SabbathBlessings said:

The Scriptures do not teach this. It plainly teaches there is a church (God's people) who stays faithful to Him Rev14:12, but sadly just a remnant Rev12:17

Click to expand...

OK, tell me which one that is.

Bob S said:

Hentenza is right on that the Sinai covenant was never relevant to Gentile nations.

Click to expand...

I am quite sure the Amalekites, when you meet them, will tell you they wished they had considered God's Laws given on Mt. Sinai as "Relevant" to them, when they had the chance. That the Day they heard God's Voice, they would have hearkened to His Voice, not harden their hearts and blown it off as irrelevant.

As to you and Hentenza's preaching that "the Sinai covenant was never relevant to Gentile nations", here is Paul's teaching to both Jew and Gentile as he taught there is no difference, because God is no respecter of persons, and doesn't judge men according to the DNA they were born with, rather, man is judged by his own works. You can find this Truth in Romans 2: 6-14 should you be interested in what is actually written in Scriptures.

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God (Jew or Gentile) may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


I would agree though, that according to the Holy Scriptures, both the Nation of Israel, and the Gentile Nations rejected God's Laws given to men on Mt. Sinai and written "for our sakes no doubt". Just as you and Hentenza consider God's Laws as irrelevant for you. In fact, this can also be said for Sodom and Gomorrah, and the world of Noah's Time, and the Children of Israel who fell in the wilderness, And the Levite Priests who "corrupted the Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi", and those "Christians" in Matthew 7 who called Jesus Lord, Lord but were disobedient. And the Pharisees who taught for doctrines the Commandments of men, full well rejecting the Commandments of God given on Mt. Sinai, so that they could live by their own religious traditions.

All these men considered God's Laws given on Mt. Sinai as irrelevant to them.

So yes, there are "many" who come in Christ's Name, who promote that God's Laws are only relevant for someone else, never for them. But there are examples of folks God called "Faithful", like Caleb, Rahab, Shadrack, Zacharias and Simeon and Cornelius. Paul and James etc., who respected God and didn't consider His Laws as irrelevant to them. Yes, the Path is narrow and few there be that enter it, nevertheless, it is the Path I advocate for.

Bob S said:

A mixed multitude came out of Egypt, and it appears they all accepted the covenant. Any Gentile who entered Israel was permitted to become a believer. God never subjected any other Gentile nation to the covenant He gave Israel.

Click to expand...

LOL, and yet HE destroyed Gentile nations for transgressing His Commandments that HE gave on Mt. Sinai. Doesn't that seem like "Subjecting them" to the Sinai Covenant? Or do you preach to others that God killed people for no reason?

Bob S said:

Jesus' command to the disciples was to go into all the World and spread the Good News.

Click to expand...

Who did HE Choose to spread the same Gospel that Israel received, but rejected? Sodomites? Hivites? Pagans? No Bob, HE chose 12 Jews representing the 12 tribes of Israel, brought them out of spiritual Egypt, (Sin) and sent them to promote Gospel of Christ that Israel was given, but refused to believe.

And HE had written for their and our admonition, the Exodus and Journey of the 12 tribes of Israel in the Law and Prophets. And why did HE have this journey recorded? Here is Paul's answer to that question, should you be interested.

1 Cor. 10: 1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

6 Now these things "were our examples", to the intent "we should not lust after evil things", as they also lusted.

In your adopted religion, wouldn't the "WE" here, be both Jew and Gentile that "Turned to God"?

Bob S said:

I have yet to discover any nation that has upheld the Sinai Covenant.

Click to expand...

Ex. 19: 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye "shall be" unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Certainly not a nation of this world, as the nations of this world hates God. But at the end of Days, when God raises from the dead, all the righteous, obedient servants that have chosen to keep His Covenant and obey His Voice, over the religious traditions and philosophies of this world's religions that God placed us in, that will truly be a Great Nation, blessed as was Caleb, because he upheld the Sinai Covenant as described in Ex. 19:5.

Bob S said:

None of them follow the 613 rules given at Sinai.

Click to expand...

This is another deceitful, and wicked LIE promoted by the prince of this world, and adopted by "Many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord, That when Israel Trusted God and followed Him out of Egypt, God rewarded Israel for their Faith, by placing on their necks 613 Laws impossible to obey. Then God lied to them by telling them they could obey, then HE slaughtered them by the thousands when they didn't obey.

This is just one of many evil and insidious lies furthered by this world's religions, "Who come in Christ's Name". There is not ONE person, not One child, not one man, not one woman, not one husband, not one wife that has ever existed, that God placed 613 laws on their backs. This is undeniable Biblical Truth. Will you accept this truth, or ignore it and continue furthering it to anyone who will listen to you.

There is no where in the entire Bible, where this is taught. You have adopted and are now promoting a lie taught to you by some internet web site. It was created by satan to demean and belittle the God and Father of the Lord's Christ. It's exactly what Malachi spoke about, concerning those who "Profess to know God" teaching all who will listen to them, "The table of the LORD is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible."

This deceitful teaching uses several clever tactics to deceive the simple. For instance, on this list of Laws you promote that God placed on the necks of every man that trusted Him, it is written: Lev. 18:6 "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD."

This is ONE Law. God goes on to define "Kin" in verses 7-18.

The evil website you reference, counts all these verses as different Laws, to deceive the simple minded into promoting that Lev. 18: 6-18 details 20 Laws God placed on the backs of all men who trusted Him. When it's only one law.

This is like saying the speed limit is 55. Then saying, thou shall not drive 60, thou shall not drive 65, thou shall not drive 70, thou shall not drive 75, thou shall not drive 80, thou shall not drive 85, thou shall not drive 90, thou shall not drive 95, and preaching that there are 9 speed limit Laws.

From the very beginning of Biblical History, God has warned about disrespecting Him and His Commandments as "irrelevant". The very first mainstream preacher of this world, promoted this very thing, that God's Law was irrelevant to Eve and made her blind and ignorant, and only by rejecting God's Laws, and creating your own, can you become free from the blindness and ignorance God's Laws brings to men who trust in Him.

You don't have to fall for this deception Bob. You can fall on the Christ "of the Bible" and be saved. You will be broken, humbled, mocked and ridiculed by the promoters of this world's religions, but in the end, as Jesus teaches, "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

ThatRobGuy said:

There are differences in the two sets of doctrines (despite both being downstream of Abrahamic faith)

And one of those crucial differences is that the Christianity's texts make no direct prescription for consolidation of government power and religious power, whereas, it's a fundamental idea in the Islamic texts.

Making one set of teachings less likely to produce adherents that are amenable to the idea of a separation of Church and state.

And the proof is in the pudding:
There are 5 actual recognized Theocracies on the planet right now, all are of the same religion (Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Mauretania) -- 6 if you want to count Vatican City.

And if you expand the scope look at nations that have an officially codified state religion used to guide governance:
Islam - 27
Christianity - 9 (used to be more, but many of disestablished in the past 70 years)
Judaism 1
Hinduism 0 (Nepal was the last one, but disestablished and went secular in 2006)


So, by the numbers:
Of the ~120 countries that are majority Christian, they've been consistently moving toward disestablishment and only have 9 left that have it as a codified state religion

Of the ~50 countries that are majority Muslim countries, 5 are full blown theocracies, and another 27 have codified state religions.


I don't know that a concern can be dismissed as a "baseless overblown fear" if it's something that's both A) prescribed in the texts, and B) ends up being the end result 2/3 of the time.

And when you consider the following polling data:
View attachment 374067

And so when you consider that, for a country like Britain, the majority of their Muslim migrants since 2012 are coming from Pakistan and Bangladesh (both are areas where 80%+ favor making Sharia the official laws of the country)

Or in the case of France, many coming from Morocco and Tunisia

That's going to create some cultural clashes.

To use a US-domestic example:
If 150,000 people from rural, conservative evangelical Alabama and South Carolina all decided to pack up and move to San Francisco purely for the economic opportunities, but wanted to import and preserve their same social values they had in their home state with them, the residents of San Fran would be understandably concerned about some cultural impacts (especially if the new arrivals were consolidating some areas of the city where the concentration was high enough that they had the numbers to snag a few city council seats)


We've actually had some examples of it in the US.

There's a Detroit suburb of Hamtramck that is an example.

They underwent a major demographic shift and reached the tipping point where they occupied over half of the city council seats.

Some of the legislative changes that were made afterwards.
- Amending the city noise ordinance so that the Muslim call to prayer could be broadcast through loudspeakers throughout that city at 6am and 10pm.
- Amending the city animal welfare code so that ritual animal slaughter could be performed in peoples' back yards
- Carving out funding for Halal meal compliance at public schools


So if they're willing to enact those types of changes to consolidate religious rules with public governance rules for things that are within a city government's purview when they effectively control a city, why would we expect the pattern to be any different if it were a different level of government?

Click to expand...

Which one of those provisions violates the 1st Amendment?

Trump administration will expand travel ban to more than 30 countries, Noem says​

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment about when an updated travel ban might go into effect and which countries would be included in it.

Bro.T said:

Jesus says in Matthew 13: 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith,
By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, And their ears are dull of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed; Lest at any time they should see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears, And should understand with their heart, And should be converted, and I should heal them.

peace in Jesus name

Click to expand...

In other words you cannot find a post crucifixion verse that teaches that the 4th commandment is required of the Christian or a verse that shows that the sabbath was kept before Moses.

Your misuse and weaponization of Jesus words to accuse me of not being a believer shows the extent to where you will go when presented with an argument that you can’t defend so instead of concluding that you are indeed wrong you resort to ad hom attacks. How typical. You have lost all credibility.

comana said:

AI summaries are useless without accompanying sources.

Click to expand...

If it is against the forum rules - report me -

If not - it is just another complaint against a posting style - adding zero to the topic of the thread

New Orleans leaders decry immigration crackdown, pointing to video of agents chasing U.S. citizen​

“Just because you look brown, you look Hispanic, you’re going to get stopped, because now it doesn’t matter if you have papers, you speak English or you are a citizen, it’s not enough” [the chased woman's stepdad said]

SabbathBlessings said:

Its doctrine Jesus calls us out from


Mat 15:9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
Mark 7:7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men


Rev 18: 3 For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, (bad doctrine) the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the [b]abundance of her luxury.”
4 And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. 5 For her sins [c]have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities

Sin is breaking God's laws 1John3:4 James2:11

God's church are those who stay faithful to Him and His commandments- God's version His Testimony Exo31:18 Deut4:13 Exo20:6 because there is no one greater than He instead of following traditions and doctrines of man.


Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints (His true church); here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
Rev12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman (His church), and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Sadly many have laid aside one of God's commandments that He asked us to Remember Exo20:8-11 in lieu of traditions of man, forgoing His blessings Isa59:2 and sanctification Eze20:12 and the sign He gives between Him and His people Eze20:20

Click to expand...

Yes, all the false doctrine being taught by all the false churches.

Postvieww said:

If many who shout their moral outrage over the treatment of terrorist drug dealers had the same amount of moral outrage about the lefts treatment of Trump it would be more believable. Actually we all know it is really not about concern for drug dealers it is about damaging Trump and his administration. I believe the word is hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

There is no hypocrisy. Trump deserves the criticism against him and the DOD, more specifically the individuals involved in giving and carrying out the orders, needs to be held to account for what is looking more and more like an illegal act.

In the Baptist church I grew up in, my sense was that social justice wasn't seen as bad, just irrelevant to the Christian faith, for reasons much as @DragonFox91 has described. The focus was on my individual decision to accept Jesus as my savior, and the focus of the Christian life was mostly on the individual person's actions and attitudes. Examining social structures to see how they harm groups of people and working to change those structures wasn't something that even came up in our church discussions.

(I'll add the note that, during my reading in college, it was a Baptist theologian who first drew my attention to the importance of social justice work for Christians. By their nature, there is much variety among Baptists.)

A lot of good feedback here.
We live in the country and are a good distance from church.
I believe it is important to fellowship somewhere but if on occasion it is not reasonable to get anywhere you can always stream a service or YouTube.
One minister I like, long way from us, is Chad Lamb.
It is a non denominational church but I believe it to be right on the Word.
God bless.

Finished Solaris by Stanislaw Lem. I am starting The Invincible, also be Stanislaw Lem.

Finished Solaris by Stanislaw Lem. I am starting The Invincible, also be Stanislaw Lem.

God did not spare Sodom and Gomorrah on behalf of social justice - but they perished because of sin - homosexuality to be specific.

Was God unjust?

Point one: Social Justice often times supports sin - pushing people to accept it. That is in direct contradiction to Scripture.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness,
sexual immorality,
wickedness,
covetousness,
maliciousness;
full of envy, murder,
strife,
deceit,
evil-mindedness;
they are whisperers, 30
backbiters,
haters of God,
violent,
proud,
boasters,
inventors of evil things,
disobedient to parents, 31
undiscerning,
untrustworthy,
unloving,
unforgiving,
unmerciful;
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

We can start there.

Fervent said:

Talking about the ECFs while relying on two quotes hardly establishes anything,

Click to expand...

I’ve posted the two that I remembered from memory. I can post more if you wish.

Fervent said:

the existence of councils and other mediations speaks against the idea that Scripture was exhaustive of God's revelation, and no one argues that Scripture isn't the cornerstone authority.

Click to expand...

The scriptures were the foundational text by which all decisions were made. The councils were interpreters of scripture and none of their decisions (at least in the first seven councils) went against scripture. They considered the scriptures to be the rule of faith.

Fervent said:

Sola Scriptura goes further than simply asserting Scripture as the chief authority but claims that it is hostile to tradition rather than being a portion(the chief cornerstone, certainly) of a broader tradition.

Click to expand...

I don’t consider scripture to be hostile to tradition. All churches have traditions. But I do consider scriptures to be the litmus test of tradition and therefor of higher authority. Here is how Athanasius of Alexandria describes scriptures.

“These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’ (Festal Letter 39, 6–7)

Fervent said:

You have given no answer to it and instead want to move on without it being addressed. I've presented my argument, which is that God-breathed has nothing to do with inspiration when we consider how it was used by contemporaries and near contemporaries of Paul rather than those who post-date Origen. You've provided no response to this challenge, since you want to move onto other topics.

Click to expand...

You have provided your opinion devoid of evidence or support. No challenge has been presented. You keep referring to texts but are yet to cite any or even merely refer to any as a point of discussion. We already know what Paul teaches.

Always in His Presence said:

This all started with a lie -

Hegseth said "kill them all" - Now the narrative has changed.

The decision was made by a career Navel Commander along side a JAG officer as consultant for the following reasons (AI)

• Survivors deemed "still in the fight" due to potential communication with other boats: Officials stated the two survivors were observed possibly radioing for help from suspected cartel members or other vessels in the area, making them active threats rather than incapacitated.
• Salvaging drugs from the wreckage: The survivors were reportedly attempting to recover portions of the boat's cocaine cargo (estimated at $50 million), which could have allowed the drugs to enter circulation and fund further cartel activities.
• Ensuring complete destruction of the boat to eliminate navigational and operational threats: The strike was authorized to fully sink the vessel, preventing it from posing a hazard to other ships or allowing any remaining elements (e.g., drugs or equipment) to be reused by traffickers.
• Compliance with pre-established Pentagon contingency plans for survivor scenarios: The action followed internal military protocols developed before the campaign began, which allowed re-engagement if survivors exhibited hostile actions, such as communication or recovery efforts.
• Alignment with broader directive to neutralize all threats on board: Admiral Frank Bradley, under guidance from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, acted to "eliminate the threat" comprehensively, as part of a strategy framing drug cartels as combatants in a "non-international armed conflict." This included destroying the drugs to disrupt cartel funding for weapons.

Click to expand...

AI summaries are useless without accompanying sources.

Factotum said:

I think I'm sure what you are defending here, as it illogically shows compassion for people who hate us Americans so much to whereas they risk their lives to gleefully deliver fatal [Schedule I] substances for multitudes of vulnerable Americans to fatally ingest.

I've lost people who I love, to the type of substances on the darn boat!! So please forgive me sir, as I work hard locating my compassion like you have for the perps. So far, I've been unsuccessful in my search.

Click to expand...

Given your grotesque and imaginary characterization of the "perps" I doubt that you will ever be successful.

If many who shout their moral outrage over the treatment of terrorist drug dealers had the same amount of moral outrage about the lefts treatment of Trump it would be more believable. Actually we all know it is really not about concern for drug dealers it is about damaging Trump and his administration. I believe the word is hypocrisy.

DaisyDay said:

Not even. They were in the cold water and had been for the better part of an hour. Have you ever been in the cold vast sea? Raising arms over the head would tend to push said head under the water with their wet clothes pulling them down even faster.

Click to expand...

No - but I have been in the Caribbean. I've also not tried salvaging 50 million dollars worth of narcotics.

Let take a look at those who choose to be with the lord and obey him. Let’s go into Isaiah 56: 1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

7thKeeper said:

Im not sure what you are trying to argue here or how it logically relates to what you quoted...

Click to expand...

I think I'm sure what you are defending here, as it illogically shows compassion for people who hate us Americans so much to whereas they risk their lives to gleefully deliver fatal [Schedule I] substances for multitudes of vulnerable Americans to fatally ingest.

I've lost people who I love, to the type of substances on the darn boat!! So please forgive me sir, as I work hard locating my compassion like you have for the perps. So far, I've been unsuccessful in my search.

stevevw said:

No but I am saying that most of the attacks on Trumps admin are to get at Trump because they hate him so much.

Click to expand...

Disapproval does not equal hate, does not equal attacks. He needs to be held to account for his damaging rhetoric and policies.

Always in His Presence said:

We’re the drug runners in a life boat?

Click to expand...

Not even. They were in the cold water and had been for the better part of an hour. Have you ever been in the cold vast sea? Raising arms over the head would tend to push said head under the water with their wet clothes pulling them down even faster.

This all started with a lie -

Hegseth said "kill them all" - Now the narrative has changed.

The decision was made by a career Navel Commander along side a JAG officer as consultant for the following reasons (AI)

• Survivors deemed "still in the fight" due to potential communication with other boats: Officials stated the two survivors were observed possibly radioing for help from suspected cartel members or other vessels in the area, making them active threats rather than incapacitated.
• Salvaging drugs from the wreckage: The survivors were reportedly attempting to recover portions of the boat's cocaine cargo (estimated at $50 million), which could have allowed the drugs to enter circulation and fund further cartel activities.
• Ensuring complete destruction of the boat to eliminate navigational and operational threats: The strike was authorized to fully sink the vessel, preventing it from posing a hazard to other ships or allowing any remaining elements (e.g., drugs or equipment) to be reused by traffickers.
• Compliance with pre-established Pentagon contingency plans for survivor scenarios: The action followed internal military protocols developed before the campaign began, which allowed re-engagement if survivors exhibited hostile actions, such as communication or recovery efforts.
• Alignment with broader directive to neutralize all threats on board: Admiral Frank Bradley, under guidance from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, acted to "eliminate the threat" comprehensively, as part of a strategy framing drug cartels as combatants in a "non-international armed conflict." This included destroying the drugs to disrupt cartel funding for weapons.