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.

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.

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

stevevw said:

I am very self aware. You underestimate me. How do you think say a scientist can also be a Christian or believe in some transcedent reality. Cannot they reconcile them both.

Click to expand...

Belief in transcendent reality is not at issue in this discussion or even in this forum. There is no need for a Christian or a scientist to reconcile such beliefs with science.

eleos1954 said:

The "rapture" is the first resurrection .... there is no "secrete rapture" ... personally I don't like or use the term. There are two resurrections.

Click to expand...

You seem incapable of addressing all rebuttals to your theological theories above. Why is that?

childeye 2 said:

Yeah, I don't believe in that. I believe were either serving righteousness or unrighteousness.

Click to expand...

Okay. Thank you.
What you don't believe is what is.

I will freely love them / I will love them freely​

Click to expand...

For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if unwillingly, I am entrusted with a stewardship.​

Click to expand...

But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that your goodness will not be out of compulsion, but by your own free will (Berean Standard Bible; NASB; Amplified Bible; Christian Standard Bible; Holman Christian Standard Bible; American Standard Version; English Revised Version; New Heart English Bible; Majority Standard Bible; World English Bible; Smith's Literal Translation; Anderson New Testament; Godbey New Testament) / according to willingness / willingly / voluntary / not something forced.​

Click to expand...

These works are not beliefs. There are facts - works of academia.
The definition of the words here, are not subject to change based on one's belief.
They describe free will, voluntary, willful, deliberate, and intentional action.
You cannot accept them... so you claim, but at the same time do not believe them.

I cannot continue this conversation with you, as it would be similar to talking with someone who says they don't believe seas and oceans exist, simply because of their beliefs., and opening works of academia and showing that person that what they are denying is actually proven knowledge makes no difference to them.

So, thank you for the discussion, and you do have an enjoyable day sir.
Good day.

Well I hope it’s better than this:

Thank you, Mark, for your helpful and encouraging reply. As an update, I decided to remove the time limits for texting, not wanting to be in a situation again where I am glued to my phone feeling severely restricted in what I can do. The result is that the only reliable strategy I have to try to control my smartphone use is to turn the phone’s power off when/before I get home. One of the inconveniences is two step verification where I have to get a code texted to my phone for certain websites/accounts I have to use. In the future I am thinking of getting an authenticator app or password manager on another device for this purpose, but for now, if I have to receive the 2FA code, I could power my phone on only for a few seconds and power it off immediately after inputting the code. However, needing to have the phone for 2FA makes the next phase of my plan a hassle. In the future, I want to obtain a special time lock safe (or use a safe with the combination saved in the timelock online lockbox) to lock myself out from the phone for certain periods of time. One of the timelock safes I researched is bypassable by removing the batteries I think, so it might not be an option.

So because I disabled the time limits for texting in the Lock Me Out app, and I may not consistently turn my smartphone’s power off, I am back in the situation where I could waste entire evenings after work spending time on my phone, which seems like a problem to me, but I do not want to be on a smartphone where I am severely restricted. If the phone is powered off, and not locked up in a safe, if I really want to text, I can just get the phone and power it back on.

I also struggle with the inconvenience of powering my smartphone off. It is really convenient to listen to the relaxing music stations on my phone with my bluetooth earphones to block out outside sound in the apartment I live in. With turning off my phone, if I wanted to listen to music with my wireless earphones, I would have more of a hassle of having to turn my laptop on to stream the music, and I think if I run the laptop all the time when I am at home that it wears on the battery so that the laptop gets more worn down sooner in time. I may want to get an iPad or alternate device locked down with restrictions in the future where I can stream music. And there is also an inconvenience where if the laptop connects to the bluetooth earphones, it will always take precedence over connection to the phone, meaning I will have to remove the earphones in settings on the computer if I want to connect them to the phone.

Another inconvenience with powering off the phone is I cannot easily look up phone numbers and make calls, so if I want to call with my landline, I have to use the laptop to look up phone numbers. This inconvenience has sometimes resulted in me deciding to keep the smartphone turned on when I get home to make the call.

soldier of light said:

Jesus can teach anyone. That's what my eyes see in scripture

Click to expand...

The only teacher is GOD through Jesus Christ the mediator. We are taught of GOD. If anyone learns from the FATHER they must go through Christ. This eliminates deception, GOD cannot lie, neither can Jesus.

Akita Suggagaki said:

Our responsibility lies in working for the Lord, whether it is in “looking after orphans or widows in distress” (James 1:27), giving to the hungry, the naked, visiting those in prison (Matthew 25:35-36), serving in our workplace (Colossians 3:22), or doing whatever we do (Colossians 3:23). And our motivation is that we have God’s own promise that our work “is not in vain” in the Lord “since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving” (Colossians 3:24).

Click to expand...

What you have listed has nothing to do with politics. I do agree with them but I don’t do these things through government, I do them personally when I see a need and am able to help. These works cannot be ours but GODS work of love in us. Ephesians 2:10 Philippians 2:13 We do not earn salvation by any works of our own we are GODS workmanship. GOD planned our works in advance. Just as Jesus said his FATHER did the works, John 10:14 John 5:19,30 Jesus here sets the example for us that we also do no works, the FATHER does them. In this way GOD receives all the glory.

zoidar said:

I appreciate your respons, but that's a theological conclusion. Dikaiouminoi believes that conclusion can be made from the grammar. It's a bit annoying I can do nothing with his statements. Kind of kills the discussion.

Click to expand...

Grammatical arguments like that tend to be fallacious because they treat the text as if it were a technical document when it is not. Your approach of reading further on in the passage is the more appropriate exegetical move, because it deals with the narrative context rather than being deconstructive and creating a foreign context through linguistic games. Language simply doesn't function in the way that is necessary for the technical grammatical arguments to be anything more than puffery.

Sam266 said:

What do you think NDEs are about if not the afterlife and the survival of the self? I've studied this subject for the past 20 years. It includes reading more than 5000 accounts from around the world.

Click to expand...

Failing brains doing weird stuff. Some people recover, most don't. They are also not universal in the "ND" conditions that sometimes induce them.

ThatRobGuy said:

Censorship is only politically expedient if one's own house "is in order" regards to to the Overton Window.

Click to expand...

But suppose the right's house is not "in order" as regards the Overton Window, and therefore they rely on censorship to remedy that problem. Suppose, for example, the the right successfully censors the far right. Wouldn't that make them appear more moderate? And wouldn't this be expedient even on our premise that their house is not "in order" as regards the Overton Window?

timf said:

A question arises as to when the "church" begin.

Click to expand...

At Caesarea Philippi when Jesus said it was truth from the Father, and not man,

timf said:

Many consider that all of the promises for Israel

Click to expand...

This was the entire House of Israel, all 12 tribes, not just the Jews or Judaea. When Jesus said go first to all nations he meant of the House of Israel, reunite the original kingdom under the Kingdom/governance of the Father.