FAITH-IN-HIM said:

You are right, these verses address believers rather than governments. If a Christian claims that Jesus' commandments apply to followers, but then supports a government that contradicts his teachings, their commitment to Jesus' teachings is questionable.

Click to expand...

If you support a givernement that does not outlaw homosexuality then that contradicts scriptural teachings. And your commitment to scripture is questionable. See how that works? If you support a governement that allows no fault divorce then your commitment to scriptural teachings is questionable.

I'm glad you recognize Christ's teaching is for his followers and not a governmental mandate. That being said I believe we can do both. We can treat illegals humanely and still deport them as fast as possible. There certainly have been questions regarding the conditions the illegals have been held in. Although I have yet to actually see these conditions. The illegals have been arrested, so as long as their detention status is no different than the typical inmate of a prison, then I don't have any issues with it.

Give them food, water and medical care as needed and put em in an 8x10 cell until they are deported. Even Jesus didn't tell believers to release all the prisoners.

Dan1988 said:

Your denomination, obviously teaches "legalism", that simply means that you guys believe that you will be saved by keeping the law/commandments. But God has never ever said that anyone will be saved by keeping the law or commandments.
The only reason God gave the commandments was to show mankind how evil we are.

You know, I know and God knows that it's impossible for any man to keep any commandment. You won't find a single verse to support this idea that we can keep the law or commandments.
I try not to sin, but IO have sinned every single day of my life and I know that I will continue to sin every single day for the rest of my life. But I thank God that the Lord Jesus paid for every one of my past sins, and every one of my present sins and every one of my future sins.

If I could keep the law and commandments, then Christ died suffered and for nothing. None of the verses you referred to above say that a mans salvation depends on his ability to keep the commandments, so I don't know why you keep trying to make them say what they are not saying.

Click to expand...

Dan1988 said:

No man has ever been able to keep any commandment. God gave His people the commandments so they can see that they are totally depraved.
God knows full well that it's impossible for any man to keep any of His commandments. By giving the commandments, God has the legal and moral right to punish all those who break any one of them (that's all of us).

Nobody can claim thewy sinned in ignorance, even those who were born n isolated parts of the world and never heard of the commandments, are still guilty because God wrote His law on their hearts, so they are without excuse.

What this cold harsh reality boils down to, is that there's nothing good in me and you. We were born dead in our sin, we inherited our sin nature from Adam. As such, we all naturally love sin and hate God. And we are born into slavery to Satan, because He has the legal right to enslave us,, since Adam rejected God and served Satan instead.

God doesn't save someone, by helping them to change from being carnal (wicked) to spiritual (good). No God must first kill the person (metaphorically) kill their old nature and give them the gift of His Holy Spirit (born again), where the old things have passed away and all things become new.

This new man, doesn't attain "sinless perfection" in this life. That happens in the life to come, when we are transformed into the image of His Son, in a twinkling of an eye. We receive our glorified, immortal bodies and we inherit all the treasures of the universe.

None of this is achieved by a sinner, who is dead in his sin, making a choice to obey the God he hates. Salvation is of the Lord, He is the Autor and finisher of our faith. Yes we do good, works because the Holy Spirit is working to transform us in this life, so if we obey any commandment or do any good works, it's because He is leading us and helping us o obey and do good works.

It's all about Him, our old nature demands praise and self promotion, it cries out to have it's lust satisfied, so it's a constant in struggle against our old nature, just as Paul described this battle by saying that he doesn't do the good that he would do, but he does the evil that he doesn't want to do.

Click to expand...

I responded to your false statement “God is hate” with a definition that God is love and He tells us that is also His commandment to us. I made no claim that any of us can actually keep the commandments or achieve any kind of “sinless perfection”.

Now you go off into to some accusations of “works based salvation” of which I said no such thing. I was concentrating on the fact that God is NOT “hate.”

Your presumption that I was speaking about “works based salvation” is incorrect and an ignorant accusation. I understand the context of where the commandments & works apply to living by faith ( Romans 1:17, Romans 13:1-14, Colossians 1:1-29 especially verses 10 through 24) that these are of the liberty in which Jesus Christ frees us from the yoke of bondage ( Galatians 5:1-26. We are saved by grace to walk in faith for good works ( Ephesians 2:8-10).

I think anyone should read Romans 16:17-19 to consider in your way of posting.

This might sting loyal Ds if he was still in office.

But hes long gone, and his moral reputation has already taken a lot of hits - which is a shame because in most other ways (but not all) he was a pretty good president.

Fervent said:

As is expected, you're ignoring my flagging the principle of abrogation and citing a verse from the Medina period. Though this is not the thread for getting into the ins and outs of Islamic jurisprudence.

Click to expand...

You said that Muslims would kill anyone who didn't convert. That was so wrong it needed correcting. It was so wrong that you should go back and correct it. And an 'oops, my bad' wouldn't go amiss.

Vambram said:

Trump is NOT dangerous.

Click to expand...

He himself may be harmless (I would disagree) but what he reveals about our politics is very concerning. Even after he leaves office, someone has to take up the mantle of the MAGA movement and they would likely take a much more measured approach than Trump has so far. That’s what worries me along with the fact we’ve now totally normalized Trump’s bad behavior in office.

Zceptre said:

I don't see a problem, unless you are stating it is a problem for you. Brother Fervent seems par for the course so far, I would agree with him generally speaking on this.

Click to expand...

The scriptures - God's inspired word says... Proverbs 18:13 He who answers a matter before he hears it - this is folly and disgrace to him.
You are saying it's not a problem to reply to a matter before hearing the facts?
God's word disagrees... and anyone else who agrees with you.

It has been repeatedly observed that when people jump into a conversation midway, they miss the context, and communication becomes problematic.
Jumping into a conversation midway without knowing the full context can lead to misunderstandings because you lack the necessary information to grasp the overall purpose or meaning of the discussion. When you enter a conversation late, you may understand individual words or sentences but miss the broader point, which increases the risk of misinterpreting facts or placing them in the wrong context. This is especially problematic when the information differs from your own perspective, as it can trigger competitive listening, where you focus on how the speaker is presenting their ideas rather than truly understanding them.
AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.

Zceptre said:

Could you elaborate on where the problem is you are encountering?

Click to expand...

I'm not encountering a problem.
I'm pointing out why jumping into a conversation midway, having not heard the facts, is a problem.
You just demonstrated here, why it's a problem, by your asking me a question based on your interpretation of what I said, which does not have anything to do with what you think.

Do you see how misunderstandings are created, when one does what Proverbs 18:13 rightly advises against.
The scripture are always correct, and the wisdom of Solomon, in the book of Proverbs are tried and tested. It's God's wisdom, which we do well to listen to.

Zceptre said:

I'm going to take the liberty of making a guess here and say it looks as though Fervent is using the word "it" to refer to "the truth."

Click to expand...

It takes engaging with the truth to make a determination of the truth?
That's even more difficult for me to understand what is meant, because I don't understand what is meant by "engaging with the truth", and I can't see how any engagement with the truth is necessary to determine it, or how it's even possible to engage with something if one doesn't even know what it is, or how to identify it.


Asking AI what does engaging with the truth mean?
Engaging with the truth means actively seeking and honestly confronting reality, not merely accepting beliefs based on emotion or personal preference. It involves a commitment to discerning what is accurate and factual, even when it is difficult or challenges one's own views, and requires a willingness to listen, question, and learn from others in good faith.
Source references 1 2 3

Is that what you meant?
That left me frowning, because having a commitment to discerning what is accurate and factual, even when it is difficult or challenges one's own views, is making an honest search for the truth.
So, how can someone who is searching for the truth, of which they do not know what it is, actually engage with the truth?
Perhaps you can explain that first.

Zceptre said:

If that is the case, it makes perfect sense. He is responding to your OP according to your inquiry.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:
Are you saying @Fervent is responding to the OP?

Zceptre said:

If I were to answer this question I would have replied exactly, and I do mean exactly verbatim with this statement or something very close. Maybe it wouldn't be as concise and precise, but meaning-wise, exactly that point.

Click to expand...

Can you specify what statement you are referring to?
There are a lot of statements in the posts. I am lost as to which you are speaking of.

Zceptre said:

So this, essentially, is the short answer to your OP.

Click to expand...

It takes engaging with it to make a determination is the short answer to the OP?
Then please respond to comment three in this post.

Zceptre said:

Correct me if I'm wrong Fervent

If it wasn't what Fervent meant, it is still what I would say. You have to engage with the truth to decide if it is the truth.

Click to expand...

Okay. Thank you.
Please see my response in the third comment in this post.

Donald Duck ........

Apple Sky said:

View attachment 373358

Click to expand...

Whichever one it is, it just makes you look silly.

Douggg said:

Paul was not saying that the church - made up of both Gentile and Jewish believers - is Israel.

Click to expand...

1. The Bible says we (the redeemed of all nations and ethnic groups) have been grafted into 'an Israeli tree' (Romans 9-11). Is that an ethnic or spiritual tree?
2. The Bible says we who were once aliens from the "citizenship of Israel" have now been brought in through the blood of Christ to that privileged place (Ephesians 2). Is that ethnic or spiritual Israel?
3. The Bible says that Jew and Gentile alike, have now been graciously merged together into "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:15-16). Is that ethnic or spiritual Israel?
4. The Bible says we are 'Jews' and we are "the circumcision" today (Romans 2:25-29; Philippians 3:3 and Colossians 2:11). Is that ethnic or spiritual Jews?
5. The Bible says we are "the children of Abraham" (Romans 4:11; 4:13-15; 4:16-18; 9:6-8; Galatians 3:7-9; 3:12-14; 3:16 and 3:26-29) today. Are we the ethnic or spiritual "children of Abraham"?
6. The Bible says we now reside and abide in "Jerusalem" and "Mount Zion" (Matthew 21:42-46; John 3:3; Romans 9:33; 11:26; Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 2:4-6; Philippians 3:20; Hebrews 12:22 and 1 Peter 2:5-10). Is that natural physical earthly "Jerusalem" and "Mount Zion" or is that spiritual heavenly "Jerusalem" and "Mount Zion"?

Surely the R party supreme court will step in to protect their own sooner or later.

Douggg said:

Paul was not saying that the church - made up of both Gentile and Jewish believers - is Israel.

Click to expand...

It is true Israel (those born of God), not apostate ethnic Christ-rejecting Israel that is of their father the devil.

Romans 2:26 teaches: “if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?”

• Who are "the uncircumcision" here?
• What does it say they become when they come to faith in Christ?

RileyG said:

It’s possible, but I think he’s still posting on a different forum. I will not comment further because of the forum TOS.

Click to expand...

Can you tell me the forum? PM if necessary.

Hentenza said:

My issue is with the trampling of the 4th amendment.

Click to expand...

How exactly is rhe 4th Ammendment being violated? The 4th ammendment does not require warrants to sieze illegal aliens. We hear people crying "where's your warrant, where's your warrant". It's a total lie. They don't need a warrant to pick up illegal aliens. So, I don't know what you are talking about here.

Strong in Him said:

You think you're being funny, or you're trying to annoy me.
Which?

Click to expand...

This thread just reeks of desperation.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

The people of Israel and all mankind have always been God's children.

Blinded as we all are, in total or in part to the fact, by the covering God placed on us all.

Click to expand...

And most will never believe Heb 9:18 I know that it is. your choice. and ROM. 10:9 and 1 0. is the only to be saved

and only Jesus shed BLOOD on. the. CROSS can anyone be saved , so keep reading Paul.

dan p

Fervent said:

I was referring to general regard, not my personal view which is more nuanced. What passes for street preaching most times is understandably annoying to most folks, such as driving by in a car with a PA system declaring everyone is going to hell.

Click to expand...

So more so the method of operation that is in question I guess you are alluding to here.

Maybe something along this approach:

2 Corinthians 5:18-19 (NIV)
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Instead of bashing them over the head with Hell and damnation.

I think I'd have to agree some of the street preaching I've seen leaves a bitter taste more so by the delivery of the message in not being in line with this passage and Christ's approach. I think the God who is love is understated (1 John 4:8) and while there is a place to tell people to repent I think it is often emphasized too heavily, more so than Christ did even though He did do so (Luke 13:3).

I know for me personally, damnation and condemnation never made me love God more nor pulled me away from sins as a youth, but realizing how loved I am by God worked wonders in my life. (Romans 2:4)

AV1611VET said:

Do you mind explaining #6 ... thanks.

Click to expand...

Temperature regulation, fluid balance...

Always in His Presence said:

Let's remember former president Clinton held a place with Epstein no one else did. Why do I say that - his portrait was the only portrait of a president Jeffrey displayed in his home. Wonder how much it cost him?

Click to expand...

Clinton's been saying he's fine with releasing the Epstein files, because he has nothing to hide.

I do think they were out to get Trump.
And elements of his NY trial were unconstitutional imo.

But I also think hes actually guilty of many types of illegal fraud and cheating that are entirely worthy of prosecution. And then theres the election interference felony case in GA. Thankfully that one is slowly getting back on track.

RestoreTheJoy said:

One guy. Watch the video. ONE guy shouted that.

Click to expand...

The video I saw had many people shouting that.

RestoreTheJoy said:

No one was ever going to get to Pence to murder him.

Click to expand...

Because cooler heads would have prevailed? Or because the one cop had to use deadly force to keep the would-be assassins at bay?

Pence didn't even trust the Secret Service agents assigned to drive him.

o_mlly said:

"Fishermen" working working out of hi-speed cigarette boats? Smells fishy to me.

The claims of relatives and residents of the innocence of those killed running drugs seems a bit illogical to me.

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/08/nx-s1-5602884/drug-smuggling-boats

In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives said the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists or leaders of a cartel or gang.​

Click to expand...

If the boats somehow made It the umpteen miles to the US mainland, is it still ok to blow them up? If they landed and were shipping them by truck to somewhere, is it still ok?

I don't get what the difference would be.

Apple Sky said:

Yes plenty of times but I have never seen any curvature of the earth.

Click to expand...

The trick is to actually look down, especially if you're over the ocean.