Always in His Presence said:

You know the biggest group of people fed up with illegal aliens?

Legal immigrants.

Click to expand...

You are likely to run into some difficulty with conflicting definitions.

Oompa Loompa said:

Deflection? I think i have been pretty clear whwre I stand. Yes. I want to see all these murdering rapist dead. The world would be a much better place if they all just had a heart attack. Whether by bomb in international waters, or by an executioner after months of trials and legal processes. The end is still the same, but the former is much quicker and cheaper. What I don't get is why you are trying to play "gotcha" when I am saying, "Darn right! Blow the trash into fish chum. Give them the same compassion, empathy, and consideration that they give to their customers who die from their product. Then let God figure out the rest." Now I hope you are done doing whoever it was you are trying to do. But from my perspective, it appeard to be a lot of nonsensical and emotional rantings about things you do not understand. Have I made myself clear, or do you wish to continue your creepy rants?

Click to expand...

No, you've made yourself clear, and it's a good thing you did. This is, after all, a Christian forum so it is a good thing that you can tell us what Christianity has to say about how to treat your enemies.

RDKirk said:

Let me check on what gun owners think about this.

The usual attitude is that you don't shoot at people running away from shoplifting.

The store has insurance for merchandise. You might hit someone else. You won't get a medal for heroism.

You're going to pay tens of thousands for a lawyer even if you get off.

And you're probably not going to get off.

Click to expand...

As a Concealed Carry permit owner I make sure I understand my state's law (or any state's laws where I am visiting and permitted to carry a concealed weapon) as well as the Use of Force Continuum. I know in my states (and I am sure most or all of the others) you cannot use deadly force to defend/protect property, and certainly not someone else's property. A person's legal use of deadly force in my state depends on the totality of the circumstances which includes the level of force the "bad guy" is using or attempting to use.

Sadly, I feel even trying to have a basic understanding of these things is beyond most American's today as it will require more than bare minimum use of their brains and some actual thinking and analysis. Although I am obviously pro-2nd Amendment I am not sure most Americans have the maturity or intellectual capacity to own a firearm today.

ThatRobGuy said:

Not sure that would make a ton of sense... at what point would it just become a parallel (somewhat watered down) UN?

Some of the aspects is some shared services (like flight traffic control and defense agreements), border reciprocity, healthcare reciprocity, a parallel shared currency.

I don't know that having US and Canada added to that would make a lot of practical sense.

For Europe and the EU zone it makes a ton of sense, it's a bunch of close-together countries where you could potentially be on a 3 hour car ride and be in 3 different countries.

In looking at some some of the cross border travel patterns within the EU,
About 65% of EU residents aged 15 or over made at least 2 personal trips to other EU member nations in 2023.
(and roughly 3 million are "cross-border workers")

As where "across the pond" trips are much less common.

So it would be a lot of additional negotiating and building regulatory and reciprocity frameworks for scenarios that will be far less common (Americans and Canadians going to any European country - outside of work reasons - is one of those rarer expensive trips that people have to save up for, and it's one of those special "once every 5 years" types of vacations)

Click to expand...

I only said that if someone asked me, I wouldn't have any problem with it. As far as I know no countries outside of Europe are interested anyway.

SabbathBlessings said:

Where does it say this in this passage? Jesus said "Whoever" not Jews.

Click to expand...

I say this because only Jews were under the Law; Christians (Jews and Gentiles) came under Grace.

SabbathBlessings said:

Where does it say we are not supposed to keep God's laws- its kept by God's faithful until He returns Rev14:12

Click to expand...

I don't think the "commandments" here in Rev. are in reference to the Law's commandments, but God and Christ's commands of the Gospel.

John Gill: "Here are they that keep the commandments of God;" and not the inventions of men, and the traditions of antichrist, but the ordinances of the Gospel, as they were at "first delivered" (1Co 15:3), without any adulteration and corruption; and who kept them because they were enjoined by God, and from a principle of love to him, and with a view to his glory

SabbathBlessings said:

Rev22:14 Just as Jesus said Mat5:17-30 Grace does not mean one can sin Rom6:1-4 and sin is breaking God's laws 1John3:4 James 2:11

Click to expand...

Grace goes beyond Law, in that it is received by faith only, and keeping the Gospel manifests you love and believe in Him. Law was works. If you tried to keep the Law (Decalogue and ordinances - first 5 Books of Moses - the Pentateuch) it manifested you loved God and had faith in Him, and you were in fellowship with Him.

Also, the Law in its sin sacrifices typified Christ's expiation for our sin; but the prophecies of His coming was not in the Law as this came latter e.g. Isa 9:6; 7:14; Mic 5:2, etc. .

Until the Romans destroyed the Temple 40 years after the Lord Jesus' ascension, the Jews were still under the Law. Without a Temple they could not continue serving the Law. God wanted them to move on into the New Covenant in Christ by "taking away the first, that He may establish the second" (Covenant - Heb 10:9; 8:7, 13).

We're on our way home we've been on the road for 6 hours so far. So far the roads haven't been terrible but they're supposed to get far worse on the journey back. Keep us in your prayers and I will keep y'all updated.

jonojim1337 said:

I’m asking how this is related to gravity.

Click to expand...

Gravity is what keeps us on the surface of the Earth. On Earth less dense air rises above denser air as there are most available states for the various atoms that make up 'air' to occupy. It's not unconnected with why things evaporate (but that's not for now). That's because of Entropy but I don't want to have to spend hours explaining that to you if you don't grasp the current discussion.

Mark Quayle said:

Paul was indeed taught by Jesus by revelation. We are by illumination, not revelation, as such. We are not apostles.

Click to expand...

That's a very telling statement you just made there.

No where in scripture does it say that only apostles are taught by revelation of The Holy Spirit. The apostles were not somehow better than us, and GOD is not somehow discriminatory with the rest of us.

There is a big, big difference between being born again and subsequently being Spirit-filled, and the benefits of that additional step, but I'm not going to go into that on here because people get easily upset and offended. You'll have to have a personal desire for that beyond what you currently know, like I did after I was born again.

Mark Quayle said:

You have some good points, but there are many who think their understanding of God is a result of the relationship, whose doctrine is all emotion and platitudes. I have heard it said that in Calvinism there is no love. Yet the Calvinist (by and large) sees nothing but love in the nature and work of God and the doctrines concerning Christ's mercy and grace. Not some general goodwill to mankind, but very specific directed purpose resulting for God's own glory.

Reaching for closeness with God is good, no doubt, but the joy of relationship (as if that was all that this was about) is nowhere near as good as recognizing God for who he is and seeing our dependence on him for our very being and for the ability to walk with him, (and not of ourselves), produces an unequaled joy, peace and confidence, and ever-increasing 'getting to know him'.

Click to expand...

Complete dependency is a major part of that relationship with HIM.

We are off topic now, so here is where our conversation ends. It's been nice chatting with you, laters.

iluvatar5150 said:

Yeah, it’s bad. Though a lot of my stuff has been laggy the last day or two. Amusingly, comcast sent me a message they were working on a problem in my area and the slowdowns didn’t start until they messaged me to say they were done working on it.

Click to expand...

I'm in the UK. It's the only site running slow and I saw some cloudflare nonsense going on in my complicated network management software so maybe that?

He does not appear to comprehend the seriousness of sin.

Belk said:

Those are two distinct ideas. Unlimited does not mean uncontrolled. Do you agree that a controlled immigration is a net positive for the US?

Click to expand...

I have no problem with controlled legal immigration.

What AI said about the accusation.

“The writings of Ellen White, a prophet of the Seventh Day Adventist church, teach that those who worship on Sunday will receive the mark of the beast and will reject the seal of God. In other words, the vast majority of Christians are doomed for worshipping our Lord on Sunday instead of Saturday

Click to expand...

She did not teach it in that blunt, blanket form (“the vast majority of Christians are doomed for worshipping on Sunday”). That wording reads like an anti-EGW paraphrase.


What she did teach, in her own writings, is closer to this:

What EGW actually says (her real position)​

1) A future enforcement issue, not “Sundaykeepers are automatically lost right now”​

She repeatedly frames the “mark of the beast”/Sunday issue as applying when there is light and then compulsion/enforcement, and people make a conscious choice against what they understand to be God’s command. In that setting, she connects:

• Sunday observance under enforcement + rejection of Sabbath truth = aligning with “the beast,” and
• faithful Sabbath-keeping = connected with God’s “seal.”

2) She explicitly denies that everyone who keeps Sunday now has the mark​

In The Great Controversy she is very direct that Sunday keeping by itself, while people are ignorant of the Sabbath obligation, is not yet “the mark of the beast.” The “mark” comes with willful choice when the issue is clearly made known and enforced.

3) She also says there are sincere Christians in Sunday churches​

She teaches that God has genuine, sincere believers in other communions and that the final separation happens later as light increases and choices harden.

So is the quote you gave a real EGW quote?​

Almost certainly no:

• It calls her “a prophet of the Seventh Day Adventist church” in a way that reads like an outside summary.
• It uses emotionally loaded phrasing (“vast majority of Christians are doomed”) that is not her usual style when making the “final test” argument.
• It collapses her conditional framework (light + enforcement + deliberate choice) into a universal present-tense condemnation.

The most accurate EGW-summary in one sentence​

EGW’s view is: Sunday observance becomes connected with the “mark of the beast” when it is enforced and chosen in conscious opposition to God’s Sabbath, not merely because someone worships on Sunday in ignorance.

The Liturgist said:

In London, a Baptist church might well be the only convenient option (if you were a conservative Anglo Catholic or High Church, there would be more options, but on the Reformed end of the spectrum, options are particularly limited, and of course the United Reformed Church which absorbed almost all Congregationalist and Presbyterian churches is far to the left of the C of E even now, being at least on a par with the Scottish Episcopal Church - alas, in Scotland a traditional Anglican would be out of luck.

Click to expand...

Yes, thank goodness for Baptists

Why is it that every other industrialized nation has figured out healthcare, less the US?
Every one in the US not only knows, but feels the problem given healthcare in the US.
Doing nothing is not a solution.
It's not that we can't, we can if those in power are willing.
Some are.
But rest assure, this coming action by the SCOTUS will further remove any incentive for those in power to chose who they come through for:
Supreme Court Grapples With Whether to Lift Campaign Finance Limits.
Till the US does something about a political system that is tantamount to legalized bribery, sad to say nothing will change.

narnia59 said:

I believe Scriptue as well.

That is why I know:
1) Faith is a gift that is freely given.

Click to expand...

If everyone has been given the gift - why isn't everyone saved?

narnia59 said:

It does not have an age nor an intellectual requirement.

Click to expand...

Romans 10 Paul speaking of Salvation -

That is an 'intellectual requirement" plain and simple.

narnia59 said:

That is why even from the womb John the Baptist recognized the presence of his Savior. (Luke 1:44)

Click to expand...

Agreed - John the Baptist recognized the Presence of his Savior even in the womb - however it doesn't have any connection to Salvation.

narnia59 said:

2) Christianity is not a religion that excludes children. This is why St. Peter professed at the first Pentecost that the promise of forgiveness of sins through Baptism included the children of those listening to him (Acts 2:37-39).

Click to expand...

Repentance and baptism. both intellectual requirement - are connected the two are needed

So I'll ask again - how does a four month old repent?

narnia59 said:

It is why St. Paul compared Baptism to circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). Circumcision was how babies were brought into the Jewish covenant, and Baptism is how babies are brought into the body of Christ.

Click to expand...

No mention of children

Here is a question for you - why does Paul in Romans 10 speak of Salvation, but not mention Baptism?

I cannot wait until Gate Zero comes out. I've had it on my wishlist for some time.
I have created a criteria to base my future gaming off of.

Must be MMO or persistent multiplayer
Absolutely no non-Christian deity worship or deity-sourced powers (no gods, pantheons, altars, blessings, priests, divine magic, etc.)
No furry / anthro / beast race options (playable or major NPCs)
Arcane or learned magic is fine
Elemental / natural magic is fine
PvE-friendly content required (safe zones, PvE servers, or opt-in PvP only)
Crafting, building, or housing systems (the deeper the better)
Active playerbase in 2025 (not dead or <100 concurrent)
Actually released and playable now (or very close with confirmed global date)

I've been doing some research and have came up with these games that interest me.
War of Rights
Star Citizen
Albion Online
Myth of Empires
Corepunk
Avorion
…and Bellatores on the 2026 watchlist. English will be supported in the full release but is not supported in closed beta.

I am still researching to enhance my list of possible games to try out. The list might not be perfect and I still trying to refine it and might have to trim something out. Maybe one of them will actually work out.

Man's doctrine may change, but God does not.
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. - Hebrews 13:8

Praying for you. I also am in a similar situation. Good luck and God bless!

Stopped_lurking said:

I asked about vitrification. Why shift the subject?

Click to expand...

Habit.

LizaMarie said:

My parents were born in the 1920's. My Grandparents in the 1890's. According to both my mother, and statistics, if anyone cares to look, it was not uncommon at all for families to lose at least one child under the age of one year, and even under 5 to disease, back in the early 20th century. Now look at today's statistics as we have herd immunity to many things. Of course lack of antibiotics and better medical care play into this too, but just look at pictures of children in an iron lung pre-polio vaccine, if you want to know if the polio vaccine is worth it.
The Hepatitis B vaccines for newborns was never mandated, only recommended. That means parents could refuse it before, so I don't understand why this new recommendation. It is just another sign to me that RF jr is unfit for this postion, and should never have been confirmed. Keep in mind also that most children including children as young as 3 months old go to daycare these days, as opposed to when I was growing up.
Babies have far less immunity to Hep B, and also Hep B is not like Hep C which is only transmitted by sexual contact or blood transfusions.
Hepatitis B can live on surfaces in room temperature for several days and can be transmitted to infants by relatives, in day care etc.

Click to expand...

All they did was adjust our recommendations to match those of most of Europe and many other civilized countries, spare us the fearmongering.

This has got to be straight Onion, no?

Mark Quayle said:

I'll highlight this part of what you say, because it is representative of what we disagree on:

God sees A, but wants B, and so intervenes and changes the result to B, but then A never occurred, so God shouldn't have been able to see A as a future, because there was no future A.​

And that was a ridiculously simplistic example​

Right from the get-go you step out of fact into supposition. God does not simply "see A but want B". That misrepresents what God is doing. It represents the facet WE see, by virtue of a general knowledge we have of him and his nature, and by comparison to his stated commands. While we indeed (as you said) have no way of knowing what reality is for God, we can know some things, such as the fact that it is not how we see it.

It would be useful to do a good study on the theological and philosophical Attributes of God of Aseity, Simplicity and Immanence. Consider the notion, for example, that for God to think is to do, as opposed to the human notions of God considering this or that possibility. If what is possible is exactly all he does, and there is no other fact, then "what would be [otherwise] 'possible' is only by our lack of knowledge". As RC Sproul quoted, "Chance is only a substitute for, 'I don't know.'" ALL FACT DEPENDS ON GOD.

God sees A because he caused A. "There is no plan B." That B goes against his command has to do with what SHOULD HAVE happened. Don't confuse his command with his plan ( =the theological term, 'his decree').

Click to expand...

You're focusing on the wrong thing. "There is no plan B" means my choices are already decided, which also means that I have no choice or free will. The two are the same. I only think I have a choice, because God fools me into believing that, because my brain is pre-wired to believe that. If I turn left or right God already knows which way I will turn. If I debate and change my mind, God already knows I will debate which way to turn. That turns us into a simulation, no better than a robot that cannot escape its programming.

There is no rebellion by man. There is no love of God. Breaking commandments or keeping them is irrelevant. It is pre-decided whether I will repent or not. But in reality, I have nothing to repent from. My fate and actions were decided for me long before I was ever conceived. In this scenario there is only one entity to judge, and that would be God.

• Summary

• Trump says he can stop war
• Thai PM says mediation should be done through proper process
• Cambodia pulls athletes from SEA Games on safety grounds
• Malaysian PM says he spoke to Cambodian, Thai leaders

BANGKOK/PHNOM PENH, Dec 10 (Reuters) - Thailand and Cambodia traded accusations of targeting civilians in artillery and rocket attacks on Wednesday, as U.S. President Donald Trump said he would try to intervene to stop the fighting and salvage a ceasefire he brokered earlier this year.
Clashes raged at more than a dozen locations along their 817-km (508-mile) border in some of the most intense fighting since a five-day battle in July, which Trump stopped with calls to both leaders to halt their worst conflict in recent history.

The Southeast Asian neighbours have blamed each other for the clashes that started on Monday.

Studyman said:

Tyndale certainly isn't the first voice "who professed to know God", that teaches against God's Laws. There was a voice that existed in the garden with Eve, who professed to know God, that preached against God's Laws. The preachers of this world in Noah's Time, preached against God's Laws. Sodom, preached against God's Laws. Egypt preached against God's Laws. The rebellious children of Israel preached against God's Laws. The wicked Kings of Israel preached against God's Laws. The Priests of to Temple in Jeremiah's time and Malachi's time, preached against God's Laws. The mainstream preachers of John the Baptist, and his father, Zacharias, preached against God's Laws. And Jesus Himself said that in the Judgment, "Many" who call Him Lord, Lord, preach against God's Laws.

But it seems prudent to point out that the Church of God through out the entire Bible, those whose "refuge is the Lord", like David and Paul and the First Church of God under HIS New High Priest, and the Messiah Himself, the Lord's Christ Jesus, didn't preach against God's Laws.

Click to expand...

You're funny.

Considering all the writings of the Reformers, up to and including the King James translators, none of them advocated adhering to the law of Moses.

All these people, Tyndale, Rogers, Cromwell, Whittingham, Calvin, the Waldensian believers from the Piedmont Alps (who were brutally murdered for having the scriptures in their language), Wycliffe, and many others that I don't know that provided support, not a single one of them advocated following moses over Jesus,.... like you do.

They did more for the body of Christ and Jesus than you ever will, or I should say, ever have.