Latest activity

Bradskii · Oct 21, 2025

Fervent said:
That hardly answers my question...

A lot following this that serves no purpose in me trying to forumate an answer.

Fervent said:
What is the pertinent difference?

I don't get this. I specifically said more than once that it was the lack of context. I'll repeat that:
IT'S THE LACK OF CONTEXT.

Fervent said:
What context is missing that is present in the first question?

So you DO understand that it's a lack of context. And I literally listed many examples of it. I literally wrote them out for you. They are there so you can understand what was missing. Why on earth are you asking what they are when in the specific post to which you are replying it exp,ains what some of them are.

This conversation is going to end soon. We've done this dance before. I'll post something and you'll completely ignore it. It's getting to the point where I'll be asking a specific question and you can answer it or it will end.

Fervent said:
Not to anyone but myself, and frankly what better justification is there than "God said it, so it must be true."?

If that's your argument for believing in absolute morality then so be it. The single question that requires a simple answer is on the horizon.

Fervent said:
The only thing I've been debating is to point out that absent some objective basis there's no such thing as morality.

Then that is debating morality. You have a position on it and you are trying to put it forward. And failing, it must be said.

Fervent said:
Bradskii, king of the strawman. No where did I say an act can be absent, simply that the moral character need not be inherent in the act to be objective.

No, it needs context. The question will arrive soon regarding this...

Fervent said:
Nope, you seem to not realize I have answered your question by presenting Singer's thought experiment because there is no pertinent difference. The question is, why do you think these situations are different? What is the supposed missing context?

Again, it was explained in a lot of detail. This discussion will be ending soon if you continue this farce.

Fervent said:
You think too highly of yourself.

Gosh, was that a judgement of me that you just made? I think it was. It was trying to explain that you have made no judgements of me? You need to take a day or two and regroup I think.

Fervent said:
"Context" is not an answer, its a vague general statement that doesn't identify what's supposed to be the difference maker.

The difference is the context. I think I see that question approaching quite quickly...

Fervent said:
Ah...so if I determine that it's right to kill infidels, then it is right to kill infidels? Seems to rob the concept of any meaning.

If you decide it's right then you have decided it's right. That's it. I just hope that you have some good arguments to back up your position. To, you know, debate it. 'Because my source says it's ok' is, as we have agreed, not acceptable.

Fervent said:
Yours aren't? So what is your non-arbitrary way of determining the validity of a moral position? Is it purely your decision what is right or wrong, or is there some moral reality independent of what anyone believes to be right or wrong?

Again, I gave a list of means whereby we might determine it. And you have simply ignored them and asked the same question again.

This stops now. I'm up to the back teeth of me explaining my position and then have you asking me to explain my position. I've had enough of giving you my reasons and then you again asking me what my reasons are. There'll be no more of me telling you how I come to my decisions and then you asking me how I come to my decisions.

All you have offered (and as I said, we've done the dance before) is negativity. Nothing more that 'you are wrong' and you've presented nothing whatsoever to back up your own position (whatever it exactly might be).

There may be that one question arriving soon. I may post it later. I won't be interested in anything else you say unless you specifically answer it.

eclipsenow · Oct 21, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
Wait, if the concept of a King is abhorrent... remind me again, who's technically the sovereign over Australia?

If ONLY Trump were "King" over America in the modern, nerfed Westminster sense of the word - your country might have a chance.

But he's a President who wants to be "King" or is that Emperor? With the power creep of the last 50 years has access to various 'emergency powers' that have not all been tested, some of them potentially combining in unanticipated and concerning ways.

I hope your courts can stand up to him. Otherwise, America might lose her way, as Rome did after Julius as it abandoned the old Senate and became an Empire with an Emperor.

fli · Oct 21, 2025

Guojing said:
So some works are more devastating than others.

Alright then, I understand better what you mean when you say "salvation is by faith alone without works".

You must have read Grace Evangelical Society in forming doctrines like that.

My doctrine comes from scripture and what God shows me.
If you read Romans 8, it explains about staying in the Spirit fulfills the law of sin and death. If one doesn't stay in the Spirit the law of sin and death is not fulfilled, and death is the result. That is God's doctrine.

BelieveItOarKnot · Oct 21, 2025

keras said:
Verse 5 says ‘the Lord dwells on high’. So, before His Return, we see in verses 3-4 & 10-11, the nations as at present and in V14 Judah’s judgement. V15-16 say His faithful people will live prosperously in the Land, then V17-24 speaks of the Return of Jesus and His reign during the Millennium.

Technically Jesus never left, remember? "I will never leave or forsake you."

Point remains unaddressed by you is: Where in your timeline is the devil (and his messengers) sent to the fire?

Until that happens, there is nothing different than what it is today

I'll take it that you preferred to not address the fact of Rev. 5:13, all of creation praising God, and are sticking to the blood and guts destruction scenario for people only

Tom D · Oct 21, 2025

If we're to start a club project, what would you want to build ??

Nithavela · Oct 21, 2025

Hazelelponi said:
First of all, the Jews having a state is not occupation - so we will end this here.

The Jews have a right to self rule. Israel exists, it's not "occupied Palestine"., it's the nation of Israel next to what people are calling Palestine.

It's a bit more complicated than that. While on paper, there exists Israel, and next to those are the Gaza strip and the west bank, which are Palestine, in reality a lot of the west bank is settled by israeli settlers, a process that has been going on for decades and is actively supported by the israeli government. The west bank looks more like a swiss cheese than a proper country.

It would be like US farmers starting to settle and farm on mexican land beyond the southern US border. In any real two state solution, those farms would have to be removed so that proper borders could be established.

Holy Universe · Oct 21, 2025

I’m trying to convince a brother in christ “Faith in the blood” is a real thing in the Bible. It’s not found in his translation esv but only in the kjv.
He said I’m not qualified to interpret these and he doesn't trust the chat gtp answer so I'm looking for someone who knows greek who can chime in here and small possibility of being willing to standby your response in case he wants to chime in - no pressure though.

Across ANY greek manuscript for any location/source - is it true, “faith in the blood” is the most literal “accurate” word for word translation in all manuscripts - there is 100% agreement and ZERO doubt. “Faith in the blood” is a phrase inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Is this correct?

Below is the chatgtp answer - is it reliable?

All ancient Greek manuscripts — Textus Receptus, Majority (Byzantine), Vaticanus (Alexandrian), and the modern Critical Text — say the same thing.
Every one of them contains the phrase ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ, which literally means “in His blood.”

1. Textus Receptus (1550 / Beza 1598)

Greek:
ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Literal translation:
“Whom God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.”

Plain meaning:
God presented Jesus as the mercy seat, and we receive forgiveness through faith in His blood.

2. Byzantine / Majority Text (2005 Robinson–Pierpont)

Greek:
ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Literal translation:
“Whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, for a demonstration of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins that had been previously committed in the forbearance of God.”

Plain meaning:
The Byzantine manuscripts repeat the same words — faith in His blood.
No differences at all.

3. Codex Vaticanus (B, 4th century) / Alexandrian Family

Greek (transcribed from Vaticanus):
ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Literal translation:
“Whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to show His righteousness because of the passing over of former sins in the forbearance of God.”

Plain meaning:
Even the oldest Alexandrian manuscript, Vaticanus, says faith in His blood.
There is no variant—every copy agrees.

4. Modern Critical Text (NA-28 / UBS-5)

Greek:
ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Literal translation:
“Whom God put forward as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness because of the passing over of previous sins in the forbearance of God.”

Plain meaning:
Even the modern scholarly Greek text agrees word-for-word with the older manuscripts:
through faith in His blood.

Simple conclusion anyone can grasp

All Greek manuscripts — old and new — say διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ,
which every translator in history knows literally means
“through faith in His blood.”

There are no textual differences here.
The only difference is how English translators choose to paraphrase it:

Greek phrase	Literal English	Some modern paraphrases
διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ	through faith in His blood	by His blood to be received by faith (ESV); through the shedding of His blood to be received by faith (NIV)

So the Greek itself — in every manuscript — affirms faith in His blood.
The translation philosophy, not the manuscripts, causes newer Bibles to soften or re-word it.

Short summary

Every Greek text of Romans 3 : 25 — Textus Receptus, Majority, Vaticanus, and Critical — contains the same words διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ, literally “through faith in His blood.”
The phrase is not a KJV addition; it’s the unanimous Greek reading.

eclipsenow · Oct 21, 2025

Nice! So what else does ChatGPT say?

What have YOU read about him? Johan himself started off in agricultural and soil science. Then the wiki explains: "He received his Ph.D. in 1997 from Stockholm University, where his research was on "Systems Ecology and Natural Resource Management.""
That is a huge, multi-disciplinary subject.

In 2009 he lead a team of academics - many of whom are world famous climate scientists and atmospheric physicists.
It's not the 2000+ scientists of the IPCC - but it's a respectable group. (See names below)
Do you recognise any of these names as climate scientists?

His TED talk is follow up work from his climate peers - analysing the Climate Sensitivity.

(That the "climate's changed before, ya know?" thing that helps them know just how serious this is!)

And here's the deal. They used to think the CLIMATE FEEDBACKS kicked in at 5 degrees. Time passed, more paleoclimate data came in - and then it was 4 degrees. Etc etc until now it's 1.5 degrees of warming and we start to enter danger zones where natural feedbacks can start to warm the planet even further than we have. There are 12 feedback systems that are getting primed. Some of them kick off earlier than others. The earlier ones might cook the planet up to the next stage when the next one fires - and like a series of dominoes - within a few generations we're on a planet we hardly recognise!

This is a point Christian climatologist Katharine Hayhoe says.

It's more likely that the conservative projections of the IPCC are UNDER representing the actual level of risk!

Johan Rockström
Will Steffen
Kevin Noone
Åsa Persson
Stuart III Chapin
Eric Lambin
Timothy M. Lenton
Marten Scheffer
Carl Folke
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
Björn Nykvist
Cynthia A. de Wit
Terry Hughes
Sander van der Leeuw
Henning Rodhe
Sverker Sörlin
Peter K. Snyder
Robert Costanza
Uno Svedin
Malin Falkenmark
Louise Karlberg
Robert W. Corell
Victoria J. Fabry
James Hansen
Brian Walker
Diana Liverman
Katherine Richardson
Paul Crutzen
Jonathan Foley

Aaron112 · Oct 21, 2025

Kathleen30 said:
Yes but Aaron who gives us the strength to endure and to not love our lives under such circumstances . It be the power of Christ up on a cross one Friday that loved his church to the very end and the comforter that keeps any of us. And without that we all still be mere mortals. As I said everyone has a price you probably just haven’t realised it yet. And hopefully you never will. Before the Ck crows thrice you will deny me 3 times

Your knowledge is far far less than Scriptural. While most people have been deluded for centuries about the crucifixion, if you start seeking truth, and keep seeking truth, trusting the Creator , trusting Jesus, then a whole new world, even God's Kingdom, may open up to you , as written, God Willing.

prodromos · Oct 21, 2025

Tuur said:
WINE was always iffy for me. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't. One year, when the kids got a game from grandparents, it wouldn't run on our old machine under Windows, but worked perfectly fine on the same machine in Linux under WINE. In those days was tinkering with Debian and Ubuntu, so don't recall which distro it was.

Maybe boot Linux and run Windows in a VM

prodromos · Oct 21, 2025

Apple Sky said:
She was most definitely trying her hardest for me to call Charles Duke a liar so she could report it. But @Strong in Him your little game didn't work.

She didn't need to try anything. You volunteered your opinion without any prompting at all and now you want to play the victim.

A2SG · Oct 21, 2025

Pommer said:
Politics has always been “entertaining“ buuut…the movies that could be made can’t be made because our government is being run by a drama King.

Say what you want about Trump but he ain’t “boring”.

As the supposed Chinese curse goes, I'd say we are definitely living in "interesting times."

-- A2SG, could also quote Arte Johnson here....

prodromos · Oct 21, 2025

Apple Sky said:
She has tried her hardest to get me to call Charles Duke a liar so she could report me which would have incurred a warning for me, but I didn't play her game this time & she knew this & this is why she has left the thread.

What a load of cobblers.

Kathleen30 · Oct 21, 2025

Aaron112 said:
What you have experienced so far is not in line with Scripture. The best book to read is Scripture. The next best for examples of Scripture fulfilled is Foxes Book of Martyrs. People , as in Scripture, who loved not their own lives as if to protect them.

Yes but Aaron who gives us the strength to endure and to not love our lives under such circumstances . It be the power of Christ up on a cross one Friday that loved his church to the very end and the comforter that keeps any of us. And without that we all still be mere mortals. As I said everyone has a price you probably just haven’t realised it yet. And hopefully you never will. Before the Ck crows thrice you will deny me 3 times

prodromos · Oct 21, 2025

d taylor said:
-

Deceptive balderdash

Login to view embedded media

Informative video. Thanks.

FireDragon76 · Oct 21, 2025

chevyontheriver said:
Good for them. While the Catholic Church officially congratulated the new ABC, believing Anglicans are severing ties with their establishment. GAFCON are the folks we Catholics should be reaching out to. Forty years ago ecumenical outreach to the Archbishop of Canterbury made sense, but that was when they were vastly different than they are now.

GAFCON are mostly Evangelical Anglicans, and the most likely to be actually anti-Catholic.

You're actually more likely to find more sympathies for Roman Catholicism among those critical of GAFCON, to the contrary.

GAFCON, and even the Archbishop of Canterburry, have very limited influence on actual Episcopalians and Anglicans worldwide. Anglican ecclessiology is not dependent on having uniformity or even fellowship or communion with any particular primate. GAFCON is strictly a case of party politics, principally driven by certain radicals, attempting to assert themselves as "authoritative", "orthodox" voices.

Pommer · Oct 21, 2025

A2SG said:
I enjoyed that. It sounds like Halligan is in way over her head.

-- A2SG, be fun to see how it all turns out....

Politics has always been “entertaining“ buuut…the movies that could be made can’t be made because our government is being run by a drama King.

Say what you want about Trump but he ain’t “boring”.

Aaron112 · Oct 21, 2025

Kathleen30 said:
Aaron as far as me has experienced be it sheep or goat alike everyone has a price given the right circumstances. You will do what you must do in order to survive. It be only the saving grace of the God that saves any of us from such a predicament

What you have experienced so far is not in line with Scripture. The best book to read is Scripture. The next best for examples of Scripture fulfilled is Foxes Book of Martyrs. People , as in Scripture, who loved not their own lives as if to protect them.

eclipsenow · Oct 21, 2025

Pommer said:
I would hope, if the day should come when Australia, (teh gods forbid), elect a lying mountebank,

Not quite sure of the cultural references there?

I know Aussie politicians are rorting the system somewhat, but I hope it never becomes the billionaire's club that the oligarchy have steered America into.

Strong in Him · Oct 21, 2025

Apple Sky said:
She has tried her hardest to get me to call Charles Duke a liar so she could report me which would have incurred a warning for me, but I didn't play her game this time & she knew this & this is why she has left the thread.

You have no idea.

Neogaia777 · Oct 21, 2025

Neogaia777 said:
You are very correct, it doesn't depend on our own works/righteousness, but there are some on this thread that still don't think they're ever going to be judged, etc.

God Bless.

I think we all can agree that Paul was not at all about a works based saving/righteousness, but yet he also came up with things to say like that is in 2 Corinthians 5:10 also? So was he contradicting his own beliefs?

God Bless.

Strong in Him · Oct 21, 2025

Apple Sky said:
Don't bother with her she just wants all the moon deniers banned like she once did to me once.

I have never reported you.
I have reported, something like, 4 people in 20 years - you were not one of them.

Strong in Him · Oct 21, 2025

Apple Sky said:
She was most definitely trying her hardest for me to call Charles Duke a liar so she could report it. But @Strong in Him your little game didn't work.

I was not playing games.
If I'd had any intention of reporting you it would have been when you implied I didn't believe God's word because I say the earth is a globe.

Stop making judgments; you are wrong.

Goodbye - again.

Neogaia777 · Oct 21, 2025

David Lamb said:
True, but our salvation does not depend upon our own righteousness:

“and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which [is] through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;” (Php 3:9 NKJV)

You are very correct, it doesn't depend on our own works/righteousness, but there are some on this thread that still don't think they're ever going to be judged, etc.

God Bless.

Latest activity

Latest activity

1. Textus Receptus (1550 / Beza 1598)​

2. Byzantine / Majority Text (2005 Robinson–Pierpont)​

3. Codex Vaticanus (B, 4th century) / Alexandrian Family​

4. Modern Critical Text (NA-28 / UBS-5)​

Simple conclusion anyone can grasp​

Short summary​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

1. Textus Receptus (1550 / Beza 1598)

2. Byzantine / Majority Text (2005 Robinson–Pierpont)

3. Codex Vaticanus (B, 4th century) / Alexandrian Family

4. Modern Critical Text (NA-28 / UBS-5)

Simple conclusion anyone can grasp

Short summary