• 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.

Border czar Homan says ‘Catholic Church is wrong’ on immigration

Yeah it was proven. Homan wasn't even in office when this was supposed to have taken place. Accepting
money was not against the law for him, if in fact it happened.


George Stephanopoulos has been caught lying twice so far, and it is well known that he worked in the
Clinton administration and is a staunch democrat and hater of the republicans, especially trump.
Proven is a big word. Only God knows below you have news agencies that have not been sued for libel. If you never did this why would you not sue? Homan does not seem like the soft type that would never sue. Trump would sue in a minute. But still it is speculation. Probably not a crime because either the Trump administration dropped it, or it was entrapment and/or too hard to prosecute. Could be he did not take the money but the: not being in office is invalid because anyone close to Trump could influence contracts and therefore be a target of the FBI.

In my lifetime, I have watched some massive scandals unfold:
"Scope: The federal investigation by the FBI and IRS resulted in convictions or guilty pleas from approximately 240 people, including 110 sitting county commissioners and numerous suppliers across 60 of Oklahoma's 77 counties. It was, at the time, the largest public corruption case in U.S. history." Source google ai

From the 2003-2007 Operation Tennessee Waltz,
Here 11 people were convicted including 4 state legislators.

"The Scheme: FBI agents created a fictitious electronics recycling company called "E-Cycle" and, posing as corrupt businessmen, offered bribes to lawmakers in exchange for favorable legislation and contracts."

So here we have Trump who pardons convictions involving bribery and fraud. Trump seems to make light of these cases. he also "temporary halted the DOJ from charging under the Foreign Corrupt Bribery Act.
Donald Trump pardons former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (ill. Governor

So proving innocence in the Trump administration comes very difficult to me. I am glad you have faith, perhaps later you will be more realistic. The Epstein files will show you what power can do to leaders. Many are not there to serve. Homan, I can't say either way but I imagine we might find out more when the democrats are back in power. Unless he sues, he can never prove innocence, and of course he does not have to "prove" innocence.

"WASHINGTON, Sept 21 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's border czar Tom Homan accepted a $50,000 bag of cash from an undercover FBI agent last year in a since-closed U.S. Justice Department bribery investigation, two sources familiar with the matter said on Sunday.
In the alleged scheme, Homan promised immigration-related government contracts when he joined the Trump administration in exchange for the money, the sources said, speaking anonymously to discuss nonpublic investigations."
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

It is not arbitrary. @Bradskii specifically was speaking of the Bill of Rights. (I thought he'd also directly mentioned the Constitution itself, but my point is not weakened by just the Bill of Rights.) The Bill of Rights was not imposed by force. Writing and approving it did not require violence. As @Bradskii stated, it was voted on by the Congress and the states. No violence. (The same is true of the Constitution, but it was not actually mentioned.) Even the other Amendments I mentioned (13th and 26th) were not imposed by force, but by Congress and the votes of the states. The same is true of even the Articles of Confederation. It was not imposed on the states or the people by force, but created by the Continental Congress and ratified by the states willingly.
There was no real transfer of power involved in the transition from the articles of confederation to the constitution, because the articles of confederation offered no real power to the federal government. The necessity of the constitution was clear because of the failures of the AoC, and the relevant transfer of power was seated in the revolutionary war(as well as Britains attempt to re-establish colonial power in the war of 1812)
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

Purse is a euphemism for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] while bulldust is a euphemism for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
Well, that clears it up completely...
Upvote 0

Why do people hate ICE...

If my understanding is correct, I believe I have read that you are an immigrant yourself, If this information is inaccurate, please accept my apologies.
Yes I am. And I am fully and completely an American. We came to America to become Americans and not to make America into where we came from.
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

.... however, to be honest, I'm not really 'down' with Baphomet and kiddie statues.
I'd prefer they not be displayed, but I don't allow the trolls to determine what offends me. The intent of such statues is, by and large, to disrupt religious freedom by purposely offending religious sentiments. They are nothing but statues, and to allow the offense to take hold is to give power to the trolls. Allow them, and 99% of it will stop because the intended impact will be gone.
Upvote 0

Why do people hate ICE...


In another recording, a caller was incensed that their friend’s door had been battered in by federal agents. They seemed to imply that the apartment was not one of the ones agents were supposed to target that night.

“We just had a wrongful break-in by the FBI and the ICE people, and now my friend’s door won’t even lock,” they said. “They got the numbers of the apartments on his wrist, and they still kicked this door in, and that door will not lock.” In response to the dispatcher’s questions, the caller reiterated that the agent had the apartment numbers “on his wrist” and damaged the apartment door in a “wrongful break-in.”

The call adds to mounting evidence that agents had advance information on which apartments migrants were living in. Two weeks before the raid, teachers at a CPS school across the street from the building told the Weekly they’d seen ICE agents surveilling the area. Earlier this month, WBEZ and Sun-Times reporters found a map of the building in one of the raided apartments that labeled units as “vacant,” “tenant,” or “firearms.” Multiple journalists have observed codes taped on the doors of some of the apartments, but it’s unclear what they mean or when they were placed there.


Pro Publica Interview

Ali Rogin:

And of those 37 individuals who were arrested, there were no criminal charges filed against them. Why is that? What did you find out about that?


Melissa Sanchez:

So, we spoke with federal — former federal prosecutors.

And what they have told us is that if the government had a good case, we would have seen charges filed in federal court, and we haven't seen any yet. So that suggests that maybe no charges are coming.

And kind of to add to that, we have gone to a lot of these men's immigration court hearings. We have gone to eight of them so far. And in not one of those hearings as a government lawyer made any reference to criminal cases or to gang membership.

So all of that makes it really difficult to believe that — believe what the government is saying about gang membership.



Ali Rogin:

There is tremendous video evidence showing this dramatic entrance into this complex. Did agents have warrants to forcibly enter the apartments that they did that night?


Melissa Sanchez:

That's a great question. I wish I could tell you that we knew the answer. The government won't tell us. We have found no evidence of warrants filed in federal court, although they could be under sealed. But we have asked the government, and they haven't answered. They said they have done everything according to the law.
Upvote 0

New Epstein emails appear to reveal more Trump ties

Pam Bondi is said to be conspicuously silent about Epstein in 2018. What was she silent about when he was arrested within a year of what must have been an ongoing investigation? I doubt Bondi is a fool, knew Epstein was a flight risk, & was appraised of Epstein’s situation.
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

I have no idea what this post means...
Purse is a euphemism for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] while bulldust is a euphemism for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

He 'has no ground whatsoever"? How so?
Just because you disagree with the appropriateness of the SOURCE of that grounding, it doesn't mean he doesn't have grounding.
What is the SOURCE of the grounding? As far as I can tell, it all comes down to personal opinion and preferences which isn't really a ground.
hmmm.....
There isn't really a very long history of that either. It tends to just make a new denomination.
Depends on the tradition we're discussing, protestantism is fracturous but the traditional churches tend to be able to figure out their disagreements in most instances...though there are of course exceptions.
Pretty fair point. But I'm not sure we'd agree with what the rubric is best to use.
The fruit of the Spirit? Peace, love, gentleness, kindness, self-control, that sort of thing. Though perhaps you'd disagree, I'm open to other suggestions.
Upvote 0

Why do people hate ICE...

Noem was quickly dragged by prominent MAGA media influencers. The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh replied to a viral clip of her comments, “We do not want or need more people to become citizens.”
No we don't read it differently. As you know what is written in a quick blurb never does justice to the entirety of thought. Walsh's stance is far more nuanced than a sentence. Just like you don't just drop a single sentence as the final be all and end all of your thoughts on a subject. It's pretty crappy to read a single sentence and then claim well that covers everything someone thinks on a subject.


see, it's not that you want no immigration but that no immigration might be the best solution until some future possibly unattainable goal is met.
Heavily controlled immigration is the best possible solution. And look at you being all negative in believing we can't controll immigration.
What a handsome straw man! I'm sure someone, somewhere, made that argument at some time....:rolleyes:
You didn't answer the question. Do we have to take immigrants who are good people with no issues? Yes or no? Its not a difficult question.
Sounds perfect.
It does doesn't it.
For some, it really is exactly that.
I haven’t seen that from 99% of the people on the right.
This is an ongoing discussion with ill-defined terms.
Yes that's true.
Upvote 0

Why do people hate ICE...

Homeland Security Missions Falter Amid Focus on Deportations

Under President Trump, an agency intended to keep Americans safe has diverted resources from combating child abuse, trafficking and terrorism


Homeland security agents investigating sexual crimes against children, for instance, have been redeployed to the immigrant crackdown for weeks at a time, hampering their pursuit of child predators.

A national security probe into the black market for Iranian oil sold to finance terrorism has been slowed down for months because of the shift to immigration work, allowing tanker ships and money to disappear.

And federal efforts to combat human smuggling and sex trafficking have languished with investigators reassigned to help staff deportation efforts.

_______________

Even highly trained specialists have been pulled into immigration work, such as analysts who assist in money laundering and counterterrorism cases and agents who investigate the multibillion-dollar black market for looted antiquities, a source of income for organized crime and terrorist groups.

________________

Earlier this year, special agents at Homeland Security Investigations found online videos showing violent sexual abuse of an unidentified young child.

Trained to hunt down pedophiles who use the internet to distribute illegal imagery, the H.S.I. agents spent weeks analyzing the footage to try to identify the child and infiltrate the online networks that had shared and may have directed the abuse, according to a person with knowledge of the investigation.

But the agents working the case have since been asked to go out in the field and help arrest undocumented immigrants. The reassignment has hindered progress toward identifying and rescuing the child, said this person, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive investigation. The person said that the agents, no longer able to spend as much time undercover online, had lost contact with a key source they had cultivated over years in the online world of abusers.

The disruption of that case reflects a broader pattern, the Times investigation found.


More @ link https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/16/...e_code=1.2E8.sQ5u.SRSCkR2gU_x-&smid=url-share
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

He incurred great personal hardship trying to see how much prayer he could get in.
And such hardship shouldn't have been endured in the first place. So it's symptomatic of the problem.
What tactics are those? I just answered your question.
You grossly misrepresented my position in such a way that the deceit was more than likely intentional, basically creating a strawman.
What form is that? I can't see how forbidding all is anything other than even handed.
Irreligiosity/antireligion. It's not even handed at all, because it gives a privileged position to those hostile to religion and violates the free expression clause of the 1st amendment.
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

Hmm.. I've never thought of that; Interesting.
I would not say that's hte case in my class personally. I teach a behaviour class so having a good connection with individual students makes a HUUUUUGE difference.
When you hear about their homelife, you don't get the impression their parents spend a lot of time doing stuff with them (in my class of nine, for example, 1 had a DINNER made specifically for them but none of them ate as a family).
I would say my version of authority is not nearly as threatenning intimidating or punitive as past teachers used to utilize..
ED? And when I say a breakdown of authority, I don't mean for individuals so much as a shift from what is known as a "rule of law" society to a "face" society, where peer-to-peer influence plays a larger role in modifying behavior than adherence to a ruleset given by an authority figure.
And my kids are pretty brilliant in my class considering their struggles; Our government SUDDENLY (like 1 working day ago) asked for a complete list of ALL classroom violence or behaviours that threaten safety. From the day we were informed till the day it is collected, there is 3 days.
They won't simply take our log notes. Teachers are responsible for refilling out all their paperwork. The behaviour teacher for gr.1-3 has one boy so challenging that she will just end up writing a date, a list of behaviours and (x16, x20) and then do that every day he's been here. That's pedantic.
Anyways, I'm happy to say that I only had 3 incidents (same girl; all within a week; it was a struggle week for her for sure). My kids are calm, assurred and willing yo try for me.
Yeah, motivation is a challenge even outside of behavioral classes and documenting behaviors even in gen ed settings can be laborious.
I agree. ESP. at the high school level. At that point (like gr.12) I would have ZERO patience for parents complaints about those issues....so that probably wouldn't work for me.
Yeah, though there is still a line even with 12 graders to maintain professionalism.
I teacher junior high. The kids just arent that interested in the minutae of that part of my life. They tend to ask about my chickens, my music, my kids, and my free time a LOT more.
I'm a substitute, but mostly stick to upper high school, So for me building rapport has to be done quickly, and some kids are always curious. I get asked all kinds of questions and lately there seems to be a lot of interest in matters of faith among the kids I've encountered, it's probably one of the most common off-topic discussions I hear and while not the most frequent question I get(that is usually about my relationship status and if I have kids) its definitely one that comes up fairly frequently.
Upvote 0

The Reality of Free Will

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).
It doesn't mean free will, the noun.
A "carnal minded will" is not an adjective, but a noun.
Carnal minded is an adjective describing a type of will, <- will here is a noun. Are you saying the carnal will is a free will?
You aren't talking about the same thing I am talking about.
I understand that you're talking about a philosophical meaning of free will. In the moral/immoral context, I'm talking about the scriptural meaning of a free will -> free from sin -> the positive layer of the neutral philosophical free will you're talking about. In reality the free will you're talking about isn't a will at all; it's the circumstance of choosing between one's own carnal will and God's will.
"pertaining to self, or of his own." is not THEIR OWN WILL qualified as OUR OWN way
Satan... When he lies, he speaks out of his own character. That is... pertaining to self, or of his own.
You did not read own will there, as in a noun.
Hence, you did not understand what you read there.
Will means desire in scripture. Our own will is descriptive of our own way according to our own desire, a noun. I quoted Isaiah 53:6 to express what I mean by our own way and further qualified it as NOT God's Way. It's right here -> All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Our own way is our own will because we willed to go our own way.

I understand that Jesus is talking about Satan's Character. On that we agree. His character is described as lusting, a murderer, and a liar not abiding in truth. Hence those descriptions show his own character/will/desire.

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
You read own will here... Jesus thus makes clear that the angel that became Satan the Devil, acts according to his own will, or desire.
The acting on one's own will, is free will. The word 'will' as a noun. is not free will.
The acting on one's own will, is free will? Before you said freedom to choose was a free will. That's two distinct meanings.
Freedom to choose -> Here “free will” = the ability to make a decision between alternatives. <- That’s about choice.
Acting on one’s own will -> Here “free will” = following one’s own desire without interference. <- That’s about desire.

Have you ever heard of the equivocation fallacy? Because the terms will and free keep morphing, and we end up reasoning upon an equivocation. I expect you to next claim the opposite -> NOT acting on one's own will/desire, is free will.

I'm not saying the devil doesn't act according to his own will or desire. I indicated that in post #74--> "This we can agree on --> the children born of the devil have the same character as their father --> evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false testimonies, slanders".

The children born of the Spirit of God have the same Character as their Father. --> The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;



Do you understand this definition above is describing secular Humanism? It excludes God as the Eternal power and the Light of the soul and replaces Him with human autonomy.

Volition as neutral capacity is real; we all have desire and the ability to act. But in the moral/immoral context, scripture shows that desire is never neutral: The Spirit of agape Love, and wisdom, flows from our father. The children of the devil desire according to his character, which is sin. The children of God desire according to His character, which is righteousness. That’s why John says those who abide in Christ do not sin, while those who sin are of the devil. Volition is shaped by nature, not autonomous neutrality.


Volition (neutral layer)
Desire + ability to act.
Example: “I had the volition to stand up and walk.” <--This is not moral in itself — it’s simply the capacity to act.

Autonomy / Moral Self‑Determination (philosophical)
The claim that humans can give themselves moral law, independent of God.
Example: “I decide what is right or wrong for myself.” <-- This is philosophy, not biblical theology.

The problem with the above definition is that it starts with volition (neutral desire + action). Then it sneaks in autonomy and moral self‑law, by calling both “free will,” hence it equivocates; sometimes meaning neutral capacity, sometimes meaning moral autonomy.


I'm trying to establish that the negative desire comes from the carnal will, and the positive desire comes from the Spirit of Christ. To reiterate, my point is that the children of God, will/desire according to the Character of their Father, and the children of the devil will/desire according to the character of their father. So, in the moral/immoral context the volition of the children of the devil is inclined to sin while the volition of the children of God is inclined to not sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
A negative desire can be acted upon, or against.
What do you call an "action" or "choose to act" on either... whether acting upon that desire, or acting against that desire?
Is it deliberate "action" or "choose to act"?
I would first call it freedom of action. I can move or not move my fingers. Hence there is a choice/option = act/not act. I would then note that the choice to act is precipitated by a carnal desire, and the choice to not act is precipitated by a higher desire that overcomes the flesh. In the Moral/Immoral context God's Word is the Light and Life of every man.
I have a feeling we are not agreeing on the same thing.
We did not agree that "acting on one's own", is commensurate with having a will... as in has their own way, their own will.
Okay. We're in a moral/immoral context. Would you agree we first have to have a will/desire (noun), in order to be willing (adverb)? If that will/desire is coming from our flesh, would you agree it is a carnal will? According to Isaiah we all went our own way. I interpret that as serving our own carnal will. There may be other ways to describe a will that is not going God's Way. But fundamentally I see scripture tying the carnal will to the impetus of pride, rebellion, worldliness, and the prince of the power of the air who works in the children of disobedience. Can you agree with that?
Whereas, you are describing possessing a will, as in having a desire, or want... i.e. "I have a desire/will... I want to eat some chocolate.", acting on one's own accord, or will, involves the freedom to make an independent choice or decision to do one thing or the other.
For example, having a strong desire/will/a wanting for chocolate is not the choice to act on one's own accord to perhaps resist that wanting... doing so intentionally, deliberately, unforced, willingly, voluntarily, of one's own free will...
I am talking in the moral/immoral context. In that context, I don't think I possess a will, but rather a will is going to possess me, hence the language of scripture speaks of servitude to either the carnal will or God. One of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control.
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", is not the same as having a will.

We evidently are referring to two different things.
We have to agree what terms mean to communicate; that's for sure. Previously, you were referring to free will as freedom to choose emphasizing the decision being voluntary. Meanwhile I'm referring to the will/desire, emphasizing that desires are not voluntary..

If I'm willing, then I have a will/desire. I didn't volunteer to have desires of the flesh, I'm forced to deal with them, and therefore I didn't choose for them to manifest. When we move to the deciding whether to fulfill carnal desires, it's an opposing desire that overcomes the flesh. God's Spirit would be articulated as the goodness that Loves others as oneself. I don't think Light resists darkness. It casts it out just like the Truth casts out lies.

So, carnal desires arise spontaneously and involuntarily. At first, as a believer I must consciously put them away by abiding in Christ. But as the carnal mind is renewed into the mind of Christ, the putting away of carnal desires becomes less frequent, and the goodness of God begins to arise spontaneously. I'm convinced that this transition — from impulsive flesh to spontaneous Spirit — is the transformation Scripture calls the renewing of the mind.
Why? Adding free to one's own will, emphasizes the voluntary nature of an action, indicating that a person chose to do something without coercion or external pressure, which is different from possession of a personal desire, or intention - having a will, or want... a wanting, or desire to do something.
Okay. But scripture does not present moral/immoral decision-making as “voluntary” in the secular humanist sense of free, neutral choice. It presents it as either the spontaneous impulse of the flesh or the transformative work of the Spirit.

Romans 8:13 — “If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”
A desire or want, does not have to be acted upon, because the ability, or capacity to choose not to, is in one's possession. It's called free will.
Before you conveyed "The acting on one's own will, is free will". Now you're conveying not acting on one's own will is free will. You're definitely talking out of an equivocation. The equivocation takes two contrary positions making it the philosophical neutral layer.

If you were talking about not acting on a carnal desire that leads to sin, then you're talking about being free from sin. One of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control. Like I said free from sin is the only coherent meaning of free will in scripture. But the worldly neutral freewill denies God as the power of goodness in mankind, reducing it to the discretion of the carnal will.

Therefore, I deny the worldly neutral “free will” outright because it is an equivocation, not a will/desire. Scripture shows that desires arise involuntarily, and choices are determined by whether one is in the flesh or in the Spirit. To call this “free will” is to confuse desire with decision and to deny God as the source of goodness in mankind.

Romans 8:7–8 -> The carnal mind “cannot” submit to God’s law.
Romans 6:16 -> We are slaves either to sin or to righteousness. -> No neutral “free” will exists; only fleshly desire or Spirit-led obedience.

Romans 9:8 -> “It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”
Romans 9:16 -> “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”


Romans 8:13 -> “If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” → The Spirit is the opposing will that makes resistance possible.
Philippians 2:13 -> God works in us “to will and to act.” → The will to resist is God’s, not autonomous free will.
Sin does not hinder a person's choice.
"Someone's own will/way/want to steal from you or interfere with you, is that one's desire, which James says, 'a man is tempted, being drawn away and being enticed by the own desire'. James 1:14
Only 'after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.' James 1:15

The desire does not have to conceive. Why?
Each person can freely choose not to give into the enticement, or temptation, because they have free will.
It's that free will that allows you to act on your own will, to not get a gun and shoot the person.

If that will, or desire is your want, you don't have to allow it to give birth to sin.
Sin therefore cannot hinder free will. However, your will/want/desire, can breed sin.


Let's see if you get it.
James 1:14 was not the context of scripture I was responding to in your post. I was responding to John 8:44 as the context. In John 8:44, Jesus uses causal and identity markers (“because,” “of his own,” “is”) to show that the devil’s lying is not a matter of free choice but of nature. Since there is no truth in him, when he speaks, he inevitably lies. His will is bound to his nature, not free to choose otherwise. <- This is why I didn't know what you meant by free will here --> "So, sin cannot be claimed as a hinderance to free will."

The context of James 1:14, is emphasizing that we are tempted by the lusts of our flesh not God, just like elsewhere scripture is speaking about the carnal will.. He is not saying the capacity to resist a desire to sin and act righteously come from human autonomy. He's saying they come from faith. ->James 1:8-9, My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

God enables both will and action
Philippians 2:13 — “For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good pleasure.”
God provides the way of escape
1 Corinthians 10:13 — “God is faithful… when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”
God circumcises the heart
Deuteronomy 30:6 — “The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts… so that you may love him.”
God’s Spirit opposes the flesh
Galatians 5:17 — “The flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit… so that you are not free to do whatever you want.”
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

1763453883697.png



"A report in The Lancet estimates that deep funding cuts to USAID could lead to more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, with one-third being children, if the funding isn't restored. The cuts have already caused the immediate shutdown of essential programs, leading to a higher risk of diseases like cholera and a rise in under-five mortality rates in affected areas. As a result, some models already estimate that the dismantling of USAID has already caused 600,000 deaths, with two-thirds being children."

******************************************************************************************

1) What would motivate America's Evangelicals to align themselves with a President who terminated USAID, a government agency, according to independent sources, is credited with saving 91 million lives over the last 2 decades and whose demise will come at a price of 14 million by 2030?

PROVERBS !4
31) Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God"

2) USAID operated at a cost to the average US taxpayer $0.18 per day - President Trump, a multi-billionaire, and his chief advisor Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, were instrumental in its demise - depriving the world's most destitute of food and basic medical care!

MATTHEW 19
23) Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24) Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

3) What portions of Scripture can MAGA Evangelicals cite that would justify their political alliance with a President whose 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ have denied 23 million of the world's neediest children access to an education that would dramatically improve their prospects on life?

4) What version of their Christian faith would rationalize the withdrawal of government programs that would result in depriving another 100 million of the world's most vulnerable of basic healthcare, - leading to more than 3 million preventable deaths per year with a disproportionate number of those children!

MATTHEW 25
40) .....‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me"

5) Presumably Evangelical support of Donald Trump is to exert their influence on the White House, the Trump Administration and congressional Republicans now in the majority in both the House and the Senate - presumably that influence could have extended to convince the President that the price of their support included retaining the humanitarian branch of the federal government - USAID!

PROVERBS 31
8) Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
9) Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and need
y.

6) Those who don't identify with the Christian faith would be well justified in questioning as to why they should convert to a religion where some of its most vocal advocates, the Evangelicals, support a President whose actions appears preoccupied with the construction of a garish $300 million gold ballroom designed to impress the rich and powerful - not preserving human life of the world's less fortunate!



Upvote 0

"What’s the one Bible command that wrecked you—in the best possible way?"

We all have that command: the first time it jumped off the page, felt like it was written with your name on it, and left you quieter, freer, or flat-on-your-face grateful.
Mine was Luke 6:35-36 —

“Love your enemies… be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”
Suddenly every grudge looked ridiculous.

Drop the reference below and, if you’re brave, one sentence describing the wreckage—it builds others up.

Ready to hear some stories of ink becoming alive.
Grace,View attachment 373294

bob121 – Tokyo
Psalm 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

A bit grim.
Upvote 0

B flat B♭

2 Timothy 3:12-14​

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it​

If the people you "learned" flat earth from were Odel and Skiba; a) you don't know them and b) a person can only learn the truth if they have good, honest teachers. Nuff said.
Upvote 0

B flat B♭

1. It's not my map
2. I've no idea,
3. Try googling it
1. Do you accept the answer that was given to your previous question, and are you changing the subject because you don't want to admit it?
2. So if you have no idea, why won't you accept that it's something to do with the curvature of the earth?
3. When we suggest to you that you Google something, you reply "what, so that they can tell me more lies? I don't think so." So why do you only accept Google when it suits you?
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,878,345
Messages
65,416,195
Members
276,374
Latest member
NikkiD123