• 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.

Isaiah 43:10 Doesn't Say that YHWH wasn't "Formed"

Why are you looking for ways to support your idea YHWH was formed? What is the unspoken motive behind that? AFAIK no theologian in the history of Christianity has ever subscribed to that idea. Just wondering ..
So in the synagogue where I go to, I stated the same question. The Rabbi said on the Isaiah verse: "In Hebrew you can interpreted the verse to mean that HaShem is the only deity that was "formed" or "crafted,". But it is better to take interpret it in the meaning of unlike idols, the true God was not created."

Why are you looking for ways to support your idea YHWH was formed?
I am not looking for ways to support that YHWH was formed. I think a lot of the first 3 chapters of genesis especially the creation(gen1) and formation(gen2) of humanity reflects what happened to YHWH and his Wisdom themselves.
Upvote 0

Which Groups Are More Likely To Believe That Violence Is Sometimes Necessary To Gain Political Aims?

No, my statement was more sarcastic than anything. If your measure of justice is truly whether or not it succeeds, then you have no sense of justice. My position on the Jan 6 rebellion is it was misguided, but if they truly believed that the election was stolen the rioters were justified in seeking a rebellion.
Then they were fools encouraged by a liar. There wasn't, isn't and will never be any justification for it.
Upvote 0

Fact-checking Trump's 60 minutes interview

The GOP got "clobbered" in places that are long-standing progressive liberal states. I am not shocked that the Democratic Party appears to becoming the Democratic Socialist Party.
True with the exception of Virginia. I don't prescribe to the notion that NYC or any socialist will lead the democratic party. I guess we will see how it goes in the midterms and with the economy.
Upvote 0

Prince Andrew gives up royal titles after string of scandals

No, I do not use social media. It is not about to fall into common use or anything. You did nothing but entertain a couple of neurons in my brain, and they are still amused.
Shame. I was going to split the royalties with you.
  • Haha
Reactions: RamiC
Upvote 0

B flat B♭

There's nothing wrong with teaching flat earth, the prophets (inspired by God) did it all the time.
Then show the rest of us just one prophecy that says unmistakeably that the earth is flat. Please don't quote Isaiah 40:22, because that does not say that the earth is flat. It says that God sits above the circle or circuit of the earth. You have to change the wording to make it say, "God sits above the earth, and the earth is a flat circle."
Upvote 0

B flat B♭

  1. The Firmament and the Expanse: In the book of Genesis, God is said to have created the "firmament" and the "expanse" (Genesis 1:6-8). The firmament is described as a solid, dome-like structure that separates the waters above from the waters below, suggesting a flat, enclosed earth rather than a spherical one.
  2. The Ends of the Earth: The Bible frequently refers to the "ends" or "four corners" of the earth (Job 37:3, Revelation 7:1), implying a flat, bounded surface rather than a globe.
  3. The Foundations of the Earth: Several passages in the Bible describe the earth as having "foundations" (1 Samuel 2:8, Job 38:4-6), which is more consistent with a flat, stationary surface rather than a rotating sphere.
  4. The Stationary Earth: The scripture portrays the earth as being fixed and immovable, rather than rotating on an axis or orbiting the sun (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10).
  5. The Heavenly Bodies: The sun, moon, and stars are described as moving across the sky, suggesting a flat, stationary earth with these celestial bodies revolving around it (Joshua 10:12-13, Ecclesiastes 1:5).
Upvote 0

Verses that screen superficial believers out of the Kingdom of God

-

There are none. Either a person has believed in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life or they have not.

All three of these soils will be in The Kingdom of God.

But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”
Some people would agree with you that three out of the four soils make it into the kingdom of God. Others would say that only one soil makes it in: the "good ground."
Upvote 0

Prince Andrew gives up royal titles after string of scandals

I made it up from Bradskii 's post #9 - "entitled non entity loses some titles. Oh no!" I am sorry you ended up trying to Google it, it is just an abbreviation of "entitled non entity oh no", and in future will be used by me as a humorous, and harmless disrepectful way to refer to A.Windsor.
Whut? I'm the instigator of an internet term? Alas, I don't think it has the legs of a Godwin's Law...
Upvote 0

Is the Nicene creed supportive of Reformed Theology?

“I am Reformed, so penal substitution, of course.” I know what you mean, but surely the argument that I will need to use in discussion with my Methodist elite is, “I stand by the Bible, so penal substitution, of course.” Wesley has his beliefs about Christ turning away God’s wrath and man’s need to cooperate in his salvation [derived] from the Bible.
I am unsure about what you’re after, here—because both of those are saying the same thing. You had asked me, “What do you think scripture points to? Where do you stand?” Since I am Reformed, I said, obviously I think scripture points to penal substitutionary atonement (which is where I stand).

If you are seeking a biblical argument for penal substitutionary atonement, I would direct you to Louis Berkhof (here) to begin with.

You have some great stuff here, but do you have conviction from another source – the indwelling Holy Spirit, Christ in us, the hope of glory, knowing the power of God (Jesus to the Pharisees). Because, again, Wesley will refer back to his heart being strangely warmed.
The source for all my beliefs, either directly or indirectly, is the Word of God. How I happen to feel about any particular idea (e.g., whether it warms my heart) is not relevant because that says something about me—yet the question is about God and his plan of redemption.

I do believe, however, that the indwelling Spirit always responds positively to the witness of Scripture. He wrote it, after all. This is a Reformed perspective: the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum (internal testimony of the Holy Spirit) authenticates the Word to the believer’s heart, but it does not add content or serve as a separate epistemic channel apart from Scripture.

My last pastor was a professor of computation physics and cosmology. I could never understand [how] the wonders of his discipline didn't inspire his appreciation of the creator.
Amen.

Anyway, I am coming to the belief that Wesley has an amputated atonement belief. He is not brave enough to accept the fullness of what Christ did for us, a work that cannot be added to by our efforts.
Agreed.

Are you sure you haven't a developed system that acts like a procrustean bed and chops off bits of scripture you don't like? You express a certain amount of reservation about your handling of those judgment of works texts. For Arminians, this would be a sign of weakness.
The reserved language you are detecting stems not from trying to fit scriptures into a foregone conclusion but from the fact that this idea is new and still taking shape. I inherited a lot of beliefs from my Baptist beginnings, including this anthropocentric perspective on the judgment seat of Christ, and I am methodically revisiting the things that I once believed and bringing them into a coherent alignment with my doctrinal maturation and current biblical convictions. In other words, I am re-examining those inherited assumptions in light of a Christ-centered reading of Scripture. This is not about trimming verses to fit a system but about letting a coherent biblical theology emerge from them.

Anyway, again, I am more and more convinced of the things you believe. Thanks.
I am pleased that the discussion has been useful. My hope is always that we are both being driven deeper into Scripture and a clearer understanding of what it teaches.
Upvote 0

Morality without Absolute Morality

If we can establish that morality is not just personal preferences...
It's not. Stop using loaded terms like this. It'll be ice cream and chocolate v vanilla v the holocaust next. Good grief, man. Please stop it.

Morality is not about simple preferences. It's what we determine to be the right thing. Each of us. Individually. So I might prefer to smack the guy in the mouth but for various reasons I have determined that it would be morally unjustified. I might prefer to keep the money I have just found but for various reasons I have determined that it would be morally unjustified. Whether I do or not, in either case, will be a reflection of my moral character. I knew it was morally wrong, but I still preferred to do it.

And I want to expressly emphasise that it's down to each of us individually. So even if you think that Jesus has whispered 'No, don't do it,' it's still you that says to yourself 'Yes, I agree. I shouldn't'.
Upvote 0

Are professed Christians that worship our Lord on Sunday instead of Saturday sinning?

The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) ruled that Gentiles do not have to convert to Judaism to become Christians, and Paul's letters are consistent with this ruling.
So let me get this straight. Pagans, don't have to convert to Judaism to practice Christianity (a sect of Judaism)?

Where can I find that in Acts 15?
Upvote 0

Morality without Absolute Morality

A need for context doesn't render it non-objective or lacking absolute elements.
This really takes the cake. Needing context is practically the very definition of relative morality. Who did it? Why? When? Where? Was it legal? Was it gratuitous? Was it justified? Was it under duress? Whether the act is morally acceptable of not will be relative to those conditions. How can you possibly get into a thread with about over (checks pkst count) 750 posts and now start to redefine the very meaning of what is being discussed?
The question is, would it remain wrong if no one thought it was wrong? If everyone agreed tomorrow that there was nothing immoral about murdering Jews, would that then mean the holocaust was moral?
It would mean that everyone would think that. Yes. Of course! What else could it possibly mean? And you're including yourself in 'everyone' so even you would think so.
You haven't provided any such thing.
Yes, I did. You could make a judgement at each statement about whether it was moral or not. But you can't make a definite decision until all the facts are known. Your decision as regards the morality of the act will be relative to those facts.
You've simply raised an issue that there are mitigating conditions, but the question is...does the act remain wrong if people don't believe it to be wrong?
That is up to you! And you can decide it's wrong from an emotional point of view, a rational one, you can say that your conscience tells you it's wrong, that Jesus told you, that it's revelation...who cares? It's up to you. The people who said it was ok might have said it was acceptable from an emotional point of view, a rational one, they can say that their conscience told them it was OK, that Jesus told them, that it was revelation.

That's the problem. It's all 'yes, it is' and 'no, it isn't'. It's just a shouting match. Even when it comes to revelation. Especially when it comes to revelation. So unless you have a good argument for a position (and you refuse to even contemplate giving one) then I'll listen to the person with the best argument. You don't even get invited to the discussion. And I mean that seriously. If there was a moral problem and someone said 'Let's get a few heads together to work this through' then you wouldn't be on the list.
Upvote 0

Democrats post gains in every key race.

Sadly, the key races that were up for grabs were all won by the democrats. I know that must must tough for some but Trump's brand is does have some blowback for the GOP and I predict it will only get worse. The good news is that revival/renewal of a nation depends on becoming humble. So lets all share a piece of that pie, knowing that God and MAGA are not always united; certainly not often in tone, and sometimes not in policy.

Consider the GOP push to redistrict Texas. This was a lose/lose scenario for America because it rejects the do unto others as you wish them to do unto you. The hope was that Texas and maybe Missouri could do this so that the GOP would not lose the midterms. But now as the GOP states have started down this road the democrats are doing the same. All at the expense of voters. Voters lose when maps get redrawn before every election instead of once a decade − a trend started in Texas, moving to California and likely spreading across the country

Too many frame politics or even political parties as Christian vs non-Christian; some even see it as a sort of civil war. It does not have to be that way. We have lots of common ground. There is a place for kindness, compassion, for compromise. Not sin, but policies like health care subsidies and the right of states to refuse Federal troops. We too will soon know if Trump's tariffs are all even legal. Do we really want executive action that a President that justifies what he does by twisting the law? Yes, Biden did that with student loans. Some democrats consider that with gun control as well. Ask yourself, if tariffs were such an emergency why did Trump raise the rate on Canada an extra 10% because he did not like the Reagan advertisement against tariffs? Is that an emergency?

I am not saying that Trump does not have some good qualities or policies but the GOP is lacking on many important things. Examples include social security, healthcare costs, inflation, and income inequality, the MAGA movement as is or even project 2025 is not going to cut it.

Of course many pundits too are right that the democrats should not be so partisian either. Just because NYC has a more extreme mayor, that is not a nationwide mandate. Win some races in the red states by running some conservative democrats that can step forward and help moderate and heal the USA. God bless!

Midrash "B'reisheet" (In the Beginning...GOD...)

PARASHAH: “B’reisheet” (In the Beginning) GENESIS 1:1-6:8

Just got back from 3 weeks in Miami, FL, visiting family and ministering in our Messianic congregation, Beth Hesed. Have to catch up on articles.


During Simchat Torah (The Joy of the Torah) or (Happiness in having God's WORD in our midst), we begin in Genesis…But…Some have the tradition of reading the last few verses of Deuteronomy (34:10-12) “And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moshe……..and in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moshe shewed in the sight of all Israel.”

Interesting that the very last word in Deuteronomy is “Israel”. We read verses 10 through 12, and in the same breath, continue with Genesis 1:1. This means that the Torah is a continuous book, like a circle.

The very first line in Genesis, the very first line in the Torah has so much meaning; “B’reisheet bara Elohim ET haShamayim v’et haAretz”(the first 7 words) (In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth). One thing to point out, in many English Bibles, the word “heaven” is singular and should be “heavens” (plural), because in Hebrew, “HaShamayim” is “heavens”. Also, in the words, “B’reisheet Bara Elohim” (In the beginning, Elohim created), we find the mixed letters that spell out “Israel” also. So, the Torah begins with “Israel” and ends with “Israel”. If we look at the Hebrew letters that spell out “B’reisheet Bara Elohim,” we find “Israel” how? Well, let’s see;… Beit, Resh, Aleph, Shin, Yod, Tav……Beit, Resh, Aleph…..Aleph, Lamed, Hey, Yod, Mem sofit. Then we pick out the letters that form “Israel”: Yod, Shin, Resh, Aleph, Lamed. What can this tell us? That from the “Beginning,” Elohim had Israel in mind! This is just one way one could look at this.

Another aspect we can look at is the letter “Alef,” which in Hebrew has no sound by itself, yet takes the sound of whatever vowel that is placed below it. Within the first 7 words, there are 6 Alefs. When one spells out “Alef” in Hebrew, we get “Alef, Lamed, and Peh” (A L P). These three letters together also mean “One Thousand” (pronounced “elef”). Many rabbis believe that the symbolism of these 6 Alefs in the first 7 words, is “6 thousand years for mankind living on the earth” followed by another “thousand” (7 thousand years) which would be the Millennial reign of Messiah, then the number “8” (the eighth day of Sukkot) which could be the beginning of the “New Heavens and the New Earth ” (of course, this is just a possibility). Here's another interesting thing;

Within the first 7 words, we find the word “Emet” (Truth), “Alef, Mem, and Tav”, and this is one of the titles of Yeshua, who is the “Way”, the “TRUTH”, and the “Life”. He is also the “Living Word” (See John 1:1), so we see Yeshua even in Genesis 1:1

“7” is the perfect number of YHVH. If we take the seven words, and take the middle word “ET”, and take this word “ET and draw a vertical line from it, we can make a “Menorah” with three lines from the middle line connected to “ET” to the other words in this first verse. The word “ET” does not have a literal translation, yet it points to a specific object that is very important. “ET” in the ancient Hebrew letters is the “Alef and the Tav” or in Greek, the “Alpha and Omega” Or…. the “God of the Covenant”. So, every time we see “ET” in the original Hebrew, we are reminded of “YHVH, the God of the Covenant”

Why does the Bible start with the letter “Beit” or “B”? Why not with “Alef” or “A”? Isn’t the “Alef” the symbol for “God”? There is a story about the letters “Alef” and “Beit” who are arguing as to who would be first. They both came to Elohim and presented their case. Elohim-YHVH said, “Alef”, you are very important as you represent who I AM. You will be the third letter in the Bible because “3” symbolizes “Elohim” because we are united as Father, Son, and Spirit, three entities in one “Echad” being.

“As for you, letter “Beit” you will be first because you symbolize the “house” which I will make for mankind, for the plants, trees, and flowers, and for all the beasts which I will create. This house will be called “earth”. This perfect planet will be a “B’rakhah” a “Blessing” to my creation, therefore, the Torah must start with “B”

Also, the letter “Beit” is closed on three sides, yet open on one, the left side. This means that before the “beginning,” there was nothing, only Elohim, and revelation starts with “B” going towards the “left” as the Hebrew is written.”

So, therefore, the Alef and the Beit left, both satisfied with the verdict from Elohim-YHVH. We also see in the first line the creation of the three basic elements of the universe: “space” (the heavens), “time” (in the beginning), and “matter” (the earth). We have an infinite God that comes out of infinity past and speaks and creates a finite earth. Creates matter. The first law of Thermodynamics states that “All matter has been created and that there is no more matter being created.” What we do see is that “matter changes states” (from liquid to solid, = water to ice) or from liquid to gas = water vapor.

We can also see today the effects of the “2nd law of thermodynamics, which shows that everything in the material world is on a downward spiral, from order to disorder, from composition to decomposition, from perfection to imperfection. Because of sin! The wages of sin is death, and therefore, not only in the world of the living but also in the material world, everything is “dying”

Elohim looked upon the earth he was forming, which was then, a lot of water and earth elements, and then spoke in verse 3 saying, “Haya haOr” (let there be light) “V’yahi or” (and there was light). And Elohim saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness” (vs 4) There are 4 levels of Torah understanding which are “Peshat” (literal), “Derash” (moral and spiritual), “Remez” (Symbolic), and “Sod” (hidden), (this is when we use gematria, or numbers with math to come to different revelations, mind you this is NOT numerology!)

There was the physical light, the light we can see, and also, the WORD of God which is looked upon as “light” YESHUA also is referred to the “Light of the World” light is also “sinless perfection” and the “darkness” is also the physical darkness, which is needed, for us to rest at night, so that the flowers can close up and sleep. I can also refer to the “spiritual darkness” which is “evil” or “sin”. SO… there is a separation between what is holy and what is not holy, between sin and perfection, between evil and good. Between our “daylight” and our “nighttime” (taking it literally).

Now, if I were going to study every verse, this first parashah would be perhaps ten pages long, so we are going to jump a bit. Elohim created all that this earth contains in 6 literal days, of 24-hour periods. Now, there are some SSs (silly scientists) that say, “the six days are considered a period of four billion years!” Really? Really? Well, if we look at verse 12, it says that Elohim created the plants, trees, grass, etc, then in verse 14, it says that Elohim created the lights in the heavens, which include the sun, moon, and the stars. Well, if each “day” consisted of, let’s say, 600,000,000 years, then how would the plants and trees, and life itself, survive without sunlight for this amount of time?

Many times, we just have to take God’s word literally. “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness…and Elohim created the man and the woman in His own image” (vs 26-27). What does this mean, in HIS own image? What is the IMAGE of ELOHIM? One could say that the image of Elohim is complete holiness and perfection! Sinlessness! That was how the first couple was made. The earth was “created” without any previously existing matter, yet man and woman were “created” using “already existing matter,” namely,” the dust of the earth (adamah).

The name “Elohim” shows the “plural unity (Echad)” of God, and just as Elohim consists of the Father, the Son, and the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) so man and woman were also joined “Echad” with Elohim in mind, soul, and spirit. What is man? What is a woman? But a soul and spirit inhabiting a flesh and bone body. Bodies that will one day (because of sin) deteriorate and cease to function, and return to the earth.

Elohim loved his creation of man and woman. He placed them in a perfect paradise home, a garden full of trees that produced fruit, nuts, flowers, clean water, and animals that were friendly. The only prohibition was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But…as we know the story, HaSatan tricked them into eating the forbidden fruit. As soon as Adam and Eve ate the fruit (and nowhere does it say that it was an apple), the Word says that they “realized that they were naked” (3:7), but weren’t they already naked? I mean, they weren’t created wearing Levi's! However...remember that the word “light” the words “light” and “skin” are written almost the same way in Hebrew, the only difference is the first letter, “skin” is “OR” written with the letter “ayin” which symbolizes “eye” and OR (light) is written with an “Aleph”

It is possible, and probable that Adam and Eve were created with a covering of “light” When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai after being with God for 40 days, he was “glowing” with light, the Shekinah light, and Moses was a sinner, imagine Adam and Eve who were sinless, their light covering would have been permanent had they not sinned (and would still be alive today). When they disobeyed and ate the forbidden fruit, the light covering must have vanished, THEN…they saw that they were NAKED, without the light, which served, one could say as, “a skin of light over the skin of flesh”

The sin of eating the forbidden fruit shows the following: the LUST OF THE FLESH, THE LUST OF THE EYES, AND THE PRIDE OF LIFE. Eve was hungry, she “saw” that it looked really delicious, and she “thought” it would make her “wise” as the serpent lied to her, saying the same. Sin today is the same; it is a mix of all three things: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life

“And YHVH Elohim made coats of skins for the man and for the woman and dressed them” (3:21). This is the very first blood sacrifice in the Bible. YHVH had to sacrifice one or two innocent animals, perhaps two lambs or goats, to “cover” Adam and Eve. This is a reminder of Yom Kippur, where the blood of animals covered the sins of Israel for one year. This would be a reminder to Adam and Eve of their sin. Their sin caused an innocent, blameless animal to lose its life.

The Word of God does not say, but we can imagine that YHVH told Adam and Eve that they would have to sacrifice a lamb, or a goat, or another kosher animal every day, to remind them of their sin. We look towards the cross of Calvary and we see YESHUA the LAMB of God who offered himself up as a blood sacrifice for our sins, once and forever, not just to cover, but to erase.

In chapter 4, we see the birth of Kayin and Hevel (Cain and Abel). They were born with the sin nature, and we see in both boys, the direction of the world that they would follow; some would choose holiness and all that is good, and others would choose the unholy and all that is evil. There came a time when they both had to offer sacrifices (that is why I said that Adam and Eve must have taught them to do the same). Hebel chose to obey, and Kayin chose to disobey. Kayin offered a sacrifice, but it was not a blood sacrifice; rather, it was a “grain offering. nothing wrong with a grain offering, but a blood sacrifice was needed. Therefore, it was rejected.

Hebel, however, offered the correct sacrifice, a blood sacrifice, and it was accepted. This caused anger and jealousy in Kayin, and we know the story: Kayin rose up and murdered his brother, Hebel. Yet YHVH Elohim still offers him an opportunity to repent and confess his sin, but Kayin does not. Then YHVH Elohim says;

“The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground” (4:10). The Hebrew word is “damei” or “bloods”; it is written in the plural. But why is this? This alludes to the idea (which is written in the Talmud) that “he who saves the life of one person is as if he has saved a whole nation, and he who takes a life of another, is as if he has murdered a whole nation.” It is as if the souls of all the “would have been” descendants of Hebel were crying out for vengeance because they would not be permitted to be born. “The voice of thy brother’s bloods cries out…” the many “bloods” cry out in “one voice” so it seems.

Hebel is slain, his blood is sacrificed, and Kayin goes away, runs away to the land of wandering (Nod) and becomes a vagabond, just wandering, living off the fruit of trees and whatever grows of itself, since now, his farming days are over. YHVH curses the land he farmed as punishment.

We can see here again a shadow of Yom Kippur. In Yom Kippur, two goats were selected, one was sacrificed, and the other was “sent away.” Here, Innocent and righteous Hebel is sacrificed, and Kayin “goes away” yet this “going away” is in the negative light, he “goes away” from the presence of Adonai, while Hebel goes “into the presence of Adonai”

There is a saying that goes like this; “you can mix good apples with bad apples, and the good apples will never correct the bad, rather the bad-rotten apples will corrupt the good ones. Well, that is the way the “world turned” way back then, as the years pass, the descendants of Kayin mixed with the descendants of Seth, (who was born after the death of Hebel.

“And it came to be that when men began to increase on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And YHVH said, ‘My Ruach will not strive with mankind forever in his going astray. He is flesh, and his days shall be 120. The Nephilim (in some translations, the giants) were on the earth in those days, and when the sons of Elohim came into the daughters of men, they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men of old, men of name (fame). 6:1-4

There are two schools of thought when the issue of “B’nei Elohim” comes up. Some believe that it refers to the godly line of Seth mixing with the ungodly line of Kayin. The other school of thought, which is more probable, is that the “sons of God” refer to the fallen angels that were kicked out of heaven together with HaSatan. These “b’nei Elohim” somehow and someway transformed themselves into flesh and blood, and the offspring of those “demon-human” relationships were born “giants”. The word “Nephilim” means “fallen ones”. It does not mean “giants” …however…those “mighty men of old” many were “giants”; we have examples; Goliath of Gath, Og, king of Bashan. The pre-diluvian giants were destroyed during the flood of Genesis; however, their DNA still survived and was passed along through Ham's wife. The descendant of Ham was Canaan, and among the Canaanites, there were giants.

YHVH has decided to destroy and cleanse the earth by a universal flood, and Noah and his family were found to be the only righteous people around. Noah will receive instructions to build an ark, and it will take him 120 years, so the people will have 120 years to repent, which they did not. This was a very short time considering that thousands of years ago, people lived 800 or 900 years. 120 years would be like a week in our times. Noah was a “Tzadik,” a “righteous person”. He went “against the flow”. Imagine a school of fish going in one direction, and you are going in the opposite direction.

How about you? If the world is going down the tubes, headed for destruction, will you follow the world? Or will you remain with Yeshua and go HIS way? The choice is yours. The only way we can be a true “Tzadik Ben Elohim” (a righteous child of God) is through faith in Yeshua HaMashiach/ Jesus the Christ, through faith in HIM, trusting in HIS one-time atonement for sin.

Morality without Absolute Morality

Isn't that what most mean when they use objectively in this context? How would you define objectively in this context in such a way that it doesn't entail this?
It very well may, but it's not an issue since what is at issue is what we mean when we say "moral" which as far as I can tell objectivity is analytic to the word.
Say that there objective wrong or right something we can measure or we all have perfect knowledge about morality from revelation, why wouldn't it be trivially true any way. If they get away with it, they get away with it.
If we can establish that morality is not just personal preferences, there is a basis for appeal and argumentation. When I say the only thing that matters is what you can get away with, I mean that there is no way to legitimize preventative measures. Everything just boils down to who has the will and the ability.
Upvote 0

Morality without Absolute Morality

Not at all, since the whole of my argument consists of pointing out that reason cannot establish morality.
Objective morality doesn't just include reason. Or exclude it. I have no idea how you can determine something without reasoning about it. But you say that it's all objective. So give us an example of someone you think has moral character and we'll investigate your claim.

You won't answer the simplest of questions on moral questions (you won't answer the new one I just asked). You say your positions are based on 'revelation' but we have no idea how that relates to real world moral problems because you won't tell us. So if relative morality doesn't exist then give us just one example of a person who exemplifies your claim. Just one.
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,877,658
Messages
65,404,526
Members
276,346
Latest member
Ulfxd