• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

WHY WATER BAPTISM WILL DISAPPEAR AND THEN REAPPEAR !!

"Water" doesn't need to be in the Greek text.
There was no other way to get baptized, besides with with water.
It is what John used, unto repentance, (and remission of sins).
Nothing changed between John's and Peter's baptisms, other than using Jesus' name during the rite.
And maybe Paul name does not. also or the Greek word Baptism. need to be in. the Greek Text ?
dan p
Upvote 0

As Texas Flood Deaths Rise, Officials Blast Faulty Forecast by National Weather Service

White Supremacist Group Patriot Front Claims It’s ‘Prioritizing’ ‘European Peoples’ After ‘Inserting Itself Into’ Texas Disaster Relief Efforts

“Patriot Front is on the ground in Central Texas after a flood killed over 100 Americans,” the group’s leader, Thomas Rousseau, a Texas native, posted in a video on the Telegram app.

Rousseau couldn’t help including his racist views in his post, adding that his group “is prioritizing their ‘people’ and ‘European peoples’ in those operations,” according to The Guardian.

That kind of hate speech doesn’t surprise Heidi Beirich. She’s the co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism and has been researching rightwing extremism for decades. She told the news site it’s part of Patriot Front’s playbook to be “inserting itself into disaster relief in Texas.”

“The group was founded there, and like other extremist groups, they want to take advantage of relief efforts to mainstream their ideas, present themselves as non-threatening and helping the community, and ultimately use what they hope will be positive PR to recruit and grow,” Beirich said.
Upvote 0

Does the "reign in the influence of Israel" movement need a Tucker Carlson to be credible?

Why has there not been international pressure or a United Nations resolution to remove Hamas from power and allow Palestinians to be governed by their elected representatives?
Why has there been no UN resolution to remove Kim Jong Un from power and allow North Koreans to be governed by their elected representatives? Generally speaking, the international community tries to stay out of the business of regime change. See how that's gone in Iraq and Afghanistan if you want a concrete reason why.
But all of a sadden the world community realized Hamas doesn’t represent Palestinian people. I wonder why.
It's not a sudden realization - it's only coming up because people like you are trying to use the fact that Hamas governs the territory to justify the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians. I wouldn't say that the actions of North Korea's government would justify atrocities on the North Korean people either.
  • Like
Reactions: JosephZ
Upvote 0

Golden Eagles-Lets Post Our Music-Still Relevant for Today's Traumatic Times

And of course some things will NEVER change LOL


Red Rubber Ball

I should have known
You'd bid me farewell
There's a lesson to be learned from this
And I learned it very well
Now, I know you're not
The only starfish in the sea
If I never hear your name again
It's all the same to me

[Chorus]
And I think it's gonna be alright
Yeah, the worst is over now
The mornin' sun is shinin'
Like a red rubber ball

[Verse 2]
You never care
For secrets I confide
For you, I'm just an ornament
Something for your pride
Always runnin', never carin'
That's the life you live
Stolen minutes of your time
Were all you had to give

And I think it's gonna be alright
Yeah, the worst is over now
The mornin' sun is shinin'
Like a red rubber ball

[Verse 3]
The story's in the past
With nothing to recall
I've got my life to live
And I don't need you at all
The rollercoaster ride we took
Is nearly at an end
I bought my ticket with my tears
That's all I'm gonna spend

[Chorus]
And I think it's gonna be alright
Yeah, the worst is over now
The mornin' sun is shinin'
Like a red rubber ball, woah, oh, oh
Oh, I think it's gonna be alright
Yeah, the worst is over now
The morning sun is shining
Like a red rubber ball
Upvote 0

Canada will face a 35% tariff. Retaliatory Tariffs will be added to the 35%


Effective immediately, all individuals applying for an F, M, or J nonimmigrant visa are requested to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media accounts to ‘public’ to facilitate vetting necessary to establish their identity and admissibility to the United States under U.S. law.

Pursuant to the Presidential Proclamation on Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, which takes effect at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on June 9, 2025, the United States is suspending or limiting entry and visa issuance to nationals of certain countries. Applicants who are subject to this Presidential Proclamation may still submit visa applications and attend scheduled interviews, but they may be ineligible for visa issuance or admission to the United States. For additional details, visit travel.state.gov .
Upvote 0

No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

-
Adam was naked before the fall and after. Why was he only ashamed and afraid after he ate of the fruit because he made a covering for his nakedness.
When you have nothing to be ashamed of, comfortable in the presence of anyone, you do not worry about what you are waring, but once you feel shame everything about you becomes shameful.
Upvote 0

Canada will face a 35% tariff. Retaliatory Tariffs will be added to the 35%

No way Trump liked what he saw on July 7, where he saw Premier of Ontario Doug Ford with Danielle Smith, Premier of Alberta, celebrating the signing of an inter-provincial energy, infrastructure and trade deal to make Canada more independent of the US and, for the first time, removing inter-provincial trade barriers and opening up their resources to overseas markets. Trump saw Doug Ford blaming him by saying “There’s one person that’s causing the problem right now and that’s president Trump”.

So Ford is saying that the problem that Trump is causing right now is forcing Canada to become more independent and learn how to trade with each other and sell to overseas markets while, in the same breath, he’s celebrating the signing of an agreement, also caused by Trump, that will make Canada more independent, learn how to trade with each other and sell to overseas markets, all of which is something they’ve should have done decades ago but their globalists’ controlled provincial and federal governments did not permit them to do so and forced them to be dependent primarily upon trade with the US.

I’ve said this on this forum from the beginning:

“I have the impression that fentanyl & trade imbalances are just a cover being used for much deeper issues Trump has with Canada and their weak globalist controlled leadership that he believes is a threat to US national security.”

The globalists’ agenda is to take down western civilization (especially Canada and the US) through increased taxes, increased regulation, phony environmentalism, increased borrowing, increased debt, national bankruptcy, forfeiture of all national assets, and then everything rented back to a reduced, traumatized, enslaved and begging population.

Trump is thwarting those plans. In other words, Canada can be taken down by the globalists into slavery where they’ll “own nothing and be happy”, or they can be taken down by America into freedom where they’ll be more wealthy than they’ve ever been before. My choice is obvious.

Login to view embedded media

Ah yes, the "globalist agenda".

"Canada can be taken down by the globalists into slavery where they’ll “own nothing and be happy”, or they can be taken down by America into freedom where they’ll be more wealthy than they’ve ever been before. My choice is obvious."

..so why not immigrate to the US? I'm sure your visa would be promptly approved after Marco's state deparment reads your social media posting.
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenBoy89
Upvote 0

Does the "reign in the influence of Israel" movement need a Tucker Carlson to be credible?

My assertion it is incorrect to call them elected representatives as you claimed due to them not holding elections for almost 20 years.

They are elected officials who came to power with 44% voter support. For the past 20 years, the international community has sent funds to assist Palestinians and had no issues working with Hamas.
Upvote 0

Anyone have good arguments against Calvinism.

Fervent,

I understand your analogy is meant to expose what you see as a flaw in Calvinism, but what it actually does is flatten and misrepresent both God’s holiness and His grace. And in doing so, it trades the beauty of the gospel for something unrecognizably distorted.

The analogy of an arsonist setting a fire just to rescue people for personal glory is deeply flawed—because it assumes that mankind was neutral, innocent, or undeserving of judgment in the first place. That is not the biblical story.

“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
“There is none righteous, no, not one… there is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:10, 18)

The fall of Adam was not a neutral event—it was the willful rebellion of man against a holy God. And every one of us, by nature, has followed in that rebellion. The house was already in flames. The arsonist wasn’t God. The match was in our hands.

So what does God do? He sends Christ into the fire—not to gloat in rescue, but to be consumed in our place. The cross is not the act of a manipulative deity—it is the self-giving love of a holy and merciful God, saving people who deserve nothing but wrath, by taking that wrath upon Himself.

You said this view of God dishonors Him. But if God were not sovereign over sin—even its allowance—then evil would exist outside His control. And a God who isn’t sovereign isn’t trustworthy. The very promise that God can work all things for good (Rom. 8:28) requires that He governs all things—even the darkest ones.

“You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.” (Genesis 50:20)

God didn't create sin—but He did ordain a world in which sin would be defeated by the greater display of grace and glory in Christ. That doesn’t make Him guilty. It makes Him God.

“He has mercy on whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills... But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (Romans 9:18–20)

You may feel this doctrine of sovereign election is uncomfortable—but that discomfort doesn’t disprove it. Many found Jesus’ teaching hard. They walked away when He said, “No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:65–66)

But I would rather embrace a hard truth that humbles me than a soft lie that elevates man and limits God.

In the end, Calvinism doesn’t make God an “arsonist.” It proclaims Him as the Holy One who entered the fire Himself to redeem a people for His name.

“For our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:29)

And if He has set His love on anyone, it is not because they deserved it—but because He is love.
The problem is, Calvinists blame human beings for things that God (supposedly) caused them to do. If Calvinism is true, there is only one sinner; God. Because there is only one will, God's. Your rationalization of the arsonist analogy doesn't actually address the central point, which is the distorted idea about what brings God glory present within Calvinism. The notion that human beings are cupable for sin that God brought about through them, while denying that God who is the sole cause of that sin coming about bears any responsibility is an affront to the God of the Bible since it turns the gospel into a mockery.
Upvote 0

No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

-
I am re-reading this post of yours and noting something you did. I stated Adam pass down the knowledge of good and evil to humanity, but you end up just making it about knowledge, which is not what is stated.

Adam had knowledge before He sinned, so knowledge did not make him a sinner.
Not sure I am following you here. Adam and Eve knew lots of stuff (had knowledge).
But previously you seemed to be saying: the knowledge of Good and Evil = Our sinful nature.
Upvote 0

Anyone have good arguments against Calvinism.

I'm not mocking God, I'm mocking Calvinist presentations of God that dishonor God.

There is a certain subset of arsonists who after setting the fire, rush in to save the people to get the "glory" of saving folks from the danger they put them in. According to Calvinism, that's hos God behaves. He sets the fire of sin and damnation, and then arbitrarily saves some from the danger He put them in.

Fervent,

I understand your analogy is meant to expose what you see as a flaw in Calvinism, but what it actually does is flatten and misrepresent both God’s holiness and His grace. And in doing so, it trades the beauty of the gospel for something unrecognizably distorted.

The analogy of an arsonist setting a fire just to rescue people for personal glory is deeply flawed—because it assumes that mankind was neutral, innocent, or undeserving of judgment in the first place. That is not the biblical story.

“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
“There is none righteous, no, not one… there is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:10, 18)

The fall of Adam was not a neutral event—it was the willful rebellion of man against a holy God. And every one of us, by nature, has followed in that rebellion. The house was already in flames. The arsonist wasn’t God. The match was in our hands.

So what does God do? He sends Christ into the fire—not to gloat in rescue, but to be consumed in our place. The cross is not the act of a manipulative deity—it is the self-giving love of a holy and merciful God, saving people who deserve nothing but wrath, by taking that wrath upon Himself.

You said this view of God dishonors Him. But if God were not sovereign over sin—even its allowance—then evil would exist outside His control. And a God who isn’t sovereign isn’t trustworthy. The very promise that God can work all things for good (Rom. 8:28) requires that He governs all things—even the darkest ones.

“You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.” (Genesis 50:20)

God didn't create sin—but He did ordain a world in which sin would be defeated by the greater display of grace and glory in Christ. That doesn’t make Him guilty. It makes Him God.

“He has mercy on whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills... But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (Romans 9:18–20)

You may feel this doctrine of sovereign election is uncomfortable—but that discomfort doesn’t disprove it. Many found Jesus’ teaching hard. They walked away when He said, “No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:65–66)

But I would rather embrace a hard truth that humbles me than a soft lie that elevates man and limits God.

In the end, Calvinism doesn’t make God an “arsonist.” It proclaims Him as the Holy One who entered the fire Himself to redeem a people for His name.

“For our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:29)

And if He has set His love on anyone, it is not because they deserved it—but because He is love.
Upvote 0

No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !



Having the ability to not sin, does not discount that even though Jesus could not sin. He was still tempted like we are. He was tempted like we are, because His temptation came from satan and in our case more than likely satan and fallen angels.
You said: “Having the ability to not sin…”, so can we have that “ability” while here on earth and what would provide that ability?

Is having the ability to not sin, result in not sinning or is there more to it?

Jesus and us derive at least some of our temptation from Satan, so what is the difference?
Why do you think satan is locked up during Jesus earthly rule. So Jesus can rule humanity and only have to rule against mans sinful nature, without satan adding to the problem.
Wow, this brings up the whole: Earthly reign, which I like many others do not agree with.
Noticed the words in Italics they are not in the original Greek
For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

The Greek reads
Not for we have a high priest not being able to sympathize with the weaknesses of us [one] having been tempted however in all things by the same way without sin
There are no equivalent “English words” for every Greek word and the Greek has gender to help you which is not translated into the English. There are good reasons for the Greek scholars to not put one literal mean to each Greek word, because one Greek word can have many English words translations and have the need to add English words or you cannot understand what was said.
If Jesus had a sin nature or the ability to sin where did this come from. since He was begotten from God and not Adam.
You ask: “Jesus had a sin nature or the ability to sin where did this come from”, how about the same place Adam and Eve’s ability to sin came from (Adam was begotten by God, but where do you find Jesus begotten by anyone?)
Not sinning does not mean you are incapable of sinning.

God does not and will not sin, but God does have free will to do what can be done.

After death we become: “Like the Angels”, but some of the angels sinned, so why can’t we have the ability to son and yet be like the angels who did not sin?
Upvote 0

Golden Eagles-Lets Post Our Music-Still Relevant for Today's Traumatic Times


"Blowin' In The Wind"

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, and how many times must the cannonballs fly
Before they're forever banned?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind

Yes, and how many years can a mountain exist
Before it's washed to the sea?
Yes, and how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind

Yes, and how many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, and how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, and how many deaths will it take 'til he knows
That too many people have died?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind
Upvote 0

The Harm Caused by Excessive Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church and Other Denominations

That’s true, and I appreciate your desire to avoid the excesses that I urge members to avoid. That being said, some debate and criticism is legitimate, although one could also say it is strictly speaking off-topic for this thread, which you have observed, and which I again greatly appreciate.

I do also appreciate the very friendly manner in which you and @chevyontheriver have engaged in this thread, which in my view exemplifies how we should try to interact in this manner; I am not a fan of the Wesleyan remark of “agreeing to disagree” as I see it as being Pietistic and anti-doctrinal, representing the normalization of schism or the normalization of the minimization of doctrine (and Wesley, for all his good, did experience pietist influences, chiefly from the Moravians, as well as the influence of the similiar Latitudinarian movement within Anglicanism).

But without agreeing to disagree we can still agree to a dialectical model that is cordial, that refrains from logical fallacies or gross historical inaccuracies, such as the alternate histories of the early church proposed by some Restorationist denominations and also by the Landmark Baptists and those influenced by them*


*On the other hand, some skepticism of the generally accepted Patristic narrative such as evinced by your own beliefs is obviously something that can be accepted, particularly since some hagiographic texts are known to contain inaccuracies or accidental confusions, for example, the Copts regard the Ethiopian synaxarion to be more reliable than their own, for their own synaxarion confuses Eusebius of Caesarea with Eusebius of Nicomedia with regards to the incident surrounding the death of Arius, which is embarassing since the Syriac Orthodox, the historical main communion partner of the Copts, venerate Eusebius as a saint with the feast day of February 29th, which in the Byzantine Rite is the feast day of St. John Cassian interestingly (and for saints with their feast on the 29th of February there are rubrics for what to do when it is not a leap year at least in the case of St. John Cassian), but completely discarding it and instead, without any archaeological or historical textual evidence to support it, claiming that certain ancient heretical sects such as the Paulicans, Bogomils, Marcionites, etc were anachronistic proto-Protestants, when all historical evidence suggests that most Protestants including all confessional Lutherans, confessional Calvinists and creedal Anglicans would find their doctrines utterly abhorrent, is something else.

Indeed among the Orthodox and Catholics committed to a Patristic theological model of the church, an accurate historical record and critical editions of the Patristic corpus and of liturgical texts such as the Divine Liturgy of St. James (the Byzantine version of which until recently lacked a good, robust translation free from speculative interpolations from a 19th century Greek translator, but ROCOR has provided a really good translation in English and Church Slavonic that also avoids weirdness like celebrating the liturgy versus populum on a makeshift altar in front of the Iconostasis being deleted, for this kind of thing confuses the laity and is not actually called for by the ancient rubrics, and is further anachronistic in that historically there was a templon or curtain and the Bema of the Armenian and Assyrian churches, but the full iconostasis as seen in contemporary Byzantine, Coptic and some Syriac churches took a while to develop from early proto-iconostases). Thus we want to make sure our historical record is accurate, even though we do accept many events which I believe you have expressed a view of as being incredible.

But in general, your conduct has been that of a responsible debater, who has never caused any of the harm I alluded to in the OP.

Recently in another thread also where you and my friend @BNR32FAN and our mutual friend @Xeno.of.athens have been present the three of us shared the unpleasant experience of encountering what one might call a “trackless trolley” minus the “ey”, by which I am not referring to a trolleybus, but rather one dewired in an altogether different way and in a manner than what sometimes happens to busses powered by overhead electric cables such as one finds in San Francisco, Seattle, Vancouver, Philadelphia, Dayton, and until recently also in Boston.

Which takes me to another point - these overly intense theological debates create enmity which prevents us from discussing other fun subjects like, for example, mass transit systems, which i absolutely adore. I would love to discuss mass transit for hours with any member of the forum who is interested in the subject. When I was in my youth I persuaded my parents to obtain for me, at great expense, a copy of Jane’s Urban Transport Systems (then in one of its earliest editions as a standalone apart from Jane’s World Railways) and i recall reading breathlessly about the different transit systems in Tashkent, Torino and Toronto and in Dalian, Delhi and Dortmund, and the different manufacturers, particularly of monorails, peoplemovers, hovertrains (like the Otis peoplemovers used to access the Getty center in Los Angeles, which ride on a cushion of air, or the even more aggressive Aeromovel of Brazil, and of course full-fledged maglevs such as the Transrapid in Shanghai which sadly I did not get the chance to ride on before its maximum speed was decreased from 256 MPH to 186 MPH) and the new Shinkansen maglev being developed of necessity in Japan due to overcrowding on a portion of the original conventional Shinkansen line, and other specialized high tech transit systems (but not hyperloop, which has been overdiscussed, and is also, as Elon Musk may have conceded by calling the related company he established The Boring Company, kind of literally boring, and as exciting as Tunnel Boring Machines are to some, I am not an enthusiast, since they engage in too much boring for me, although I do appreciate the fruits of their boring).
I appreciate your words, and the respectful exchanges we've had despite our differences. I agree that "agree to disagree" is the wrong approach, at least if it is applied to all doctrinal matters. As I mentioned in the other thread, I see doctrine as being a layered issue. There are some areas where there is room for disagreement because there isn't a clear exposition or negation in either the Bible or traditional authorities. Then there are issues that rise to the level of separation, but not disfellowship. These for me tend to be issues of authority, where there is substantial traditional or Biblical reasons to maintain or deny the issue but there is still some room for debate. Then there is the nonstarters, the well defined heretical positions that have been consistently maintained throughout church history and have been expressly anathematized by ecumenical councils. The stuff that touches on either Christ's deity or othe Christological concerns that disagreeing with renders a person outside of Christian theology entirely and into some other theistic belief. I am not saying such individuals are not saved, simply that their theology cannot be tolerated and any implication of tolerance must be avoided.

I don't believe reunification is possible at this point, but I do desire a broad sense of ecumenical respect and understanding which I appreciate the reciprocation that has been present within this thread.
Upvote 0

Is This The New Normal?

They conducted raids at businesses. They arrested people who were violent criminals, gang members and over half arrested were simply here illegally. The photo in the paper sh I we'd them without masks. There were not riots, there were no attacks on tge agents. There was no one shooting at them. Their families were not threatened.

Yes, President Obama prioritized resources to go after illegal immigrants with violent criminal records:

From the artcile:

Of the 2,059 arrested in the sweep, nearly half of them have convictions for serious crimes. Officials said 400 have previous aggravated felony convictions, 58 are known gang members and 89 are convicted sex offenders. Nearly 500 of the arrestees had re-entered the U.S. after having previously been deported by authorities.

A majority of Americans applaud such actions. Targetting any one who looks like an illegal - not so much.
Upvote 0

No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

-

One of the more prominent doctrines in systematic theology is the doctrine of “inherited sin.”2 A great deal of speculation has taken place regarding the cause, transmission/imputation and consequences of inherited sin. It is commonplace to cite Rom 5:12-21 as the foundational text for this doctrine.3 The present essay intends to question this standard practice. It is granted that several related issues of systematic theology will surface, which cannot be adequately addressed within the confines of this article. The focus will rather be one important exegetical issue involved in the common reading of Romans 5, namely, what does Paul mean by eis pantas anthrōpous?4
Universal Sin and Salvation in Romans 5:12-21 – Grace Evangelical Society
Upvote 0

Exclusive: The White House is looking to replace Pete Hegseth as defense secretary

Yeah, the media doesn’t like him still.
Funny, he is media, and he seems to think his position as Defense Secretary is like having his own FoxNews show to rant to his audience.
Upvote 0

Exclusive: The White House is looking to replace Pete Hegseth as defense secretary

Yeah, the media doesn’t like him still. But there he is.

Actually, I'd be interested to see a poll of veterans about Hegseth. From the ones I've talked to, and what I've seen of active duty military who will speak privately (they aren't allowed to speak publicly, and even privately can be problematic), the disapprove of him and find that his lack of operational security puts military members lives in jeopardy.
Upvote 0

TONE DOWN YOUR RHETORIC! Leavitt Urges Democrats to Tone Down Anti-ICE Language After Border Agents Shot At [VIDEO]

Yes that's correct. Thats what laws do. If you dont like it, get the law changed. Just because youve been breaking the law for 30 years doesn't mean it no longer applies to you. Why wouldn't it?

If ive been stealing for 30 years and I finally get caught, I should just be let go?

Sorry, your analogy is terrible -- these people don't cross the border daily for 30 years. The analogy would be that you once shoplifted 30 years ago (a misdemeanor offense) or even that you sped maybe 20 miles over the speed limit 30 years ago; so today, because they suspect it was you that did it (with no solid evidence) a group of plainclothes and apparently often unmarked police come and take you away with no access to lawyers, your family, no access to the courts, and only putting it on a list that you were picked up a few days after you disappeared.
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,871,413
Messages
65,300,041
Members
275,930
Latest member
ken.jacobsen