jonojim1337 said:

It’s not a sphere.

Click to expand...

It is.

Ever wonder why people doze off in church? There is no participation and no questioning allowed. Like reruns, we eventually tune out. Less focus on denominational shackles and more on God's war with adversity might perk things up. Of course to teach that the world around us that we have created and that we defend with our politics might be the root of all evil, a perfect example of what the Kingdom is not, could either empty pews or make for some more interesting sermons than what are spoken. I think most however would prefer we don't rock the boat, nurture our pride in knowing the way, and stick to the tradition of the blind leading the blind.

timothyu said:

The elohim are all spiritual beings outside of the physical realm. God is an Elohim but the other elohim are not God. Yet all were referred to as majestic ones. Angels, as we call them, were actually the lower end of the spiritual hierarchy and designated as messengers.

Click to expand...

It’s all about the context.

Jesus boiled it all down to 2 commandments, the second of which is God's will for all mankind. Love all as self... kindness (not selfishness).

It's unfortunate but there are any number of teachers or professors who are teaching outside of their field & that is malpractice. Is it because they got marching orders or are they just going with a trend or do they really believe that going out of their way is so valuable to the student. Return to classical education. The gender stuff in particular is malpractice. When did any of us going thru school encounter a class in any grade where the teacher opened the lesson questioning whether some kid thought they were created wrong & the teacher is their to fix it. This gets into an area where the teacher is not licensed. When one looks back at the last decade of this stuff it shows that even in the USA, our own govt gets into social engineering no different than Mao Tse Tong. That is why people should never fawn over govt. The gender stuff is a case of body dysphoria & should be treated as a mental health issue. But here the politicians are looking to make more victim groups. I'm an educator by trade & lifelong academic & I have a lot of criticism for what the education system has become & I am disappointed in both parties. Neither party is creditable in their vision on education. On the left we have all these topics that encourage either victimization or pretending that the whole world can just do kumbaya or that we must generate animosity with tit for tat warfare. On the left it's really become about activism. Now the current view from the right I observe that they say all college is bad & no help to anyone & we should perhaps disband it. They want everyone to be a plumber. Well civilization includes people of all academics & occupations. Very sad when the right frowns on the fine arts or does not see the value of a course in sociology. So when you look at the theatrics, remember these people are just pundits. They aren't experts in anything. Can you imagine a country that had no theaters or choirs. The bookstore might as well vanish because you would only be able to sell books on plumbing. So neither side gets it.

Always in His Presence said:

You should really read and find out what is being discussed first.

Click to expand...

Did you post some secret info? I read your OP. Not much there. It's a bit difficult why you make a big deal about Plaskett getting Epstein's help? It's not like she was his buddy and partied with him for 20 years or gave Epstein's girl friend an soft prison cell, to keep her quiet.

Chesterton said:

I don't even wanna know what that might mean.

Click to expand...

They got Six Flags.

Yarddog said:

Not if those Constitutional amendments had already been explained by SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

To the extent that soldiers must consider it, those SCOTUS rulings are already incorporated into the explicit laws soldiers must obey. They are not required to interpret the Constitution themselves.

Yarddog said:

Then you admit that the US military ignores the Geneva Convention and are guilty of war crimes.

Click to expand...

The Geneva Conventions do not create a blanket prohibition of the killing of civilians in combat. For instance, when industrial installations are bombed, do you think the civilian workers are not killed?

Under certain conditions, the Geneva Conventions even permit destruction of schools and hospitals.

jonojim1337 said:

It’s hard to kick against the pricks.

Click to expand...

I suppose that means something?

Pray societies around world are guided by The Holy Spirit to sincerely debate what aspects of gene-editing human babies are Biblical or Unbiblical:

essentialsaltes said:

Government employees asked a federal judge Wednesday to block the Trump administration from encouraging job applicants to demonstrate their loyalty to the president’s agenda.
In a lawsuit filed earlier this month, a group of federal labor unions argues that the White House’s “merit hiring plan” violates applicants’ First Amendment rights. The plan, put forth by the Office of Personnel Management, includes the following short essay question:

Click to expand...

The "Merit Hiring Plan" looks great, long overdue!

MAGA Vance/Trump 2028

Clare73 said:

See Ro 9:22-23.

Click to expand...

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.



The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!



This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).



Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?



If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?



This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.



Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”



Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual (this “letter” is written to Christians and not non-Christians)?



Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?



Is it really significant when it comes to what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in first century Rome?



Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?



The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).



How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.



Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.



Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!



The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.



If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potter’s signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

2 Tim. 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

Important to note is the fact: the dishonorable vessel can cleanse themselves and become vessels of honor.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

If governments were fair and just, it could be used i imagine to catch criminals and prevent crime.

Mark Quayle said:

Mark Quayle said:
Can you demonstrate that anything can happen besides what does happen? Can you demonstrate the actual possibility of other options? Or is that only in our thinking? When God demands that we choose, do we not always only choose the one option? Was God not aware of those decisions before creating, but went ahead and created anyway? Well, then! He INTENDED it to be decided the way it was

CORRECT enough! That's why I asked it. Can you do it? Can you prove that "apparent" free will choices (or any other choice) could have gone a different way? You will say, "of course!", but you can't do it. You will provide some statement you consider axiomatic, but is not, like, "God would not demand what you cannot obey".

Mark Quayle said:
Otherwise, you need to demonstrate that {actual "chance" can determine outcomes}. The notion is by definition self-contradictory. But your whole construction depends on it.

You are defining justice according to the creature's ability to do what he is commanded to do. Sorry, but the command does not imply the ability to obey— it only implies the responsibility to obey. God is not unjust to create beings who will pay for their rebellion, as intended. He is making use of them for his Glory, to demonstrate his love and mercy to the objects of his mercy—us.

Can you demonstrate that actual "chance" can determine outcomes? Or do you first need me to demonstrate how your notion of free will implies chance determining outcomes?

Click to expand...

Sorry Mark, but my computer or CF website was having problems when I posted and posted just one line.
Everything can be understood by man's earthly objective which should drive everything for humans.
As far as God having perfect knowledge of our free will choice before, in our time frame, our making those choices we need an understanding of time.


Lots of things are predestined by God since that is what He will do and sometimes when He will do it.

For over 100 years now scientists have been trying to disproof the relativity of time and have only shown time to be relative. Since science is also saying: space, time and matter came into exist, something outside of space, time and matter had to create them.

If God’s omnipresence includes not only man’s present time, but also man’s past and man’s future time, then God is outside of time and not limited by time.

God expressing himself in anthropomorphically to humans shows why God would use our understanding of time in communicating with us. We know the results of God’s miracles but not how the miracle was done. God would not have to talk about the relativity of time or his existence outside of our time and would keep it simple and with excellent communication, talk about time from a human perspective. Time in heaven might also have their own time separate from man’s time.

If you know today historically a free will choice, I made yesterday, that choice cannot be changed, since history cannot be changed even by God (it happened). The fact you historically know a free will choice does not mean it was not a free will choice.

If God is outside of human time then God at the end of time knows perfectly historically (history cannot be changed) every autonomous free will choice man made at any and all times. God at the end of time would be able to send that information to Himself at the beginning of time before there was a known universe.

If God at the end of time knows what Adam and Eve did in the Garden, He can provide thatinformation to Himself before Adam and Eve were created, so God knows exactly what Adam and Eve are “going to do”, since they have “already done” it (God is in both places at the same “human” time).

It is difficult to think about what it is like to be outside of time and existing throughout time.

My theory would have this:

1. God perfectly knows all human future from some beginning point or before time began.

2. God knows all possible scenarios for the future that would result from His actions and man’s autonomous free will choices.

3. God has predestined in detail most of what man will experience, but this predestined set up scenario by God is to assure every mature adult has a truly independent autonomous free will choice to accept or reject His pure charity as charity, which is the individual’s choice.

4. God predestining the scenarios of man to make this free will choice would be limited to the point an individual could still chose to accept and not harden his/her heart to the point there is nothing more God could do to help that individual.

5. God knows perfectly from the beginning of time what choice every mature adult made throughout man’s history from God’s presence throughout time, but God did not make the choice for the person.

6. God predestined “before” anything was decided to be made that those humans who accepted His charity He would save.

God exists throughout human time at the same time, so there really is no past or future for God, so when we talk about the future, it is only future for us and not God.

It is not that God knows what future you will chose in the future (suggesting the future, is also God’s future), but God knows the free will choices you did make in the future (it is history for God).

The free will choice to humbly accept God's Love as pure undeserved charity and complete the transaction is need or we are nothing more hen robots programmed to accept charity and be charitable, without it being our choice.

jonojim1337 said:

Says so multiple times.

Click to expand...

Alright you are gong to have to stop being cryptic. No where in the NT or OT does it state that God was born. Jesus was born a man but His deity has always been. He is the alpha and the omega. Are you still claiming that God was born?

Landon Caeli said:

Yes. They do.

Click to expand...

Those were your friends and coworkers! Wow!

Nebraskans lament Tyson decision to close Lexington plant with 3,200 workers


In a blow to the local economy of Lexington, Nebraska, Tyson Foods announced that it is closing the town’s longtime Tyson beef plant that employed about 3,200 people.


The Arkansas-based Tyson said in a statement that changes were designed to “right-size” its beef business and position it for long-term success.


The Lexington plant is to close on or around Jan. 20. The statement did not elaborate on why the plant in the town of about 11,500 people was targeted.

I think it’s a fuzzy issue. I believe as far as icons, it must be the Son of God. As far as scripture ( Daniel 7) & tradition ( for example. attested to in Enoch) the understanding is more towards the Father. The account in Enoch seems to conform to & help explain Daniel 7 so it seems sound.

Righteous anger at the way things is.

Login to view embedded media

Daniel Martinovich said:

What’s the point though? Did you read the link? The new Jerusalem is Gods people in the here and now on earth. Suffering and then triumphant on earth.

Click to expand...

The Body of Christ is never called the New Jerusalem and it is not our inheritance but for the OT saints. (Heb. 11: 16)

Our inheritance in on the Lord`s own throne in the highest. (Rev. 3: 21)

eclipsenow said:

Yes and no.

Other apocalyptic symbolism of the time shows us that it works by dressing up the political entities of the day as villains, and the 'goodies' somewhat as universal archetypes.

So there are specific warnings to specific churches - but at the same time we know from history that there were 10 main churches in that area. John chose 7. Why? It's the perfect number. It's the universal number.

So just as Paul wrote to the Corinthians a few times - and it was specifically to teach and rebuke and encourage them - but also us today - so too Revelation works like that.

But you haven't answered the main issues above.

Is John saying "Toughen up princess" to his generation or not? Is he patronising their struggles by saying "You just wait till you see what starts in 1948, and all the failed and ridiculous prophecies that my letter will generate around then!"

Click to expand...

The Lord sent His Holy Spirit to guide us into all the truth of the Lord`s character and His purposes. (John 16: 12)

Character.

Thus we read of the Lord in the midst of the churches as the Head of His Body, the one who is the First and Last, risen from the dead, He who is the word of God, (sharp two-edged sword) the very Son of God, who has the Holy Spirit (7 fold Spirit) who is holy and true the Amen and faithful and true witness. Quite a description there.


Then we move on to seeing the Lord on His own throne the Father set up, (Ps. 2: 6 Rev. 4: 2) with His body, (Rev. 4: 4) and the Lord worshipped by angels and the Body of Christ.


Purposes.

It is a throne of judgment with `lightnings, thundering and voices..` (Rev. 4: 5) Then the Father gives His Son the scroll with what will be judged by the Son. (John5: 27) From then on we read of the judgments .................till all things new.

So I don`t read as in `toughen up princess.`

Desk trauma said:

The Least likely explanation.

Click to expand...

I'll agree it isn't very likely, though it would be unChristian of me to rule it out entirely. Still, it is interesting that MAGA Christians won't consider it.

Desk trauma said:

Her resignation is scheduled for a day after she qualifies for retirement benefits. Off into the sunset to enjoy her insider trading windfall.

Click to expand...

Looks like she beat Trump at his own game. Well played!

Someone should write a song called "2025". It's been a great year so far.

Login to view embedded media