New Posts

rjs330 · 2025-11-12T00:10:57-0600

FreeinChrist said:
But they weren't.

Yeah they were.

FreeinChrist said:
That is back to "looking brown, must be illegal."

Thats not happening.

FreeinChrist said:
Without someone saying something, how do you know where they are known to be".

People are saying things. And they arw investigating.

FreeinChrist said:
It is unfortunate that Trump didn't want that bill reforming immigration to pass which would have helped a great deal.

Well thats what the Demicrats said. Im a bit skeptical that the group that belonged to a president who's let so many illegals in instead of keeping them out actually had keeping them.out in mind. No I didn't trust them at all.

rebornfree · 2025-11-11T23:55:54-0600

To have Christisn fellowship at any time of the day or night and to meet people from around the world. Also you have time to consider what to say and you can choose which topics to engage with and which to avoid.

SarahsKnight · 2025-11-11T23:45:23-0600

80's classic that I have somehow only just now become fond of. ^_^

Login to view embedded media
@Multifavs , I hope i do not presume too much about your personality when i say this sounds like it might be your kind of love song. Give it a listen! :angel:

Side note: Actor Andrew McCarthy was cool. I actually am not familiar with anything he was in past the 80's, though, strangely.

eclipsenow · 2025-11-11T23:34:47-0600

Chesterton said:
Personally, I respect an atheist even less for using an emergence argument. It has something in common with the multiverse, in that it's a complete fabrication with zero evidence. I've never accepted the word "emergence" being used in a scientific or philosophical context. It's a vacuous placeholder word used to gloss over the fact that we don't know the details about certain processes. Saying that something emerged is not saying anything worth saying.

But properties do emerge?

A2SG · 2025-11-11T23:31:21-0600

probinson said:
As I've said twice now, the analogy is inane. It has no real point.

And yet, it did. Apparently you missed it, and continue to.

-- A2SG, oh well, I tried....

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-11T23:25:21-0600

stevevw said:
Out comes the vicious ad hominems lol.

Learn what an "ad hom" is, Steve. I was not attempting to defeat an argument from Lennox or Peterson based on their personal characteristics. I don't even know why they were mentioned in this thread as they have no relevance. ln fact is the other way around. I dislike Peterson and Lennox *because* of their positions and how they argue them.

stevevw said:
The bias is showing. Not being able to "stand someone" doesn't seem like an objective fact. More a personal and emotional opinion and belief.

So millions of Christiand agree with Lennox beliefs.

I doubt that many Christians have even heard of some mathematician.

stevevw said:
I suppose you can't stand them either. Or is it something personal against Peterson and Lennox you can't stand.

You already read my statement. Peterson sells philosophical and psychological woo while stringing along the suckers by implying, but never stating, that he is a Christian. Lennox makes unfounded claims that science "proves God". Both are also ridiculously arrogant and condescending.

stevevw said:
One persons trash is anothers treasure. Strange how that works.

I do not know why you keep picking through the trash.

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-11T23:07:05-0600

Fervent said:
Not ultimately, no.

Did you emerge from a jar of honey, or are you a regular human like the rest of us. Your confusion on the topic of where humans come from is baffling.

Fervent said:
God's nature, as in His essence

Why should morality depend on what a god is made of?

Fervent said:
Existence is a category for objects, not truths. Truths either obtain or they don't, but there are numerous ways for a truth to obtain.

what you consider sensible is of no interest to me.

And so assertion is as good an argument as any.

"Demonstrable"? By what means? And to whom? We're quickly treading towards the diallelus.

I must conclude that there is no discussion available with you. You have made it clear that you hold that morality is a brute fact of reality because your god exists and because that is why morality exists, morality must be objective (as your god has no apparent mind to which morality is subject) and perhaps absolute. You will not even discuss with in any other possible framework or consider even a divinely imposed subjective (to the god) morality.

bbbbbbb · 2025-11-11T23:06:12-0600

eclipsenow · 2025-11-11T23:05:46-0600

Vambram said:
The Mueller investigation was the weaponization and lawfare of the justice systems.

Oh please! That's straight out of Trump's NPD caused projection!
Who do you think is Tweeting every day that he wants this person arrested, this person sued, that journalist fired, blah blah blah....

eclipsenow · 2025-11-11T23:02:48-0600

Daniel Martinovich said:
"The Beast" was already interpreted for us in Daniel as being the 4 gentile empires. Babylon, Medo\Persia, Greece and Roman. This was a time period of the worldwide oppression of the saints. It started in 597BC when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judea and ended in 1453AD when what had been the capitol of the Roman Empire since 333AD Constantinople fell to the Ottomans. The importance of understanding the prophecy in Daniel and Revelation is so that one can know when the 100 or so chapters of a promised age of billions coming to Christ and a growing free world pioneered by Christians would begin. Which was after the Roman Empire ends.

I was with you until you projected past the New Testament era. The REALITY amongst theologians that matter is Daniel's 4 kingdoms are REALLY complex to interpret - but that it's past. It's either fulfilled by Rome or not - and the complicated apocalyptic symbolism around the end of this sequence is pointing to Jesus. Or not. It's very, very tricky.

I was lucky enough to have a Professor of Old Testament at my church for years - and even he says it's very, very tricky.
There are debates about how it might unfold around Antiochus - or up to Jesus. The years don't work as years either way - but might work as chunks - as rough fractions of time in a symbolic sense.

And Revelation borrows from this imagery, but John does his own thing with it. The 4 beasts are amalgamated into one - representing ALL God's enemies.

Trying to get literal with calendars just makes me yawn.
It's just. Not. True!

That's the way of endless disputes amongst various tribes of futurist - and is why I leave this forum for 6 months at a time.

GodDoesListen55 · 2025-11-11T23:00:07-0600

Durian.

Shane R · 2025-11-11T22:59:59-0600

A local HVAC company runs a yearly promotion in which they give two new furnaces and a few repair services to veterans of the US armed forces. I won a furnace! Which is good because the one currently in the house gave up the ghost some time ago. We've been heating with electric space heaters when heat is needed. Just got first snow on Monday.

eclipsenow · 2025-11-11T22:56:44-0600

The shutdown was because Republicans don't think people need to .... eat.

A2SG · 2025-11-11T22:56:25-0600

Fervent said:
Sure, and I have no problem extending that criticism since I'm not celebrating Abbot gerrymandering.

That's all I asked at the outset. I simply found it curious when you stopped short of criticizing Abbott for his actions, but not Newsom, when the latter at least allowed the voters to weigh in before taking action.

Fervent said:
No, I am not unwilling I'm just not invested in TX politics because Abbot is not my governor.

Understood. I don't live in either state myself. But if the issue is the act of gerrymandering, surely one isn't required to be a resident of a particular state to voice an opinion.

Fervent said:
Only because he was required to, and he spent outlandish sums to disenfranchise a portion of his voters.

What did he spend those "outlandish sums" on, exactly?

Fervent said:
As I have said elsewhere, I don't find democracy to be a particularly compelling form of governance. Two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner, nothing but mob rule.

Yeah, yeah, I've heard that bit before. Another pithy quote: "Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Winston Churchill)

But, if you don't like democracy as practiced in this country, you do realize that you're free to find a preferable form of governance if you so choose, right? Just a friendly reminder, nothing more.

Fervent said:
Legal and moral are not the same, and Newsome showing he is nothing but a party hack who has no integrity is not contingent on his actions being illegal.

Well, morality is a subjective thing, while laws are objective. You can view his actions as immoral if you so choose, but that's only according to your personal moral framework. Others may view the morality differently, and their views are no less valid than your own. Given that, Newsom reacted to an unfair attempt to increase GOP representation in Texas, at the behest of Donald Trump, and asked the voters if they agreed with his plan to counter that. They did. Whether or not that shows integrity or a lack of it depends on individual opinion, I guess.

Fervent said:
I am, other than the fact that I am not invested in TX politics as I am not in TX. Newsome is my governor, and he has chosen party loyalty over the interests of voters in his state. I already knew he had no integrity, but this is just a cherry on the pie.

Actually, California voters do agree with his actions, as evidenced by the measure passing. Sure, not everyone voted for it, but that's how democracy works. You don't have to like that, but I'd suggest it's a better, more fair way to govern than by fiat, as evidenced by Abbott in Texas.

-- A2SG, and Donald Trump, let's not forget he gave the marching orders....

Reluctant Theologian · 2025-11-11T22:47:12-0600

ChubbyCherub said:
Thank you very much.

They have not addressed Paul's comments re: Ephesus rather his at Corinth. They stated that Paul is not suggesting that women need to be quiet, submit or not have leadership or ministry roles in church but that it was contextual for the time and place Paul was instructing in Corinth.

Specifically, women in Corinth were leaders/owners of brothels and were used to positions of power within society and at home as they were the financial heads of the families. As a result, they were raucous at church which Paul felt was distracting and didn't allow for people to hear the message that was intended, hence, a set of societal rules laid out to assist a very specific situation.

They stated that Paul's words are misrepresented and misinterpreted because the verses are read out of context instead of read as a whole. I read the bible and didn't see where the information re: woman's job roles, financial status etc came from so was put into a position where I had to instruct the family to just 'trust' what was being taught at church. But, they are very educated and so this was not sufficient for them hence the quest for further information.

Regarding Pauls letter to Timothy re: Ephesus, I have not yet addressed this with my church given that we now see that Paul says the same about Ephesus and there is not an explanation regarding why the women, or exactly how the women, were behaving in whatever way initiated Pauls comments. I might possibly ask them but I have asked them so many things already and, much like this forum, I have to allow people to keep up with all the questions I fire off!

Many thanks!

The pattern in Paul's letters is that the trigger/reason to write about a certain subject may be a concerning situation in that specific church/fellowship, but the instructions for Christian conduct are universal, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

E.g. in 1 Corinthians 5 Paul discusses a serious case of immorality occurring in that church; how to deal with such a case and how to uphold standards of holiness is universal. In the TNK/OT God gave varying instructions to the Israelites on how to deal with the nations to Joshua, but how to behave once they conquered and inherited the land was universal.

So the reason why Paul addresses head-covering in 1st Corinthians is likely because an issue with that had arisen (possibly women removing their head-covering), yet the instruction on how to pray/prophesy would be expected to be universal. This pattern can be noticed in e.g. 1 Corinthians 14:34–35: the background/trigger is expected to be a local issue at that time, but Paul highlights the alignment of his instruction with Torah (=the Law) as universal guideline.

E.g. when some masters treated their slaves badly this could have been a reason to admonish the masters to the treat their slaves well, but it's nonsensical to suggest the instruction for proper conduct for a master or slave is ONLY for that local church with that issue.

Yet since the 1960's with the rise of Feminism and consequently the push for egalitarian theology (removing remnants of Patriarchy) we see exactly that. Unique exceptional alleged circumstances in the addressed churches are presented to argue that Paul's instructions on marriage, women in churches or even homosexuality are ONLY applicable to the local unique situation; basically neutralising their universal applicability. There are a few problems with this approach:

Paul's text itself does not give any clues that the instructions for model behaviour or local-only
it ignores the fact Paul gives general theological arguments that are time/culture independent (this includes the Torah reference, but also creation order, deception order, etc.)
it doesn't work for 1 Peter as this is not addressed to a particular church - yet its message is identical to Paul's on the issue of marriage/women's role
the very fact the entire Christian church throughout history had a fairly unanimous view, but all of a sudden under influence of (secular) Feminism since the 1960's the rising pressure for 're-interpretation' to make the Bible compatible with 20-21 st century Western values should be a red flag.

To make practised homosexuality acceptable in churches nowadays a similar argument is applied: in those days there were no committed loving relationships between men, so Paul's prohibitions (fully in line with Torah) of course ONLY would apply to non-committed casual relationships/hook-ups, so Paul certainly would approve of those committed loving homosexual relationships today. This approach conveniently makes an assumption not present in the text itself in a desperate effort to neutralise the principle already present in Torah.

Suffice to say I find these approaches highly speculative and dependent on conjecture - wishful thinking to suit a particular (new) agenda.

You mention 'women in Corinth were leaders/owners of brothels and were used to positions of power within society and at home as they were the financial heads of the families.' ... I would submit that is highly unlikely to be true for that church as a substantial part of the Corinthian church were Jews who practised their religion as such previously (you can find clues for that in the text of 1 Corinthians).

Yes, Yeshua was revolutionary in that he encourages women to follow Him, to listen to His teaching (Mary), to speak privately with a woman (the woman at the well in Samaria) - and Paul presumes women are praying and prophesying - the Holy Spirit is poured out on all; yet it's not a cultural conformist move by Yeshua to ONLY appoint males as the 12 - that's intentional.

E.g. great effort is made by egalitarians to try to argue that in 1 Timothy 2:12 Paul doesn't really mean women shouldn't have 'authority' over men, but only 'should not usurp/seize authority from men'. I.e. so supposedly when a bishop/elder gives that authority to a woman she is completely fine wielding authority over men. But this overlooks the very first part of that verse that also says a woman should not teach a man; and the verse before that were Paul instructs Timothy a woman should learn 'in subjection', and the verse after that (v 13) where a universal creation order argument is used, and the fact Timonthy's task was to set-up/organise several churches and v. 8 clearly has a universal nature ... Egalitarian reading makes a complete mess of this section.

The Bible in both TNK/OT and NT is Patriarchal, but divine love takes the sting and strive out of that - as it does for master/slave relationships or those between parents and children.

Be blessed sister - and welcome to correct me in case you detect an error in my thinking !

rebornfree · 2025-11-11T22:45:57-0600

Michie said:
Jews are already inherently unique. We don’t need to prove it by naming our kids Cinnamon, Aqua, or Afternoon.

A clip from the second season of the Netflix series Nobody Wants This recently made the rounds in the parent-verse. In it, interfaith couple Joanne and Noah (Kristen Bell and Adam Brody) attend a baby-naming party and submit to only the most L.A. experience: pretending you didn’t just hear something completely, utterly, and offensively dumb.

Joanne asks the Jewish mom, played by a peppy Leighton Meester, an innocent enough question: “What’s [your daughter’s] name?”

“Afternoon,” replies the mom.

“That’s not a,” starts Joanne, before catching herself mid-snicker. She quickly reverts course: “That is … my favorite time of day.”

I know this routine all too well, the one in which we swallow our tongues, nod, and reflexively exclaim “beautiful!” while simultaneously relishing new fodder for group texts. “You won’t believe the name I just heard” has grown all the more frequent and yet all the more competitive: No longer does Republic, Churchill (for a girl), or even Quinoa raise an eyebrow. I recently overheard Farro (or Pharaoh—unclear!) at the playground, and my group chat pals were unimpressed: “I dunno, I could see a President Farro/Pharaoh.”

It used to be that faddish progeny trends were more prevalent within our gentile neighbors, but not us–we who name after our beloved Bubbes and Zaydes and a long lineage of Jewish leaders, Biblical characters, and that one female Israeli prime minister. I come from a generation in which every other Jewish kid was named Talia, Ilana, or Rachel. Now I see those very same peers opting for Coyote, Striker, and Roxstar.

It’s sometimes hard to square away these peculiar pairings—an unorthodox first name with an often Jewish surname. Gravity Cohen? Aqua Levenstein? Cinnamon Goldberg?

Continued below.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/stop-giving-jewish-kids-dumb-names

Would be funny if it wasn't so hard on their kids. Save the unusual names for the pets! Now, will Tomorrow come in when I call her, because I've got to take Bingeworthy for his walk?

Dan Perez · 2025-11-11T22:38:21-0600

Soyeong said:
Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of Moses, so it is always important to discern which law he was referring to. For example, in Romans 7-8, Paul said that the Law of God is good, that he wanted to do good, that he delighted in obeying it, and that he served it with his mind in contrast with the law of sin, which was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, which was waging war against the law of his mind, which he served with his flesh, which held him captive, and which the Law of the Spirit as free us from. The Law of God leads us to do what is godly, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) while the law of sin leads us in the opposite direction by stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5). So verses that refer something that would be absurd for Paul to delight in doing should not be interpreted as referring to the Law of God while verses that refer to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying the Law of God shouldbe interpreted as referring to the law of sin. For example, Paul described the law that we are not under in Romans 6:14 as being a law where sin had dominion over him and it would be absurd for Paul to delight in sin having dominion over him, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. In Roman 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is, so we are still under it. Moreover, everything else in Romans 6 speaks in favor of obedience to the Law of God and against sin.

The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if you think that Paul should be interpreted as promoting rebellion against what God has commanded, then you should be quicker to disregard everything that he said than to disregard anything that God has commanded. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying His law, so it is either incorrect to interpret Paul as doing that or he was a false prophet, but either way followers of Christ should be followers of his example of obedience to the Law of God. The reality is that Paul was a servant of God who therefore never promoted rebellion against what He has commanded.

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith alone.

No where I stand , and check out ESE 36 :25-38. B!!

Then n n read EZE 37:1-15

Then. read EZE. 37:15-22 AND Israel has ONE STICK and JUDAH. will have ONE STICK. and Christ will. those

two STICKS become ONE STICH. and Israel then. become ONE STICK. and one again become ONE NATION !!

And will like your REPLY. !!

dan p

GodAndChocolateVanilla · 2025-11-11T22:20:41-0600

Multifavs said:
Good to see you posting in this thread again! It's been a long time since I've posted here too! I hope everyone's been doing well!

Hi Multifavs!! Nice to see you here my Friend!! [Hugs]

bob121 · 2025-11-11T22:18:13-0600

Maria Billingsley said:
Actually, this may be disappointing, I know I am in God's presence when His Holy Spirit convicts me of sin and I repent from that sin. Pretty powerful when I refuse to go back to that sin. Certainly the will power is not only my doing !
Blessings

Maria Billingsley, that’s the purest worship moment I can imagine—when the Spirit turns the spotlight inward, the knee bows, and grace says, “You’re forgiven—now walk free.”
No organ swell, no stained glass, just conviction → repentance → peace.
Thanks for the honesty; it reminds me the sanctuary is first the heart, then the building.
May that refusal-to-return strength keep multiplying in you—and in me too.

Reginald Taylor Jr · 2025-11-11T22:17:38-0600

November 9, 2025 Acts 15:1-12 KJV

My Interpetation I Acts 15:1-3 KJV I Worship God The message of joy recieved God is Father and only God to believe that does miracles. Acts 15:1-12 My Interpetation I Worship God that is Holy , To Believe in Chist in repentance forgiveness of sins. I Worship God of baptism and the Lords supper giving to the church -used a rituals. I Worship God that allows me to have a life of Christian living and practices that gives me unity in God. III vv7-12 My Interpetation I worship God that gives us the Holy Spirit to see ,hear discern God and make decisions example yes or no. I Worship God that allows me to give my life to God for people to listen Lamentations 3:27 KJV.

Yusuphhai · 2025-11-11T22:15:58-0600

languages need not clean and be cleaned？

New Posts

New Posts

Jews are already inherently unique. We don’t need to prove it by naming our kids Cinnamon, Aqua, or Afternoon.​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Jews are already inherently unique. We don’t need to prove it by naming our kids Cinnamon, Aqua, or Afternoon.