Apple Sky said:

What & read more lies - Thank you, but no thanks.

Click to expand...

But you can’t prove that it is a lie. There is absolutely no evidence that it is a lie. Your conspiracy theory has crumbled. Your belief has been proven wrong. Why do you continue to hold on to a lie?

Studyman said:

The point of my post, had you considered what was written, is that Jesus followed God's Law perfectly, but HE never engaged in obedience to the LAW of the Levitical Priesthood concerning burnt offering and sacrifices and Priesthood duties as commanded by God after the Golden Calf. The reason for this, is because "That Law" was only Temporary and was Prophesied as such. For Jesus to continue in this "ADDED LAW" would have been a sin and a rejection of God's Word concerning who HE was, and what His mission was.

Click to expand...

Also, Jesus did not sacrifice because He was perfect and needed no sacrifices or forgiveness.

Studyman said:

The foundation of the internet sermons often posted, is that Jesus, Paul, Jeremiah or Moses didn't "Parse" the Law between God's Judgments, Statutes and Commandments, and the Temporary priesthood "works" "ADDED" to God's Laws because of the Golden calf, "Till the Seed/Priest "after the order of Melchizedek" should come.

Click to expand...

When Paul talks about “the law” in his letters, he is referring to the Law of Moses (Torah) — the commandments, sacrifices, and ordinances God gave through Moses.

• Galatians 3:17 – “The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God.”
• Exodus 19–24 – God gives Moses the Law at Sinai, including moral laws (Ten Commandments, Exodus 20:1–17), ceremonial laws (sacrifices, festivals), and civil laws (social and judicial rules).
• Galatians 3:24 – “The law was our guardian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith.”
• Romans 7:7 – Paul cites the Ten Commandments as revealing sin: “I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’”

Paul contrasts the promise to Abraham (Genesis 12:1–3, 15:5–6) with the Law, showing that salvation comes by faith in Christ, not by obeying the Torah.

Studyman said:

God gave them this "ADDED" Law after the golden calf, "ADDED" to His Judgments, Statutes and Commandments Abraham obeyed, as a Mercy to them, instead of wiping them all out and building a nation from Moses, another statement from God that you didn't acknowledge, although I asked you about it.

This is why I ask you the questions so we can have an honest discussion about this important topic. , but you refused to answer.

Nevertheless, thank you for the platform and the opportunity to question popular philosophy that Jesus and Paul Warned about.

Click to expand...

Thank-you for giving me the oppertunity to present the Gosple to those who will hear it. He is glorious enternce through which we have acces to the Father. Eternal life is a gift and not a wage.

Faces ooh La La

Login to view embedded media I wish that I knew what I know now, when I was younger.

No truer words from the human experience have been uttered.

SabbathBlessings said:

Did you read my post, the translation you used added it to God’s holy word, why would I respond to something that is not there nor are we discussing Mat 23. Nor were the Pharasees keep God;s laws, they were keeping their own man-made ones in lieu of God's commandments taht Jesus condemed. Mat 15:1-15 Rom 2:21-23

Jesus quoted directly the commandments He was referring to in the same passage, its the context, no need to add other things Jesus did not say in this passage to define which commandants He was referring to . Jesus quoted what He meant in the context of the same passage Mat5:19-30.

I think it’s time for me to move on brother. I wish you well.

Click to expand...

Yea, it's time for you to move on. I'm not sure you even read what I said. The "teachers of the Law" is there in the Greek. You just don't read Greek. I can only just read enough to know it's there.

Jesus referred to the 10 Commandments in Matt 5 because it was part of the entire Law, which is what the Pharisees and teachers of the Law taught. Matthew confirms what the Pharisses and teachers of the Law taught later on in his Gospel.

You shouldn't be trying to teach others your beliefs if they can't hold up in Scripture. And if they can't hold up in Scripture, you should think about changing your belief about the legal necessity of keeping Sabbath Law. It would be great if we could get on the same page.

ViaCrucis said:

So the phrase "blue lives matter" is wrong?

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

All phrases that single out one race or groups of individuals is wrong in my opinion. The scriptures are clear that God wants to save all people so by default God values all life. We need to strive to go in that direction rather than continue to highlight what makes us different.

Hentenza said:

Nope. The one that did. You can look it up. It was recent.

Click to expand...

What & read more lies - Thank you, but no thanks.

Commodores Easy

Login to view embedded media
For some reason the way the guitar solo interacts with horns, and itself sounds almost "horn-like" has always moved me.

ViaCrucis said:

Are there international rules of war that are in place? Do violations of those rules constitute war crimes?

Click to expand...

Yes and historically those accused of crimes are from the aggressor side.

ViaCrucis said:

Should we regard all conduct, in the name of war, valid regardless of what it is? That "war is war" means anything goes in war? Or should we hold nations, governments, and people accountable for their conduct. That there are licit acts of war and illicit acts of war? Does Just War Theory mean anything?

Click to expand...

No. So eliminate war. But good luck with that since humans have been at war with one another for over 90% of known history.

ViaCrucis said:

If a war broke out between two villages, a village raiding party comes and kidnaps some people from the other village. The other village, justifiably meets the other village to reclaim those who were taken, and also to mete out retaliation; but if that other village rounds up every man, woman, and child, kills them, burns the village to the ground, and the leaders say the point isn't to rescue the stolen villagers but to destroy the village that attacked in the first place. Clearly we are not talking about a justifiable response.

It is justifiable to retaliate and rescue those who were taken, and mete punishment on those who committed the violent act.
It is not justifiable exterminate the other village, to torch everything to the ground, and admit that rescuing the kidnapped villagers isn't the point--but the point is hurting the enemy and destroying them.

And, yes, I am bringing up the "the point is not rescuing the kidnapped villagers" because it is directly connected to the Gaza conflict.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-says-returning-hostages-not-the-most-important-thing-sparking-fierce-backlash/

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Now your argument is flirting with emotional fallacy. Not all man, woman, and child have been killed in this war. Since your argument is based on a fallacy then your conclusion is in error. If the aggressor, Hamas, would have returned the hostages and stopped the war then many lives would have been saved.

Chesterton said:

I remember when FM radio was not much of a commercial enterprise. It was almost considered "underground". We had a couple of great rock stations here. They really had no format or programming. Back in the days when everything wasn't divided into genres and sub-genres. Whatever DJ was at the helm just played whatever they wanted to play. I remember a local newspaper columnist used to complain about a DJ burping on air. Sometimes they'd play an album cut, and then the rest of that side of the album would play, and then there'd be an hour of silence, because...the DJ fell asleep? Or is doing who knows what?

Back then, we also could get this cool Mexican radio station at night, because the Mexican government didn't control how many watts a station could transmit, and their transmissions would overpower weaker U.S. stations. Z Z Top made a song about it:

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

Those Mexican stations would've been AMs that didn't power down at night.
Yeah I remember coming of age during the transition from AM dominated pop radio to FM.. album rock. I grew up on the plateau in Tennessee but at night I listened to WLS Chicago until KZ106 launched in Chattanooga.

I still think the plan might be purposed to depress land prices so much that the hedge funds can buy the farms on the cheap. This is consistent with what happened in other sectors of real estate.

I just reviewed the whole thread.. hopefully I'm not needlessy repeating.. but a large portion of the videos are "no longer available" so I don't know what they were...
Someone posted as song with this same title.. but vastly different. It did prompt a memory of:
Smith - Baby It's You

Login to view embedded media

stevevw said:

First its not orthodox but very much unorthodox and thats why its being objected to on this thread.

Second its not my idea but the researchers findings that I have been linking all through this thread.

Third it is those who disagree with the researchers that need to discuss their objections with the researchers. I don't expect anyone to support the researchers claims or argue for them. I am just the relayer of the research findings. Don't shoot the messenger.

Click to expand...

Have Karoly Poka gotten his PhD yet? Actual researchers will come around and interact with the findings when they are actually published in a decent journal. As it is right now it's all conjecture, and you are spreading it. It's going to be interesting if they ever dare to publish their findings.

Hentenza said:

He said all innocent life has value. The word “all” encompasses all lives.

All lives matter. To shout one only is inherently racist. The BLM movement is one of the most racist movements that ever existed.

All lives have value encompasses all life. No reason for discrimination.

Click to expand...

So the phrase "blue lives matter" is wrong?

-CryptoLutheran

Its not just religion. It is the worldview of society. Well western societies that have been allowed to cultivate such ideas. A natural progression from modernisim and critical theories. We are either deep into a Postmodernist world or maybe even coming out. But what that will be who knows.

But definitely todays thinking is relative and plural. There are no objective truths or facts or canons of western knowledge. Knowledge is relative to culture and experiences. In fact experiences and narratives are the new truth and reality.

So this has spilt into the church. Which really is another way of saying the church has conformed to secular thinking. All is contextual and needs to be adjusted to todays thinking and modernised. Changed with the times.

In fact in some ways theres a general adversion to rules, laws, disicpline and punishment as they are cruel and harsh and Christ was soft and loving. A sort of watering down things so as to not come across unloving.

But this seems a general idea of how society softened. The cotton wooling of upbringing. As though feelings were the measure of right and wrong and not Gods unchanging law and truth.

That there are so many denominations who are increasingly becoming divided and even conflicted. But certainly not united in mind and spirit is another sign of how relativisim has blurred the lines of Gods word and truth.

Another sign is that even other religions are regarded as equal. Even promoted as an equal right by a growing number of churches. Like trying to build a DEI utopia on earth rather than Gods Kingdom.

It seems people generally hate there being a single truth or God.

But I think by the very nature of Gods truth in Christ that it cannot be sustained that there is so much ambiguity of faith. I think just like in the wider society where these divisions end up creating clear lines of either standing with the truth or with hate and evil. The nature of Gods truth is that it will divide people either for or against Christ. So people will have to choose whether they are for or against Christ.

Hentenza said:

All wars intentionally kill non-combatants. Since the beginning of written history and the accounts of war this has been evident. In fact, a known war tactic is to attack cities to force the opponent to loose their desire to continue the war. As I stated before wars are horrible because people die. You can’t use this war to claim that it is unique as far as death toll or any intentional killing. Hamas was the aggressor. Israel attacked their aggressor on their land, Gaza. Non combatants died. Hamas did not surrender but continued the war so the war continued and more non combatants died.

Click to expand...

Are there international rules of war that are in place? Do violations of those rules constitute war crimes?

Should we regard all conduct, in the name of war, valid regardless of what it is? That "war is war" means anything goes in war? Or should we hold nations, governments, and people accountable for their conduct. That there are licit acts of war and illicit acts of war? Does Just War Theory mean anything?

If a war broke out between two villages, a village raiding party comes and kidnaps some people from the other village. The other village, justifiably meets the other village to reclaim those who were taken, and also to mete out retaliation; but if that other village rounds up every man, woman, and child, kills them, burns the village to the ground, and the leaders say the point isn't to rescue the stolen villagers but to destroy the village that attacked in the first place. Clearly we are not talking about a justifiable response.

It is justifiable to retaliate and rescue those who were taken, and mete punishment on those who committed the violent act.
It is not justifiable exterminate the other village, to torch everything to the ground, and admit that rescuing the kidnapped villagers isn't the point--but the point is hurting the enemy and destroying them.

And, yes, I am bringing up the "the point is not rescuing the kidnapped villagers" because it is directly connected to the Gaza conflict.

-CryptoLutheran

ThatRobGuy said:

Is it anymore ridiculous than allowing in millions of people who don't have any particular fondness for the US, prefer to continue to uphold the values & ideologies from their old country, but merely want have the favorable backdrop?


If someone preferred the cultures, social attitudes, laws, etc... of the United States and had no intention of changing their viewpoints, but wanted to move to Canada purely they wanted to be able to get free healthcare, or because they had safer neighborhoods.

How many people like that could Canada allow in before it started to undermine the social fabric and attitudes the led them to establishing some of those safety nets and programs in the first place?


Just to use a simplistic example:

Say you had a city somewhere in Ontario of 150k+ people that was 90%+ native born Canadian, and was very eco conscience with their local regulations involving environmental protection, and prided itself on making sure there was ample local Arts funding, and having local ordinances that promoted inclusivity LGBTQ people.

St. Catherines, Ontario would be a good example.

How many transplants from rural Alabama, Texas, and Oklahoma would have to move there for selfish reasons before it started to undermine that culture? I would say it would probably only take 15-20k to cause a noticeable difference in the "vibe".

Click to expand...

New Canadian citizens take the following oath:

I swear (or affirm) That I will be faithful and bear true allegiance To His Majesty King Charles the Third King of Canada His Heirs and Successors and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada Including the Constitution which recognizes and affirms The Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples And fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Nothing in there about culture, really. Canada is widely known for being culturally diverse. I don't think that a few good ol' boys who could swear honestly to that oath would be regarded as much of a threat.

ThatRobGuy said:

And for the record, we do see this mentality domestically (even among people on the progressive left), so they do understand the concept.

When big companies and "squares" started moving into San Fran, local writers and artists referred to it as "the death of San Francisco’s soul.".

Click to expand...

LOL! Sure. The fact that big companies and "squares" priced them out of living there had nothing to do with it. But the local writers and artists and the "squares" are all part of American culture. They belong to various subcultures, just like you.

Clare73 said:

Tell it to Paul in 2 Co 5:1-8.

Click to expand...

Spirit as Life Force: The Hebrew term rûach and the Greek equivalent pneuma mean “wind, breath.” But the emphasis is on the dynamic nature of the wind, its movement, and power. When applied to humans, it describes individuals who function as a dynamic life force in bodily form. The spirit is the breath of life that God breathed into Adam (Gen. 2:7), the life force that characterizes a person. It is God who gave it to us (Isa. 42:5), and it is He who takes it back (Eccl. 12:7; Ps. 104:29; Acts 7:59).

Nowhere in the Scripture is the spirit defined as a self-conscious entity that preexisted the body or continues after death.

Genesis 2:7 states that Adam was formed from “the dust of the ground,” and was lifeless until God breathed into his nostrils the “breath of life”—not an immortal soul. Without breath, human beings will die.

18I said to myself, “As for the sons of men, God tests them so that they may see for themselves that they are but beasts.” 19For the fates of both men and beasts are the same: As one dies, so dies the other—they all have the same breath. Man has no advantage over the animals, since everything is futile. 20All go to one place; all come from dust, and all return to dust.

Daniel 12:2
And many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to everlasting life, but others to shame and everlasting contempt.

The Bible does not explicitly state that humans possess an inherent "immortal soul," and verses like Ezekiel 18:4 state, "The soul who sins shall die". The concept of an immortal soul entered Christianity through Greek philosophy and isn't directly taught in the Hebrew texts where the word for soul (nephesh) means "living being". Instead, the Bible emphasizes God as the sole immortal being, with humans receiving immortality through faith in Jesus Christ and the promise of a resurrection.

I guess I don't mind that the courts or politicians did not ban Trump. Because to me it still is up to the voters. Perhaps voters will learn a lesson from this? We will see soon enough.

Apple Sky said:

You mean the one that supposedly circled the moon.

Click to expand...

Nope. The one that did. You can look it up. It was recent.

Xeno.of.athens said:

do you believe that God cares about how you worship him? should you kneel when you pray, should you be standing when you pray? Should you receive Holy Communion Every time you gather should you be baptised once or more than once? is it OK to dance while you're in church? is it OK to speak in tongues even if you had no idea what those tongues might mean and you don't know what you're saying?

cheque out your answers to see if they fit with what the Bible has to say. The Old Testament has a few things to say about worship so does The New testament.

Or do you not really care very much about what the Bible has to say on worship and you just go along with whatever your denomination says is good?

Click to expand...

I believe the Lord permits various expressions to worship God in spirit and in truth ( John 4:24 etc.).If somehow a person does this in light of His commandments ( John 14:15-18 etc,) then I guess it must be right. How it all works, the Lord knows.

Personally, I worship within the liturgy and the Eucharist is given to the faithful. We should discern where necessary but realize expressions vary among Christians.

Apple Sky said:

Yes, one day the truth is going to shine & it will all come tumbling down like a pack of cards.

Click to expand...

One day has already happened and your house of cards did fall. Again, how do you account for Artemis 1 going to the moon and back on November 2022?

Hentenza said:

Nope. The one that circled the moon.

Click to expand...

You mean the one that supposedly circled the moon.

Strong in Him said:

No, the people who teach scientific facts and the truth.

Click to expand...

They indoctrinate students just like they do in schools, one day they might, just might, teach the truth.

ViaCrucis said:

Does he consider Palestinians and Muslims innocent life? Or is mentioning innocent life, without directly addressing Palestinians and Muslims, a way to avoid answering the question as asked? Without a specific and direct response, I have no way of knowing.

Click to expand...

He said all innocent life has value. The word “all” encompasses all lives.

ViaCrucis said:

When people responded to the statement that "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" it was nebulous enough that it could foster probable deniability--they could deny the claim that they thought black lives didn't matter, or didn't matter as much; but that nebulousness went away when those same folks would also said "blue lives matter"---clearly indicating that the problem they have with the affirmation that "black lives matter" is "black lives". If all lives matter (and they do), then it shouldn't be difficult to affirm that black lives matter, since black lives are part of "all lives". But the argument went that saying "black lives matter" implied non-black lives didn't matter (a false claim), and out of the same mouth proceeded "blue lives matter"---do blue lives matter but black lives don't? This was all very telling, and all pointed to the conclusion that the "All lives matter" folk were, in fact, arguing that black lives don't matter, or matter less.

Click to expand...

All lives matter. To shout one only is inherently racist. The BLM movement is one of the most racist movements that ever existed.

ViaCrucis said:

This level of coy avoidance has become common. My suspicion is that many people recognize that they hold views and attitudes that are wrong (or at least, not socially acceptable), and so they are being coy--to avoid stigmatization.

It shouldn't be hard: Palestinian lives matter. Muslim lives matter. Black lives matter. If one believes, truly, in the full dignity and limitless value of all human life, then candidly say so. Don't be coy.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

All lives have value encompasses all life. No reason for discrimination. And talking about views, you might want to consider how your hatred of Netanyahu and Israel clouds your opinion.