BPPLEE said:

No true Christian can worship Allah

Click to expand...

That’s a very vague term. We worship Christ as our ’Allah’. Of course this brings us into conflict with the Muslims.

I’m no theologian, but to me this borders on blasphemy. The Nativity is sacred, not a political poster.

BobRyan said:

It was always a sin to take God's name in vain, worship idols, murder etc.

Rom 4 "where there is no law there is no sin"

Gal 3 is not talking about the Law not existing, it is talking about the Law in written form at Sinai.

1 John 3:4 "sin is transgression of the Law"
Gen 3 God says to Cain "sin is at your door, you must overcome it"
No explicit command said "do not murder" but from the text it is clear that that was already known.

In Gen 7 the clean animals are taken into the ark by pairs of 7, the unclean by two's. But we don't find the definition of clean vs unclean until Lev 11.

The book of Genesis does not record every word ever spoken for the first 2000 years

Click to expand...

Well I think we can summarise the only place where there is no sin, and no law, is in Christ.

Of course we do.

FaithT said:

If others were veiling at the Latin Mass then I probably would too.

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me! As they say “when in Rome…”

d taylor said:

No person knows what heaven is like, so how do they know that they are experiencing heaven on earth.

Click to expand...

I think the expression "heaven on earth" is pretty straight forward. It is about feeling like you're in a paradise or utopia in your everyday life. There is also the expression "hell on earth".

camille70 said:

Being against/opposing white supremacy is not the same as being against/opposing white people. Many white people have and continue to fight against white supremacy and racism.

Click to expand...

When the words are thrown around so readily its more than just stopping something.

Dale said:

Everything we know about the history of humans on earth contradicts the claim that the earth could be only 6,000 years old. The Bible is a source of moral and spiritual truth, but it is not a history text.

Click to expand...

Hello Dale. I wouldn't say what you presented was 'everything we know'. Seems like vague and unverified dates given arbitrarily to fragmentary evidence. A better question could be how far do Historical Writings go back in time? God Bless You

Awesome, this archaeological discovery CONFIRMS Catholicism.

iluvatar5150 said:

Votes for Trump, complains about fraud and tribalism.

classic.

Click to expand...

The Somalian fraud and tribalism was going on long before Trump. That is what happens when you import the third world into your country in mass, give them welfare to make them comfortable, and have zero expectation for them to assimilate. They bring they bring the third world with them and replicate it where they are.

Dikaioumenoi said:

What other interpretations are plausible? What is the syntactic argument for their plausibility?

Where have I been unclear? Can you specifically quote what portion of my argument breaks down and fails to produce the conclusion I offered?

Click to expand...

Where I find lack of clarity is when phrases like "the grammar itself provides the reason" or "so there's the reason" are used, since that language sounds like a claim of textual necessity rather than interpretation.

I’m not equipped to engage at this level of technical detail you are asking for, so I’m going to step back for now.

Hello!

I was talking with a lady who has recently lost her husband, she reports being under intense peer pressure, which she thought was a form of legalism, to do silly stuff she doesn't want to do. Specifically regarding trees/decorations/turkeys and the like. She said she hates this time of year, wishes it was over and that people would stop pressurizing her. I agreed with her, at this time of year there is pressure to do things you don't want to do from other Christians. Maybe well meaning people, sometimes maybe trying to make conversation, but I find it rather wearing. Pressure and competition, I detect a lot of people are trying doing this stuff as a form of oneupmanship. Like the guy who needs a bigger tree and more glowing gnomes and Odins in their garden than the person next door.

Leaving aside the possible pagan origins of much of this stuff is it Biblical to pressure people to do something they don't want to do? There's no biblical command telling us to put up a 'Christmas Tree', or to take a present from a man dressed as Santa aka Odin at a church party, or to sings songs about flying deer. Or forcing someone to wear a Santa hat or an Elf hat when they don't want to (yes, in a previous year I was forced to wear an elf hat to participate as a helper at a church event). Why then are people pressured into doing this if they don't want to? Isn't it a form of legalism? Being forced to partake in possible Paganism in Church? I detect churches are more likely to have a Santa and a tree than a nativity scene.

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery (Galatians 5:1).

I have been told that's it's a form of legalism to tell people not to engage in certain activities, so why then isn't it legalism to compel people to engage in those activities?

I have been told that it would be legalism to acknowledge various Old Testament Biblical Feasts or to encourage others to do so. Why then isn't it Legalism to compel others to revere a flying fat all knowing midget from the North pole?

For those who don't think churches could revere demons or compel others to do so, there's 'Tuesday' for example. A day of the week named to honour a pagan god of war. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are the same. Living in a pagan world aren't we meant to be aware of the devil's schemes, rather then going along with anything and everything, afterall Satan masquerades as an angel of light.

God Bless All and happy Christmas. Hope you find a time of peace and joy in remembering the Saviour's birth and please don't take my post as critical or judgemental. I'm asking Qs from a place of frustration is all.

Hentenza said:

Again, no verse that states that anyone before Moses kept the sabbath

Click to expand...

No verse before EX 20 says "do not take God's name in vain"
Mark 2:27 Jesus speaks of the making of BOTH the Sabbath AND mankind in Gen 1-2

Hentenza said:

. And as I stated in my previous post and you avoided like the plague is the FACT that no one read Genesis or Exodus until Moses wrote them

Click to expand...

Turns out God existed before Moses and God said Abraham "kept my commandments".

The only reason "creation WEEK" is a 7 day week is because of Gen 2:1-3 the SEVENTH day of that week that Ex 20:11 says was the actual SABBATH being made, blessed, sanctified.

Pretty hard to miss.

RDKirk said:

The problem here is your use of the word "sin."

I don't think Paul had any intention of implying that Emperor Nero respected the concept of "sin" as Paul himself did.

Click to expand...

No one is above the Word. Emperor Nero would do good to keep the commandments.

RDKirk said:

And not "sins" that the Body of Christ should expect worldly governments to punish.

Click to expand...

The concept of a worldly, or secular government, was foreign at the time. This grew out of the Reformation, where one first started to question the definition of Caesar, and then culminated in the French Revolution I guess, where the concept of Caesar didn’t even matter anymore and could just mean any government at all, and especially that of wicked men governing themselves.

There is no authority that is not from God means just that, if the authority is not from God then it is not an authority. We do not have an obligation to follow the whims of wicked men. Honor to whom honor is due.

YeshuaFan said:

well, jesus stated that Genesis was a literal historical account

Click to expand...

Can you cite a verse?

SarahsKnight said:

(Referring to him playing Buck Williams in the Left Behind movies, right?)

Click to expand...

Serendipity. II never read the books or saw the movies

Prospector said:

So your saying that ASL is not a useful language for the deaf because of a few bad interpreters and the inability to explain why Killary is either funny or astute.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that.

To suggest so would be an example reductio ad absurdum.

I'm suggesting that translators/interpreters (of any kind) can skew an underlying sentiment or meaning.

There's a reason why the phrase "lost in translation" was coined and has become a household saying.


That's especially true for statements being made that are heavy on the "play on words" or English phonetics and/or "Rhyming" or "catchy illiteration". (which happens to be a huge part of some peoples' repertoires)


Just as a simple example.

"I used to be a banker, but I lost interest."

"What do you call a bear with no teeth? A gummy bear"

Try to translate that to another language and still have it make sense.

If it's any language where the words for "Interest" (being interested in something) and "Interest" (a rate charged for money lending services) are different, that "play on words" officially makes no sense.

essentialsaltes said:

After they get through with studying vaccines and autism, they'll get on this hypothesis.

Click to expand...

We obviously need to start drafting pirates now.

DragonFox91 said:

Me too. You used to whine about it too? I never would’ve guessed. I am trying not to anymore tho I want to

Click to expand...

There are other sources of unhappiness beyond being single that gnaw at me more these days. If you have the rest of your life in a good place, then being frustrated as single would really weigh one down because it's the biggest void.

JohnB445 said:

That molecules ended up hitting each other forming amino acids and biological matter and that by chance Earth just had just the right properties to help harbor life, and that these molecules turned into living things, and eventually just knew how to evolve into more complex sentient beings, like all this happened by mere accident.

Click to expand...

God says the Earth brought forth living things. But it was no accident. He created it with the ability to produce life. And after life started? Darwin's great discovery was that it was no accident. Natural selection is the antithesis of chance.

It shouldn't be offensive to a believer to accept that God created the world to bring forth life and produce the variety of living things we see today.

You used fancy words to NOT explain why you feel the criminality concepts are different.

I am FAR too tired to go point by point, so I'm going to sum this up, with that I don't think you understand some of the concepts you've raised and it's leading you to a false conclusion. Im going to give you this 1 example:

RBL72 said:

In Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles, fulfillment of the Law was not prioritized or emphasized at all, as we know. Paul only quotes Yeshua once in all of his epistles. (See 1 Cor 11:24-25). Agreeably, Paul mentions that love is the fulfillment of the law in Galatians 5:14 and Romans 13:8-10. These statements are absolutely correct, and they coincide with Yeshua’s words even if Paul never quoted Yeshua as the source. To caution, however, Paul’s contempt and disregard for God’s moral law is well documented in his writings. For example, in Romans 7:3-4, he uses a figurative example of the Law of Adultery, equating Christ to “the deceased husband”, to conclude that: “…ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ.” This directly conflicts with the words of Yeshua in Matthew 5:27-28 where in no case does he indicate that the Law of Adultery or any of God’s moral law will ever become null and void.

Click to expand...

Paul is not arguing that the law of adultery is null and void. He's using an analogy to explain a point.

For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him.

Click to expand...

Easy to understand so far I think. If you marry, you're with that person till they die. Then you are free to marry another. But I'm going to skip to the parallel in verse 4.

So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

Click to expand...

Meaning, when you die to your flesh, you are no longer bound by the law as we are now bound to another.

So verse 2:
Married >>> Death >>> Remarry

Verse 4:
Married to flesh >>> Death through Jesus Christ >>> Married to another (Jesus).

So the rest of the analogy still stands.

So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress.

Click to expand...

Literally why Israel is called an adulteress several times because of her spiritual adultery.

Now...

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (v6)

Click to expand...

Isn't saying that the moral law is done away with, he states "in the new way of the Spirit". Which he argues the rest of the chapter is being a slave to God's law which he does in his mind which he mentions multiple times. Which is a different way of doing things than before which was through their actions. Which is backed up by when Jesus says,

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. - Matthew 5:28

Click to expand...

So the new standard isn't just physically following the moral law, but mentally too. So Paul is backing that up which isn't arguing against the abolishment of the law, but explaining a different perspective/standard to the Romans.

JSRG said:

There actually was some strategy to this. If they didn't indict in time, then that was it; it was over due to the statute of limitations. By indicting in time, even if it was rushed and sloppy (hence the dismissal), they'd have an extra 6 months to bring a new indictment (probably--there is an argument that the initial indictment might have been botched so badly it doesn't actually count as an indictment, and that it therefore wouldn't fall under the statute that grants the 6-month extension for re-indictment after a dismissal if it's now past the statute of limitations).

Granted, the case against Comey is by all appearances so weak I have doubts they can even bring it to trial, and I'd be absolutely amazed if they could actually convict; it would've made more sense to just not bring it at all, hence why they notoriously had to fire the prosecutor who didn't want to bring it in and bring in someone who had no experience prosecuting to do it instead. Still, if your goal is to convict, however slim your odds are, and your choices are "do a rushed and sloppy indictment and keep the case alive or don't indict at all and you lose it forever" the former is obviously the better one.

Click to expand...

There is also the issue that they botched this one so badly they now have to throw out a lot of the evidence. I don't think they were planning on using the six month extension, I think they lucked into that.

I spent Christmas Eve once driving 1200 miles 955 miles to be home with family arriving at 230 AM That was decades ago and was the last time I missed the Midnight Christmas Eve service Which to me IS celebrating Christmas

Always in His Presence said:

No

Nordic think everything he does has an ulterior or evil motive.

Open thread on the subject and I’ll jump in.

Click to expand...

Nah, My point is we might vote for someone with reluctance and even regret. A vote does not mean we support and endorse everything they stand for.