Latest activity

BPPLEE · 2025-10-10T19:35:48-0500

Tuur · 2025-10-10T19:35:41-0500

bèlla said:
I think you’re referring to pawn shops and they’re notoriously slanted in the shop’s favor.

Shrug. Like everyone else, they're in it to make a profit. Even then, have seen at least one pawn shop go under.

Hentenza · 2025-10-10T19:34:11-0500

Studyman said:
The lesson here from Paul and Isaiah is for me at this time in history, is the same as then. That a man can't live in rejection of God's Commandments, Judgments and Statutes, then show up each week with the Blood of an unblemished Sacrifice, as required by Law, for justification of willful rejection of God's Laws.

For by the "Works of the Law" shall no Flesh be justified.

Rejection of God’s commandments is not the issue, being put back under the bondage of the law is beyond problematic. So you are right to say that by the works of the law no one is justified. However, this is really not what you are teaching is it?

Maria Billingsley · 2025-10-10T19:34:04-0500

Vambram said:
Maria Corina Machado Immediately Dedicates Her Nobel Peace Prize to President Trump - She Has More Integrity than the Entire Nobel Committee | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

The Nobel Committee passed over President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday despite brokering eight different peace treaties his first year back in office, and it’s only October.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Maris Corina Machado very strongly disagrees with your progress left wing liberal biases against President Donald Trump.

There's more than one way.......

Tuur · 2025-10-10T19:32:23-0500

HARK! said:
I see shop all over town that say "WE BUY GOLD." (This generally means gold jewelry.)

Haven't seen that around here since before the movie Onward. There's a brief visual joke along those lines in one of the trailers. Onward just serves as a handy reference point to the year. Onward was released in 2020, so it's been over half a decade since I've seen those signs around there.

That said, I stopped paying attention when, out of curiosity, I checked into what they locals were paying, and it was much less than the price of gold at the time, based on 10 carat gold having a content of 10/24 = 5/12 = 41.67% gold, or 5/12 of a troy ounce gold per troy ounce gold alloy, or current price x 5/12. Best I can recall, someone was making a tidy profit. Basically, if you sold them jewelry, you were selling the metal at a discount.

As to Craig's List...well, things have happened as a consequence of people being people, and not a fault of Craig's List.

That said, it's your money.

eclipsenow · 2025-10-10T19:31:22-0500

Vambram said:
Pete Hegseth has never condoned anything that is illegal under conventions of American warfare. Please stop attempting to spread falsehoods against my Secretary of Defense and Secretary of War. As a soldier who is still serving in the US Army after 27 years of service, I have never been prouder to be an American soldier than I am now.

Assertion.
Evidence?

Maria Billingsley · 2025-10-10T19:31:20-0500

Louise2065 said:
Good morning all,
I’ve been a Christian for nearly 40 years, but like to keep it simple and not get too bogged down with tradition etc…,
I’m seeking some Christian counsel regarding how we accept people in to our church family or should I say not accept?
My belief is welcome one and all, as Jesus would, let him do the working in their lives our job is to love and disciple…..
I am finding fellow church members judging new people, how they look, how they act, are they safe, where are they from? We shouldn’t ask them into groups but vet them so to speak before inviting them to bible studies, online groups, social groups! Who decides how much vetting is enough?
They seem to throw around the words wisdom & discernment to justify that they don’t want someone in our church…..my spirit is struggling with this…. Had anyone else had this with the discernment/wisdom thing?

Welcome to CF. If it were me I would lead by example, show acceptance, respect and above all , love. If you only knew how hard it is for Christians to find a new congregation! Lets not be the reason for that difficulty.

Be blessed

eclipsenow · 2025-10-10T19:30:26-0500

Vambram said:
Maria Corina Machado Immediately Dedicates Her Nobel Peace Prize to President Trump - She Has More Integrity than the Entire Nobel Committee | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

The Nobel Committee passed over President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday despite brokering eight different peace treaties his first year back in office, and it’s only October.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Maris Corina Machado very strongly disagrees with your progress left wing liberal biases against President Donald Trump.

Ha ha ha!

She smart.
She knows he's a narcissist.
She's playing realpolitik and buttering him up!

Fact: SHE won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump HAS not solved 8 wars.

And you managed to quote something with an even WORSE rating than Fox News!

Dude - becoming a grown up might require people venture outside the comfort of their reality-distorting echo-chambers, and start reading the ABC and Reuters.

Mercy Shown · 2025-10-10T19:30:03-0500

Bro.T said:
Paul says in Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. In other words if there is no law there is no sin. Sin is not imputed or no blame can be accredited to any person when there is no law. Now, let’s see what Sin is according to the Bible in I John 3:4 it states, "whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." So if the law was nailed to the cross that would mean its okay to use the Lords name in vain, put other gods before HIM, make graven images and bow before them, pollute the Sabbath day, steal, commit murder, commit adultery and bear false witness. If all these things are okay to commit, then we might as well throw the Bible out the back door and do what ever feels good to us.

We will see that Paul was in fact a law keeper and how he preached out of the Law and the Prophets.

Now let's begin by taking a look at both of the laws and how they worked together. We will see there were two laws given to Moses, they were the commandments and the sacrificial law. Watch how they worked together.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them: (Leviticus 4:1-2) The law in the scriptures above is the commandments.

Notice something else very important in these two scriptures. It states, "if a soul shall sin through ignorance." Notice that the scripture did not says on purpose. Why? There is no sacrifice for a sin that is committed willfully. Let's find out what was to be done if a person committed a sin against the Lord unintentionally. Let's skip down to the 27th verse and take a look at the second law (which is the sacrificial law).

And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. (Leviticus 4:27-30)

When the common people sinned through ignorance and it came to their knowledge, what did they have to do? They brought an offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for their sin which they had committed, then the priest would offer the animal to the Lord. Think about this for a moment. If an animal was killed for a person that committed sin, what will happen to us today if we a trespass against the Lord?

Now we see how the sacrificial law was used when a person broke a commandment unintentionally.

Let's go into Paul's writings and take another look at both of these laws. We will go into the Book of Galatians chapter 3. This is one of the chapters that the majority of Christian preachers use to do away with the Lord's commandments. Now, let's read carefully!

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Galatians 3:19)

Take heed to what Paul's says above, "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions." What is transgression? Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4) Transgression is braking of the commandments. What law was added because of the braking of the law? The sacrificial law! Paul is simply asking these Gentiles, "why perform the sacrificial law? It was added because of sin until the seed should come. Who is the seed?

Let's back up in this chapter and find out.

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. (Galatians 3:16) Who is the SEED? CHRIST! So, this law was added (which is the sacrificial law) until Christ came. What was the sacrificial law used for until Christ came? Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24)

The sacrificial law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Before we continue, we must clear one thing up. Are we justified by faith alone? Let's see. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Romans 3:31) What law is established? Certainly not the sacrificial law, we have seen above that it was added because of transgression until the Seed came (which was Christ). The Royal law to be established forever which are the Ten Lords commandments!

1. Romans 5:13 does not mean there is “no sin without law.”

“For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” (Romans 5:13)

Rebuttal:
Paul is not denying that people sinned before the Mosaic Law — in fact, he explicitly says “sin was in the world.”
He means that before the written law, sin was not charged in the same way because there was no formal, codified standard. Yet death still reigned (Romans 5:14), proving sin existed and was judged.

Supporting texts:

Romans 2:14–15 — Gentiles “who do not have the law” still have a law written on their hearts and are accountable.
Romans 4:15 — “Where there is no law, there is no transgression” — meaning no legal violation of a covenant code, not no moral guilt.

So “no law, no sin” is a misreading. Sin always existed (Genesis 4:7; 6:5); the Mosaic Law simply revealed it more clearly (Romans 7:7–9).

2. Sin is indeed “transgression of the law,” but that doesn’t mean the Mosaic Law still governs believers.

“Sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4)

Rebuttal:
John is not redefining sin but reaffirming that lawlessness is rebellion against God’s moral will. But under the New Covenant, believers are under “the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2), not the old Mosaic code.

Supporting texts:

Romans 6:14 — “You are not under law but under grace.”
1 Corinthians 9:20–21 — Paul distinguishes between being “under the law” (Moses) and being “under the law of Christ.”
Hebrews 8:13 — The old covenant is “obsolete.”

Moral truth (don’t murder, don’t steal, etc.) continues, but the covenantal framework (the Ten Commandments as part of Sinai) does not bind believers.

3. The “two laws” framework is artificial.

The Bible never calls the Ten Commandments and sacrificial system two distinct laws. They are parts of one covenantgiven at Sinai.

Supporting texts:

Deuteronomy 4:13–14 — “He declared to you His covenant… the Ten Commandments… and the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments.”
→ Both were part of one covenant.
2 Corinthians 3:7–11 — The law “engraved on stones” (the Ten Commandments) is called the ministry of deathand has been done away in Christ.

So Scripture never divides the law into “moral” vs. “ceremonial” categories in the way later theologians do.

4. The Levitical sacrifices did indeed atone for unintentional sins, but that was temporary and symbolic.

Leviticus 4–5 shows sacrifices were for unintentional sins, but the whole system pointed to Christ.

Supporting texts:

Hebrews 10:1–4 — “The law is only a shadow… it can never… make perfect those who draw near.”
Hebrews 10:10–14 — “We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

The writer of Hebrews explicitly says the entire sacrificial system and priesthood (not just part of the law) has been replaced.

5. Galatians 3:19 refers to the Mosaic Law as a whole, not just sacrifices.

“It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come.” (Galatians 3:19)

Rebuttal:
The “law” here means the entire Mosaic code, including the Ten Commandments. It was given after the promise to Abraham to define sin and prepare for Christ (Romans 5:20; Galatians 3:24).

Supporting texts:

Galatians 3:23–25 — “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”
→ If the “law” were only sacrifices, then we would still be “under” the Ten Commandments — but Paul says “no longer under the law.”
Romans 10:4 — “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”

Thus, Galatians 3 is not distinguishing two laws but showing the entire Mosaic system was temporary until Christ.

6. Romans 3:31 does not reinstate the Law of Moses.

“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”

Rebuttal:
Paul means faith fulfills the law’s righteous purpose, not that believers remain under its covenant authority. Through Christ, the law’s moral intent is written on our hearts (Romans 8:3–4; Jeremiah 31:33).

Supporting texts:

Matthew 5:17 — Christ “fulfilled” the law, not perpetuated the old covenant form.
Romans 8:2 — “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.”

Faith “establishes” the law by achieving what it aimed at — righteousness through Christ (see Romans 10:4 again).

Hentenza · 2025-10-10T19:26:50-0500

Apple Sky said:
Where in scripture does it mention the earth being a ball ?

It doesn’t have to. The shape of the earth does not affect any scriptural teachings or doctrines. Again, your interpretation is problematic.

Studyman · 2025-10-10T19:25:38-0500

Mercy Shown said:
Romans 3:20 declares, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Some interpreters have argued that Paul is speaking of two distinct laws: the ceremonial law, which could not justify, and the moral law, which continues to bind believers. This reading, however, is a later development in Christian history rather than Paul’s own intent.

What this world's religions do not take into account, is who Paul is speaking about in Romans 1-3. Specifically those Pharisees who had been given the Oracles of God, but many didn't believe them. These men slandered Paul, "who damnation is just" and Asked the question, "Are we better than they"? To which he replied, "by no means" as he has already taught before, men who engage in this behavior are "Still under Sin". He tells us that he and the Body of Christ are no better, that if they engaged in the same behavior as the Jews who Jesus said, " Full well reject the Commandments of God that they might promote their own traditions", they would be subject to the same judgment from God. Paul quotes David to make his point in Psalms 5 and 14 and also already declared in Rom. 2 the righteous Judgment of God, "Who will render to every man according to his deeds:"

Paul understood that he was no better than anyone else, and would also be judged according to his deeds. You can see Paul's understanding of the Righteous Judgments of God, concerning their slanderous behavior in Rom. 2. "for we have "before proved" both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;" Please see below, where he "before proved".

7 To them who by patient continuance "in well doing" seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 "But unto them" that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, (men who full well rejected God's Commandments) indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon "every soul of man" that "doeth" evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, "to every man" that "worketh" good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Paul understood he was held unto the same standards as everyone else, "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: For God is no respecter of persons.

Paul goes on to quote David's judgments against those men who were persecuting God's Church.

Ps. 5: 5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. 6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

8 Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way straight before my face.

9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.

This is really important to understand, as "many" who come in Christ's Name, preach that Paul is talking about the Body of Christ being no different than the Pharisees who persecutes the Body of Christ. That isn't what Paul is saying at all, as can be easily seen by reading David's Words that Paul used to make his point.

Keep in mind also Isaiah 1, which defines the Pharisees perfectly. Here is a religion who professed to know God, but rejected His Commandments, Judgments and Statutes to the point of God calling them "Sodom". Yet every week they would show up with the Blood of Animals, as prescribed by the Priesthood Law "After the order of Aaron", to justify their lawless religion. As you can see when you read Isaiah, these "Sacrificial Works of the Law", didn't not Justify their willful rejection of God's Judgments and Commandments. Paul understood this, that the mainstream preachers of his time, still promoted the same Priesthood "Works" to justify them, even though these sacrificial "works of the law", were only a temporary "ADDED" Law, given after the Golden calf, that was only to be in place "till the Seed, (Lamb of God) should come". (Gal. 3)

The Prophesied New Priest had already come, these sacrificial "works" were prophesied to end "after those days". (Jer. 31) But the Jews were still promoting a corrupted version of them, still selling calves, turtle doves and goats for justification of sins.

Paul speaks to this New Priest, and the "Better Ministry";

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith "in his blood", (Not the blood of animals as per the Old Priesthood Law) to declare his righteousness "for the remission of sins that are past", through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Here is the two Laws part.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? "of works"?

(Lev. 4: 27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;

28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

This was the "Law of Works" for justification "Till the Seed should come".

Nay: but by the "law of faith".

22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. As it is written: "The Just shall Live by Faith".

The lesson here from Paul and Isaiah is for me at this time in history, is the same as then. That a man can't live in rejection of God's Commandments, Judgments and Statutes, then show up each week with the Blood of an unblemished Sacrifice, as required by Law, for justification of willful rejection of God's Laws.

For by the "Works of the Law" shall no Flesh be justified.

JSRG · 2025-10-10T19:24:29-0500

Pommer said:
Gonna be an uphill battle to get to “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Well, it's not even clear if this is about McCabe at all. The indictment says:

On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES B. COMEY JR., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, Fictitious, and fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United Stales, by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports" regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.

2. That statement was false, because, as JAMES B. COMEY JR. then and there knew, he in fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.

As I understand it, referring to people not by name in an indictment isn't unheard of (hence "Person 1" and "Person 3"), though it does leave it unclear to us who they are. We can safely assume Person 1 is Hillary Clinton, but who is Person 3? We don't know yet. The post I was responding to appeared to assume it was McCabe and claimed McCabe said Comey told him to leak, but as I noted previously, McCabe never claimed Comey authorized him to leak.

Another possibility that has been floated as the identity of Person 3 is Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia Law School who served as an advisor at the FBI. We do know that Comey used Richman to leak information to the press, but it wasn't about the Hillary Clinton investigation (and for that matter, came after Richman wasn't working with the FBI). The claim might instead be that Comey used Richman to leak information about the Hillary Clinton investigation on a prior occasion, but if so there is no real proof of it that's been made public.

Or, who knows, maybe Person 3 isn't either one of these, and is some other FBI agent.

Since we don't know what the government has, it is possible they have good evidence that Comey authorized someone to leak to the press about the Clinton investigation that just hasn't been shown publicly yet. So I don't want to say they definitely have no case. However, the (so far) rather slipshod nature of the prosecution does not inspire much confidence they do.

BPPLEE · 2025-10-10T19:22:23-0500

Pommer said:
What “left wing”?

Mercy Shown · 2025-10-10T19:20:55-0500

Bro.T said:
Paul says in Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. In other words if there is no law there is no sin.

And yet what does the Bible also say?
“For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.”
— Romans 2:12 (KJV)

Apple Sky · 2025-10-10T19:20:13-0500

Hentenza said:
It is a ball. The evidence is undeniable so that means that your interpretation is wrong. God does not deceit us so it has to be you.

Where in scripture does it mention the earth being a ball ?

Pommer · 2025-10-10T19:11:52-0500

Servus said:
Since the left-wing supports Hamas that shouldn't be a complaint from them.

What “left wing”?

Pommer · 2025-10-10T19:08:30-0500

Vambram said:
Yes

Do tell

Louise2065 · 2025-10-10T19:07:31-0500

Good morning all,
I’ve been a Christian for nearly 40 years, but like to keep it simple and not get too bogged down with tradition etc…,
I’m seeking some Christian counsel regarding how we accept people in to our church family or should I say not accept?
My belief is welcome one and all, as Jesus would, let him do the working in their lives our job is to love and disciple…..
I am finding fellow church members judging new people, how they look, how they act, are they safe, where are they from? We shouldn’t ask them into groups but vet them so to speak before inviting them to bible studies, online groups, social groups! Who decides how much vetting is enough?
They seem to throw around the words wisdom & discernment to justify that they don’t want someone in our church…..my spirit is struggling with this…. Had anyone else had this with the discernment/wisdom thing?

Pommer · 2025-10-10T19:06:53-0500

JSRG said:
It is not clear if by "Comey corroborated" you mean (according to McCabe's testimony) Comey approved of the leaking after the fact, or if you're saying Comey corroborated McCabe's testimony. If you mean the former, that's true, but not the later.

(I apologize in advance if you meant the former, and thus I'm basically arguing against something you weren't trying to say)

In my prior post I linked to the report of the Office of Inspector General which was very harsh on McCabe's conduct. In its summary on pages 22-23, it says the following regarding the conflicting reports:

We concluded that McCabe lacked candor during his conversation with then-Director Comey on or about October 31, 2016, when they discussed the October 30 WSJ article. As detailed above, Comey and McCabe gave starkly conflicting accounts of this conversation. Comey said that McCabe “definitely” did not tell Comey that he had authorized the disclosure about the PADAG call. To the contrary, Comey told the OIG that, on or about October 31, McCabe led him to believe “in form or fashion” that McCabe did not authorize the disclosure about the PADAG call to the WSJ. Comey described how McCabe gave Comey the impression that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure about the PADAG call, was not involved in the disclosure, and did not know how it happened. By contrast, McCabe asserted that he explicitly told Comey during that conversation that he authorized the disclosure and that Comey agreed it was a “good” idea.

While the only direct evidence regarding this McCabe-Comey conversation were the recollections of the two participants, there is considerable circumstantial evidence and we concluded that the overwhelming weight of that evidence supported Comey’s version of the conversation. Indeed, none of the circumstantial evidence provided support for McCabe’s account of the discussion; rather, we found that much of the available evidence undercut McCabe’s claim.

So Comey didn't corroborate McCabe's claim that he told Comey. Though, as you say (and as I noted in my prior post) McCabe did not claim that Comey authorized him to leak it, just that he told Comey about it after the fact (as is stated in the above excerpt, though it's more clear in its more in-depth description of it earlier on page 12). Their disagreement was on whether McCabe told Comey about it afterwards.

Gonna be an uphill battle to get to “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Vambram · 2025-10-10T19:05:38-0500

Pommer said:
Were they identified as such?

Yes

eclipsenow · 2025-10-10T19:05:33-0500

AvilaSurfer said:
The “Palestinian” people are just barely better than Hamas. Maybe.

And your evidence is? That sounds pretty racist there pal!

Here's some historical evidence.

Palestinian Muslims, Christians and Jews had lived peacefully together for 4 Centuries under the Ottoman Empire (1517 to 1917).

The United Nations declared a 2 state solution on 29 Nov 1947.

Israel went to war the next day - and illegally stole 60% of the area allocated for Palestine.

Israel - out of their own defiance of international norms - shoved 700,000 Palestinians off their land.

Then this all brewed into resentment that international law was being ignored, and so the Arab nations fought back - resulting in Israel smashing them (with better training and kit from the Americans) and taking even more land.

Now Israel holds 3.4 MILLION Palestinians as hostages in their own land in the West Bank, and over 2 million hostage in Gaza.

These are effectively the world's largest open-air jails or concentration camps.

Israel has for generations ignored international law - and behaved in a manner I think of as "The Awful irony."

THE AWFUL IRONY
Israel have for decades now increasingly behaved like the very regime that forced so many Jews to flee Europe in WW2!!

Discrimination becomes Persecution becomes Ghettoization becomes Deportation becomes Concentration → the mass starvation in Gaza today.

So which is worse - militant ethno-religious Islam or militant ethno-religious Zionism?

If measured by sheer numbers in this particular conflict, militant Zionism wins hands down!

Israel killed over 44 TIMES as many Palestinians - many of them women and children - as the terrorist group Hamas killed Jews.

Because this stuff is so intense I liked to finish up with some comic relief.
I wish Israeli soldiers would wake up and ask this question:
Login to view embedded media

Hentenza · 2025-10-10T19:04:51-0500

Apple Sky said:
Well there's nothing in scripture about the earth being a ball.

It is a ball. The evidence is undeniable so that means that your interpretation is wrong. God does not deceit us so it has to be you.

DragonFox91 · 2025-10-10T19:04:24-0500

A false "Christian" church

Latest activity

Latest activity

1. Romans 5:13 does not mean there is “no sin without law.”​

2. Sin is indeed “transgression of the law,” but that doesn’t mean the Mosaic Law still governs believers.​

3. The “two laws” framework is artificial.​

4. The Levitical sacrifices did indeed atone for unintentional sins, but that was temporary and symbolic.​

5. Galatians 3:19 refers to the Mosaic Law as a whole, not just sacrifices.​

6. Romans 3:31 does not reinstate the Law of Moses.​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

1. Romans 5:13 does not mean there is “no sin without law.”

2. Sin is indeed “transgression of the law,” but that doesn’t mean the Mosaic Law still governs believers.

3. The “two laws” framework is artificial.

4. The Levitical sacrifices did indeed atone for unintentional sins, but that was temporary and symbolic.

5. Galatians 3:19 refers to the Mosaic Law as a whole, not just sacrifices.

6. Romans 3:31 does not reinstate the Law of Moses.