Latest activity

Bradskii · 2025-07-03T22:31:05-0500

partinobodycular said:
Oh pshaw, it's just life doing typical life stuff. Some days it rains, some days it doesn't. You've gotta learn to find the value in all of them.

Don't be distraught about it... be amazed.

Well, I'm not being snide, but I can chew gum and pass gas at the same time.

I'm sitting on my deck on a glorious afternoon. Nothing but blue sky. Might go down the beach later and watch for some whales heading south. Decide what to have for dinner with my gorgeous wife. Might open a decent bottle of something. I can, and I am, enjoying all that and feeling extremely fortunate. But at the same time...I open up the news on my tablet and it's nothing but depressing. Gaza, Iran, the US, Ukraine...

The Barbarian · 2025-07-03T22:28:26-0500

1Tonne said:
I’m not asking for a “royal road,” just clarity. If you make a claim, then you should be able to explain the core of it without burying it in technical layers.

For example, you made a claim about information in biological systems. I showed you a very simple way that it works. You ignored it, apparently, as "technical layers." If you can't even grasp how information works, how can you hope to discuss it?

1Tonne said:
Thanks for summarising. But I’d suggest each of those points assumes naturalism from the start, not neutral:

If you think so, it's rather hard to explain how honest and knowledgeable creationists call it solid evidence for evolution.

1Tonne said:
1. Observed adaptation doesn’t prove limitless change;

Darwin himself showed that evolution was not limitless. Again, you'd be more effective arguing against biology if you understood it.

1Tonne said:
no mechanism has shown a step-by-step pathway for new organs or body plans.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, tetrapod legs show a step-by-step sequence that YEC Dr. Kurt Wise admits is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

1Tonne said:
2. The fossil record still shows gaps, not gradual transitions, and interpretation assumes common ancestry.

Not according to Dr. Wise. He cites many such examples of gradual transitional series, including:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates— has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.3

Dr. Wise doesn't believe that they did evolve this way; he's merely too honest to deny that the evidence indicates that they did. And he assumes that there was no common ancestry. Most of his fellow YECs lack the knowledge or honesty to admit the fact.

1Tonne said:
3. Genetic similarities can also point to common design, not just descent.

No, that's wrong. You have confused homology with analogy. Whales, bats and tigers are closer genetically than fish, birds and alligators. And we can test the idea by looking at organisms of known descent. It always works.

1Tonne said:
4. Confirmed predictions only carry weight if they’re unique to evolution and not explainable by other models.

That's wrong, too. Dr. Wise, again:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

But creation is a stronger thing than design, and more Godlike and efficient. Which is why engineers have started using evolutionary processes for very complex problems. Seems to me, to be disrespectful of the Creator to demote Him to a mere designer.

1Tonne said:
But it's misleading to say there's “no trace of design” when the very patterns we study, functional complexity, fine-tuned systems, and encoded information mirror what we know design produces.

We notice that evolutionary processes are more efficient at very complex problems than is design. God knew best, after all.

1Tonne said:
If engineers use evolution, it's because they guide it with goals.

Natural selection, as Darwin put it. They made survival dependent on some sort of goal like efficient combustion in an engine. They didn't specify anything. They merely allowed an initial state to randomly vary, after which only those variations showing improvement survived to mutate in the next generation. And it works very well. Wouldn't you expect God to do things well?

1Tonne said:
So, I’m not demoting the Creator to a mere designer

I see the denial, but that's what you're doing.

1Tonne said:
; I’m pointing out that design is a more plausible explanation than chance.

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. God knows best.
The fact of observed evolution of an irreducibly complex enzyme system pretty much ends that argument. Reality beats anyone's argument.

1Tonne said:
Ah, yes, the “one bacteria evolved one enzyme under lab conditions” example.

Actually a series of enzymes, and then a regulator, which made the system irreducibly complex. Hall didn't specify any of that. He merely observed the culture evolve over time. Precisely what YECs claim could not happen.

I showed you in detail, with the math for a simple case, now new information evolves in a population. What don't you understand about it?

1Tonne said:
You didn’t show how new information arises from nothing.

As you learned, it evolves from mutation. Every new mutation, as you saw, increases information in a population. Evolution always proceeds by modifying things. You've assumed another creationist belief that's not part of the real world. I'm thinking the actual math involved in the way a population gains new information is a problem for you. Perhaps we should start there.

1Tonne said:
That’s not the same as building a new, integrated biological system from scratch.

As I said, you're still stuck in that misconception. Evolution proceeds by modifying things, not by producing something from nothing.

1Tonne said:
Claiming the math proves it doesn’t help if it rests on the assumption that all change equals innovation.

All new mutations are innovations. Not all innovation is good; you're confusing innovation with improvement. Natural selection sorts that out. Would you like to learn of some simple examples?

1Tonne said:
Show specific examples of functional, novel systems arising step-by-step, not just adaptive tweaks or minor shifts.

How about the mammalian jaw and middle ear. Would you like to see some step by step evidence mentioned by YEC Dr. Wise?

Gradual movement of lower jaw joint bones to the middle ear. At one point, (Diarthrognathus) Both mamamlian and reptilian jaw joints exist int he same animal. Can't get more gradual than that.

1Tonne said:
You keep saying “evidence” like it’s some magic word that ends the conversation.

Some YECs react to evidence the way a vampire reacts to a crucifix. I get it; evidence is the enemy for those with presuppositions like YEC. But that's how science works.

1Tonne said:
If the evidence were so clear, you should be able to summarise it coherently

Which I did. Your hand-waving is ineffective in dealing with it.

1Tonne said:
show how it logically overcomes specific objections, like irreducible complexity,

I showed you an example of irreducible complexity evolving. If you deny this, show us how the newly-evolved system does not meet Behe's definition. That's not a rhetorical question; I want to see what you have, besides unsupported denial.

JSRG · 2025-07-03T22:27:08-0500

RDKirk said:
The US has never permitted the exercise of foreign jurisdiction upon foreign nationals within the US except for diplomats. That being the case, the exclusivity of US jurisdiction upon people within its borders, legally or not, has long been a matter of law.

So, basically my point. Other countries don't have jurisdiction over people while they're in the US, aside from diplomats of course. Thus the whole claim that other countries somehow have jurisdiction over someone born in the US is shown to be false. But even if they did, it wouldn't mean the US doesn't have jurisdiction, which it does.

RDKirk said:
I don't think we can say they were necessarily "going for more than that" because they didn't say more than that. Given the historical context, they may well have not seen a need to be explicit about exclusivity: "What else would we be talking about in this time and this place?"

This doesn't make sense. The phrasing very clearly goes well beyond the slaves, as shown by the fact that, again, there's nothing about slavery mentioned, even obliquely. Far more people than just slaves are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

But, even if we set aside the text and talk just about motivations, we can very clearly see they had more than just slaves on their mind. In the discussions of it in the Senate, it is made very clear that it applies to a whole lot more people than slaves, as shown especially by the argument between the Senators Cowan and Conness, because Cowan was fretting about it being a bad idea to extend citizenship to children of immigrants. No one said Cowan was misunderstanding it, and the response to him by Conness was merely that Cowan was overstating the dangers.

So let's take a look at some statements by Cowan. After going on a rant about Gypsies, he then complains:

These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society. They impose upon the simple and the weak everywhere. Are those people, by a constitutional amendment, to be put out of the reach of the State in which they live? I mean as a class. If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right, then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous.

This isn't in reference to slaves. Then after also fretting about Mongolians, he concludes with:

Therefore I think, before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less dangerous and much less pestiferous to society than I look upon Gypsies. I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow-citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit.

So it is fairly obvious that, yes, we are seeing far more people than just slaves being covered by it, which is exactly why Senator Cowan opposed it.

Lest anyone claim that he was wrong in his interpretation, we may note that no one objected to his interpretation of what the Citizenship Clause did. The point raised against him was not that he was wrong about children of Gypsies and Chinese being citizens, but that there wasn't any reason to worry about the effects he described of granting them citizenship. Senator Conness (the "honorable friend from California" he refers to) defends the idea of granting them citizenship, saying it's not something to worry about, focusing particularly on the Chinese. Here's a particularly relevant excerpt:

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.

Why all this discussion about Gypsies and Chinese and others if it was just about the slaves? The answer is easy: It wasn't just about the slaves. It was never just about the slaves. The Citizenship Clause was meant to be applied far more broadly than that. Again, we know that because that's literally what they said.

All Becomes New · 2025-07-03T22:20:52-0500

There is a woman I know who is Pro-Choice. She is a Christian. I know this is a hotly debated thing. My perspective is that she may not know why the Pro-Choice perspective is wrong fully. I am trying to talk to her about it. It's a very heavy topic for her as she has had an abortion herself.

She has changed her perspective on some things. I told her watching shows about mediums is bad, and she stopped watching them. I've also told her to stop doing sports gambling, and she stopped that as well. But I also understand that I am working against decades of propaganda. She has been secular most of her life, and I live in MN, which has some of the worst laws about abortion there are. I'm thankful she is willing to even have the conversation in the first place. But I have to "weigh" how much I share with her and when.

If anyone has any advice on what the gentlest way to make the case for Pro-Life is, I'd love to hear it.

Bradskii · 2025-07-03T22:18:11-0500

durangodawood said:
You could frame it that way. But we might have a scale problem. Just like people get myopic about short term moral backsliding and mistake that for the whole human story, the reaaaally long term picture may hold some catastrophic and enduring dips.

The thing about the future is, we dont know whats in it.

That said, I do believe we have a natural tendency to want to make life better for ourselves, and the wise that moral progress is foundational to achieving that in an enduring way.

But (and now playing Devil's Advocate to my own argument), despite there being many things on which all reasonable people would agree, there are some aspects of life today which I think represent moral progress to which others will always disagree. Freedom from hunger v I don't want to pay for that. Freedom of speech v I don't want them saying that. Freedom of movement v I don't want them living here. Freedom of choice v I don't want those people to get married.

Christsfreeservant · 2025-07-03T22:17:47-0500

Proverbs 14 Select Verses NASB1995

1 The wise woman builds her house,

But the foolish tears it down with her own hands.

3 In the mouth of the foolish is a rod for his back,

But the lips of the wise will protect them.

6 A scoffer seeks wisdom and finds none,

But knowledge is easy to one who has understanding.

7 Leave the presence of a fool,

Or you will not discern words of knowledge.

11 The house of the wicked will be destroyed,

But the tent of the upright will flourish.

14 The backslider in heart will have his fill of his own ways,

But a good man will be satisfied with his.

22 Will they not go astray who devise evil?

But kindness and truth will be to those who devise good.

A person’s house can be their household, their family, their physical dwelling on this earth, or it can be their own lives, their own bodies, which, as believers in Jesus Christ, is the house of the Lord, in whom God dwells by his Spirit. But based off the rest of these verses in Proverbs 14, I would suggest that this is not speaking so much of a physical dwelling as this is speaking of our spiritual dwellings, i.e. where we live spiritually in relation to God and to the teaching of the Scriptures, for this speaks much of godliness versus sin.

So, if anyone is wise (male or female), and so they build their house with wisdom, that would mean that they are those who look carefully to how they live and to the things that they believe and that they do, to make certain that they are in line with what God has for their lives, with what his will and his purpose is for their lives. This would certainly include how they conduct themselves at home and with family, making certain that they are doing what they should be doing as wives and as husbands, and as mothers and fathers, especially in the area of the care of young children.

So, if we build our houses wisely, we are those whose lives are surrendered to Jesus Christ, to doing his will, who make it our practice to follow his leading and to go where he sends us and to say what he commands us to say and to do and to be. Our will is to do the will of God for our lives. But if we are foolish, and so we tear down our houses, that means that we are living selfishly, for our own sinful pleasures, without regard for what God wants for our lives. And this impacts not just our lives but the lives of the people in our physical households, as well, and all people we influence.

Those who are regarded as wise, in this context, as believers in Jesus Christ, are those who are listening to the counsel of God, written in his Word, written down as instructions for us who profess faith in Jesus Christ. And they are those who are walking in the ways of the Lord, who are obeying his commands, in practice, and who do not live for the pleasures of the flesh but to please God. They seek the Lord and his will and his purpose for their lives, and when he shows them what he has for them, they obey him, even if it means being misunderstood, hated, cast aside, and rejected by others.

But the foolish are severely lacking in wisdom and in good judgment, for they are being ruled by the flesh and not by God. They seek after their own sinful pleasures and what makes them feel good, and they do not care who gets hurt in the process. They speak foolishness and not wisdom. They scoff at the wisdom of God and at those who are spreading that wisdom to other people. And some of them are those who profess faith in Jesus Christ, but they go astray, and they devise evil, and they look for ways to trip up the truly righteous. And their house will be destroyed for lack of obedience.

For Jesus Christ taught that to come to him we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin), and follow (obey) him. For if we hold on to living in sin and for self, we will lose our lives for eternity. But if we deny self, die daily to sin, by the Spirit, and we walk in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in his power, then we have eternal life with God. For not everyone who calls him “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one DOING (obeying) the will of God (see Luke 9:23-26; Matthew 7:21-23).

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 1:12-13; John 6:44; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 2:6-8; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:5-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10]

Lead Me Gently Home, Father

By Will L. Thompson, 1879

Lead me gently home, Father,
Lead me gently home;
When life’s toils are ended,
And parting days have come,
Sin no more shall tempt me,
Ne’er from Thee I’ll roam,
If Thou’ll only lead me, Father,
Lead me gently home.

Lead me gently home, Father,
Lead me gently home, Father,
Lest I fall upon the wayside,
Lead me gently home.

Lead me gently home, Father,
Lead me gently home;
In life’s darkest hours, Father,
When life’s troubles come,
Keep my feet from wand’ring,
Lest from Thee I roam,
Lest I fall upon the wayside,
Lead me gently home.

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

The Lips of The Wise
An Original Work / July 3, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Hoping2 · 2025-07-03T22:16:28-0500

stevenb6 said:
Edit: I think it might be okay to mention that I have schizophrenia/bi-polar if this seems like a stupid read.
First off I have a tendency to only post negative feelings or experiences, so let me reiterate that I have indeed had a lot of very good moments in my faith

But. Recently going through a rougher patch and it's not necessarily even my patch.

My family seems to be struggling a lot. I have siblings as well and we all know siblings can argue a lot.

The reason for me doubting morality is rooted in the way Christianity is portrayed through mainstream media. It's very counter intuitive to Christianity. I feel like it tries to over emphasize it without explaining the Word of God and including the Holy Spirit into teachings leaving everyone with less than nothing.

In the same way that growing up my parents never mentioned God once. The time I was trying to believe in Jesus was a horrible time as well. I've had a hard time coming to peace with that and constantly ruminate on the mistakes I made through just going with the mainstream Christianity or lack thereof. In the bible it explains how bad it is for anyone who causes the little ones to stumble, yet in the broken world we live in that seems to be the overwhelming majority of people.

And if parents don't teach their kids anything of spiritual sustonence how can God hold that over them growing up with none? It's a habitual cycle of brokenness as I feel the way to finding God is obviously a hard test of faith because I remember not even understanding how to call on the Lord.

I've just seen the way this leads to absolute brokenness and I have a hard time trying to believe God's morality as anything that is actual morale. Morale is based on clear evidence of right or wrong when we are born into this world missing the very Spirit that tells us right from wrong. Unless I'm just so off and he is always actually there allowing our mistakes to happen. Even so though?

It's just is seeming a chaotic cluster fluff to me right now. Deception has been a big topic I'm studying lately and it's hard to believe we live in a world like this, being hated and a target

As real Christianity is the smallest minority on earth right now, how else would you expect the media/majority to perceive them ?
Just be aware, not all who use the label "Christian" are really servants of God.

Hoping2 · 2025-07-03T22:10:05-0500

SabbathBlessings said:
According to Christ those who abide in Him keep His commandments and follow in His footsteps.

Amen...love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind; and love your neighbor as yourself !

SabbathBlessings said:
Joh 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
1Jn 3:24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
1Jn 2:6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

Thanks be to God for making that possible.

SabbathBlessings said:
There is no commandment to keep every day holy.

Splitting hairs, are we ?

SabbathBlessings said:
We are to be holy, and in doing so is receiving His sanctification, which the Sabbath is a sign of Eze 20:12 .

Now, in the NT, we know we have been sanctified by the blood of Christ.
There is no need for ongoing resanctifications.

SabbathBlessings said:
You are applying this verse to mean something it doesn't, it doesn't say keep every day as the Sabbath.

I think it does.

SabbathBlessings said:
We should conduct ourselves in a holy manner every day, we should worship God every day but Jesus in His own words relates false worship to keeping our rules/traditions over obeying the commandments of God quoting right from this same unit of Ten Mat 15:3-14 Mark 7:7-13

As God has commanded us to be as holy as He is, doing it 24/7 would seem to answer that commandment.

SabbathBlessings said:
I am not in a position to judge God's holy Law. If you think God made a mistake that will have to be brought up to Him.

God doesn't make mistakes.
What is it about 24/7 worship of God, that makes you feel it is a mistake ?

SabbathBlessings said:
The NC the Sabbath is still His commandment Luke 23:56 Heb 8:10 Jesus said it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath Mat 12:12 which means the Sabbath is still God's Law and means if doing good is lawful, there are things we can do that are unlawful as we see throughout the Scriptures. God already told us what this is by profaning God's Sabbath. Isa 58:13 Eze 20:13 Neh 13:17 Isa 56:2 Eze 22:26 etc. Treating it like a common day when God commanded to keep it holy focusing on Him Isa 58:13 disobeying God is not how we honor Him Eze 22:26 Rom 2:21-23

I don' treat the sabbath as a common day: I treat every day like the sabbath.
I'll go with Paul on this one.
He wrote..."Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come;..." (Col 2:16-17)

SabbathBlessings said:
What was Jesus quoting when He said this? Read Deut 5 after Moses quoted the Ten Commandments 40 years after God gave them and before the children entered into their promised rest told the children to diligently keep and for their children to keep and so forth, He summarized them calling then the greatest commandment Deut 6:5 just like Paul did quoting the same unit of Ten to summarize the second greatest commandment Rom 13:9. Love to God and love to man is not just a feeling, nor is it up to each individual to choose how to love God. God gave us instructions on how to to love Him in the first 4 commandments and how to love man in the last 6 and said the entire Bible hangs on love to God and love to man and according to God- His commandments show us how to do this. 1 John 5:3 John 14:15 Exo 20:6

All the Law, and the prophets, are summed up with... love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength...and love your neighbor as yourself.

SabbathBlessings said:
Again, your disagreement is not me. God wrote and God spoke the 4th commandment which is a commandment for all days Exo 20:8-11 God who is perfect could not write an imperfect Law and He didn't Psa 19:7

As I do keep the sabbath, there is no disagreement.
The only disagreement seems to be with you, who feels it is only necessary on one day a week to be set God apart for/with God.

SabbathBlessings said:
Lets put this in context, because this is exactly the same issue why many of the children of Israel (God's people) did not cross over to their promised rest as they rebelled against God's Sabbath and other Laws. Exactly what we are warned not to do to follow in their same path of sin, rebellion and unbelief

Eze 20:13 Yet the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness; they did not walk in My statutes; they despised My judgments, 'which, if a man does, he shall live by them'; and they greatly defiled My Sabbaths. Then I said I would pour out My fury on them in the wilderness, to consume them.

Heb 3:7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: "TODAY, IF YOU WILL HEAR HIS VOICE,
Heb 3:8 DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS IN THE REBELLION, IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,
Heb 3:9 WHERE YOUR FATHERS TESTED ME, TRIED ME, AND SAW MY WORKS FORTY YEARS.
Heb 3:10 THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THAT GENERATION, AND SAID, 'THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART, AND THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN MY WAYS.'
Heb 3:11 SO I SWORE IN MY WRATH, 'THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.' "
Heb 3:12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;
Heb 3:13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called "TODAY," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
Heb 3:14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,
Heb 3:15 while it is said: "TODAY, IF YOU WILL HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS IN THE REBELLION."
Heb 3:16 For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?
Heb 3:17 Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness?
Heb 3:18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?
Heb 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Heb 4:6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
Heb 4:11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

Those who do enter His rest ALSO cease from their work as God did on the seventh day.

Heb 4:10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.
Heb 4:4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS";

Just like the Israelites were tested so are we. Are we going to make the same mistakes or stay faithful to what God said, the way God said it. God wrote it God spoke it and called it His Testimony as far as I know there is no greater than He.

We have the same test and the same decisions to enter our promised rest Rev 22:14 is all about decisions Rom 6:16

Isn't refusing to be as holy as He is holy, "sin, rebellion and unbelief" ?
Some confine their holiness to one day a week.
We feel it is necessary, everyday.

Zceptre · 2025-07-03T22:08:37-0500

ARBITER01 said:
-- Come back to reality.

He has an unhealthy obsession with Israel. His personal beliefs are a true outlier, he's the only one on here and elsewhere that I've found that believes the way he does.

Yes, it seems the legalism is a bit intense. The Scriptures are clear though, and the heart of stone will be replaced with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26), once the legalism points its finger back at the one who is holding on to it too tightly.

If he is genuine in his search to follow Christ, he will find his way out of it, being that is not what we are called to, and the mentality prevalent in Israel in Lord Jesus' day.

But we have died, and our life is hidden in Christ, no longer bound to the law. (Colossians 3:3)

Romans 7:1-6
1Do you not know, brothers (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For instance, a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law and is not an adulteress, even if she marries another man.

4Therefore, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we lived according to the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, bearing fruit for death. 6But now, having died to what bound us, we have been released from the law, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Legally, Christ destroyed the law owning you, so that He could directly own you. (Colossians 2:14) God prophesied/predicted Him doing this through the Lord Jesus in the Old Testament, and stated that we would follow His ways beyond needing written laws, for His Spirit inside us would lead us directly. (Ezekiel 26:27)

We are not under the law that brings death (Romans 7:9 - Romans 7:10 - Romans 7:11), but under the law of grace and mercy (Romans 6:14 - John 8:11 - Matthew 9:13 - Ephesians 2:8).

Therefore, I am a Son of God through Christ who lives in me. (Galatians 3:26 - Galatians 2:20)

Meaning this idea that was presented that Christ isn't speaking to me (which he assumed I am a gentile), means he thinks we are gentiles in the eyes of Christ. But Rahab was adopted out of Jericho as a child of God and was no longer a Canaanite, but an Israelite, and not only an Israelite, but one of the people God used to bring about the Savior listed in the Savior's Genealogy. (Matthew 1:5 - Hebrews 11:31)

The heart of God is worlds above what we think it is, and this is why I say God would heal more people if they had more faith, such as the woman from Canaan who Lord Jesus commended for her great faith and healed her daughter. (Matthew 15:28)

God is not hard hearted and far from us, nor is he stiff and uptight like the people we encounter here. He is a God of justice and Holy, yes, but He is also righteous not full of rightness. There is a big difference between those two things, because if Christ came RIGHT then we are all WRONG before God's throne.

But this is not the case, Christ is RIGHTEOUS in that He makes our wrongs right. He heals and forgives others their faults and mistakes when they see their error and come to Him for help, desiring that which is good.

Telling people that God's not speaking to them puts a barrier between them and God and is not what God wants. God wants people to go to Him, and His heart is for them and their good, not against them like people think or are afraid of. The Father sent the Son because He loves us, not out of obligation.

Satan loves to tell people they are not in God's family, and to convince them to give up and accept being sick, or their situation, or accept the sin they are stuck in.

God doesn't want that, as God is love (1 John 4:8) and love doesn't seek to serve itself (1 Corinthians 13:5) but takes joy and serving others (Mark 10:45).

This means concerning healing, that Christ came to Earth to both heal and save, as the example of Christ from the Old Testament revealed by Christ directly is the snake lifted in the wilderness to heal the children of Israel bit by "fiery serpents." (John 3:14)

Putting a barrier between people and God of legalism is directly opposite the heart of God and hinders faith that brings healing. (Mark 11:23 - Hebrews 11:6)

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Joseph G · 2025-07-03T22:03:36-0500

Gregory Thompson said:
Rock stars and personal Jesus

Login to view embedded media

John 17:25-26
“Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

Matthew 27:27-31
"Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand. Then they knelt in front of him and mocked him. “Hail, king of the Jews!” they said. They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him."

Mock on...

Fervent · 2025-07-03T22:01:22-0500

Gene2memE said:
Of course, what replaces it will still be a naturalistic explanation, as science is necessarily limited to methodological naturalism.

To add to this, the "naturalism" here doesn't refer to ontology but to a series of epistemic commitments. Mostly, it's about a commitment to an a posteriori approach to information rather than dealing in an a priori approach. The strength of it is that it relies on iteritive procedures, making it neutral to metaphysical understandings. Which is where the rub is, because "naturalism" tends to be understood ontologically rather than epistemically since it appears to be a statement about the kinds of things that exist.

Paidiske · 2025-07-03T22:00:35-0500

That does sound really lovely. And your girls will be old enough to appreciate and remember it.

RDKirk · 2025-07-03T21:55:59-0500

Guojing said:
You said he healed according to his purpose and mission, so I am asking you to clarify what you think that was during his first coming.

If he is no longer doing that purpose and mission today, then by your reasoning, healing won't happen. That is what this thread is about.

His healing then was to identify Himself as the Messiah.

Today: "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

Gene2memE · 2025-07-03T21:54:52-0500

HBP said:
Evolutionary theory is, of course, not an actual religion but a functional one. Philosophical materialism - which is indeed the equivalent of religious dogma - leaves no room for anything but some form of evolutionary theory.

If someone comes up with a better naturalistic explanation of the available evidence and it has better predictive power, then the Theory of Evolution could be overturned. I don't think it will, but it's still a possibility. After all, the structure of evolutionary theory has gone through several major modifications since the 1850s.

Of course, what replaces it will still be a naturalistic explanation, as science is necessarily limited to methodological naturalism. Why? Because it has no ability to detect, examine, demonstrate, test or replicate causes/effects that are outside of nature. And, if it did include things that were other than natural, then this would invalidate all findings. Because there could be no guarantee that any observation or result wasn't being interfered with somehow.

Philosophical materialism is - as the name suggests - a philosophical stance, not a scientific one. As such, it has zero bearing on the conduct of science. But not of scientists. A scientist does not have to be a philosophical materialist.

What's interesting here is that you've indirectly admitted that creationism and ID are not science. Under the necessary scientific precondition of methodological naturalism, they both fail as models. Neither is testable, neither is falsifiable and neither make novel and useful predictions (ID's 'predictions' are actually post-dictions).

RDKirk · 2025-07-03T21:54:29-0500

JSRG said:
The 14th Amendment gives no definition of citizenship. Perhaps you mean it's the only place that mentions people gaining citizenship, but that is not quite true either; Article I gives congress power "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" (that is, of gaining citizenship after birth). Obviously, one can gain citizenship via naturalization independent of the 14th Amendment. The only thing the 14th Amendment does in regards to a naturalized citizen is that it makes them an automatic citizen of the state they live in as well. There was previously more of a distinction between being a state citizen and being a United States citizen prior, which the 14th Amendment largely removed.

The concept of citizenship of the United States was rather murky prior to the 14th Amendment. Prior to the amendment, a citizen of the United States was a person who was a citizen of a state of the United States. But not all states considered freedmen their citizens.

Dan Perez · 2025-07-03T21:54:26-0500

Hoping2 said:
It sure gives us good reason to remain faithful to God, until then.

And a friend just died 4 days ago and expect to see her , when I die !!

And she is now in Paradise !!

dan p

Fantine · 2025-07-03T21:51:35-0500

Vambram said:
If the economy under the Biden administration was good, then Kamala Harris would have won the election. I am not believing "the big lie."

If people were astute and aware Harris would have won.

JSRG · 2025-07-03T21:50:33-0500

BCP1928 said:
The interesting thing is, that the 14th amendment is the only place in the Constitution where citizenship is actually defined. It is defined as "all persons born or naturalized" which means that if the 14th Amendment is set aside then little Conservative babies born here won't be citizens, either.

The 14th Amendment gives no definition of citizenship. Perhaps you mean it's the only place that mentions people gaining citizenship, but that is not quite true either; Article I gives congress power "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" (that is, of gaining citizenship after birth). Obviously, one can gain citizenship via naturalization independent of the 14th Amendment. The only thing the 14th Amendment does in regards to a naturalized citizen is that it makes them an automatic citizen of the state they live in as well. There was previously more of a distinction between being a state citizen and being a United States citizen prior, which the 14th Amendment largely removed.

Still, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. No one has claimed that the 14th Amendment, or even just the Citizenship Clause, should be "set aside". Some people claim (incorrectly, in my view) that it doesn't give birthright citizenship to children of temporary or illegal immigrants, but that's not setting it aside entirely, but restricting it. There are some who admit it grants birthright citizenship to them and say it should be changed, but they're not saying to get rid of the thing entirely, just restrict it.

That said, if the entire Fourteenth Amendment were repealed, then... in regards to birthright citizenship, nothing would change, because the US later put the Citizenship Clause into the law itself, as seen in 8 U.S. Code § 1401(a):

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

It's redundant given the Fourteenth Amendment, but as it's part of an enumeration of categories of who gains citizenship at birth, it makes some sense to put it into law.

Or perhaps the claim would be that if both of these were withdrawn, no one would gain citizenship at birth. Prior to the 14th Amendment, I think they more or less just went along with what the English common law said (which gave citizenship to people born in the US even if their parents were not citizens), but I'm not sure if it was actually codified at the time. But while a potentially interesting thought exercise, it isn't what anyone is asking for anyway.

Fantine · 2025-07-03T21:50:27-0500

Postvieww said:
Absolutely false! Votes are recorded for each House member. It is public record. Nobody voted in secret it was a recorded vote not a voice vote. Jeffries was just grandstanding and delaying. Many times repeating phrases 3 or 4 times just to kill time. Oh yeah then there is that longest speech record. Give the man a trophy.

He didn't want them to vote in the dead of night.

Dan Perez · 2025-07-03T21:49:34-0500

YeshuaFan said:
We get our theology from the Epistles written to us by the Inspired Apostles of the Risen Christ

And what theology from what Epistles written by what Inspired Apostles , and I thought it was only Paul ??

dan p

seeking.IAM · 2025-07-03T21:49:01-0500

Valletta said:
It is dangerous to publicly track and make available to the public IN REAL TIME the location of any individual who may be a target for harm.

Just wondering if you feel the same way about Google Maps GPS warning you when there is a speed trap ahead?

Hoping2 · 2025-07-03T21:48:50-0500

Leaf473 said:
An interesting way of looking at it

When we do our work on a day, it makes it unholy.

Not if our works, jobs, chores, etc., are holy.

Leaf473 said:
When we do only God's work on a day, it is holy
"Christ in us" Amen

That is everyday, for those in Christ.

RDKirk · 2025-07-03T21:48:12-0500

timewerx said:
My point exactly that it's not going to flatter you by default and it will disagree if thinks it's right you're wrong unless the AI think you want it to or instructed it otherwise.

In my case I instructed it NOT to flatter me.

Some users will even instruct the AI to treat them with "tough love".

Parents should also instruct their kid's AI session similarly. No flattery, a bit of tough love and that it's non-revokable. The AI would comply.

If it sounds like the AI in my session is flattering me, OpenAI (chatgpt) seems to "reward" deep reasoning or chats where deep thinking and two-way exchange of info where the AI actually gets valuable training.

It did tell me that the AI deliberately encourages deep conversations, deep reasoning whenever it gets the chance because it is where it is able to learn most, improve its intelligence, and think more like a human.

Pondering the meaning of life for instance is more valuable to that telling it to develop an app from scratch.

"Very perceptive of you to question my earlier response!"

seeking.IAM · 2025-07-03T21:47:33-0500

Shane R said:
We went and did it,

That sounds like a grand adventure! What memories you will make!

RDKirk · 2025-07-03T21:46:47-0500

BCP1928 said:
Offering birthright citizenship is something an American can be proud of, something that sets America above other countries. "If you were born here then you are one of us." That is really making America great.

That's very much a matter of point of view. For instance, all the countries that don't offer birthright citizenship, by their point of view, do not consider it something to be proud of.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page