Dan1988 said:

Most Christians like the meek and mild Jesus, but they don't like the One who is returning as a Man of war to kill billions of people again. He is the same Jesus who will cast sinners into the lake of fire, while the beg for mercy.

Click to expand...

Lotta really dubious stuff in the Revelation, IMO. Kinda hard to reconcile our Lord sd we see him in the Gospels and epistles with the radically different person we see in the Apocolypse. The Savior of the World vs. the Exterminator of Humanity, Quite a jarring contrast.

Yo still have the same problem that all damnationists have with ECT; the assumption that everyone lives forever by default, Nowhere does Scripture say any such thing, Your lot find yourselves in the curious position of believing that God gives the damed the "gift" of eternal life so as to be able to torture them forever. We're told quite explicitly that the wages of sin is death, but central assumption of damnationism is that the damned Iive eternally in torment. One or both of those assertions must be untrue.

Pope Leo wearing a Saturno, etc was part of the plan to get people to believe he's a traditionalist......

joymercy said:

We have been bringing bibles and handouts with the gospel readings for each upcoming Sunday and having all manner of discussions from those readings alone.

All are invited.

Anyone else try this or want to try it?

Click to expand...

May you be blessed with this initiative ... it's a challenging demographics !

Semper-Fi said:

John 3:6 (KJV)​

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Click to expand...

And how can. you explain. what BORN. of. the SPIRIT REALLY MEANS ??

And. in verse 5. it says :

# 1 JESUS //. IOUUS. , is. in the NOMINATIVE CASE , in. the SIGULAR

# 2. ANSWERED. //. APOKRINOMIA , in. the AORIST TENSE , in. the MIDDLE VOICE , in. the INDICATIVE MOOD. , mean

you better believe it

# 3 VERILY //. AMEN

# 4. I. SAY //. LEGO. , in. the PRESENT TENSE. , in. the ACTIVE VOICE , in. the INDICATIVE MOOD. , in. the SINGULAR

# 5 UNTO THEE //. SOI. , is a PERSONAL POSSESSIVE. PRONOUN , in. the Dative case , in. the SIGNULAR

# 6 EXCEPT // ME , is. a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE ,

# 7 A. MAN //. TIS is. a INDEFINITE PRONOUN. , in. the NOMINATIVE CASE , in. the SINGULAR

# 8. BE BORN. / GENNAO. , in. the AORIST TENSE , in. the PASSIVE VOICE. , in. a SUBJUNCTIVE. , in. the SINGULAR

# 9 OF // is. a PREPOISTION

# 10. WATER // HYDOR , in. the GENITIVE CASE , in. the SIGNULAR , in. the NEUTER

# 11 AND // KAI , is. a CONJUNCATION

# 12. OF. THE SPIRIT // PNEUMA. in. the GENITIVE CASE , in. the SINGULAR , in. the NEUTER

# 13. HE CANNOT //. DYNAMAI. , is. in. the PRESENT TENSE , MIDDLE VOICE , in. the PASSIVE VOICE , in. the INDICATIVE MOOD

in. the SIGNULAR

# 14 ENTER // EISERCHAMAI , is. an AORIST TENSE , in. the ACTIVE VOICE ,

# 15 INTO // EIS is a PERPOSTION

# 16. THE // HO , is. a DEFINITE ARTICLE , is an. ACCUSATIVE CASE , in. the SIGNULAR.

# 17. KINGDOM // BASILEIA is in. th ACCUSATIVE CASE , in. the SIGULAR

# 18. OF GOD //. THEOS , in. the GENITIVE CASE , in. the SINGULAR


AND MY QUESTION. is HOW are you BORN OF WATER. ??

dan p

Chesterton said:

The word is a recognition that two things are different things. A ≠ B. If I transport something to another place, that place is by definition a different place.

Click to expand...

yeah, but so what?

Soyeong said:

You have neglected to give any reason to think that that the commands of Christ are not in complete accordance with the Law of Moses, especially considering that he said that man shall live by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Christ set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses, so do you think that he gave commands that were not in accordance with what he practiced and that he hypocritically took the position that we should only do as he said but not as he did?

Click to expand...

The scripture texts say "His" commandments, as in Jesus, not moses.

Soyeong said:

The way to love the Father is by being a doer of His character traits in obedience to the Law of Moses, which is exactly the same as the way to love the Son, who is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3).

Click to expand...

You're not obeying Jesus if you're obeying moses. In fact, a person obeying moses does not know Jesus, and He does not know them.

o_mlly said:

If all acts of rape are wrong then rape is intrinsically wrong, absolutely wrong.

Click to expand...

You're making the same mistake as others. To reword that:

If all acts of sexual intercourse that are committed without consent and are therefore by definition wrong are wrong then they are objectively wrong.

You've just said that if something is defined by the context as being wrong then it's wrong irrespective of the context.

parade

Always in His Presence said:

Week two of the Schumer shutdown coming ip

Click to expand...

Do you believe the GOP bear any responsibility in this shutdown?

Clare73 said:

Ro 7:9 is absolutely not figurative, nor did I say it was.
Paul is speaking there of his own experience from the vantage point of his present understanding.
Before he realized that the law condemned him to death, he was alive.
"When the commandment came;" i.e., when Paul came to the realization that he stood guilty before the law and was condemned to death.

Click to expand...

So, if you aren't using "alive" figuratively, then what exactly does it mean? I'm taking it to mean he was spiritually alive. It looks like you are saying it means psychologically "alive", that it's a point of view, that since he is ignorant of guilt, he doesn't feel condemned. Is this your meaning? If so, then you are certainly interpreting it figuratively. In my mind, "alive" is a literal term, meaning spiritually alive, since he is speaking of the spiritual condition in this passage. If you mean that when the law came to him "I died" means he came to the realization that he is guilty, then you are certainly using it figuratively.

Clare73 said:

Ro 5:17, 18-19, 14-16, is not mere premise, it is Biblical fact:

Click to expand...

What do you mean "mere premise"? Who said the verse was a "mere premise"? You misunderstood what I wrote, and it appears to me you are confusing the text with your interpretation of it. This is the basis of the argument. It does NOT say the sin of Adam is imputed. That's your interpretation. Can you see a difference? You approach the text with the preconceived idea that it means Adam's sin is imputed. But the text doesn't say that. So how you are reading the text is faulty.

Clare73 said:

death is the wages of sin (Ro 6:23),
sin is trangression of the law (1 Jn 3:4),
where there is no law, there is no transgresion/sin (Ro 4:15) and, therefore no death.

Click to expand...

When applied to infants, what you quote here could easily mean they are spiritually alive and innocent.

Clare73 said:

There was no law between Adam and Moses and, therefore, no transgression/sin to cause their deaths.
Then what caused the deaths of those between Adam and Moses when they did not sin against the law?
Their deaths were caused by the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19) to all mankind when there was no law to transgress and cause death.

Click to expand...

This is your interpretation, which I differ with. In the first place, you are interpreting Paul's statement as "there was no law between Adam and Moses, therefore no transgression." But Paul has to mean something different than that, because there was certainly law, albeit not the law of Moses. Examples: Cain most certainly knew he had violated an unwritten (or unspoken) law "you shall not commit murder." If he thought he was innocent, he would not have lied to God saying he didn't know where Abel was. But he did lie, because he wanted to escape the impending judgment in violation of that moral principle. This is how we know there was law prior to Moses. Another example is when God said to Noah if a man sheds another man's blood (murder), his blood shall be shed (capital punishment). This is most certainly law before Moses. A 3rd example is God rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah because their sins stunk to high heaven. In this we can see there was most certainly law and transgression prior to Moses. Therefore Paul had to mean something different than what you claim.

Sin is sin regardless of whether one knows it or not. Ignorance of the law does not make someone innocent, not guilty, or not a sinner. So everyone who sinned prior to Moses still suffered the consequences, which was death.

Clare73 said:

Physical death wasn't "natural" until Adam sinned. . .physical death is the consequence of Adam's sin.

Now I see where your problem is.
Mine is not a figurative but a literal understansing of Ro 5:12-19 (post #7), where in Ro 5:17, 18-19 Adam's sin is imputed to all those of Adam, and which imputation is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for Christ's righteousness being imputed to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

Click to expand...

I disagree with you, you only see a problem because I am disagreeing. No, your understanding is figurative, mine is literal. But you can't see that, can you? In that whole passage Paul is talking about spiritual death, not physical. Therefore, my interpretation is literal, in line with Paul's conversation.

And I disagree with your premise "physical death wasn't "natural" until Adam sinned." Nowhere does the scripture say that. Rom. 5 is speaking of spiritual life and death, not physical life and death. Adam died because he was denied access to the tree of life. This is clearly taught in Genesis. Physical and material death is all around us as a natural process, so your theory doesn't hold water.

Can you see the truth in my response here?

Carl Emerson said:

No one should take payment for being 'spiritual'.

Discuss...

Click to expand...

True - God's word and truth are not for sale. There seems to be a strong vibe from Paul though that kingdom workers (e.g. pastors) should be paid/compensated properly:

• 1 Corinthians 9:13–14
• Galatians 6:6
• 1 Timothy 5:17–18

Yet for himself Paul does at places emphasise he earned a living not to be a burden to anyone:

• 1 Thessalonians 2:9

I would imagine it's a relative thing - I struggle with the situation where poor Africans support a lavishly living pastor. Bu a very affluent congregation paying a meagre wage to their pastor also doesn't sit well.

The book say in 1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. This is talking about the first resurrection and those who after the white throne judgement. Only then you can't sin no more.

Let's take a look at Jesus for an example of born of God, and of we know Jesus did no sin. But let's read that in 1 Peter 2: 21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Let's go to John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Take a look at the 12th verse. It states, "The ones that received him he gave them power to become the sons of God.” Remember that you will only become a Son of God if you follow His word. Look at the 14th verse. Notice it says he is the only begotten of the Father.

What does only mean? If He (Jesus) is the only one born of God how can anyone make the statement they are born again. Only means only. If you are born of God you will not be able to sin any longer. Read this carefully in I John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Can anyone say they commit no sin? No! If you are born (born again) into the God family you must be a spirit being. Here is another verse stating Jesus is the only begotten son.

So when Jesus died and born again he had a different Body and can do other things like pop up from nowhere, etc. Look at what 1 Peter says in Ch 1: 23 being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. Paul confirm what Peter says the same thing in 1 Corthinan 15: 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Let's go into Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. 29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. 30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

Look at verse 31, once they realized that it was Jesus they spoke with, what happen? He vanished out of their sight. Remember in John chapter 3 and verse 8. The Lord gave an example of how a spirit would look. He likened a spirit to the wind.( John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.)

Paul says in Philippians 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

And when will this take place?

Again in I Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, ando the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

At the last trump, and not a moment before.

Pommer said:

Why can’t we just accept them as immigrants?

Our population is diminishing, we’ll soon need immigrants, otherwise, we won’t have enough people to keep everything running.
Then the world will watch as we topple from the pinnacle of the economic world and plummet towards ignominy.
But at least we didn’t compromise.

Click to expand...

And I thought it was just rich conservatives who wanted cheap labor

BelieveItOarKnot said:

I don't deny the applicability of every word of God to everyone, per God:

Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4, Deut. 8:3

As to your position analysis it consistently fails to bring the perps into the sights and only lays the blame on people, completely ignoring the plight of blinded slaveship imposed on them by that enemy

We should know as believers we ALL have a mutual unseen adversary. Therefore any position failing to account for this is technically, void and without merit[/COLOR]

Click to expand...

I see some insinuations but no specifics.

eclipsenow said:

I've been wondering for days why Pete Hegseth's 'speech' sounded like a high school gym teacher 'dumbing it down' for junior high students? I think I've found it.

As a former soldier I only had 4 years in the Australian Army Survey Corp making maps, and was never posted overseas in active engagement with the enemy! (Yes - and then I went on to study welfare and ended up in Child Protection - just in case anyone wanted to challenge my having a military background as well. I'm a 'career-carnie' and have moved sideways, across the lower rungs of many ladders, instead of up one ladder.)

However, Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges provided feedback helped clarify it for me. And it's fairly basic:-

CIVILIZED OR NOT?
America needs to have allies and friends confident that they are one of us, one of those freedom loving nations that follow international law in the conventions of warfare. It's not "politically correct" or "woke" to follow the Geneva Convention! It's not some grand leftist conspiracy to make the American military less effective to try and limit the horror of war - especially as modern arms have become more precise and discriminating in targeting enemy combatants rather than just carpet bombing an enemy city - military and civilians alike. It's what separates us from the way the Russians are indiscriminately attacking civilian apartments and infrastructure in Ukraine.

MAXIMUM LETHALITY OR MAXIMUM MISSION BRIEF?
'Maximum lethality' only works in certain very specific missions.
Some combat situations DO require 'maximum lethality' - and the Obama administration used that when necessary! EG: Taking out Bin Laden. So what's this "woke" nonsense?

PEACE-KEEPING
But in a post-war peace-keeping capacity, in "Jus Post Bellum" AFTER the combat - you do NOT want trigger happy soldiers to randomly mow down any crowd of upset civilians! Because in the chaos of a post-war situation, there just is going to to be many instances where unhappy crowds are shouting and jostling around supply trucks, or protesting the many issues that arise when rebuilding both the infrastructure of buildings and government processes from scratch.

PROPAGANDA - AND THAT AWKWARD MIKE-DROP MOMENT
It's the same old MAGA playbook. Manufacture a perceived crisis - and then come in - flapping gums blazing - acting like the White Hat Sheriff promising to save the day. It's a showdown at High Noon with "woke leftists". Except - Hegseth's gym class is aimed at the world's most elite generals and admirals. His last line was delivered like a "mike drop" moment - yet was met with stony silence at the end.

Is ANYONE in this administration REMOTELY qualified to do their job!?

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

I saw him described as a low-level officer who was assigned to insignificant posts who now cosplays as a specops wannabe. It struck me as fitting.

DaisyDay said:

Wasn't that the one where he asked about shooting protesters in the legs but got refused?

Click to expand...

Probably also - but it's hard to keep up with the way this man's petty outbursts flood the media zone all the time. It seems he famously said it about the George Floyd protests because they triggered his NPD.

Former Pentagon chief Esper says Trump asked about shooting protesters​

Mark Esper has written a book about the challenges he faced as Defense secretary in the Trump administration.
Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images
Former Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper said President Donald Trump inquired about shooting protesters amid the unrest that took place after George Floyd's murder in 2020. He recounts that incident, and many others, in a wide-ranging interview with NPR's Michel Martin on All Things Considered.
Esper said he stayed in the administration because he worried that if he left, the president would more easily implement some of his "dangerous ideas."
The former Defense chief also said he hopes Trump does not seek the presidency in 2024.
"We need leaders of integrity and character, and we need leaders who will bring people together and reach across the aisle and do what's best for the country. And Donald Trump doesn't meet the mark for me on any of those issues."
Esper said he and other top officials were caught off guard by Trump's reaction to the unrest in the summer of 2020.


"The president was enraged," Esper recalled. "He thought that the protests made the country look weak, made us look weak and 'us' meant him. And he wanted to do something about it.
"We reached that point in the conversation where he looked frankly at [Joint Chiefs of Staff] Gen. [Mark] Milley and said, 'Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?' ... It was a suggestion and a formal question. And we were just all taken aback at that moment as this issue just hung very heavily in the air."

As a young Army captain in the mid-1990s, Esper said he saw the office occupied by the Defense secretary as hallowed ground, a place he hardly dared imagine himself. Yet, there he was 21 years later, serving as President Trump's secretary of Defense; facing challenges he also never imagined.

He wrote about those challenges in a new book, A Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times. In it, Esper describes Trump as a volatile, ill-informed leader obsessed with power and self image.
Esper also detailed in his book a campaign by the former president and his then-chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to deny a promotion to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, whose congressional testimony led to Trump's first impeachment.

Vindman, a Ukraine expert and former official with the National Security Council, testified that he was present during a now-infamous phone call between the former president and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in which Trump tried to blackmail Zelenskyy for political dirt on Joe Biden and his family. That allegation helped ignite the impeachment effort against Trump.
Esper said he worries about the fallout from Trump's political tactics.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

You're saying we should prevent things we can't prove it happens.

Yea, that’s about right. Gop and MAGA wants to stop which doesn’t exist!

Click to expand...

It's a ruse to do what then can to make it harder for people to vote.
I can't number the times a GOP official actually let out the truth and noted the whole aim being to vote suppress.

My feeling (some years ago this was when I was visiting churches) was that some churches simply haven't matured, no matter what they say to the contrary. I felt there was little freedom to move or even learn to move in the spiritual gifts in some, or find someone who could guide me. Doctrinal purity is emphasised. Some were against "Wholeness" teachings and the idea of Recovery (ie. from addictions). I realise that Recovery is a more secular idea and this is sometimes is done along different lines than Christian sanctification, and some aspects of it could be questioned. But the antipathy to Inner Healing and Personal Wholeness I felt was odd. I don't know what they thought "wholeness" meant that they were opposed to it!!

BCP1928 said:

What's abortion got to do with it?

Click to expand...

He used the Pope the way conservatives use Bill Maher.

Pepperdoodle said:

Could CBS be heading toward covering the News without a strong Left leaning bias?

Click to expand...

Well now, that's a loaded question...

longhair75 said:

This getting old thing sure isn't what it looked like in the brochures ;o)

Click to expand...

Boy, it certainly isn't!!! It's nice to have all this accumulated wisdom, and to be past all the silliness of youth, but nobody mentioned the regrets you have looking back and seeing where you could have done things better---not to mention the screaming pain you get in your bones past age 60!

Good to see you, brother.

Romans is a book that is often the topic of fierce debate, when it comes to the theological topic of Predestination, and free will. Personally, I believe that God has given man free will, that all people will be given a chance of life, but their choices determine whether they will be saved.

One of the key topics of this debate is the fact that God brings blindness to the sinner. If a person believes in Predestination, they will say, “A portion of the world was always destined, or planned, to be blind from the beginning”. That, “God only rescues a selected portion of creation, not based on man’s deeds, but God’s choice”.

I would like to show from Romans 1 that it makes more sense to believe spiritual blindness comes as “a result of disobedience”, not as a default; it comes because of man’s choice. As we see in the 21st verse.


Romans 1:21 shows us that God gives His knowledge to all, but some men choose to “supress” or push down that knowledge, God then gives those people over to blindness.

We see that also in:


God sends strong delusion to those who have “pleasure in unrighteousness”. So a debased mind is not the default, but rather what we are given over to if we delight in sin.


The earliest Church Leaders also taught that man “as it were, blind themselves”

Note: blindness in this post is not referring to Spiritual Ignorance, but rather a deep blindness that prevents salvation from occurring. We are all born with Spiritual Ignorance, blindness in this post refers to that which prevents salvation.