12:55:14-0600

partinobodycular said:
Can you tell me which traits you're referring to?

Also, can't this concept be extended to any set of traits? In that we can find people with these traits everywhere, not just in one specific subset of the population. For example, can we find Sadducees everywhere, or Zealots, or Samaritans?

And following this line of reasoning, should we really expect to find Christians only among the members of a specific religious group? Are we really to distinguish them solely by their adherence to a specific set of religious dogma? Or are there Christians everywhere? Even among the Gentiles, be they Muslims, or Buddhists, or agnostics, or atheists?

Christ singled out the Pharisees a lot and the traits associated with them.

partinobodycular said:
In other words, if we define people solely by their traits, i.e humility, honesty, patience, and mercy... who then are the Christians?

Sounds like fruits to me.

pasifika · 2025-11-15T12:54:48-0600

Studyman said:
I know that you are preaching that the Pharisees were promoting the Law of Moses, and that Jesus and Isaiah, and Stephen and many others in the Holy scriptures teach me that they were not promoting the Law of Moses. In fact, the only people in the entire Bible that teaches that the Pharisees were promoting the Law of Moses, was the Pharisees themselves, who Jesus called "children of the devil".

But what else can I say. If you want to promote the teaching that the Pharisees were promoting God's Laws, you are free to do so. I have already shown you what the Jesus "of the bible" teaches about them.

Time for me to move on.

I can see you also promoting the law of Moses the OC law. I hope the Spirit will take that veil off in order to see the Glory of the Son through the Gospel.

RandyPNW · 2025-11-15T12:54:21-0600

9Rock9 said:
Hello!

I'm undecided about eschatology but doing some research on it. I think good points are made for both amillennialism and premillennialism. The only view I currently hold to with is inaugurated eschatology (or "already and not yet") where most prophecy has double fulfillment. It's normally associated with George Eldon Ladd, who was a premillennialist, but I don't see why one can't be amillennial and also agree with inaugurated eschatology.

I'm wondering if one can hold to a non-literalistic premillennialism?

Like, I don't think the events in Revelation are strictly chronological and probably could be oit of order or just the same events from different angles.

I also don't know if I believe the 1,000 years mentioned in the book to be be a literal millennium.

Could one believe in a Millennial State after the Second Coming, but not think the Millennial Kingdom will be a literal 1,000 years?

I think I've answered this question before, either on this forum or on another forum. And my answer would be the same. Personally, I'm Premill, but acknowledge the long history of the Amill position, which I also grew up with. And I'm a big fan of George E. Ladd. What position you hold to is something you'll have to investigate for yourself. I just hope that you will remain open until you've thoroughly reviewed all of the positions.

The strength of Premill for me is that it appears to be a very early view in the history of the Church. It appears that the change to Amill in the larger Church may have been due to the failure of Israel to look like it has any future role in biblical prophecy. The Jews remained recalcitrant and unwilling to convert to Christianity. Premill anticipates a return of Israel to their biblically-promised place as God's chosen nation.

I completely reject Dual Fulfillment as a system of interpretation. But there certainly are repeating patterns in history, since what started with Israel ended up applying to many nations. The same salvation, as well as the same judgment, would follow for both Israel and the Christian nations, when they fall away.

There is a lot of symbolism in biblical prophecy, particularly in the apocalyptic literature. The reason for that may be debatable. I think it is because the authors could not spell out doom for the pagan nations that presided over them. Symbols had to be used to cloak references to judgment against these pagan nations, lest the authors be accused of sedition or rebellion. Jesus told parables because those rejecting his claims would use the information to attack him.

There is also symbolism used because what began as "shadows" under the Law came to a more literal fulfillment in Christ. So the language of the Law has been used to depict Christian realities in the New Testament era. We find a number of references as such in the book of Revelation, including the Temple, the Altar, and the Ark. Jerusalem itself may be a symbol of the entire Church--not sure?

Good luck. You're half the way there if you refrain at this point from committing before you've done all the research!

JPPT1974 · 2025-11-15T12:53:00-0600

JPPT1974's Thurs Thoughts 11/20/2025:
Daniel relied upon God and
He didn't even rely even on the
Earthly king like in Darius and knowing
God would always be first and foremost
First in the hearts of Daniel as
They should ours no matter what
How situations and life are never going to
Be easy but it doesn't have to be that hard
Due to God always having first place.

JimR-OCDS · 2025-11-15T12:52:24-0600

"The number of people who believe their faith does not depend on attending Mass has increased as more Catholics are cultivating a personal relationship with Jesus, according to a recent survey of U.S. Catholic beliefs."

So, this is bad?

Consider a parish that embraces LGBTQ+ ideology and works to drive conservatives away?

BelieveItOarKnot · 2025-11-15T12:51:34-0600

fhansen said:
Either way, grace give us the means to choose good thoughts, and acts, over evil ones.

Evil thoughts defile all regardless of choices, the general point of our Lord in Matt. 7:21-23

There is no escaping that fact by acting good and thinking that eliminates God's Facts

Fervent · 2025-11-15T12:50:53-0600

partinobodycular said:
Normally I wouldn't go off topic like this, especially to respond to something as inconsequential as insults. But I thought that in this singular case I'd make an exception. Don't be surprised if I don't make a habit of it.

As to my solipsism, perhaps I should've been clearer, I'm an epistemological solipsist. Which simply holds that nothing can be known to exist outside of one's own mind. To me this term simply reminds me to be humble about just how much it is that I simply don't know. My profile says 'Agnostic', but that's simply because 'Solipsist' isn't one of the available choices, and to be honest, to me that's all that epistemological solipsism is... agnosticism pushed to its logical conclusion.

You also must've missed the post where I referred to myself as a Christian. Perhaps this post will better explain this seeming dichotomy:

Ah...I appreciate the explanation, and I'm in a similar camp though I find the terminology suspect and prefer the more conventional Pyrrhonist/Pyrrhonian skeptic. Though I prefer to stick to epistemological confidences rather than speaking in terms of knowledge, as I don't believe that such skepticism is liveable outside of philosophical speculations.

My approach can come across as harsh, but that's because a lot of my interactions are patterned after Jeremiah and Elijah in their dealings with pagan prophets. And i don't think we're as off topic as it might seem, because these epistemic and metaphysical issues are necessarily involved when we discuss objectivity of ethics.

JPPT1974 · 2025-11-15T12:49:46-0600

JPPT1974's Wed Thoughts 11/19/2025:
Daniel became a right hand man
For King Darius and how that
Situations will never be easy as
Especially if you are facing on
A life threatening situation due over
For to rely upon God and knowing
He would come out on top due to
God's grace and protection on it.

jonojim1337 · 2025-11-15T12:49:22-0600

Robban said:
What claim do you mean?

The article I quoted from is from Chabad.org, I could not see any author, probably because it is so well known.

Under the article were comments, one recieved a reply from Rabbi Shmary Brownstein.

So it is not my claim, it just is.

The claim about, the second temple being destroyed. It’s not destroyed. The first one suffered an attack. But it’s not in Palestine.

JimR-OCDS · 2025-11-15T12:48:39-0600

Arcangl86 said:
So they could have. They just didn't want to because they feared future consequences.

They also needed the Republicans to support the bill. That part was likely, but not guaranteed. So of the two parties, one had the power to unilaterally pass the legislation, albeit by doing something politically risky, and the other could only require that politically risky move but not actually block the legislation. Yet you are blaming the party with no power to actually stop the bill. It's like if I shot somebody for not giving up their wallet and you blamed the victim for dying by not doing what I said.

Actually they didn't. They voted on a similar bill with several concessions. In other words, they negotiated, which is how this is supposed to work. But Republicans were so opposed to doing so at the being that the House passed the CR with a single Democratic vote, and then left town until after the funding was due to expire, ensuring only the bill they had passed could be signed into effect. Apparently there were secret discussion that happened at some point to come to a compromise, but who knows when they actually started to happen. And even those appeared to not be with Democratic le

True, because they disagreed with it. That could have been avoided by the GOP being open to negotiation at the start or having the political courage to restrict the filibuster.

Sure, there was discussion of doing so, but it wasn't supported by leadership. Biden openly opposed the idea and the one bill that was introduced was instantly sent to go die in committee in both houses. That's what I mean was not a serious effort.

The House passes plenty of bills they know won't pass cloture in the Senate. But they pass it anyway because they think it's important or powerful political messaging, like the For the People Act, which ended up not passing because of the filibuster. That's a bit different because they didn't have the votes to pass it in the first place, but I still think it's worth bringing up. Especially since the Democrats cared enough about it and the related John Lewis Voting Rights Act to try and change the cloture rules. That attempt failed, but it's instructive because it shows how far the Democrats were willing to go for a bill that had broad party support, unlike the Judiciary Act of 2021 which never got a vote.

To vote for the nuke option would've changed the senate for future issues. There was no choice but to oppose changing the filibuster.

Uhm, the Republicans in the House and Senate already voted for the CR bill. The Democrats voted no 14 times and even voted no on the
proposal bill to fund SNAP, military and federal workers pay.

JPPT1974 · 2025-11-15T12:47:08-0600

JPPT1974's Tues Thoughts 11/18/2025:
Despite the life threatening situation and
How he never stopped praying to God
Despite being warned but that
God never allowed Daniel to lose his life
But when he became a right hand man to the
Earthly King Darius as Daniel's God became
Darius God and the latter giving the people in
Worshiping over in their God, OUR GOD!!

JPPT1974 · 2025-11-15T12:45:25-0600

JPPT1974's Mon Thoughts 11/17/2025:
That is what happened over
For those that want to really be
Rid of Daniel only to lose their
Own lives in the end but that
It is what happens when we
Test the Lord as we will lose
So easily as God is a jealous God
He never at all loses my friends.

Clare73 · 2025-11-15T12:45:01-0600

Delvianna said:
I think you're missing the point. If someone has God, then God will lead/guide them. Since Jesus is the Shepard and we form our covenant with him, then we trust in his guidance. Can God use people and scripture to back up the truth? Yes, but without God's guidance, we can fall way off the road. Jesus is the "way, the truth and the light", all you technically need is God and he will guide/direct. When you start adding other things as a "requirement", you're essentially saying God can't guide correctly to truth without other stuff. If he really needs to, he'll show up himself. Loads of testimonies of God showing up in dreams and such, for people in other religions or even atheists. All you NEED is God, but scripture does help. As I said, it's an aid, but it shouldn't ever replace your walk/relationship with him on a personal basis.

The word of God is more than an "aid," it is
the source of spiritual regeneration (1 Pe 1:23),
spirit and life (Jn 6:63),
living and active. . .dividing soul and spirit. . .judging thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Heb 4:12).

keras · 2025-11-15T12:44:50-0600

Freth said:
Also, consuming fire:

Deuteronomy 4:24 For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 9:3 Understand therefore this day, that the Lord thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the Lord hath said unto thee.

Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Be aware that the Lord does NOT Return in a consuming fire, but in glory, as described in 1Thess 4:16 and Revelation 19:11-14

He SENDS fire, Psalms 11:4-6, to destroy His enemies in the Holy Land, Zephaniah 1:14-18, and to commence the Prophesied end time events.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page