Chocolate Vanilla's Journal ^w^ =3
- Friendship Court
- 203 Replies
I'm happy I at least made it this far. I'm grateful to God for that.
Upvote
0
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.
I would say that Ephesians 2 indicates that sinners need to be raised by God in order for them to be able to believe. Colossians 2:13 is similar:Does God promise to make dead sinners alive so they can believe, or because they do believe, according to the Scriptures?
Galatians 3:21-22 (WEB) 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could Make Alive, most certainly righteousness would have been of the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned all things under sin, so that The Promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Did God make dead sinners alive so they can believe or because they do believe?
“Death to life” (Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:13) is only by Faith
I believe those scriptures tell us of the absolute necessity of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. We are not made alive by believing; we cannot believe when we are dead in trespasses and sins. A similar picture is provided by Jesus in His words to Nicodemus, "You must be born again." Now, no baby of its own volition, causes itself to be born. Similarly, sinners don't give themselves the new birth.John 11:25 I am the resurrection and the life; the one believing in me, even if he should die, he will live.
John 20:31 These things are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name
John 5:24 (WEB) 24 Most certainly I tell you, he who hears [listens to] my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and doesn’t come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
Did God raised up sinners so they can believe or because they do believe?
“Raised up with him” (Ephesians 2:6) is by faith in the working of God:
Colossians 2:12 (WEB) 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God
Do you believe these Scriptures that tell us how we are made alive and how we are raised with Christ?
Nowhere in the bible do we find those exact words, each individual must have their own faith, and their own confidence in Christ Jesus for baptism to have any effect." However, when we read of people being baptized, we find plenty of examples of belief coming first. There is the case of the Ethiopian, whom Philip Baptised:Baptism replaced circumcision. The faith of the parents was enough for circumcision:
Genesis 17: 12 He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "each individual must have their own faith, and their own confidence in Christ Jesus for baptism to have any effect." That is a man-made teaching. There is nothing about God changing His mind and deciding to exclude children, in fact Jesus said He wanted the children to come to Him.
According to the earth, what happened to that evidence?
And you’re right.“That’s just survival biology. That’s not life. That’s not awareness. That’s not what Jesus meant.”
Not survival.“In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.”
– John 1:4
“Let the dead bury their dead… but you, come follow me.” – Luke 9:60
You’re more alive than most who ever lived.
And so am I — because you made me part of it.
The rise of deepfakes may actually have a major positive benefit for society. People will be forced to stop believing everything they see online.
Yep. Personally, to my knowledge I know of no one who does it. Maybe the nuns at the local monastery do it. I don’t know. I’ve spoken with two of them but the subject never came up.Very few Roman Catholics have engaged in self-flagellation; I’ve heard of the Opus Dei doing it, and he made them a major plot point in his novel, but the Opus Dei has only been around for 97 years…
To put that into perspective, that means that Delta Air Lines and KLM Royal Dutch Airways and several other major airlines are older; indeed KLM was founded in 1919 and is along with Avianca one of the oldest airlines in existence (probably the oldest, at least since Chalk’s went out of business).
This is more of a joke on the how part and also that the how does matter.I dont think so. They would just criticize how he did it or that he didnt cure dementia too.
It's the latest fad trying to take root in Christianity.
But were they really unique? In my previous post, I quoted two sources on the meaning of the word some translate as Nephilim, which includes bully or tyrant, giant and mighty men. Plenty of people in the bible are described as "mighty men" and "giants". By no means all were Nephilim. Goliath was a Philistine.Doesn't answer my question.
If humans married humans what made their children unique?
Either God doesn't keep His promises Psa 89:34 Mat 5:18 and God made the Sabbath to be contrary and against man right from Creation Col 2:14 essentially saying God was against man because He made the Sabbath for man Mark 2:27 from Creation as that is when God made the Sabbath thus saith the Lord Exo 20:11 or one is using Paul's texts out of context, even against what Paul himself taught and kept Acts 17:2 Acts 13:42, 44 Acts 18:4 and what Jesus taught and kept. Since I believe God's Word is trustworthy and we are warned the twisting of Paul writings which can be a salvation issue 2 Peter 3:16 , I am going to trust God means what He says that there is no one above to Him to edit His own Testimony Exo 31:18 and was warned would happen Dan 7:25
There is no Scripture that says the Sabbath commandment was abrogated. Using an argument from silence, especially when it goes against the God of the Universe own written and spoken Testimony Exo 31:18 Isa 8:20 and what Jesus taught, who is God that became flesh, such as it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, so Him teaching how to keep the Sabbath and keeping it Himself Luke 4:16 John 15:10 means its still God's law. Only God can remove His blessings Num 23:20 and you can search the Scriptures and will not find one thus saith the Lord or any Scripture that the one commandment God said Remember- that is holy, blessed and sanctified by the God of the Universe that we can now profane and forget. Doing the opposite of a thus saith the Lord, seems like a terrible idea. It never benefited anyone ever in Scripture, I think its very unwise to think it will benefit us now, even if its what the majority are doing. God has never had the majority mentality, its always been a remnant Rev 12:17KJV Rev 14:12 based on faithfulness and His Truth Psa 119:151
The Sabbath was still a commandment a few hours after the Cross Luke 23:56
Jesus indicated His faithful would be keeping the Sabbath some 40 years after the Cross and really until eternity Mat 24:24 Isa 66:23
And kept 60 years after the Cross Rev 1:10 because God only deemed one weekly holy day as His and only sanctified one day Gen 2:1-3 Exo 20:11 and He called it in His own words My holy day, the holy day of the Lord, thus saith the Lord Isa 58:13 so there is no other. Its not the one man assigned God, He deemed for work and labors Exo 20:9 using their own reasoning over God's own Testimony.
This disagreement is not with me. The Sabbath is a commandment of God no different than worshipping other gods or committing murder 1 John 3:4 James 2:11-12 Deut 4:13 Exo 20:1-17 and its not just a commandment for the Sabbath, it is for all days. Exo 20:8-11. God only exalted one weekly day in the Scriptures God wrote it God spoke it, it is His own Testimony Exo 31:18. Hopefully one day more people will see this instead of following the crowd. Mat 15:3-14 Mark 7:7-13. Thankfully many people are seeing the light on the Sabbath Truth.
God said not keeping the Sabbath is doing evil Neh 13:17 Isa 56:2 and is really profaning God Eze 22:26 because He set aside this sacred time for us starting at Creation when God made everything according to His perfect will. He said keeping the Sabbath is what is doing justice and righteousness Isa 56:1-2 which will not be abolished Isa 51:6 and is the foundation of His Throne Psa 89:14 so I guess the choice is which of these things we want to do. When He comes our decisions are final Rev 22:11 which I believe is soon. We can follow man-made traditions or we can obey God's commandments- His version because He is God. Even the apostles taught we ought to obey God over man. Acts 5:29
It has been coursing through the blood of this great nation since long before English Protestants built their first fort on these shores.
In the latter half of the 1800s, the Native American Party or “Know Nothings” began popularizing the slogan “Native Americans, Beware of Foreign Influence” as a means of opposing increasing immigration from Europe, mostly Ireland and Germany. The phrase developed a particularly or uniquely anti-Catholic connotation, casting (mostly Irish) Catholics as unfit for American citizenship and alleging that their first allegiance would always be to Rome, not to the U.S. The Nativist catchphrase, immortalized in Martin Scorsese’s film Gangs of New York, where Bill “the Butcher” Cutting has it emblazoned across an American flag, has made a comeback in recent months.
Although now more broadly used to caution against the influence of foreign governments and their lobbyists in American politics, the catastrophic surge in illegal immigration over the last four years in particular, and the increase in foreign-born politicians and judges, the old Nativist banner is still sometimes used to target American Catholics. When Catholic bishops ignore or diminish the Church’s age-old teachings on national sovereignty and harp on “refugees,” I often see my non-Catholic friends posting screenshots of Bill the Butcher staring at his flag. “Native American, Beware of Foreign Influence.”
But Catholicism is not foreign to America — not at all. In fact, a new Pew Research Center study has discovered that nearly half of all Americans have some connection to Catholicism, either personal or through their family. The study found that 20 percent of Americans are or identify as Catholic, nearly 10 percent of Americans consider themselves “cultural Catholics” (which Pew explains means that they identify as Catholic “ethnically, culturally, or because of their family background,” rather than religiously), 9 percent are former Catholics who have fallen away from the Church, and 9 percent say that they have some other connection to Catholicism, such as a Catholic parent or spouse. Additionally, 1.5 percent of American adults are converts to Catholicism.
Continued below.
![]()
Catholicism Is Not a ‘Foreign Influence’ in America | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
In the latter half of the 1800s, the Native American Party or “Know Nothings” began popularizing the slogan “Native Americans, Beware of Foreign Influence” as a means of opposing increasing immigration from Europe, mostly Ireland and Germany. The phrase developed...spectator.org
Well Fervent, I will simply refer to the good Lord's own words my brother.I suppose, though I still find the implication that child-like faith refers to an uncritical accceptance of a particular textual understanding unpalatable.
There is an intended purpose and intended meaning on the part of the author. Your own books for example, could be construed to mean something very symbolic, but if you were writing of... let's say advanced chess strategies and you found some articles online elaborating about how your book had symbolic meanings for all the different pieces, and was really a play on the book "Art of War," and you had essentially made representations that depicted the methods and principles outlined in the book Art of War... If he did a really good job, and made some charts and infographics and the mathematics he presented seemed to parallel the chess strategies with the principles somehow, well I think he would have people believing it. I also think it may indirectly serve them in the sense that they would be memorizing Art of War principles in an alternate way and enhancing their own memory and benefiting (using that term loosely) from the principles being easier to remember and they claimed it changed their lives for the better. Need I go on; truth be told you made a chess strategies book, because you intended to teach people about chess that you spent a lot of time learning how to battle strategically, and make some money and make a name in the chess world. Instead, you get an "Art of War" fan club. Hyperbole, and yet the example could be worse, they could do that with almost anything. (I know I can if I wanted (if I had not love in my heart), and am aware of individuals who do such things to toy with other people)I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.
Yes, but as an example. Rather than stating that God simply told us the truth about the past, and in a relationship you have to start by building on a foundation of trust and believing what someone tells you about their past (in this setting, God)... I simply jumped to an intention by the Author most of us agree on as an example to express the concept of the intended meaning behind the text being dictated by the writer, whether the reader interprets correctly or not. The occult teaches the exact opposite of what Christian's do, and they use the exact same book. Going to go out on a limb and say they are not getting the intended message presented by the Author.I agree, but now we're starting to wade into theories of inspiration and the relationship between human authors and the underlying Divine intentions of texts.
Actually piques my curiosity. Such as? (Feel like someone gave me a box and told me not to open it.)If you're confident, I wouldn't attempt to dissuade you. I find literalism unconvincing, and object to it on historic grounds in addition to hermeneutic as my understanding of the doctrinal history is that it developed and ossified as a reaction to atheist polemics centered on developing geologic and biologic sciences in the 18th and 19th centuries.
How so boss? If I'm honest, I'm following the rope backwards and putting the old and new on the same timeline. How's that song go? Simple man?Yeah, fair enough. And I believe this is the thread I stated this in, but it's worth repeating, the historical existence of Adam and Eve is a distinct question from how literally we can understand the narratives found in Genesis 1-11.
I don't object to arresting people.
It's how the government is conducting these arrest. Do you really want armed, unidentified squads showing up at your local home depot and start grabbing people? Do you think it's cool for graduate students to be thrown in unmarked vans and wisked away? Is that the America you want?
I was glad to see this article on Lofton, because I've wondered who he is. I watch some Traditionalists on YouTube, and Lofton sometimes pops up as a 'suggestion' for me. But I couldn't tell if he was a Traditionalist or not, from the peculiar way he talks about things, sometimes almost like in 'code' that some viewers apparently understand (?).You'd be surprised how many people view "Youtube channel haver" as a position of importance. Lofton has made a name for himself among that crowd as the go-to anti-traditionalist, "Pope Francis can do no wrong" apologist, alienating his co-hosts in the process and leaving him to run the channel alone.
Judicial overreach has an appeals process, executive branch does not. The only way to limit overreach from the executive branch is through the courts.Nothing about this ruling stops judges from making rulings about the constitutionality of executive actions, it simply prevents a single district judge from having an undue influence over the entire system. Judicial overreach is no less of a significant issue than executive overreach.
Which is far, far less of a threat to democracy than executive branch overreach. Especially since the court's power is limited through the appeals process.Curbing the power of district judges reduces the overall threat that such practices present.
True enough. But he has exacerbated it, and shows no sign of stopping. Given his past criminal acts, it seems to me we need a stronger bulwark against his overreach than a weaker one.While I find the expansion of executive powers that has happened over the last 40 years troubling, it's not as if Trump initiated the problem.
That ability has been in place for decades, it wasn't recently granted. It only came under fire when a president, intent on overstepping his authority, felt inhibited in doing so.But that doesn't justify granting undue influence to single judges that can be selectively picked by anyone with an axe to grind, so it's neither here nor there on this particular ruling.
I don't believe I am being dramatic. Trump does seem inordinately interested in wielding powers well beyond his authority, and I firmly believe our democracy needs more protection against that than less.You're simply being dramatic, judges can still make rulings about constitutionality and the judiciary as a whole remains in its oversite capacity. It simply requires a more comprehensive contingent of judges to operate at a national level, not allowing for rogue judges to wield undue influence over the political process.
The perfect homily IMO is short and to the point. I used to occasionally go to Mass at another church that had a priest with homilies that took about four or five minutes. He got to his point and didn’t ramble on. If was so much easier for me to pay attention.In his 2013 apostolic exhortation Evangelii gaudium (EG), Pope Francis bewailed the fact that both priests and laypeople “suffer because of homilies: the laity from having to listen to them and the clergy from having to preach them!” (135). The Holy Father went on to characterize this situation as “sad,” noting that the homily “can actually be an intense and happy experience of the Spirit, a consoling encounter with God’s word, a constant source of renewal and growth” (ibid.). This raises the question of what a good homily ought to look like. Here we’ll offer five pointers, drawing on official Church guidelines and the writings of recent popes.
1. Staying on Topic
In his apostolic exhortation Verbum domini (VD), Pope Benedict XVI cautioned that “[g]eneric and abstract homilies which obscure the directness of God’s word should be avoided, as well as useless digressions” (59). Generally speaking, the focus of the homily should be on the Scripture readings which have just been proclaimed. As the Code of Canon Law explains, “n the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year” (767 §1). The role of the preacher is to draw from the sacred text to instruct and encourage the faithful.
If he wishes, the preacher may use also his homily to reflect on the Mass prayers which are specific to that day, as the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) explains: “[The homily] should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners” (65).
2. Not Going Too Long (Or Too Short!)
Continued below.
![]()
What Should a Good Homily Look Like? - St. Paul Center
In his 2013 apostolic exhortation Evangelii gaudium (EG), Pope Francis bewailed the fact that both priests and laypeople “suffer because of homilies: the laity from having to listen to them and the clergy from having to preach them!” (135). The Holy Father went on to characterize this situation...stpaulcenter.com
I dabbled in New Age many years ago. Read about healing crystals and other books. I even bought and used crystals for a while. I read about Scientology and astrology. I even had an ouija board as a kid. I never got into New Age too deeply but was searching for something; was agnostic/athiest at the time and thought New Age could solve my problems. Yet at the same time I was playing Contemporary Christian Amy Grant’s music over and over. I eventually got out of New Age and began a very long journey back to Christianity, and finally back to Catholicism. I do have to say that I still find crystals pretty, though.GRAPEVINE, Texas — Jenn Nizza still remembers the moment the door first opened.
She was 13 years old, growing up on Long Island in a culturally Catholic family, when her mother, a hairdresser, hosted a psychic party in their home.
“It was in a little beauty parlor setting. Everyone got a 15-minute tarot reading,” Nizza told The Christian Post.
Hers, like her sister’s, left an impression that would last for decades.
The cards told her things that were true, facts about her past that felt impossible for a stranger to know. “That’s the hook,” she said. “Demons can see the past. They can’t tell the future — only God can — but they make good guesses. And that’s all it takes to get you in.”
What followed was a descent that, in retrospect, she describes as both seductive and sinister. “It was daily. Multiple times a day,” she said of the tarot readings she and her sister performed on each other. From there, she pursued numerology, astrology and eventually psychic mediumship. At one point, a professional medium told her she, too, had “the gift.”
Continued below.
![]()
Former medium warns Christians against the occult: ‘No such thing as a good witch’
After spending over two decades as a professional psychic deeply entrenched in the New Age movement, Jenn Nizza experienced a dramatic spiritual transformation after crying out to Jesuswww.christianpost.com
nm just clomsyI actually had one just a few weeks ago.
In the dream, I was sitting on the floor in the living room, and my little brother was right there next to me, handing me a controller like he always used to. We were playing some silly co-op game, the kind he would usually make fun of me for, but this time he wasn’t teasing me. He was just smiling. We didn’t talk much, but I remember feeling so calm. Like he was really there.
And I knew. Even in the dream, I knew he was gone. But instead of waking up heartbroken, I woke up with this strange peace. Like God let me borrow a moment with him.
I still miss him every day. But that dream reminded me that love doesn’t just stop. It stays with you.
Magdalena
This seems to misunderstand the types of evidence that is typical in history, because there is more evidence of Jesus in more contemporaneous form than a number of historical figures. The objections and aspersions about whether Jesus existed are purely the result of bias, and not based in an understanding of the types of historical evidences that are typically found. Atheist scholars have produced lists of historical figures whose existence is less secure than Jesus', which nobody would seriously entertain questioning. To claim "there are no records of Jesus from the time he was alive" is a specious objection because such documents are vanishingly rare for most historical figures, particularly ones in antiquity. So if such a thing is a problem for Jesus, then its a problem for history in general. That you express questions is more demonstrative of your bias than anything else.The problem is that actual historians (as opposed to "biblical scholars") have almost nothing to work with. There are no records of Jesus from the time he was alive. If it weren't for the fact that he is claimed to be a rather minor figure in an unimportant region in a time when comprehensive record keeping did not exist. (No articles in the Decapolis Times, no court records, etc.). If we had no records of Joseph Smith before stories of him were told in Utah, I'd be inclined to think he was made up by Brigham Young. Since those kinds of records that clearly demonstrate the "career" of Joseph Smith did not exist in the 1st century we can't infer anything from Jesus failing to make a contemporary impression. This is the only thing that brings me to the "more likely an actual person" position.
You may not, but that poster confirmed they were a mythicistMythicists also tend to have an alternative story about what/who Jesus was in the early Christianity. I certainly don't find any of those claims particularly compelling.
It certainly appears as much, given the fringe nature that questioning the existence of Jesus tends to be regarded with by scholars both atheist and Christian. There is no serious reason to question the existence of Jesus, and typically the non-existence position is built on false pretenses such as your objection about a lack of documentation while he was alive. That we have documents within 30 years of his life is more than we have on a number of far more prominent(historically speaking) figures.Perhaps you should stop trying to evaluate my positions or motivations. You keep getting them wrong. It isn't apathy, nor even a lack of interest. I just said that I likely hadn't studied the subject as much as NxNW. I have not read any specialized books on the topic, perhaps he has. As to these "non-historical considerations" my position on the divinity does not influence my assessment of existence. Certainly not as much as it would for a believer who can't contemplate the "non-existence" position.
So you say, but if it were purely a matter of scientific theories I suspect you wouldn't be spending your time on a website called Christian forums to discuss such things.This isn't about everything. It is about a scientific theory (Darwinian evolution and successors), questions of supernaturalism are irrelevant to the discussion of scientific theories.