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

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

You are still repeating the same categorical mistake without engaging the objection I already offered. Let me state it again clearly.

You are treating δύναμαι as if it were an impersonal environmental condition ("a possibility exists out there"). Your Catalina island illustration proves the point. It collapses ability into an external circumstance rather than a capacity predicated of a person. But that is clearly not what John does here. δύναμαι is predicated of the subject; it describes something the person can or cannot do. That is a personal capacity, not an environmental concern.

When you say, "it is possible to get to Catalina by boat," you are describing travel conditions. John 6:44 is not describing environmental conditions. It is describing what the person can or cannot do: οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν. Unless you can give an argument from the grammar that redefines δύναμαι as an atmospheric condition rather than a predicate of personal capacity, your analogy is simply irrelevant.
you are once again attempting to read in semantic considerations based on essentialist misconceptions. I'm making no category mistake, you're simply imposing something onto the text on a faulty basis to build your conclusion into it.
I never presented the semantics as a theological argument. The only reason I mentioned semantics at all was to answer fhansen's attempt to use lexical data as a refutation of Calvinism. My point was that line of attack doesn't touch the Calvinist reading, because the argument for seeing irresistible grace in John 6:44 rests on the grammar, not the semantics.
Having come in mid-thread, I didn't see the circumstances for your semantic argument.
I have been trying -- repeatedly -- to move this discussion toward the syntactical issues that actually matter for evaluating that argument. Yet neither of you has shown any willingness to engage the syntax itself, which is the only place the debate is decisively located.
Then why have you simply shifted to another semantic argument focusing on a different word but built on the same faulty approach?
This distinction you're trying to make is proof you're not focusing on the text. It evaporates the moment you honor John's own conditional structure:

ἑλκύσῃ --> δύναται
Drawing --> ability
Nope, "ability" is a vague concept that doesn't necessarily depend on a novel feature of the object. It is the drawing that is the focus, no need for any sort of change in the object of that drawing for the drawing to enable.
There is only one stated effect of drawing in the syntax: it produces ability. There is no additional category in the sentence called "creating an abstract possibility in the environment." That is your invention, not John's. If drawing occurs but the ability does not arise in the person, then the conditional statement John wrote is false. You still have not addressed this syntactical point.
Again, you're reading a non-standard understanding of "ability" as in a novel creation in the object when it is more readily understood as belonging to the act itself rther than some change in the metaphysical situation.
Your distinction between my two questions only works by reframing drawing as an act that produces an external possibility while leaving the subject unchanged. But that is precisely the claim at issue, and it is what you have not argued for from the text.
And your questions only remain undistinguished if you impose an artificial metaphysical construct onto it. I don't need to argue your conclusion out of the text, I simply need to point out that its something you're packaging into it rather than genuinely drawing from it.
If δύναμαι refers to an actual personal capacity (which it does, being predicated of the subject), then drawing must generate that capacity in the person. There is no third option. If it doesn't, John's statement fails. If it does, then drawing is effectual (and hence ἑλκύσῃ denotes decisive movement) in the limited sense John actually mentions: it infallibly produces the ability he predicates.
"Predicated of the subject" is a rather nonsense statement, since all predicates are dependent on the subject with the object being in the predicate. Your argument requires a metaphysical framework to be read into the word that it simply cannot support.
δύναμαι is not vague. You are attempting to blur the verb. Greek does not allow you to treat δύναμαι as a hazy atmospheric category. It is a verb of concrete capacity, applied to a subject. That is grammar, not theology. It is explicitly predicated of persons in John 6:44.
Which is supposed to be changing, the subject or the object?
δύναμαι is a personal verb of ability. It is overwhelmingly used with personal subjects to denote their actual capacity or incapacity to perform an action. This is simply how the verb functions across the NT, LXX, as well as extra-biblical and classical usage. It is not used to express abstract or environmental possibility. Greek has other ways of expressing those things (e.g., ἔξεστιν).
Again, the subject or the object?
No, I am not backloading presuppositions. That's a pretty arbitrary accusation to bring against an argument focused on the syntax of the text -- syntax you have consistently avoided. What I am doing is refusing to let you redefine δύναται, αὐτόν, and ἑλκύσῃ into categories the Greek grammar does not permit. You keep accusing me of "asserting," yet what I consistently pointed to is the syntax. What you have consistently avoided is the syntax.
You are, through a fallacious essentialist approach to linguistics
If you want to contest my argument, contest the Greek. If you want to contest the Greek, produce grammar.
The problem is exactly this, you think grammatical analysis is the same as exegesis. It's not. It's a supplement, and can't bear the weight you're trying to place on it.
At the moment you're contesting neither... just my refusal to play along with a category error.
I'm contesting your essentialist approach to linguistics, which had you read your own citations you would understand the issue with.
Upvote 0

Can democratic Socialism save America?

A friend (whom I haven't seen for a long time) was sent on a trip to check some European and US hospital systems. This was nearly 30 years ago i might add. He was then an architect working in a Queensland state government department concerned with government building programs.

I later asked him what he thought.

He wasn't impressed with the US hospital system. He said he would walk into a five star foyer while out the back the overworked and underpaid navvies kept the system going.

He thought the best systems were in Germany and Holland, which have socialised medicine. They were far more efficient and equitable.

I sometimes get a bit cynical about the US fear of "socialism". The socialised systems of government in most European countries deliver better health care, lower crime rates, and longer life spans than the US system. But as soon as someone mentions "socialism" in a US context, they're likely to be pounced upon by quasi McCartyist demagogues, and labelled "communist".
Yeah, nurses work 16 hour days. It doesn't make any sense. I don't trust hospitals after a nurse over dosed me on pain killers. She gave me twice the dosage as the doctor prescribed. I guess I was lucky to be in the hospital when it occurred . Ironic.

All I remember was my eyes rolling back and passing out.
Upvote 0

What happens if someone dies before they became a believer, is it their fault?

Well, I didn't ask for your opinion to judge you, but you were kind of hiding in the shade brush so I figured I would whistle you out of there. lol

I can read between the lines, even if there are more than three there, and knew the stance but wasn't going to "speak for you." I definitely disagree and to say I have experienced God differently would be an understatement. I think every single case before God, souls that is, is judged individually by an absolutely perfect Judge. I think, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that also. At least that is what I'm gathering from what you have stated so far.

To posit my particular stance on this, I claim God to be a perfect and righteous Judge who is full of mercy and being more merciful than any of us would incline one to believe Him as a God who is love (1 John 4:7 - 1 John 4:8) to be merciful to children who have never committed any deeds physically, let alone sins, even though being born in sin, and that the blood of Jesus would give God the right to remove that sinful nature they are born with even more easily than He does ours who have committed many thousands upon thousands of sins over the course of our life.

Abraham calls God the Judge of all the Earth in Genesis 18:25, and cries out for Lot who is obviously (if we read Scripture later in Genesis of him upon the angels visit in Sodom) not the most righteous man in the Bible, and far from it if I'm to be blunt on the subject. Yet the righteous Judge had mercy on this man, living in the most sinful and one of the worst judged (if not the worst) cities to ever exist on this Earth.

We know that God forgave Lot because he is recorded in the New Testament differently than we read in the records of the Old Testament. In Hebrews 11 we find all of the saints / patriarchs of the Old Testament recorded as righteous and full of faith. Abraham was not always full of faith! Having doubted enough to try on his own through an alternative method of producing a son by means of Sarah's handmaid. Yet in Hebrews 11 Abraham is recorded as faithful and an example to follow. Lot in 2 Peter 2:7 is recorded the same way and is called a "righteous man" or "righteous Lot."

So then my own opinion on this is the character of God, who is love according to 1 John 4:8, who says we are nothing without love in 1 Corinthians 13:2, and who makes it clear the entire purpose of God's instructions to us is to bring us to the fullness of love itself in 1 Timothy 1:5, and finalizing it with Matthew 22:37 Matthew 22:38 Matthew 22:39 Matthew 22:40 Christ tells us that the entirety of the Law (Bible) hangs on these two commandments meaning God's Law is a Law of love.

So then, to say God would send a child (an infant) who even the secular world considers precious an innocent to Hell, how is He then more merciful than humans? If horrid sinners are appalled at the atrocity of children and babies being murdered, how could we ever make sense of God putting one in Hell? For His glory? In what sense? How does an infant in Hell bring glory to God and reveal His character and person of love? His infinite kindness and forgiveness and gentleness?

Maybe you have some answer to this, but I would certainly be curious as to how such a thing could even remotely be possible to bring glory to a God who is love. For a God who is willing to put His own Son on a cross (Romans 8:32), what rational reason would a person with that kind of love and sacrifice to save us who have sinned (not just been born in sin because of someone else's choices), why would someone that unimaginably kind and merciful ever send a child to literally be punished for an eternity but save Lot?

To throw one more out there for arguments sake, we are saying here (from your stance) that Paul who murdered men by his own testimony, and king David who did the same for personal reasons, and Moses also trying to save his brothers with his own strength and be a hero murdered a man are forgiven, but a little tiny baby who can't speak a word, think a clear thought, isn't fully conscious and can't even care for themselves somehow, in the most loving Person's eyes who has or will ever exist, deserves by His judgment to go to Hell?

In my view, that is exactly why Christ died on the cross, to free those born in sin, but who do not choose to accept it but repent. If no opportunity for repentance is available and sins have not been committed by these infants, why would a Judge who states His entire being, essence, and Law is based on love ever not cleanse them with His precious blood when He can forgive anyone He wants?

Oh I think they are forgiven for being "born in sin" for sure, and cleansed, and much faster and without a second thought by Christ.

With all respect intended, I think maybe some people are confusing an idea of Christ with the real Christ Jesus who said this about children:

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.”
Nicely written, non-contentious, and I appreciate both.

You say you have experienced God differently. I'm curious how you think I have "experienced him", or what you mean by it. Try to believe me when I say that my experience of God is of overwhelming love and mercy that does not bow to my perverse and rebellious 'old man' nature, that is still constantly pushing me to take over the direction of "my own" life (as if it were mine). Just to try to describe this brings more emotion up than I can handle, and I have to turn away from the attempt—not regret, but sorrow and pain all the same ...and joy at his sovereign driven-yet-tender purpose and at his magnificent own joy in it.

Not that I don't write and think the same way, but your post mixes fact with reasoning —reasoning based on certain assumptions, among which is a kind of confidence in the status of "sentient sapient" as though we humans are (to exaggerate the point) the "purveyors of fact" (if we could only get it right). We are not. God's point-of-view is the only point-of-truth. You draw conclusions as to the status of the unborn or "before they knew enough to do right or wrong" according to your categories—hellbound and heavenbound, and according to whether they deserved it or not. It sounds to me, for example, that you consider an [apparently] innocent child to undergo hell would be unfair. But we have no valid notion of what hell would be like for that child, compared, for example, to hell for Hitler, or for me. Truth is, we don't know what even ourselves deserve—we are that ignorant of the depth of sin and quite what it means to be at enmity with God, before whose burning purity none of us could live. (It is that God who endures my never-ending drive to self-determine my own ends. I don't want to need him, which is one of things for which I desperately need him. Thank God that he doesn't take me as seriously as I take myself.)

But back to the argument, I really don't care much what secular view anyone has concerning the innocence of children, in this matter. Truth is, we all die, whether horribly or after a long drawn out suffering, or any other way—no way compares to what is to come. Be hopeful that the sufferer who ends up in Hell has received already that for which he will not be punished further. God takes my sin (not me) far more seriously than I do.

For whatever it may be worth for me to say it, I, who am constantly amazed by the loving mercy of our God, can hardly stomach the notion of unborn children in Hell. I'm almost (emotionally) at the point of rejection of the horror of one like Hitler or PolPot, or even Satan, who apparently is unable to repent even now of his unspeakable atrocities, but rather delights in them—the unimaginable horror of what awaits the enemies of God is more than I can deal with, and I gratefully leave it up to God. You are right that I believe (and thank him) that he is altogether just, and will reward to each precisely what, and no more than, they deserve. To the degree that those children do not deserve hell, they will not be punished.

But we are here for his purposes and not ours. We are not an end unto ourselves.
Upvote 0

The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

Capability does not imply metaphysical status, the positional change is accountable by the act of drawing itself and not a change in the object of that drawing. If I say "It is only possible to get to Catalina Island by boat" I am not implying that something changes about Catalina Island when I get in a boat. You are once again imposing your framework on the text.
You are still repeating the same categorical mistake without engaging the objection I already offered. Let me state it again clearly.

You are treating δύναμαι as if it were an impersonal environmental condition ("a possibility exists out there"). Your Catalina island illustration proves the point. It collapses ability into an external circumstance rather than a capacity predicated of a person. But that is clearly not what John does here. δύναμαι is predicated of the subject; it describes something the person can or cannot do. That is a personal capacity, not an environmental concern.

When you say, "it is possible to get to Catalina by boat," you are describing travel conditions. John 6:44 is not describing environmental conditions. It is describing what the person can or cannot do: οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν. Unless you can give an argument from the grammar that redefines δύναμαι as an atmospheric condition rather than a predicate of personal capacity, your analogy is simply irrelevant.

My response was to you presenting the semantics as an argument.
I never presented the semantics as a theological argument. The only reason I mentioned semantics at all was to answer fhansen's attempt to use lexical data as a refutation of Calvinism. My point was that line of attack doesn't touch the Calvinist reading, because the argument for seeing irresistible grace in John 6:44 rests on the grammar, not the semantics.

I have been trying -- repeatedly -- to move this discussion toward the syntactical issues that actually matter for evaluating that argument. Yet neither of you has shown any willingness to engage the syntax itself, which is the only place the debate is decisively located.

Nope, they are quite different because one conditions the possibility on the success of the drawing, and the other simply deas in the possibility of success. Though perhaps you meant the latter with the former, they are not the same question.

Yes, the first denies that the drawing happens if it isn't succcessful by conditioning the possibility on success, the latter simply delineates possibility(though not how that possibility comes about) They're different questions.
This distinction you're trying to make is proof you're not focusing on the text. It evaporates the moment you honor John's own conditional structure:

ἑλκύσῃ --> δύναται
Drawing --> ability

There is only one stated effect of drawing in the syntax: it produces ability. There is no additional category in the sentence called "creating an abstract possibility in the environment." That is your invention, not John's. If drawing occurs but the ability does not arise in the person, then the conditional statement John wrote is false. You still have not addressed this syntactical point.

Your distinction between my two questions only works by reframing drawing as an act that produces an external possibility while leaving the subject unchanged. But that is precisely the claim at issue, and it is what you have not argued for from the text.

If δύναμαι refers to an actual personal capacity (which it does, being predicated of the subject), then drawing must generate that capacity in the person. There is no third option. If it doesn't, John's statement fails. If it does, then drawing is effectual (and hence ἑλκύσῃ denotes decisive movement) in the limited sense John actually mentions: it infallibly produces the ability he predicates.

"Ability" is a rather vague term, and speaking to the creation of a possibility is not the same as conditioning possibility on success.

Again, "ability" is a vague term that you seem to be loading with theological import that it need not have.
δύναμαι is not vague. You are attempting to blur the verb. Greek does not allow you to treat δύναμαι as a hazy atmospheric category. It is a verb of concrete capacity, applied to a subject. That is grammar, not theology. It is explicitly predicated of persons in John 6:44.

δύναμαι is a personal verb of ability. It is overwhelmingly used with personal subjects to denote their actual capacity or incapacity to perform an action. This is simply how the verb functions across the NT, LXX, as well as extra-biblical and classical usage. It is not used to express abstract or environmental possibility. Greek has other ways of expressing those things (e.g., ἔξεστιν).

You're simply trying to backload your theological presuppositions into the verse. The questions aren't the same, though given what you've elaborated I can see how you would consider them close enough.
No, I am not backloading presuppositions. That's a pretty arbitrary accusation to bring against an argument focused on the syntax of the text -- syntax you have consistently avoided. What I am doing is refusing to let you redefine δύναται, αὐτόν, and ἑλκύσῃ into categories the Greek grammar does not permit. You keep accusing me of "asserting," yet what I consistently pointed to is the syntax. What you have consistently avoided is the syntax.

If you want to contest my argument, contest the Greek. If you want to contest the Greek, produce grammar.

At the moment you're contesting neither... just my refusal to play along with a category error.
Upvote 0

Origin of Life

And so let's simplify this conversation.

Assuming you know the story of the Valley of Dry Bones, I'm going to make the point that life consists of more than just hardware and energy.
Again, no problem. If there's 'something else' that you think is needed then be my guest. I'm explaining the biology as this is the Physical and Life Sciences section. If you want to discuss theology then take it elsewhere. We don't want the thread derailed now, do we...So let's concentrate on the science.
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

The Quran is like the bible. Open to different interpretations. I get all my info about it from various people who interpret it their own way. If I'd actually read the whole thing then I'd have my own interpretation. Now, unless you have a quote or a reading or an interpretation that says Muslims can "kill those who don't convert" which isn't clarified by other verses as I did above then bring it to the table. Otherwise...
not quite, Islamic jurisprudence is heavily regulated until modernists have sought to re-write Islamic history. They say "the doors of ishtijad are closed" and defer to classic interpreters, who unanimously agreed that ayat like 9:29 were unlimited calls to war until the end of time "when there is no more fitnah." That is, of course, not adding the additional wrinkle that the Qu'ran cannot be interpreted without the hadith because it is almost entirely without context, and the actions of Muhammad are the baseline for how Muslims are supposed to behave...and he'd fit more with ISIS than with the Ahmadi.
Oops, my bad. maybe that should be "kill anyone who doesn't convert".
Perhaps I should have added "or pay the jizya" since that is what Islam calls for, modernist whitewashing not withstanding.
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

nope, they're both right. You're just falling for Islamist apologist propaganda.

Yeah, an islamist apologetics site is not the best way to get accurate information about things that aren't flattering to Islam. But hey, not everyone has the time to actually read the hadith and sira, as well as the ishtijad which is mostly in disagreement with those claims until recent attempts at whitewashing. But I'm sure you source all of your information about religions from their apologists, right?
The Quran is like the bible. Open to different interpretations. I get all my info about it from various people who interpret it their own way. If I'd actually read the whole thing then I'd have my own interpretation. Now, unless you have a quote or a reading or an interpretation that says Muslims can "kill those who don't convert" which isn't clarified by other verses as I did above then bring it to the table. Otherwise...

Oops, my bad. maybe that should be "kill anyone who doesn't convert".
Upvote 0

Origin of Life

Fine.

But let's make this even harder.

In a laboratory, put the cards back together in their previous order.

What's changed? anything?

The cards were "alive" once.

Then the cellophane was removed, the cards were shuffled, and they were "killed."

Manhandling them killed them, and now they'll never be the same.
We're assuming that the cards were in a random state to begin with. The 'prebiotic soup'. All the ingredients are there but no order. Get them in a particular order and you end up with life. Dealing cards randomly and hoping to get the sequence right in any given deal is all but impossible (frog in a blender). But if there is tiny advantage in getting a specific card out first, then there'll be a tendency for that second card to associate itself with the first when it is dealt. And the sequence gradually builds, until you have all the cards in the order that you want.
Upvote 0

Are the Jews Israel, or is the church Israel? Or does it depend on the context of the passage?

Many Christian believers are indeed descended from Abraham.
Everybody alive today has some of Abrahams genes. This is a fact of genetic dispersion, over the 3000 years, divided by 40 years = 75+ generations.
God's Promises to the Patriarchs will be kept, by those peoples who accept the salvation offered by Jesus. The Overcomers for God; literally - His Israelites.
the 10 northern tribes were an incredibly ethnically diverse group
Yes, they had the diverse characteristics of Jacobs sons. The meaning of their names and their various attributes as Prophesied by Jacob and Moses.
We know who and where they are now, from how each people group of the world received the Gospel message. Matthew 15:24
The Christian nation of South Korea is a good example.

Gods secret is that the 10 Northern tribes of Israel have, mainly, become Christian, not because of their ancestry, but because they -we Christians, chose to believe the Gospel and to obey the Commandments.
Upvote 0

Origin of Life

I'm going to disagree here.
Obviously. But it doesn't really change anything regards the matter at hand. God can install a soul anytime He wants.
I agree.

But the point is that, after the blender is shut off, you have all the hardware necessary for life to occur.

Why can't life emerge then from that pool of "biotic soup"?
It can't do it all instantly. As we agreed (as you just agreed above). If there is a 'biotic soup' then you need very many interactions between various materials to start the process. And the number of interactions and the time for each to happen is considerable. And each has to happen in sequence. Like you build a house. You start with foundations, then you build the frame. Then add the external walls etc etc. Throwing concrete and bricks and wood together randomly wouldn't work.

The hurricane in the junkyard is the same metaphor. The 747 isn't going to simply emerge fully formed. To get to that point you needed gliders to start. Then clumsy powered flight. Then control surfaces. First it was wood and fabric. Then metal, then aluminium then composites, then propellers, then jet engines...you can't jump from no aircraft straight to a 747.
As if it was alive at one point, then died, and you can't get it to fly anymore.
The pieces will often degenerate if they are not still part of the original system. But if you store them properly then you could rebuild it. Just like if you cut a leg off, if it is done so the leg doesn't start decomposing then you can reattach it on times. If your heart gives out you can get a new one. But there is currently a medical limit as to what can be taken out and replaced.
I'll go back and take a look at your deck of cards more seriously.
Cool.
Upvote 0

Trump suggests he’ll release Jeffrey Epstein ‘client list’ if elected: ‘I’d have no problem with it’

Couldn't Biden have ordered the release then? What was he waiting on?
No. My understanding is that he couldn't (or perhaps really really shouldn't) release them until Maxwell's appeals were finished, which didn't happen until this year.
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

You made two statements. And they both mean the same thing. And they are both wrong.
nope, they're both right. You're just falling for Islamist apologist propaganda.
From here: https://islam.ru/en/content/story/slay-unbelievers-wherever-you-find-them-verse-sword-explained

'The Quran says, “Slay them wherever you find them…” which abrogates all the peaceful verses in the Quran and lets Muslims kill any non-Muslim they want.'

But...

'This verse commands Muslims to defend their community against idolaters who violated their peace treaty obligations and were waging a war of aggression.

The verse is applicable only to hostile armies and not to non-Muslims in general. We should look at the entire chapter and interpret the verses comprehensively and consistently, rather than taking one verse out of context.

And...

"When the sacred months have passed, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give charity, let them go on their way. Verily, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.:

But...

Some scholars referred to this as the “verse of the sword” because it commands the Muslims to defend the community against their enemies, but this is merely the designation of some scholars and it was not labeled as such by the Prophet, his companions, or the early Muslims. The verse allows for hostilities to cease if the idolaters repent from their transgression and become Muslims. Even if they refuse to accept Islam, the verse immediately following commands peace with any idolater who stops fighting and asks for a covenant of security.
Yeah, an islamist apologetics site is not the best way to get accurate information about things that aren't flattering to Islam. But hey, not everyone has the time to actually read the hadith and sira, as well as the ishtijad which is mostly in disagreement with those claims until recent attempts at whitewashing. But I'm sure you source all of your information about religions from their apologists, right?
Upvote 0

Imitatio Christi - is the following Biblical?

Hey Colo Millz, Kiwi in Tokyo here—years of chronic pain have made Phil 3:10 my lifeline. When I choose to unite the ache to Christ’s, it stops feeling pointless and becomes partnership: purging pride, deepening compassion, and reminding me the nails weren’t the worst part—bearing our sin was (Luke 22:44). Biblical, provided we remember our pain participates in, never completes, His finished work (Col 1:24; Rom 8:18). Thanks for putting biblical meat on a hard reality—fellow-partakers, not the punished. Grace to you.

I myself also suffer from chronic pain and know of what you speak. It is a consolation.
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

I spoke of muslim beligerants, and I stand by my statement even with you attempting to mischaracterize it.
You made two statements. And they both mean the same thing. And they are both wrong.
It's not just apostates, it's anyone they classify as kafiri...which is pagans, polytheists, atheists, and idolaters.
From here: https://islam.ru/en/content/story/slay-unbelievers-wherever-you-find-them-verse-sword-explained

'The Quran says, “Slay them wherever you find them…” which abrogates all the peaceful verses in the Quran and lets Muslims kill any non-Muslim they want.'

But...

'This verse commands Muslims to defend their community against idolaters who violated their peace treaty obligations and were waging a war of aggression.

The verse is applicable only to hostile armies and not to non-Muslims in general. We should look at the entire chapter and interpret the verses comprehensively and consistently, rather than taking one verse out of context.

And...

"When the sacred months have passed, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give charity, let them go on their way. Verily, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.:

But...

Some scholars referred to this as the “verse of the sword” because it commands the Muslims to defend the community against their enemies, but this is merely the designation of some scholars and it was not labeled as such by the Prophet, his companions, or the early Muslims. The verse allows for hostilities to cease if the idolaters repent from their transgression and become Muslims. Even if they refuse to accept Islam, the verse immediately following commands peace with any idolater who stops fighting and asks for a covenant of security.
Upvote 0

Trump suggests he’ll release Jeffrey Epstein ‘client list’ if elected: ‘I’d have no problem with it’

Trump says he signed Epstein bill

It's unlikely the Justice Department would release the entire Epstein file, according to sources. Any materials related to ongoing investigations or White House claims of executive privilege will likely remain out of public view.

Trump did not need to wait for Congress to act -- he could order the release immediately.
Couldn't Biden have ordered the release then? What was he waiting on?
Upvote 0

Trump suggests he’ll release Jeffrey Epstein ‘client list’ if elected: ‘I’d have no problem with it’

Trump says he signed Epstein bill

It's unlikely the Justice Department would release the entire Epstein file, according to sources. Any materials related to ongoing investigations or White House claims of executive privilege will likely remain out of public view.

Trump did not need to wait for Congress to act -- he could order the release immediately.
Upvote 0

Vatican stops use of titles for Mary

2 Tim 3:15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

The Scriptures Timothy knew from his infancy ( most likely before Christ was crucified ) is the Tanakh. Paul COULD NOT be referring to the Bible. Paul was referring to the Tanakh.
There's also the question of what theopneustas means in context, because there is a good case to be made that prior to Origen the idea was a life-giving property to the texts which fits with Pauls focus on the usefulness of the Scriptures in pastoral service rather than a theory of inspiration. It is out-breath not in-breath.
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist

Vatican stops use of titles for Mary

2 Tim 3:15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

The Scriptures Timothy knew from his infancy ( most likely before Christ was crucified ) is the Tanakh. Paul COULD NOT be referring to the Bible. Paul was referring to the Tanakh.

Not even the Tanakh, but St. Timothy would in infancy have known only the Targumim, or Aramaic glosses of it, which would have been understood before one learned the liturgical Hebrew, since in the year 0, Hebrew was a liturgical language like the Latin, Koine Greek, Church Slavonic or Jacobean English of today (one major error made by Vatican II was the presumption of an imperative for vernacular in the liturgy even though Vatican II never declared an all-vernacular liturgy; comprehensibility is enough, where admittedly Latin was losing ground, but what was indicated was the use of liturgical languages like Galgolithic had been used in the Slavic lands and the formal Jacobean English used by Anglicans and until recently by all Anglophone Eastern Orthodox; even more wrong was the choice of an intentional oversimplification of the text via a vis “and also with you” instead of “and with thy spirit” found in the ancient Greek and Latin liturgies.
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

There is? Only if it was: "kill some of those those who don't convert" and "kill anyone who doesn't convert". If you have a different religion and you don't convert, according to you then either sentence is applicable. Which is not correct.
I spoke of muslim beligerants, and I stand by my statement even with you attempting to mischaracterize it.
Apostasy is a different matter.
It's not just apostates, it's anyone they classify as kafiri...which is pagans, polytheists, atheists, and idolaters. Which is the marching orders from the end of Muhammad's life, which is why abrogation is an important concept to understand to understand Islamic jurisprudence. Apostasy is a different matter, which is why I wasn't talking about apostates.
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,878,434
Messages
65,417,709
Members
276,384
Latest member
CLEEB