Apple Sky said:

You see this gets me every time, to say the earth is moving and not the sun is to say that this verse is wrong in Joshua 10:13 the verse that says it all.

Click to expand...

I’m at a complete loss. It is too exasperating.

Hentenza said:

Didn’t get the joke? Oh well.

Click to expand...

The joke was your claim that immigration was a problem. We know that's impossible with Trump's wall.

The bible speaks a truth, a law unto nature. Christ delcares the same truth. That God created male and female and that will become one flesh in marriage. The act of sex is within marriage.

So if God delcares that man and women become one flesh in marriage then SSM is not Gods law or nature. That it is not Gods law or nature then it is not of God. The simple coming together in SSM is defying Gods law and nature.

Christ may not have named every sin but He did declare Gods law and nature in marriage.

But we don't have to even go to the bible. If marriage is between a man and women and is Gods law and nature then it should aligned with nature. Psychologically a child needs a mother and father. So SSM denies a child a parent. Gods law and nature is that man and women create a child and need a father and mother in upbringing.

But also sociologically. The breakdown of marriage and families has broken down society. There is a rising epidemic of single parenthood and fatherless boys. The stats are clear that the fundemental issue is the breakdown in the family unity.

The ideological belief that SSM is exactly the same as Gods marriage is a lie. The feminist idea that women are better off without a man and need a career over motherhood is a lie. The idea that women can abort babies because its their choice is a lie.

These are the lies told to people that are destroying society.

So you don't have to make an arguement for why Gods law and nature are truth. They just are. You can declare them and leave it at that. People can tale it or leave it. Its simply declaring Gods law and order like we would declare the truth that Christ is the Son of God. Or Gods laws that thou shall not kill or steal are truths full stop.

By declaring it a truth it stands opposed to all other claims of truth for marriage. Take it or leave it. Its as simple as that. Like the adulterous women.It was Gods law that sex was reserved for marriage. Christ told the adulterous women that her sins are forgiven and no one judges her. But that was because she believed on Christ and no longer was subject to the law. Part of that was she sin no more and followed Gods laws.

zoidar said:

Maybe you should have this discussion with a Koine Greek scholar? It would probably give you a better answer than you get here on the forum.

Click to expand...

One does not need expert credentials to follow the syntactical case I've presented. One only needs a willingness to engage the text itself. That, so far, has been the missing ingredient in this thread.

Apple Sky said:

@Warden_of_the_Storm Thanks for all the reactions you've really bumped my score up

Click to expand...

And you accused us of only caring about reactions!

rjs330 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I see you recognize that supporting a government which does not prohibit homosexuality be seen as inconsistent with biblical teachings. So , why don’t you understand that endorsing a government that treats individuals inhumanely is also contradictory to these values.

Deporting half a family to another country while leaving an eight-year-old child in America is not humane. If you believe otherwise, our views on humanity and the love Jesus taught differ greatly.

If you think it's humane to deport a man who came to the United States at age five, has lived here for thirty years, and now force to leave his wife and child behind for a foreign country he doesn't know, then our understanding of humanity and the meaning of Jesus' love differ greatly.

Christians cannot separate government responsibilities they support from individual adherence to Gospel teachings. Whether in their homes, churches, communities, as individuals, members of a church, part of a larger community, or as a nation, practicing the teachings of Jesus is expected in daily life. Distinguishing between personal and communal application does not align with the principles taught by Christ.

Christians who adhere to the teachings of Christ in their personal lives but support governmental actions that contradict those teachings will be reminded by Jesus on the day of judgment, "I never knew you."

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Reminds me of the joke about church divisions.

A ship was sailing past a remote island in the middle of the ocean when they saw a bloke trying to get their attention.

They sent a boat and found he had been marooned by himself for twenty years!

But he'd built thee huts. They asked him why.

He explained that one was his house, another was his church, and the third was the "church I used to go to."

Jerry N. said:

If I say the sun moves from east to west, it is not actually a metaphor, even if I know the earth is moving and not the sun.

Click to expand...

You see this gets me every time, to say the earth is moving and not the sun is to say that this verse is wrong in Joshua 10:13 the verse that says it all.

David Lamb said:

I agree that God is alive, and so before He began to create, He was the only life. However He did create life "outside" of Himself when He created plants, animals and mankind. I understand that when Christians talk about the origin of life, they are talking of created life, not saying that God had a beginning.

Click to expand...

God is life, God did not create a separate and different kind of life for these plants animal humans etc.. There is only one kind of life and it come from God. Just ask Ananias and Sapphira who ceased to live immediately, God took His life from them.

rambot said:

I kind of understand this sentiment. But what does it practically mean?
Should they be working towards making their lives ACTIVELY worse in an effort to win over conservatives?
Are they supposed to just stop talking to them too?

At this point, all the dems are functionally doing is saying "we don't hate you and we think you should have rights".

How low does the bar need to be set?

Click to expand...

As a practical matter, I don't know. Probably it was the pronoun mandate that was a bridge too far.

rambot said:

I find it interesting that you think decoupling from LGBT is the way to go but not decoupling from the 1%.

Click to expand...

When did I say that? It would be the very first step, the step that the Berniecrats have taken already, along with a more generalized stand on individual rights. AOC took her "preferred pronouns" off her websites the day after Trump was elected.

This is an interesting text:

Focusing on the rhetorical tactics through which denialism is achieved in language, in Alex Gillespie (2020)[17] of the London School of Economics has reviewed the linguistic and practical defensive tactics for denying disruptive information. These tactics are conceptualized in terms of three layers of defence:

--Avoiding – The first line of defence against disruptive information is to avoid it.

--Delegitimizing – The second line of defence is to attack the messenger, by undermining the credibility of the source.

--Limiting – The final line of defence, if disruptive information cannot be avoided or delegitimized, is to rationalize and limit the impact of the disruptive ideas.

Fantine said:

Release the Epsteon files.

Click to expand...

This is happening are you sure this is what you want?








Oversight Committee

@GOPoversight
·
Nov 18
Hakeem has been on a media tour the last few days on Epstein, but refuses to condemn Stacey Plaskett. Epstein documents reveal that Hakeem's consulting firm reached out to Jeffrey Epstein to arrange a dinner between them. Is "Brooklyn's Barack" telling us everything he knows?

Be careful what you wish for, it may come to bite you. Here’s the Epstein Email Hakeem Jeffries REALLY Doesn’t Want You to See Many liberal democrats leaders have tried very hard to make some Epstein story stick to Trump but it seems to be backfiring in a big way.

Phil G said:

You cannot assure me of any such thing. It's folly to believe in something which is contradicted by the evidence. If someone tells me something which is obviously false, how can I believe that as the truth?


So you believe an AI overview which states the Bible is not consistent. That is not our belief as Christians. The Bible is entirely consistent, and it does not state the actual shape of the earth anywhere.

You fail, as does the AI overview, to understand poetry and metaphor. The reality of the evidence of our world and universe proves beyond doubt that the metaphors and poetry used in Scripture are not to be taken literally.

Click to expand...

Saying the Bible uses “poetry and metaphor” does not fully explain the problem. We are not writing about Song of Songs. Of course, we could argue about the meaning. If I say the sun moves from east to west, it is not actually a metaphor, even if I know the earth is moving and not the sun. It is describing what I actually see. Moses could see the firmament and the “waters” and he merely described them. The “waters” could be any number of things that Moses didn’t have words for or could understand, or just water. Job and Jonah are poetry and metaphor in describing the earth. In all cases of ancient cosmology, the relationships between the gods and the creation are the key teachings. In the case of Moses, he is focused on God being the creator of all things and in a relationship to mankind. Our God is not some local deity pretending to be a planet. Our God is creator of all things, who brought them into existence and organized them both physically and spiritually. Moses wasn’t thinking about the scientists of the 21st Century, he was revealing the essence of the Almighty. This was new and important.
Edit: I might also add that there is a huge difference between Cosmology and Astronomy.

Phil G said:

It also reveals that you haven't the slighted intention of considering how the flight paths @prodromos referred to contradict flat earth.

Click to expand...

How do you know what my intention are ? For all you know I maybe considering that he may actually be right.
I have find out what F/E's have to say first to see which makes the more sense.

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of our death.
Amen

DaisyDay said:

It's worse than I thought!

Tyler Lemons is a great name, btw.

Click to expand...

Apparently the indictment of the antagonist of Trump's hoax claim of a Russiagate hoax, was itself a hoax.

Valletta said:

The U.S. Catholic bishops statement says: "We recognize that nations have a responsibility to regulate their borders and establish a just and orderly immigration system for the sake of the common good. Without such processes, immigrants face the risk of trafficking and other forms of exploitation. Safe and legal pathways serve as an antidote to such risks."
I also agree that the deportation process should be humane.

Click to expand...

Show me one of my posts where I argued against a just and orderly immigration system.

My argument has been about the trampling of the 4th amendment by stopping people just because they look Hispanic and, to the poster that I answered in the post you quoted, regarding his inhumane comments.