• 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.

Bill Gates Says Climate Change ‘Will Not Lead to Humanity’s Demise’

How many biologist and green jobs have been created out of thin air?
What is your point exactly?
And you want to point fingers at climate change deniers and the fossil fuel industry?
For lying to the public? Yes.
Trillions of dollars worth of federal tax money has been distributed all across the country for green energy.
Yes, and what is the problem with that, except that it is still too little?
Upvote 0

Mytho-History

It's funny how different paths come to similar conclusions. For me, I've never concerned myself with being orthodox though I didn't want to invent beliefs whole cloth. In the end, I found myself in agreement with a lot of EO doctrine regarding soteriology, the role of tradition and Scripture, and other key issues...but find the mytho-history position compelling(and fits nicely with an iconic/canonical view of Scripture) largely from drawing on a variety of unnamed sources. So to be in agreement with someone who is staunchly reformed is interesting to me.
I've always admired Orthodox Christianity. I find the mystery and mysticism appealing. However, I am still a staunch Protestant in some of my convictions like sola scriptura and justification by faith alone.

I find the Orthodox view of the afterlife intriguing, but idk enough about it to actually have an opinion on it either way.

I always figured I'd make a good monk, but that's not really a thing in evangelical Protestantism.

I guess I'd describe myself as Evangelical in beliefs, but prefer Eastern styles and aesthetics.
Upvote 0

I can't handle it, is there any way to avert this mentality?

No need to be sorry LB. I get it. There just comes a point in time where we have to just go with the honor system. Be assured that the Lord knows. I’m one of those people that won’t take communion because I do not want to heap anymore condemnation on my head. I know there are a lot of Catholics that may not even be aware of that.
My friends’ husband never goes up to Communion because for some reason he won’t go to Confession.
Upvote 0

God's Olive tree awaits all nations to rejoin and meet his Son

Well for me in my life I go by (Galatians 3:28) that we are all equal before God, there is no Jew or Greek. God appears passionate about though about trying to call the Israelites which I will support him with, some may wonder why given history how they left him but that is what it looks like in the Bible. I love the lion of Judah really as that represents Jesus and David line roots as well. I find geography interesting, especially how the world was shaped and where my parents descend from. I cannot claim to be an expert on all the other tribes. My parents come from a country with tribes and I am not into them.
I have read that some say that Jesus will not return until more take up the Cross which I find interesting to.

I like Romans 11 and the image of the Olive tree. I have changed it to God's Olive as someone wrote. Some people may want to claim it for themselves though and their own portion.
We're one in Christ and equal before God (heart-to-God), but that doesn't mean there are still different roles/responsibilities in this life. In Christ master and slave are one, but Paul still exhorts slaves to obey their earthly master, and masters to treat their slaves well and remember they also have a heavenly master. Man/woman are one in Christ but Paul and Peter still emphasise their asymmetric roles towards one another and in the Church. Being one in Christ does not mean we all have the same station or (earthly) obligations in life.

Israel is not an abandoned project by God.

Be blessed!
Upvote 0

A Trolling President?

Trump gets something that many miss: Those who voted for him enjoy the discomfort of the Left when he tweaks them and they jump on cue. Those who voted against the other candidate instead of for Trump enjoy it as well. I know an elderly couple who, on election night 2016, stayed up not for the returns but to watch the unhappiness of news anchors reporting the results. That was what they enjoyed seeing. They aren't alone. And that's how various mems about schadenfreude got to be a thing. The Left's not going to like what anyone on the Right does, anyway, whether they troll them or not.
Donald J. Trump could oversee and help find the cure for all cancer and the left would complain about that

I enjoyed watching the recent Nobel Peace Prize winner (Maria Machado From Venezuela), she dedicated the prize to President Trump knowing well he deserved it, showing herself receiving it was a big political disgrace to the deserving recipient Donald J. Trump
Upvote 0

God's Divine Protection Of The Church During The Tribulation

The account of Jesus in his Olivet Discourse was largely for Israel. The judgment was for unbelieving Israelis. The warning of persecution by unbelievers in Israel and abroad was for believing Israelis. But the model of Israel's experience of "tribulation" was an example for the many nations in NT history who would go through similar things.

In passing the Kingdom of God from rebellious Israel to newly-converted Christian nations the same process began in which there was an initial commitment to God's covenant by the people of a nation. Then, over time, there was a cooling off, compromise, and ultimate apostasy, leading to Divine judgment.

Christians are simply given to know that this world is not our home--we are just "passing through." Our reward will be determined by how faithful to God's word we remain in this present life. It will test our resolve, but fidelity to God will be rewarded in eternity.
The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:15 Daniel's AOD, Matthew 24:21 the great tribulation, these are future events unfulfilled
Upvote 0

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

Are you now into pagan gods?
Of course not! Please refrain from such inflammatory questions.

I study syncretism so that I can better obey the Torah.

Yah tells us not to worship him in the ways of the heathen, such as celebrating Ishtar the fertility goddess, in the spring, instead of Pesach.

Ishtar, Asteroth, and Venus, are all later manifestations of Semiramis, the wife of Nimrod (the sun god), and the mother of Tammuz. She claimed to have come from the moon in and egg (a symbol of fertility); and her son Tammuz (the great hunter, and reincarnation of Nimrod) had an affinity for bunnies (another symbol of fertility.)

Constantine was a sun worshiper until his dying day. His main objective for pushing Christianity was to unite Rome.

I learn to recognize the way of the heathen; so that I can reject it.
Upvote 0

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Ok I don't think I put words in your mouth. I don't think you realise you do it in using extreme and absolute words with your claims. Or other qualifying words like "horrendous" when pointing out something.

We can all add little qualifiers to what we say. Its just a way of trying to make your words sound truer when they are not. Your better off adding reasoning to support your claim. Strong words don't give a false claim any truth.

OK thats good. Rather than all the fallacies. I think this thread has more complaints and fallacies than addressing the content.

This is a silly claim and overused. You don't even accept any evidence remember. You said "nothing in the slightest is true or fact or evidence in what I said". Why even bother with you Warden when notrhing I say means anything.

Your don't listen do you. Why even bother explaining things to you anymore. You never listen and ignore everything and make out is all rubbish. Why bother.

Why is finding the tech going to prove the case. We are going back to something I already explained. If we don't find the gun will that mean no gun was used.

What if the tech is stone softening or weakening. What sort of machine do you think we would find for stone softening or weakening. Is there a massive stone softening machine.

Why do we not see any depiction at all of building the pyramids, making the hard stone vases, or cutting blocks. This is a silly line of arguement.

Why would they find anything. Did the Romans find big ramps or pullies or aqua lifts to build the pyramids. Wheres all the tech for building the pyramids. You would think such a massive project would at least be recorded. But nothing, absolutely nothing is said or shown.

Whats the rudimentary stuff.

This is a fallacious line of arguing. I have already shown that it does not follow that not finding the devices or method means we cann tell what method was used.

You seem to just ignore stuff and repeat the same fallacious arguements that have already been explained.

You cannot be as dense as this to say that, on a thread where people are skeptical of all of what you suppose to be evidence and dispute what you claim, that asking for the actual tools you claim were used, is a "fallacious line of arguing", nor even asking for evidence from other groups who met the Egyptians.

You talk like you are that dense but I refuse to accept that you could be. Because if so... then what?
Upvote 0

SNAP benefits ( gentally)

Sure. If I just quit my job

Yeah. Like I said previously. My household can be "at or below the poverty level" if I were to legally divorce my wife and continue living with her. She would be legally left as a single, unemployed mother of four and just raking in all the benefits and subsidies while I just kept working my same home and bringing home the same income. This is the game that so many people are playing. This is the political incentivisation of the single mother. Heck, why should a woman not get herself knocked up by multiple men and rake in thousands of dollars in entitlements and child support? Would it not be foolish to get married and lose the additional income and subsidies? I will tell you that I personally have family members who are single mothers with multiple baby-daddies who refuse to get a job and live better than I do, who consider people like me a "sucker and loser" because they have manipulated the system more than I.
If you can make more money living on welfare than you can by working then your employer is screwing you over. Quitting and living on welfare would be the right thing to do if you can't get a better paying job.
Upvote 0

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

See this is you butting into a discussion you were not involved in and misunderstanding it. Now your doing exactly what your accusing me of doing.

Go back and read what I actually said in its context and stop putting everything I say under a microscope looking for bad stuff all the time.

I actually used Christian belief or in the case of Warden Deistic belief as an example of an alternative knowledge that cannot be explained by the science. The point was in demanding peer review and science to prove alternative knowledge which may include experience and belief and transcedent knowledge is wrong as it belongs in another realm or category of reality.

So an obvious comparison is religious belief. In this case Christian belief which is common on this forum. So demanding science and then calling all alternative knowledge as whacko or pseudoscience is actually calling Christian whacko and pseudoscience.

By the way Warden is not a Christian. He is a Deist and thats completely different. But nevertheless I was not calling anyone anything. In fact it was the other way around. By making out the alternative knowledge of the ancients which included spirituality and belief in transcedent things as whacko it logically follows also calling Christianity as whacko. Why don't you object to this. Your very selective in your moral outrage. You also don't properly read posts.

Ok so if the ancients used spiritual knowledge or transcedent knowwledge. Some sort of knowledge that cannot be explained or verified by science. Then that knowledge is referred to as whacko and pseudoscience.

How does this not follow that the same kind of knowledge is derived from religion in general including Christianity or Indigenous knowledge. How does it not apply as well. How does the same logical arguement not apply to all relaigion and trancedent knowledge of ancients and indigenous peoples.

It all cannot be peer reviewe or verified by science. So if not meeting the science standard equals pseudoscience its a logical followon.

Otherwise are you saying that no one thinks this knowledge is pseudoscience. then why are people calling it pseudoscience when its suggest such knowledge existed. If they are not saying that then they have to retract all objections to such knowledge being unreal and not a valid form of knowledge. Thus proving my case that such knowledge existed.

Did not Warden say absolutely everything I said is pseudoscience. I included the ancients rteligious beliefs and spirituality as a big part of that knowledge. So it logically follows that all religion and belief is pseudoscience.

In fact did not I use this exact analogy and logic to you earlier. I have repreated this logic about 10 times in this thread and you suddenly realise and get it completely out of context lol. Please read carefully what I say. I know I have poor grammar and spelling but its not that bad lol.
"Transcendent" or "spiritual" knowledge doesn't cut stone. Craftsmen working with tools cut stone. The tool marks are there for you to see.
Upvote 0

Young earth vs Old earth?

But again, the point here that you're ignoring is that nothing material actually comes into existence.
According to Job 33:6 on an internet forum?
Of course I am ignoring that. Why should I not ignore a claim from someone who makes claims constantly without any reliable source backing her up?

Do you swallow everything every person opens their mouth and tell you, when they cannot support what they say?
Is that not gullible?
I'm not doing that.

So, you are saying no house came into existence; No shoes came into existence; No plant came into existence... right?
Please... please name one reputable scientist that agrees with you.
To originate means to begin to exist.
Did the areophane have an origin? Was there a time it did not exist?

God isn't transplanting hearts. It's not about physical matter coming into existence.
J. You make some wild absurd claims, I have to say.
When you support these wild claims, you would have said something worth considering.

You obviously can't support any of your claims, because I gave you the opportunity in one of my previous response to you, and you had nothing to say. So, it looks like we aren't going to be hearing anything factual from you at any time.
However, life is full of surprises. Surprise me.
Upvote 0

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

The Ten Commandments, which Sabbath is part of, were not given until Exodus 16.
Joseph knew that it was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9, which is one of the Ten Commandments, so your claim is demonstrably false.

Not Abraham, not Isaac, not Jacob, none of the patriarchs kept Sabbath (Fathers prior to Egypt did not keep the Sabbath: Deut 5:2-3 "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today."). The first time the Sabbath is mentioned in some significant way is in the 16th chapter of Exodus, when God feeds the people manna from heaven as they wander in the wilderness.
God made the New Covenant with us that he did not make with the ancient Israelites, but that does not mean that any of the commands in the New Convent were not previously given, so the fact that God made a covenant with the ancient Israelites that He did not make with their fathers does not mean that any of its commands were not previously given.

And the manna comes every day except the Sabbath day, and the day before they get enough for that day, so that they don’t have to work on that day. And that gives them a little preview of what’s coming, because in the 20th chapter you have the Ten Commandments, and in the Ten Commandments, prescriptions are given that do set down laws for the Sabbath day. This is the first time any such laws have been given by God.
The fact that Exodus 20 is the first recorded instance of God commanding against adultery does not mean that it is the first time that God commanded against it.

The Sabbath was not instituted for man in Genesis. It was instituted officially in Exodus, in the law of Moses. A further understanding of that comes from Exodus chapter 31. The Lord speaks to Moses in verse 12, and He says to him, “As for you, speak to the sons of Israel saying, ‘You shall surely observe My Sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you.

“‘Therefore you are to observe the Sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. For six days work may be done but on the seventh day there is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall surely be put to death. So the sons of Israel shall observe the Sabbath, to celebrate the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.

“‘It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever;’” - why? - “‘for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased, and was refreshed,’” - or rested. Here we find that Sabbath is a sign; it is a sign. That is to say, it points to something else. It is a symbol, connected to the Mosaic covenant.

When God made a covenant with Noah, He promised Noah that He would never destroy the world again, and God identified a sign. What was the sign of the Noahic covenant? Rainbow. When God made a covenant with Abraham, He made that covenant with Abraham and He designated a sign, and the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, participation among the covenant people Israel, was the sign of circumcision. And here you have in the Mosaic covenant another sign, and the sign this time is the Sabbath.
The fact that God gave the Sabbath as a sign does not mean that it was not previously a sign. If you think that the things that the Sabbath is a sign for are true, then you should live in a way that testifies about their truth by following Christ's example of keeping the Sabbath holy rather than a way that bears false witness against those things.

It was only a sign. Observing it with a duplicitous heart gained nothing. In fact, Isaiah 1:13 says, “Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and Sabbath.” The prophet Hosea pronounces a similar judgment on their hypocritical Sabbaths: “I will put an end to all her gaiety, her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths.” It didn’t mean anything to observe it outwardly without a heart of love and devotion to God.
In Exodus 20:6, God wanted His children to love Him and obey His commandments, so obedience to God has always been a matter of the heart.

The Sabbath was a reminder of creation. The Sabbath was to remind the people of Israel that they had forfeited paradise; that man had forfeited paradise. The law said to them, “Obey this law and you will be blessed.” God said that repeatedly: “Obey this law and you will be blessed,” to show them that righteous behaviour would restore a taste of Eden’s paradise. Righteous behaviour would also point to a future, a future kingdom when paradise would be regained.
The Bible states that the Sabbath is a memorial of when God rested after Creation, but it does not say that it is a memorial that Israel had forfeited paradise.

So, the Sabbath, every Sabbath that went by, when they rested, they were reminded of a perfect creation, a paradise of God dominated by righteousness, which had been forfeited by sin and could only be regained again by righteousness. God then institutes the seventh-day system - not for everybody in the world; in fact, specifically, it says, for Israel. Verse 17: “A sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever.” Every seventh day was a reminder that they were living in a fallen world. Every seventh day was a reminder that they had lost paradise.
In Ephesians 2:12-19, Gentiles were at one time separated from Christ, alienated from Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, and without hope and God in this world, all of which is in accordance with Gentiles at one time not being doers of God's law, but through faith in Christ all of that is no longer true in that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens but are fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints in the household of God, all of which in accordance with Gentiles becoming does of God's law, so Gentiles become joined to Israel through faith in Christ.

The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Old Covenant. Because we are now under the New Covenant, we are no longer required to keep the sign of the Old Covenant. The New Testament nowhere commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.
In Matthew 4:!5-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and God's law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which includes repenting from breaking the Sabbath. Jesus also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to God's law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6), which includes keeping the Sabbath holy. So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey God's law by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but never about breaking the Sabbath.
Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3), so he affirmed God as being an authoritative source, which includes affirming what God spoke in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 in regard to keeping the Sabbath holy, and we have no need for Paul to repeat everything that God has spoken in order to know that we should still obey God.

The early church Fathers, from Ignitions to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship.
So when God has commanded something and the early church commentators taught to rebel against what God commanded, then who has the highest authority and which one should you follow?
Upvote 0

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

How does this help you? Nothing here about Israel being the church.
Here you go.:

(CLV) Lv 10:6
Then Moses said to Aaron and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons: Do not dishevel your heads' hair, and do not |rip your garments so that you may not die, lest He be wrathful with the whole congregation. Yet your brothers, all the house of Israel, they may lament over the burning which Yahweh has burned.

Again, Yahshua was commissioned for none but Israel.

The renewed covenant is with Israel.

Can you acknowledge that you have read this?

This isn't the first time that I have pointed this out in this thread; and you have yet to refute it.
Upvote 0

Revelation 4 interpretation

Randy, the 24 elders were wearing crowns of gold - Revelation 4:4.

So I don't think they are angels, but significant figures in the bible who loved and worshiped God. We are not told each one's specific personal identity.

In Revelation 5:10, the 24 elders said...

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

So, I don't think the 24 elders are angels.
The symbolism carried by the 24 elders may symbolize something that they're doing on behalf of men, or they may be keys to identifying who they are. I happen to believe they are angels because I don't believe this heavenly scene conveys the presence of men, but rather, of angels in the millions, and probably many more.

In the OT we have the cherubim who are thought to be angels with special callings. And they also had appearances with symbolic inferences to men.

The cherubim in the garden of Eden were associated with a flaming sword that guarded the way to the Tree of Life. A sword infers a human weapon.

In Isa 6, seraphim had faces, feet, and carried a live coal in their hand. These anatomical features also infer something human.

In Eze 1, the cherubim had human faces and had feet that appeared like bronze. Again, the inference is human, though we know these were angelic creatures. The fact the cherubim in Rev 4 had crowns of gold infers something human, but is also likely angelic.

The centerpiece of the story of Revelation is the Lamb's sacrifice on behalf of men so that we may enter the Kingdom of heaven. So, these angels around the throne, including the cherubim, are carrying out acts on behalf of mankind, who were called from the beginning to rule on earth.

We are called to be lords, in a sense, over a chaotic earth, by remaining true to the judgment of God and true to the image of God for which we were created. Once man fell, it became the job of those redeemed by Christ to reflect God's truth and righteousness, through which He will judge the wicked earth.

Gen 1.26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Upvote 0

Morality without Absolute Morality

I track replies backward starting from your post about rape and fitness that lead to the posting of that paper title to post #800 (I didn't read any intervening posts that were not on the direct backward line):



Which as you can see is about "innate senses of acceptable behavior" as "objective standards for morality. I have a slightly different take on the relation between morality and evolved mind properties.
I can't be bothered to trace it back myself, but if you look at @partinobodycular's subsequent posts you will see that they accepted my assessment of their perspective.
It is clear that morality is not universal. The base instincts are present in all societies, but not all individuals. Morality is what we build on top of those instincts.
I'm not sure it is so clear, as the question is not what individuals recognize but whether there are universal standards that can be applied.
Not going to discuss examples.
Oh? Any particular reason?
Sigh. I am not grounding morality in evolution. Evolution is merely the process that shaped the natural moral instincts. As for this "fallacy" nonsense. I am not defending any specific moral position. I am discussing the process from which non-absolute morality arises. Given the things I have stated, it should be clear why I don't consider the concept of an absolute morality as even coherent.
You may not be, but the poster I was interacting with was.
Then tell them that, not me. I'm not interested in your problems with them. I've got enough issue with your implying things to me from my posts that I didn't say or imply. I don't need what ever you think they have done.
You stepped into an ongoing conversation, so my reply to you depended on that context.
One does not need a detailed description of how minds arise to determine that individual humans are able comprehend what others are, or might be, thinking anymore than you need a detailed theory of gravity to determine that the Earth is spherical. You seem to be confusing Theory of Mind with philosophy of mind. Theory of mind is key to empathy, strategic thinking, interpersonal relations, etc., and everyone uses it all the time.
I think the confusion here is I took your use of theory of mind to be speaking of a scientific theory of mind, rather than a personal one. We all may have a sense of other minds but the nomenclature you chose to use leaves much to be desired.
Stated above.
Not quite, because when I say universal I don't necessarily mean absolute. Universal just means that we can consistently develop the same standards and apply them across the board, regardless of culture or current social milieu.
I wrote a post about an academic paper (and not one I found particularly persuasive or impressive). You aren't even close to demonstrating that absolute morality is even possible. I think the notion is laughable.
I don't intend to make any such demonstration, my position is one of skepticism towards bootstrapping morality because of the is-ought problem and the related naturalistic fallacy.
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,877,864
Messages
65,408,557
Members
276,352
Latest member
Ocean.Child