• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Had Mary guessed about resurrection ?

Why not, thanks. i shall have a try. Actually, i, lastly and above all, wondered whether the intention of protecting Jesus was relevant, not from Jesus chilhood or Mary's motherhood.
Rather,
as regards God's centered reasons or plan to let him die on the cross :
Was it God's will to use the protecting feelings of Mary and Joseph to spare the baby Jesus life, or did they both flee to Egypt without caring for such feelings, but already at that moment, and may be they as well, being concerned by God's centered care about Jesus' doom on the cross ?
In the infancy narratives, the Bible presents both things happening at once:


  • Mary and Joseph act with the very normal protective love of parents.
  • God is also actively guiding events so Jesus lives to fulfill his mission.

What the text actually emphasizes​


In Matthew 2, Joseph doesn’t “reason it out” from a long-range plan about the cross. He’s repeatedly warned in dreams (“take the child… flee to Egypt… Herod is about to search for the child to destroy him”), and he obeys quickly. That’s the narrative focus: obedient protection under divine direction.


So the flight isn’t described as “they didn’t care about feelings” or “they were already thinking about the cross.” It reads like: God warns; Joseph protects; the child is preserved.


Did they flee because of feelings, or because of “God’s plan”?​


Most Christian readings would say: both, but not in the same way.


  • On their side (human level): they protected Jesus because that’s what faithful parents do—fear, urgency, love, responsibility. Those “protecting feelings” are not treated as a distraction from God’s will; they’re part of how God normally works through people.
  • On God’s side (divine level): God wills that Jesus not die as an infant at Herod’s hand, because Jesus’ death is meant to happen at the appointed time, in the appointed way—publicly, voluntarily, and as part of the saving work the Gospels later describe.

So God’s will isn’t “use their feelings instead of his plan,” but “use their love and obedience within his plan.”


Were Mary and Joseph already thinking about the cross?​


The texts don’t suggest they had a fully formed, detailed concept like: “We must save him now so he can die on the cross later.”


They do have hints, though:


  • In Luke 2, Simeon’s prophecy includes both Jesus’ destiny and a coming sorrow for Mary (“a sword will pierce your own soul”), which Christians often connect to the passion.
  • Mary “treasures” and ponders, but that’s not the same as having the whole script in her head.

A simple way to put it:


  • They knew enough to obey and to trust.
  • God knew (and intended) the whole arc.

The core theological idea​


Classic Christian theology calls this providence through secondary causes: God accomplishes his purposes through real human decisions, real emotions, real obedience—not by bypassing them.


So yes: it’s very reasonable (and very “biblical”) to say God intended Mary and Joseph’s protective care to be one of the means by which Jesus was preserved—without implying they were coldly calculating “his doom on the cross” from the start. ( chat GPT :p)
Upvote 0

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Because publishing work in appropriate journals does not make it science or good science. This can happen without publishing in particular journals. Are you saying the tests done were not good science. If you think so then show how. Don't just reject it because it doesn't meet some gatekeepers criteria.
If it is good science is to be determined by the their peers.
Thats why I link the images. This is the most fundemental science of observation. The first step in science is to observe and record what is seen, heard, felt ect lol. You don't need a journal for that. I am asking you to be the scientist. To give your initial assessment. You cannot dent the observations.
To determine that I would need to test the hypotheses against each other.
If someone claims the observations are not from human made softening or melting then they need to explain why this is not the case.
First we would have to look at the supposedly vitrified stone, to make sure it actually is vitrified stone. Then we have to make sure that the vitrification isn't the effect of some other process such as a lightning strike
Someone mentioned it was natural, caused by lightening or some natural cause. Then they need to explain this and not just claim it.
I think that was me, mentioning that vitrification happens in nature from time to time due to lightning strikes and fires. That would have to be excluded as a possibility of at least be shown to be much less likely.
I linked clear images of vitrified stones within the Temple and on walls. Close up images of melted stone. Tests showed it contained minieral unnatural to the stone. If those tests are wrong then this has to be shown with additional tests. Not just demand journals.
Tell them to get it published.
This may be the preliminary work to create the paper. How is the tests and analysis in the paper verified before it is made into a paper. They have to do the preliminary work first. This is it. Why can't you comment on that.
Because it is premature before the researchers have sat down and written their article detailing their findings and have it go through the process
But when you claim your not convinced and then leave it at that this comes across as a dismissal. Because you are offering nothing. No explanation or evidence why your not convinced.

I could just say "I am not convinced that you are not convinced" lol and also offer nothing. Then where do we stand lol.
I already know that you believe otherwise than me, that is not a problem.
I literally just pointed out an example above. I could ask, why are you not convinced. What is it that causes you to not be convinced and yet allows others to be convinced by the same evidence.
Is it a matter of epistemics that you believe that the evidence is not convincing.
It needs to be evaluated by subject matter experts.
That the evidence must be within a certain paradigm to be convincing.
No.
What about those who believe, who operate from a different epistemics and paradigm and think your worldview is unreal. Is only a surface level knowledge and not true knowledge. How does science refute this lol. By demanding physical evidence and peer review. Yeah sure. It won't even get through the front door as its rejected out of hand based on an epistemic belief and not science.

You literally just did lol. I don't think you realise that this is what you are doing when you demand the evidence and methology for the evidence has to fall within a certain paradigm (worldview) and can only be known by naturalism.
If any process leaves an impact on the physical it can be studied.
Have you ever heard of phenomenal belief.
I have read works by Edmund Husserl. But vitrification is amenable to optical investigations microscopically and chemical investigations.
Upvote 0

Trump sued by preservationists seeking reviews and congressional approval for ballroom project

Would the reaction to this be the same had any other non-Trump president went down this path? ...just if you had to take a wild guess.
Tearing down parts of a house, seen as a symbol of the people, yes I think many would see that as problematic. I'm pretty sure that if king Charles changed the outward appearance of Buckingham palace, there would be a public outcry. Fixing heating, ventilation and electrical system is ok, as is upkeep of the interior and the facade, but making major changes to the outside would raise some eyebrows. Pretty sure it would be discussed with some antiquarian, at least that is my guess.
It seems as if (based on a few of the other posts), people seem to assume that because it was a Trump idea, that it's going to be the worst of everything.

To me, it feels like the inverse of the whole "Obama put in a basketball court" outrage.
Upvote 0

Netflix's promotion of LGBT themes, sexual preferences in kids' shows 'pervasive': report

Suppose Netflix (and similar streaming services) had a more detailed rating system, so instead of just an age, there was some content description, and there was a way to select/screen based on some of these descriptions. "Contains LGBTQ content." "Contains depictions of smoking." "Contains depictions of religious observance" (maybe listing which religion). "Contains teenage romance", etc. Then parents could select for or screen out topics they want their children to be able to see. Would that solution satisfy the CWA folks?

I note that the content that one family might seek out is content that another family might wish to avoid. Surely a computer program could be written to let viewers select content in this way.
Sounds perfectly good to me! After all we have warnings on games, cds, movies, and other content. That way people can choose what media they want to consume or not! Eh?
Upvote 0

Breaking Up With Toxic Femininity

50% of all new marriages end in divorce. 80% of all divorces are initiated by the women. 75% of all suicides annually are committed by men. And society has become "feminized" to the point where male roles are not recognized any more, or if they are such roles are..
survival of the fittest.

embrace it.
Upvote 0

I hold a view similar to the Open View of God.

No. If he caused it, and that is reality, then whatever is real within that reality is caused by God. To characterize something within that reality as uncaused is therefore logically self-contradictory.
Only if God is unable to make a person or agent who can also be a causer. But if God can cause a causer, one who can affect the cosmos like God can, even if only on a tiny scale, then everything is NOT caused by God.

And if God causes all real things within the reality you speak of, then God is wholly to blame for any real sin. There is no one else to blame. And if blaming God for sin is sinful in itself, blame God for causing me to do it--I can only do what God causes me to do.
Upvote 0

God’s Politics

That is the beauty of having personal opinions - they can differ.

That's a beautiful sentiment, but it comes at an amazingly high cost, because that freedom means that some people are going to have opinions that tear at the very core of your sense of right and wrong, nonetheless you're going to have to respect their right to hold them, because to do otherwise is to judge them for that which you also do.

'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us'... that's a tough bugger to live up to.
Upvote 0

Concerns About the Foundations of the Gentile Christian Movement in Acts 15

In the Law is commanded stoning of a woman who lies about being a virgin, in order to get a man to marry her > Deuteronomy 22:20-21.

This is in the Torah. How do you fulfill this?
The words of Yeshua have to be the go-by, or there is no reason for any further discussion. Various expositors and Jewish Rabbis down through the centuries have tried to encapsulate a summary of the Torah with a core principle including Hillel the Elder, as we know, who emphasized loving your neighbor as the fundamental teaching. Yeshua finally ties it all together, starting on the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:17-18, and approaches the pinnacle, so to speak, when he answers the lawyer regarding which was the great commandment of the Law in Matthew 23:36-40. Basically he gives him (2) commandments will fulfill the entire Torah: Love God and Love your Neighbor as Yourself. On these two commandments hangs (suspends) all the law and the prophets. The final pinnacle is in John 13: 34: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Remember that Yeshua's references to keeping the Torah were mainly focused on the moral law or 10 commandments, including the adultery, stealing, lying, murder, honoring your parents, etc., per Matthew 19:16-19. He corrects previous areas, i.e., "Ye have heard it has been said", reversing the eye for eye and tooth for tooth thought process, and emphasizing loving our enemies, if you look at Matthew 5:38-44. In answer to your question, in our day and age it is no longer our responsibility to stone a woman, or actions similar to the account of John 8:1-11 where a woman was caught in the act of adultery and brought to Yeshua and the accusers rehearsed the commandment in the Law to stone her. Per Yeshua, there was no one worthy or sinless enough to stone her, and that point was made clear. So to my understanding, the commandment still exists, but we are not in the position to execute that form of judgement. If you look at the events that will transpire at the end of this age in Revelation 19:11-16, Yeshua himself will judge sin and evil, and the armies in heaven, (believers), will follow him on white horses, but Yeshua himself will execute the judgement on wicked and ungodly people. This relieves us to fulfill the Law of Love in purity and in so doing we have an accurate understanding of sin and evil when confronted by it, but no responsibility to actually engage in the final judgement of sins and wickedness. Thanks and I hope this helps to answer this important question. Bob
Upvote 0

Taking Christ Out of Christmas

According to their parish website, the pastor of St. Susanna in Dedham, Massachusetts is Fr. Steve Josoma.

I would caution you, Father. Another priest, once upon a time, went into politics instead of sticking to his priestly ministries---his name was Father Joseph Coughlin, and we all know how that turned out, don't we? :sorry:
Upvote 0

New Orleans Diocese issues Mass dispensation for migrants due to arrest fears

They are not migrants. Migrants migrate. They stay in one place for a specific job or a set amount of time, and then they leave and go somewhere else.

They are also not immigrants. Immigrants enter a country legally, with the intention of becoming citizens and permanent residents.

Let's call them what they really are: illegal aliens.
Upvote 0

State leaders speak out about plans to expand the Islamic Academy of Alabama

Except Islam allows lying to infidels in order to do whatever it takes to take over.
It doesn't, as I explained in this response to you back in October.

Yes we need to listen to Muslims who have left to get the stories we wouldn't know otherwise... If you don't want to believe her story, then don't. Turn a blind eye. I don't care anymore.
I don't doubt her stories about child brides and being promised to her cousin when she was born. This is a practice that occurs in the Islamic tribe I work with. More than half the children are married by contract before they are five years old, and the wedding can take place once they reach puberty and a dowry is paid. I have attended dozens of weddings that were prearranged by the parents and where the bride was a child. In 2016, I tried to help a 13-year-old girl get out of an arranged marriage by convincing the girl's mother and the boy's family how important it was for her to stay in school. I also had to pay the boy's family the same amount of money that the parents had agreed to years earlier for the girl's dowry. In their culture the family of the groom gives a dowry to the bride's family. In many cultures it's the other way around. The agreement was I would pay the money the boy's family needed for the dowry if they agreed to wait until she finished school to move forward with the wedding. Unfortunately, later that year I made a brief trip to the US, and while I was away, the girl's mother died, and the boy's family took the girl against her will to another island, and they were married anyway. Everything ex-Muslim Sabatina James blames Islam for in that video when it comes to her prearranged marriage and child marriages in general is the result of culture and tradition, not Islam. Those practices predate Islam and occur in non-Islamic cultures as well.

Just four minutes into the video, Sabatina James says, "Recently in Pakistan, five women were buried alive just because they refused the arranged marriage that their family had chosen for them. They wanted to marry men of their own choices. Three of them were actually teenagers. So this stuff happens every single day."

That incident wasn't recent; it happened in 2008, and it was tribal traditions, not the teachings of Islam, that led to their deaths.

Pakistan: Three teenage girls buried alive in tribal 'honour' killing

Three teenage girls have been buried alive by their tribe in a remote part of Pakistan to punish them for attempting to choose their own husbands, in an "honour" killing case. Some reports said that two older relatives of the girls had tried to intervene, but they too were shot and buried with the girls while still alive.

Under tribal - not religious - tradition, marriages are carefully arranged by elders. Marrying without permission is considered an affront to the honour of the tribe.


Another article:

Five women beaten and buried alive in Pakistan 'honour killing'

Honor killings predate Islam and occur in Pakistani Christian families as well.

Pakistani murders his sister in name of ‘honor’: police

A Pakistani girl has been killed by her brother for insisting on marrying a man of her choice, police said on Tuesday, marking the nation’s latest gruesome “honor killing”

Anum Ishaq masih, in her late teens and from a Christian family, was murdered while she slept in the city of Sialkot, southwest of Lahore, in the early hours of Sunday.

“Saqib Ishaq masih, 23, killed his sister by smashing her head with a wooden log while she was sleeping,” said Rana Zulfiqar, the officer in charge of the police station in Sialkot. “The girl, named Anum Ishaq masih, was in her late teens and wanted to marry a Christian neighbor, but the family was against the marriage.”



Later in the video she says the following: "It's actually frightening how little Christians know about what Islam teaches about them. Christians are among the worst of creatures."

Islam doesn't teach that Christians are the worst of creatures. Only those who oppose God's revealed books to them or those who engage in idolatry are considered the worst of creatures.

She goes on to say, "The Quran itself in Surah 5 says that a Muslim and a Christian cannot be friends."

The verse she's referring to was revealed in Medina during a time of conflict when certain Christian, Jewish, and pagan tribes had formed alliances to fight against the Muslims.

"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies; some of them are allies of one another. Whoever of you allies himself with them is one of them. God does not guide the wrongdoing people." (Qur'an 5:51)

The Christians being spoken of were very specific Christians at a specific point in time. That verse is not a blanket command for Muslims to not be friends with Christians today.

As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable. But God prohibits you from befriending those who fought against you over your religion, and expelled you from your homes, and aided in your expulsion. Whoever takes them for friends—these are the wrongdoers. (Qur'an 60:8-9)

O you who believe! Do not befriend those who take your religion in mockery and as a sport, be they from among those who were given the Scripture before you, or the disbelievers. And obey God, if you are believers. When you call to the prayer, they take it as a joke and a trifle. That is because they are people who do not reason. (Qur'an 5:67-58)

As you can see from those verses, Muslims can be friends with those who do not fight against them or mock them.

Sabatina James knows the things I pointed out above, but she also knows that those watching the Michael Knowles show, like yourself, don't.
Upvote 0

Christmas and Legalism

Here in the US, we can get crazy competitive about the dumbest things. Apparently, that's true in the UK as well.

If you enjoy putting up lights and baking cookies, do it. If you don't enjoy it, don't do it. Don't give your neighbors a hard time about what they do or don't do in December. And be merciful to those who are exhausted or sad during Advent and Christmas -- which is more people that you might think.

I'm sorry your friend has annoying neighbors.
Upvote 0

Earliest denial of sons of God meaning angels

Genesis 6:4​

New International Version​

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
1 Enoch internally written before the flood by Enoch 7th from Adam inspired scripture hidden (apocrypha) from the swine, and unworthy by God himself explains how the sons of God were fallen angels, and Jude, and Peter imply the same thing when they say angels left their heavenly abode were put in chains until judgement which is what 1 Enoch says also.

The Cave of Treasures internally is written after 70 AD as it says Titus has destroyed Jerusalem. Inspired scripture stopped 70 AD (Dan 9 said vision, and prophecy would be sealed up by then) so it is not inspired. Some manuscripts say it was written by Ephrem the Syrian who died 373 AD. That text says sons of Seth mated with daughters of Cain, and made the giants, and explicitly says fallen angels were not involved. Augustine of Hippo 400 AD says the same thing. Conflict of Adam, and Eve with Satan (which is divided into 4 books) also say the same. That text was also written after 70 AD as it says Titus has destroyed Jerusalem, and shares a lot of content with Cave of Treasures. That text also says Melchizadek was the son of Cainan. I'm not sure if it was written before or after cave of treasures. So Ephrem the Syrian is the earliest author denying what 1 Enoch says AFAIK. In those texts sons of god meant Seths children as Seth, and other people in that lineage were righteous Genesis 6:9. Augustine also promoted the idea that 1 Enoch was not written pre flood. So up until 300s AD the majority of Christians believed 1 Enoch was written pre flood like Jesus, Jude, 1 Enoch, and all the other evidence says it was (there is stuff in the dead sea scrolls about Abraham reading Enoch when in Egypt, and Levi passing Enochs books to his children). My guess is the synagogue of satan after 70 AD started saying to Christians you can't trust 1 Enoch it is a myth it is pseudepigrapha it was written after the flood etc, and a lot of Christians believed them just like Adam, and Eve believed the devil in the garden of Eden, David believed satan with the census (God allowed the devil to tempt David) , and just like 50 million Christians today believe the synagogue of satan when they say "god gave us palestine help us kill steal and destroy in the name of the god of abraham'. The reason the synagogue of satan did not like 1 Enoch is because of the son of man that existed before creation with the lord of spirits prophecy (ask chat GPT to show all the prophecies of Jesus in 1 Enoch) which was used by Daniel later on, and when Jesus called himself the son of man the high priest rent his garment, and said “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. Mathew 26: 65.

Review of Charlie Kirk's book Stop in the name of God

Interesting youtube vid

Login to view embedded media
Notice there is a reference to GC 588 in the video.

Also notice that in the past 7 or 8 days we have Kirk Cameron discussing his rethinking of the soul and eternal hell, and we also have the release of the book by Charlie Kirk 'Stop in the name of God".

Both are discussed in that video
I pre-ordered the book and received it but I probably won’t read it. I honestly do not trust that it was not altered prior to going to publish. I am glad to hear Kurt Cameron changing his views, hopefully he will on the Sabbath as well. :praying:
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,879,712
Messages
65,437,580
Members
276,448
Latest member
Simple Dan