Login to view embedded media
On Purpose [Wedding Version] - Ni/Co

Lybrah said:

I haven’t been going to church in a while. I feel like it’s boring. I find myself daydreaming and the sermons are good, but I really don’t like to sing or stand up. I like just saying prayers and even though the sermons are good, I don’t feel like going. I’m not really getting anything out of the Bible study, either, which is online. When I do go to church, I do tithe.
Am I falling away or is this not the right church for me? The people are nice.

Click to expand...

I think it's because with most churches we are receiving men's word over God's word. I just don't see the point in personal sermons written by men. I want my church to strictly stick to teaching God's Word.

Fellowship is fine with like minded believers but I guess it depends on the reason you want to go.

Thank You God for making me and thank You God for making Beautiful Poinsettias!! ^w^

You are such an amazing Artist, God!! ^w^

Part two

FaithT said:

My family. I know it sounds cliche but it’s true.

Click to expand...

Always good to be thankful for our family, we never want to take them for granted.

Apple Sky said:

There is.

King James Bible
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20.

Click to expand...

But the word translated "science" in the KJV is the Greek word "gnosis," which means "knowledge." Indeed, in 28 of the 29 times it occurs, it is translated "knowledge" in the KJV. Gnosis does not refer to what we call science - Physics, biology, chemistry and so on.

Besides, the verse you quote does not say that all knowledge is wrong, just that some knowledge is false knowledge. Often the Greek word gnosis is used in a good way. For example, in Simeon' song:

“76 “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Highest; For you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, 77 To give knowledge of salvation to His people By the remission of their sins,” (Lu 1:76-77 NKJV)

I have seen a trend with these, not too long ago a man set a woman on fire, and claimed he was drinking, and that he has a drinking problem.

What does this have anything to do with these murders?

GoldenBoy89 said:

Tell me how you really feel.

Click to expand...

No.

RileyG said:

To appease an agenda.

Click to expand...

Nah, it's based on evidence. As all scientific theories are.

RileyG said:

How sad.

Godspeed

Click to expand...

You have every right to be sad that your opinions and facts aren't consistent.

-- A2SG, and you're certainly not alone in that....

Landon Caeli said:

If nobody can see and feel the things about Islam that I do, then all I can say is that maybe I have inherited some epigenetic effects from an ancestor who saw Islam *exactly* the same way I do, and so my DNA is pushing me into protection-mode, which was prepared for me, should the exact same neuronal firing sequence take place again.

I'm sure my ancestors fought beside the Habsburgs, during the battles of Kobolkut, as well as the Battle of Vienna, and I'm sure of it, because it's my ancestral homeland, and I exist - so I must come from the survivors of that.

Click to expand...

Pray like your life depended on it. Pray for their conversion and salvation.

Blessings

I've been thinking about the stark contrast between Christianity and Nazism, yet I've noticed that some people seem to conflate the two. One promotes love, forgiveness, and humility, while the other is rooted in hatred, domination, and prejudice.

Context: One prays, the other preys.

How is it possible for individuals to draw parallels between these two ideologies? Could it be due to historical misinterpretations, propaganda, or a misunderstanding of faith itself? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this confusing juxtaposition.

• What examples can you share that highlight these misconceptions?
• How can we better educate others on the true message of Christianity in light of such conflation?
• What role do you think social media plays in perpetuating these misunderstandings?

Looking forward to a thoughtful discussion!
el3venS1x (Dell)

Michie said:

I don’t know much about him but this article has peaked my curiosity about him.

Click to expand...

Same here!

RDKirk said:

What would be the rationale for conducting war with Venezuela that is covered by any current Congressional resolution?
And if it's not, why shouldn't Congresspeople call that an illegal operation?

Click to expand...

Who says it's "war" with Venezuela? All we're doing is eliminating drug trafficking activity coming from there.

GoldenBoy89 said:

That this is quite a tragedy but not really surprising in our gun country where we tend a mass shooting a day year after year. How did he get a gun is my question.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it’s not that difficult to obtain guns nowadays. Sigh.

essentialsaltes said:

Thousands of immigrants could be eligible for bond hearings, striking down DHS policy: Judge​

A federal judge has struck down a Department of Homeland Security policy implemented in July that forced most immigrants who entered the United States without inspection to remain in detention throughout their removal proceedings.

The decision could potentially allow thousands of immigrants who have been subject to mandatory detention to be released.

On Tuesday, Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes in California certified a class granting relief to migrants who “have entered or will enter the United States without inspection” and those who were not initially detained when they came into the country.

[Class actions can still trigger nationwide effects.]

Click to expand...

Another judge over reaching.

Vambram said:

If judges are allowed to pick and choose federal DA's, then judges are overstepping their roles as judges. The DA must be selected by the Presidents and then approved by the Senate.

Click to expand...

If you are trying to insinuate that the law is unconstitutional, this doesn't actually help you in your claims that the judge was wrong. Because if the law that they tried to use to install Halligan is unconstitutional, then... obviously, they couldn't install Halligan that way (a reasonably straightforward reading of the law also says they can't install Halligan, but the point is if the law is unconstitutional, then they definitely can't install her under it, because it's unconstitutional).

Even if your assertion is that not the whole law is unconstitutional, merely the specific part of the law that allows for the district court to choose the interim attorney after the 120-day period has expired, that still doesn't help Halligan because the result of that would simply mean that once we're past that 120-day period, which we are, the position stays empty until the Senate confirms someone. Since Halligan has not been confirmed by the Senate (has she even been nominated?), she's therefore not appointed to the position.

Thus under the interpretation you appear to be advancing, Halligan's appointment is still invalid.

ViaCrucis said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/14/private-chat-among-young-gop-club-members-00592146?fbclid=IwY2xjawNb7yVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHpiuAgGef-xx5qyN-d1eFzGG5htMwUgWGcxSRZ_z0x0j0NyBaTOim2xKgME7_aem_sJU63VqLDrytz8LRHme4lA

Click to expand...

Yeah, which one of those people are Nazis? You dont even know who they are. Too many on the left see a Nazi under every bush.

CoreyD said:

Let me show you.
I'll highlight the faulty reasoning.

First, there is no noun 'free will', being mentioned in this thread... except by the user @childeye 2.

Click to expand...

CoreyD said:

The Bible says Adam was not deceived.
Thus Adam acted on his own free will.

The word “will” in “acted on his own free will” is grammatically a noun. It is the head of the noun phrase “his own free will”, which serves as the object of the preposition “on”.

By syntactic rule, verbs cannot function as prepositional objects, adjectives cannot serve as heads of noun phrases, and adverbs cannot be modified by adjectives like 'Free'. The structure --> determiner (his) + adjectives (own, free) + noun (will) — is a standard noun phrase. Therefore, “will” here is unambiguously a noun meaning volition or choice, not a verb, adjective, or adverb.

CoreyD said:

This is at least the sixth or seventh time I told you this, but rather than respond to what I said, and showed you... namely...

The Greek word hekousios - meaning free will, is the neuter of a derivative from hekon; voluntariness -- willingly, which is (an adjective, a primitive term) – properly, willing; "unforced, of one's own will, voluntary" (J. Thayer), i.e. acting on one's own accord. The root (hek-) emphasizes intentional, deliberate action (choice), i.e. "of free-will" (J. Thayer).​

You keep responding to yourself, by putting up this strawman, and then attacking it.
Is that not ridiculously faulty?

Click to expand...

I don't know what strawman you are referring to. You posted the op, not me. The fault I see lies in conflating Greek morphology with English syntax. Hekousios is an adjective in Greek, meaning “voluntary.” In English, “free will” is a noun phrase: determiner (his) + adjectives (own, free) + noun (will). When you post a scriptural verse with a term that is an adjective meaning freewill/voluntary offering you seem to think it proves we have free wills meaning autonomous.

Prepositions like 'on' require a noun phrase as their object, so will here --> "Adam acted on his own free WILL", must be a noun. Translators often shift adjectives into nouns when the target language requires it (e.g., dikaios → righteousness). So the Greek root explains the meaning, but it doesn’t change the English grammar. That’s why your accusation doesn’t hold — the categories are being mixed.

CoreyD said:

If someone were talking to you about chalk, and referring to white chalk, would you keep talking about charcoal, and claim the person is talking about charcoal?
Seriously, would that not be faulty... to an extreme?

Click to expand...

Your chalk vs. charcoal analogy doesn’t work. Chalk and charcoal are two different substances.

But 'WILL' in English is one word with multiple grammatical functions. The question isn’t about confusing two unrelated things — it’s about identifying which function 'WILL' takes in a given sentence.

In “acted on his own free will”, the preposition 'on' requires a noun phrase, and free and will together forms exactly that. Adjectives can’t head prepositional objects, and verbs can’t be modified by adjectives like free. So unlike chalk vs. charcoal, where you’d be misidentifying the material, here the grammar itself dictates that will is a noun. The fault lies in conflating Greek adjective roots with English noun usage, NOT in my analysis.

CoreyD said:

Secondly, God is love, and everything God does is governed by love,, yet God chose to love his people freely - voluntarily.
So, the statement "it's my contention that Love fulfills the law and it is love that causes us to act responsibly and care about how our actions affect others, not our ability to volunteer or not volunteer" is extremely faulty because... well... I mean... look at it C.
I cannot even make sense of that.
Can you make sense of it, and break it down for us?

Click to expand...

First allow me to point out an error --> You said this: ... everything God does is governed by love,, yet God chose to love his people freely - voluntarily.

If God’s love were merely a voluntary choice, then His essence would be contingent. But Scripture says “God IS love.” Love is not something He sometimes chooses, it's His Eternal nature. Hosea’s “I will love them freely” means His love is sovereign and unmanipulated, not optional. To reduce God’s love to voluntariness is to deny His essence. And if that were true, God would not be God.
--------------------------------------------------

CoreyD: I cannot even make sense of that. Can you make sense of it, and break it down for us?

Childeye 2 says --> "it's my contention that Love fulfills the law. <-- it means Without love we cannot Love God with all our hearts mind and strength, nor love our neighbor as ourselves....
and it is love that causes us to act responsibly <-- while free will philosophy is meant to imply a moral responsibility for our choices and actions because we could have chosen otherwise, it's actually brotherly Love that causes us to care about how our actions affect others, not our ability to volunteer or not volunteer or to choose otherwise.

The Spirit of Love precedes any action of love. Without Love, an action cannot truly be moral, because morality requires caring how our actions affect others. Voluntary is a neutral term. Voluntary may describe the manner of action, but love is the foundation. Without love, there is no morality --> only indifference. Moreover, wanting to volunteer requires a want. Voluntariness doesn’t stand alone, it’s always driven by some desire. If that desire is love, the act is moral. If it’s carnal selfishness, the act may be immoral. That shows voluntariness itself is morally empty; love or lack of love is what determines morality/immorality.

compassion​

noun​

com·pas·sion kəm-ˈpa-shən

: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.

CoreyD said:

The fact that a person is moved from a heart filled with love, to voluntarily, or willingly take a particular course, does not mean they have not acted willingly, and voluntarily.

Click to expand...

But that’s exactly my point: voluntariness is redundant. God/Love makes people willing to do what is good.
Philippians 2:13
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

The moral foundation is love, not voluntariness. Free will adds nothing to the explanation that it’s love that precedes and determines whether the action is moral or immoral. Voluntariness only describes the act after love has already moved the person to volunteer.

I don’t accept the false premise that free will simply means voluntariness. Voluntariness describes the manner of an act, but free will is about autonomy, the supposed ability to do otherwise. My point is that morality doesn’t depend on either. Love precedes and determines whether an action is moral. Without love, voluntariness and free will are both redundant.

CoreyD said:

They have done so, because it was their choice to... just as a person is moved from a heart that is lacking love, to rebel against God... like Adam did, as well as the angel that became Satan, and mankind today, who want to go their own way, and fulfill their sinful desires.
In both cases, they acted willingly... deliberately... voluntarily - of their own free will.

Click to expand...

Children of God are led by the Spirit of Truth. Children of the devil are led by lies. That distinction itself denies voluntariness as the foundation of morality, because truth is knowledge, not an option.

We need terms like Truth and faith to cleanse the mind.

Why “Truth and faith” matter​

• Truth: knowledge revealed by God, not an option or decision. It denies voluntariness as the foundation of morality.
• Faith: trust in God’s Spirit of Truth. It is the posture of dependence, not autonomous choice.
• Together, they cleanse the mind — they reframe the discussion away from voluntariness and toward divine reality.

See here: The children of God are led by The Spirit of Truth according to faith:

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.​

​

John 3:21 — “He that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” → Works are wrought in God, not chosen voluntarily.​

​

John 8:32 — “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” → Freedom comes from knowing truth, not from voluntariness.​

​

Romans 8:4 — “…that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” → Fulfillment of the law comes only by being led by the Spirit of Truth, not by voluntariness.​

​

John 16:13 — “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” → The Spirit of Truth guides, not voluntariness.​

​

CoreyD said:

It's not an "ability to volunteer".
Something done voluntarily, willingly, unforced, of one's own accord, or of free will, is a deliberate action - an "exercise of will (verb), done freely", which is part of a decision making process, or choice. The root (hek-) of hekousios emphasizes intentional, deliberate action

Click to expand...

I don't know why you're bringing this up. I have never denied the meaning of hekousios. “Yes, hekousios means deliberate, voluntary action. But Scripture shows that even deliberate acts can be sinful if they reject truth (Hebrews 10:26). The decisive issue is not voluntariness but truth. Truth is knowledge, not an option and only those led by the Spirit of Truth fulfill the law (Romans 8:4, John 16:13). Voluntariness adds nothing once truth and love and faith are admitted as the cause.”

CoreyD said:

We are not talking about being able to volunteer, as if we need an able-bodied person to do some work. Or offer up a ram.
The Hebrew expression nedabah (נְדָבָה) is rendered freewill offering, freely, plentiful, voluntary, offering, willingly, offering. (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)
This Hebrew word comes from the Hebrew word nadab, of which Topical Lexicon says...
The verb נָדַב consistently underlines a movement of the heart that is neither coerced nor merely dutiful.

Voluntary offerings were made by "every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing, and they brought the LORD’S offering... Exodus 35:21
Exodus 35:26 And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun goats’ hair.
Exodus 35:29 The children of Israel brought a willing offering unto the LORD, every man and woman, whose heart made them willing to bring for all manner of work, which the LORD had commanded to be made by the hand of Moses.

So, it's no mistake I am making. Your reasoning is faulty.... to such an extreme, it doesn't even make sense when read... and I had to read it a number of times before I could decide on a response.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you think my reasoning is faulty. Do You understand that voluntariness is morally neutral? Do you think I'm saying God's Love is working in people who are unwilling to love?

You cite nedabah/nadab, which literally refers to voluntary offerings --> rams, goats’ hair, and other work in Exodus 35. Yet you say we’re not talking about volunteering or offering up a ram. The offerings in Exodus were for building the Tabernacle and its furnishings, consecrated to God’s dwelling among Israel. They were voluntary in manner of giving but mandatory in purpose, showing that voluntariness is descriptive, while truth, love, and faith are the foundation of righteousness.

In Exodus 35:21, the offerings are called “willing” because the heart and spirit were stirred -->The people in Exodus 35 acted out of faith, not because people sat down to freely deliberate whether to be stirred or not.
In Hebrews 10:26, “willful sin” shows voluntariness can describe rebellion too. That proves voluntariness is morally neutral.
Scripture consistently grounds righteousness in truth, love, and faith through the Spirit of Truth (Romans 8:4; John 16:13), not in voluntariness.

iluvatar5150 said:

If he didn't bring inflation down, then he didn't reduce costs. If he did bring inflation down from what it otherwise would've been, I think it's fair to say that he reduced costs.

Click to expand...

We'll see what happens if he brings it below Bidens last rates if you are genuine or not. Democrats sure didn't seem thar way before. Remember egg prices? Now that inflation is lower I don't see people saying he brought the cost of eggs down. In March Democrats were still complaining how he hasn't brought prices down when the rate was 2.5%. So pardon me it'll I'm skeptical.

iluvatar5150 said:

I can't get the idea?

Click to expand...

No you can't.

Also, the closest thing we got to a real Christian presidential ticket was Ye24.

Postvieww said:

Many current and former former military men and women have figured out what these disgraceful six were trying to do and have called them out. Not my problem if you can’t figure it out.

Click to expand...

I'm former military and I think it is bunk. You seem unable to articulate the reasoning of why I should find it to be "undermining the Commander in Chief". If you can't even explain the reasoning you have no case.

Shrek.

Guojing said:

It will explain why the resurrected Christ did not tell the Israel of God at Matthew 28 that they no longer had to keep the law, and it also explains the behavior of the little flock at Acts 10 and Acts 21.

But as I said, it won’t matter to you.

Click to expand...

The vicarious death of Christ, and the shedding of His blood, saw the complete fulfilment of the old covenant arrangement and the instigation of new covenant. Nothing else! Calvary secured it all! Jesus cried out “It is finished” in John 19:30. This is taken from the lone Greek word tetélestai. This means completed, executed, concluded, discharged (as in a debt). It also means paid in full or accomplished.

What was paid in full or accomplished? The penalty and punishment for your sin and mine. It has been wonderfully and eternally paid for!

Once Christ gave up the ghost, the curtain in the temple was ripped in two, denoting that the old covenant was rendered useless. It was finished!!! Whilst the cross ushered in the new covenant, and the removal of the old covenant, many of the outward manifestations of the old covenant still remained, because of the ignorance and rebellion of man. God dismantled the outward facade of the disannulled covenant, removing every last vestige of it.

There's been a lot of violence by like-minded people, and judges need to start giving long prison sentences out as a deterrent to others.