prodromos said:

I think it refers to the natural changing of hair colour as you age beyond your 50's

Click to expand...

Oh, well I do that - after next Monday, I'll be pink again.

Maria Billingsley said:

Thanks for sharing but I do not hold to all the teachings from Augustine or Calvin.

Click to expand...

Nor do I, but thanks for the deflection

fli said:

Above is our OT removal of sins. If we depend on the OT rules for salvation the blood of bulls and goats, is our purification,

Click to expand...

Maybe learn the difference between not counting yet still being a sinner.

The difference is "attribution." Sins are not counted against or attributed to people, the big BUT being sins are attributed to or counted against the devil and his messengers who happen to operate in everyone (via the temptation path in mind.)

Even the slightest sinful lawless thought defiles us. Mark 7:21-23, Matt. 5:28

fli said:

Jesus became the author of eternal salvation to those who obey Him. The author, creator or writer, of eternal salvation.

Click to expand...

Obedience, it would seem, is to at least not lie wouldn't you think? Or worse, to be a hypocrite.

We're no better than any other given sinner. Romans 3:9

Paul considered that he was, present tense application, "I am" the chief of sinners. Do you know why he made this claim? Hint: It wasn't because of his sins of the past. It was because he engaged the TEMPTER internally. WHO then was the chief of sinners?

Not everything is as it appears on the surface, in the sight of fleshly minds.

fli said:

I say some may burn eternally and some will be dead.

Click to expand...

I have no issues with eternal hell or permanent destruction of the devil and his messengers, as this is part of the Gospel.

But as it pertains to our neighbors, whom we are commanded to love, it's not going to happen that way. They TOO will be divided from our captors and on they will go with our Savior, just as we.

walter45 said:

Why would people need to be raised from the dead from there grave if they were already alive?

Click to expand...

The grave is in the here and now, in these walking wet dust piles.

Col. 3:3
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

The raising transpires when we put off corruption, dishonor and weakness, 1 Cor. 15:42-46

walter45 said:

Why do people believe that they are alive on the first day after their death, when Jesus says they are raised from the dead on the last day?

Click to expand...

Hours, days, months, years and times are not as they appear on the surface.

How can a first be last and a last be first? Matt. 19:30

Strong in Him said:

Graity? No.

Click to expand...

I think it refers to the natural changing of hair colour as you age beyond your 50's

ChubbyCherub said:

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

1 John 3:6-10
6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. 7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

I read this last night after a weekend of heavy drinking and eating.

This is not a habitual thing for me. I have drank less than 10 times this year but I have been struggling with overeating due to heavy restriction of calories, since the beginning of this year, in an effort to lose weight.

I have lost about 50 pounds and am only 10 pounds away from goal weight. But, the stress of it all (turning away all social engagements, business engagements, family time etc) causes me to overeat when I start to eat any sugary foods and drinking magnifies the craves and reduces all inhibition and self-control.

So, to my way of thinking, I am not only drinking to excess but then engaging in gluttony, or self sabotage or, I don't really know 100% what the exact sin would be but the action of drinking too much and then overeating seems sinful. Also, I don't view these things as glorifying God or being a light to unbelievers (my family) so it would seem to me that I am indeed sinning.

In an effort to understand, I read the above verses last night.

With regards to 1 John 1:8-10, I believe I am a sinner, have confessed my sins, asked for forgiveness and accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior.

With regards to 1 John 3:6-10, sin is of the devil, and 'No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are,'

Am I truly saved then if I continue to sin? Am I sinning? I have prayed and acknowledged that I'm not sure about either of these points but, really, I am sure I am saved because I have done what the Bible says saves us according to Romans 10:9-13:

9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[e] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[f]

Any and all help is appreciated. On one hand, I feel broken hearted. I certainly do not want to be of the devil and I want to live my life for Christ and have assurance that I will be with Him when the time comes. On the other hand, I feel like I'm misunderstanding something and overreacting. On the other hand, I feel like I could want that to be the case because the consequences are devastating and I wouldn't know what the point of anything was anymore...

If you could help me, I would be forever grateful, thank you and God bless.

Click to expand...

The two verses you quoted indicate an ongoing lifestyle, or continuous attitude of repentance. 1 Jn. 3:6-10 is not talking about absolute sinless perfection. Therefore, it's about direction in life, not a state of being. Consider this: the sinful nature causes people to be self-centered. If God made us sinlessly perfect, it would not take long until we're thinking that we overcame sin, and think we don't still need our Savior's deliverance. Therefore, God has to leave us in some minimal sin in order to keep our conscience realizing we still need Jesus to save us. Paul acknowledges the reality of our continued sinfulness by saying, "the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness" (in Rom. 8).

With that said, why do you think you're a glutton? Is it because after eating "too much" you feel physically miserable? You're simply experiencing the consequence of your lack of self-control. Did you drink too much alcohol? You're experiencing the consequence of it, and of course you feel guilty if you were staggering drunk. It doesn't mean you're not saved (spiritually) or lost salvation. It means you've lost your peace in relationship with God. So you need to consider that your sense of peace with God is a treasure that you will not trade for any worldly satisfaction.

Consider this: if you think you should be perfect in self-control, then since that is one of the fruits of the Spirit, then it means you have to be perfect in love, in joy, in peace, in faithfulness, in goodness, etc. etc., IOW sinlessly perfect. IMO you should learn how to live by faith, which means practicing the awareness of God's presence, seeking Him for help in all you do. In this way you will glorify God by your faith. Stop worrying about your salvation, because what Jesus did for you was sufficient to save you completely. So you should stop "working" on your sins, and start/continue your real spiritual work, by trusting Jesus to deliver you from all unrighteousness (1 Jn. 1:9). Live by the grace of God, not by your will-power. Surrender to God and let Him direct your will.

The idea is to trust Jesus for your eternal destiny 100%, and it is possible with such encouragement as what the apostle and elder John gave us in 1 Jn. 5:1 - "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God." It says "everyone," so that includes you, if indeed you trust Jesus to completely take care of your eternal future. It says, "has been born of God," so that means God will never let you go, since you are His child. If you need chastisement, He will do it, according to Heb. 12. A guilty conscience is part of that chastisement, the first level. Sometimes if we persist in sin, the next level is economic hardship. The idea is that we learn how to overcome by faith, when we find ourselves, our will-power, too weak to avoid succumbing to temptation. Jesus said, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Therefore, it is the devil who wants you believe that you're not saved or has lost salvation. If anyone even suggests to you a condemnation, don't listen to them. Only listen to God, who said, "I will never leave you, nor will I ever forsake you." Jesus said, "My sheep hear My voice, and they follow Me, and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish." Once these words become the basis of our relationship with God, and we are practicing our awareness of His presence, and we are fellowshipping with other Christians, and we are memorizing scripture and reading it, and praying, then how can any of us be condemned, seeing it says, "the righteous shall live by faith"? Your faith is being tested, so keep on trusting Christ as your deliverer for the rest of your natural life.

Fervent said:

I think it's pretty clear they're most likely going to go with an empty suit with a flashy smile.

Click to expand...

Isn’t that every American president ever? It’s always been a flashy smile competition. It’s all surface visuals. When was the last short ugly American President?

That’s why America is in its current state. It elects hi riz Presidents.

Apple Sky said:

Dont believe all you read instead use your eyes, feelings & most important use your brain, after all isn't this why God gave us one ?.

Click to expand...

Same to you.
Except don't use your feelings because they are changeable and unreliable. That, I think, is where most of the problem lies - i.e. "the sun doesn't look 93,000,000 miles away, so it can't be." Your brain should tell you that that is an illogical statement.

Instead, use a telescope to look at the night sky. Observe sunsets. THINK about statements made by those who understand science, maths, satellite dishes etc.
If you want the truth you should be prepared to study the evidence both for and against and decide which there is most of, which is the most compelling etc and test it out, as far as you can - i.e contact eyewitnesses.

If you are not convinced that what you say, and believe, is the truth then you should either set it out, with your evidence, and invite proper debate but be prepared for the fact that people will oppose you. Or you should stop writing threads which ask, "thoughts" or "what do you guys think?"
Because as soon as anyone tells you what they KNOW, you respond with or something similar. Then you act offended if anyone calls you on it.

Fervent said:

then when they've built up enough numbers they go full scale Sharia law

Click to expand...

In which western democracy has this happened?

Apple Sky said:

Graity - Can anyone say what it is ?

Click to expand...

Graity? No.

Apple Sky said:

Prove me wrong then & not with hearsay's.

Click to expand...

You, yourself, watched Charles Duke's testimony. It was that which led you to say that you "hand on heart" believed him, said "sorry" to God for doubting the astronauts and said that Flat Earth was a load of nonsense.
But that, and anything else we say, is now dismissed by you as "they're lying", "that was faked" etc, etc.

What do you mean by "hearsay"?
It's not "hearsay" - i.e. gossip or a rumour - that men walked on the moon. There is evidence, you just refuse to accept it.

We only have your messages here to "prove" that you exist. For all we know you could be a robot or you could be using software that automatically argues with anyone who disagrees with you.

And, perhaps, also, acceptance that in community life, you don't always get your own way. But for some people, that's a real struggle!

Predynastic Egyptian bikes might have been built with precision but had a durability issue.

Phil G said:

That's a ridiculous statement. If something drops on your head, is that aligning with several philosophical and psychological concepts?

Click to expand...

No this aligns with Newton's Law, which I might add is a load of nonsense & more fary tales.
Graity - Can anyone say what it is ?

childeye 2 said:

NOT giving in to wrong desires requires knowing they are wrong desires and why. So now knowledge comes into play, not subjectively but objectively true information. And it's true that knowledge makes us more responsible in the sense we know better. But wouldn't it be better said that we make our own decisions to NOT DO what is wrong because we Love others? Wouldn't it be better to thank God for the brotherly love that causes us to act responsibly without deliberating <-- Here is where the will/way/want is not manifested by the ability to choose otherwise, but through brotherly Love <--God's Way.

Click to expand...

Would you say one's conscience gives them subjective knowledge?
How does one gain objective knowledge?

childeye 2 said:

First off, when Paul says Adam was not deceived, I don't think Paul is meaning to point out that Adam knew what he was doing because Adam knew God told him not to eat because he would surely die. I say that because Paul would have known that the woman also knew that too, because she said, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die".

Click to expand...

What we think isn't relevant.
Paul made a contrast between one person being deceived, and the other not.
That points out that one person - Adam - made a choice to do what was wrong, without being misled.
When someone is not misled into doing something wrong, but they do it, is it deliberate - done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional, and willful - done in a manner which was intended?

The choice to do what is wrong without being misled
Choosing to do what is wrong while fully aware of its moral implications—knowing it is wrong and still proceeding—is a deliberate act of moral failure. This choice is often described as a conscious violation of one's own ethical standards or principles, and it reflects a decision made despite knowing the correct course of action. In ethical frameworks, such a decision may be analyzed through the lens of consequences, rules, or character. For instance, someone might refrain from lying because they believe it leads to bad outcomes , or because they follow a rule that demands honesty , or because they identify as an honest person. Choosing to act wrongly in spite of these considerations indicates a prioritization of personal interest, emotion, or bias over moral duty.

The decision to do wrong is not merely a mistake or a lapse in judgment; it is a choice made with full knowledge of the right alternative. This awareness can intensify the moral weight of the action, as it involves a willful disregard for truth, fairness, or the well-being of others.

childeye 2 said:

So some theologians tend to take it out of context and think Paul is saying Adam deliberately, willfully disobeyed of his own initiative (which is a different sentiment than Adam knew God told him not to eat or he would surely die), in other words they suggest that Paul is inferring rebellion by saying Adam was not deceived.

Click to expand...

Can you provide a reference where some theologians take this out of context.

childeye 2 said:

I have already shown how that mischaracterization of Paul's intended sentiments ends in a contradiction of reasoning. Here it is-> It would mean that Paul is saying that the woman, who was deceived/tricked into disobeying God, should follow the lead of the man who knowingly and deliberately rebelled against God. That would be like saying we should follow those leaders who knowingly and willfully rebel against God.

Click to expand...

Tricked into disobeying God?
How was Eve tricked?

Deceived does not necessarily mean tricked.
For example,, one who deceives their own mind, does not trick their mind.
They just convince themselves of something they believe... or want to believe.
Deceiving one's own mind refers to the psychological process of self-deception, where an individual convinces themselves of a belief they know or believe to be false, often to avoid discomfort, maintain self-esteem, or rationalize behavior.

It wasn't like Eve didn't know what God told her. She knew.
When Satan said, “Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?” Insinuating that God was wickedly withholding something good from them.
Eve responded... “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
Satan's approach was deceptive... a cunning way to sow suspicion and doubt.

Eve believed the lie. She believed what was false, to be true. The Bible doesn't say she was tricked into believing.
A person can chew over doubts and fatten suspicion, by entertaining a thought.

However, it was Satan's intent to mislead her, so I am not going to make this a subject of argument, as it's "small potatoes" and would detract from the main point... which is, that Adam was not misled into believing the lie.
That's what it means to be deceived. Deceive - To cause to believe what is not true; mislead

childeye 2 said:

Given that the Genesis account does not depict the serpent talking to Adam, Paul is probably simply inferring that the woman was the one deceived by the serpent, not the man. It is remarkable that nowhere else in scripture that I know of, is it mentioned or implied that Adam was not deceived or not misled in some way by the woman and that he willfully rebelled against God.

Click to expand...

Probably?
Remarkable? Why... because you think something you believe is probably true?

childeye 2 said:

On the other hand, it's possible that Adam knew what he was doing and was NOT deceived, because he could have wanted to die with Eve rather than live without her which would not mean he had a rebellious spirit against God.

Click to expand...

Could have?
Let's be clear... If you think you are not speculating, please check the dictionary for the word speculate.
Then let's end this conversation, if speculation is all you think we have to go on, because it's no use using the scriptures if nothing can be established from them.

childeye 2 said:

It's possible he could have decided to die with Eve rather than live without her. Assuming he wouldn't choose to eat and die had she not eaten in the first place, the circumstances would qualify as an antecedent event, wherein he might have felt forced to volunteer to die with her,

Click to expand...

Possible?
Assuming?
Might have?
Okay, moving on.

childeye 2 said:

This is an adjective not a noun. It's talking about a voluntarily action i.e. "acting on one's own accord" I'm not saying such willful sinful actions can't occur like in Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26. I would note that these scriptures are speaking more rhetorical, as warnings. I won't call such a will that wants to be ruled by sin a free will, because I want to show free as objectively positive in God's Way. The bible also shows actions that occur NOT of one's own accord. Primarily through believing things that are untrue and reasoning upon them as if they were true.

Click to expand...

You just said

This is an adjective not a noun. It's talking about a voluntarily action i.e. "acting on one's own accord" I'm not saying such willful sinful actions can't occur

Click to expand...

Then you, in the same breath, turn around and say

I won't call such a will that wants to be ruled by sin a free will

Click to expand...

"Such a will" is a noun, which I don't see mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-6
Unless you are referring to "sinning willfully" mentioned in Hebrews 10:26, which is describing having the ability to willingly sin or not - that is choosing of one's own accord, or one's own free will, either to refrain from practicing sin, or practicing sin... is actually free will.

It's not describing a will. It's not a noun. It's describing a voluntary action, which is exactly an adjective. Which is exactly what I started with.
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).

If a person can refrain from sinning willfully or give into sinning willfully - one or the other, that person has free will.
Why do you not accept that?

childeye 2 said:

Keeping in mind that I'm speaking strictly in the moral/immoral context, I said this in my first post--> "The only coherent meaning of the term free will as a noun, that I can see in scripture, is a will qualified as free from sin". "Free" standing alone without will carries a positive connotation. When paired with a subjective neutral will, it can mask bondage with the illusion of empowerment. In that way I can see how a neutral free will, would be a useful scenario for a foundational lie. The power to choose as a neutral connotation isn't a power of impetus, it's a subjective scenario that happens when sharing a planet.

Click to expand...

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).

childeye 2 said:

The distinction that free from sin in scripture brings, is a positive connotation of a carnal minded will that has been transformed by the will of God through the power of the Holy Spirit to the mind of Christ, not by the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God. It shows that there are wills that ARE FREE so as to show that there are wills that ARE NOT FREE without equivocation. That’s why I see the carnal free will as a foundational lie: it takes a word of liberation and uses it to cover over dependence upon God as the positive power.

Click to expand...

A "carnal minded will" is not an adjective, but a noun.
You aren't talking about the same thing I am talking about.

childeye 2 said:

Agreed. Everyone has THEIR OWN WILL qualified as OUR OWN way. <-- NOT GOD"S WAY--> Isaiah 53:6
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.

Scriptures generally describe a self-willed person as acting out of the carnal will, and the carnal will is subject to the flesh.

Click to expand...

"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.

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.

To act according to one's own will or desire refers to the capacity for self-directed, purposeful action, a concept known as volition. Volition involves the ability to make autonomous decisions and act upon them, distinguishing conscious beings from purely deterministic systems. It is considered a key component of free will, as it emphasizes personal agency and freedom of choice.
The term "volition" originates from the Latin velle, meaning "to wish" or "to will". When someone acts "of their own volition," they do so voluntarily, driven by their own desires or intentions.
The idea of acting according to one's own will is also linked to autonomy, particularly moral autonomy, which involves the capacity to give oneself moral laws rather than simply following external commands.

Hence, we are not on the same page.
You haven't understood.
Therefore...

childeye 2 said:

This is articulated well because here the will denotes a negative desire, NOT just the general ability to choose to act. To rephrase: The mechanism that weighs pros and cons is not a will (A "want" precedes an "action" according to the "want"). So, I think we can agree that the desire/will/want of the self-willed is inclined to servitude to sin when it is not aligned with Will of the Father.

Click to expand...

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"?

childeye 2 said:

The Satan means the accuser/adversary. How are you defining free will here? We agree each person has their own way, their own will that involves making their own decisions and performing their own actions pursuant to what their want/will/way is.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

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.

childeye 2 said:

Why is Free now being added without any qualifier? You're introducing an unknown premise.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

childeye 2 said:

Leaving the "free" out because I don't know what you intend to infer with it; I'm going to make this statement --> I can claim definitively that sin is a hinderance to someone's own will/way/want when it's done to them, because when someone else's will/way/want steals from me or interferes with me fulfilling my will/way/want, then my own will/want/way is hindered. My point is that inevitably one person's own way will clash with someone else's own way, and the occasion for confrontation, war and sin will be present.

Click to expand...

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.

childeye 2 said:

Having said that, I want to know why you are interjecting Free and how you are applying it.

Click to expand...

Let's see if you get it.

rambot said:

So ALL the people who have said "release rhe epstein files" are just chaos agents or it just those lefties?

I remember when ALMOST every poster on CF was calling for the release.
To those who don't call foe it now, what has changed?


A quote like this makes it sound like the accusations just arise out of think vapor clouds.
I am GENUINELY curious if you could list all the "behaviours of concern" that HAVE GIVEN people the impression that Trump is inappropriate with young girl.
You can choose to include direct allegations (though im sure you are not able to) if you like or just include his utterly creepy behaviours. If you can list all of those events and quotes and still feel it's "stupid as they come", I'll be impressed.

Because I'll tell you what; I'd bet you, your father, and your male children have never done those things. Because your parents raised you right. We don't have those allegations because we don't incriminate ourselves by enjoying those past times.




Honestly you can FEEL the relief of not having to intellectually defend the alleged pedophile anymore because "it's the left's fault" again.

I don't doubt it must get tiring.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I dont think the left cares all that much. They know there is nothing there. If there were Biden would have released it in a second.

They are just happy to sow chaos. They love it when the Republicans are fighting. Just like we love it when the Democrats are fighting.

I mean seriously. I mean what are you going to do when you find out foreign dignitaries were involved? Demand They all be arrested? You think thats going to happen?

Show others nice courtesy
CONT

The Barbarian said:

The fact that Trump was caught creeping into the dressing room of under-aged females (he even privately bragged about it) does indicate that he was interested. So motive plus opportunity...

Click to expand...

Trying to sow chaos again. Even Biden didn't find anything. And he had it for four years.

Dikaioumenoi said:

So you're conflating two different elements of the Greek pointed out in what you yourself quoted. The corporate plural is in reference to sins, not to the scope of the saved. The future indicative σώσει guarantees that all individuals encompassed by "His people" are saved, not merely that the group as a collective survives in some abstract sense. The grammar does not allow partial fulfillment here. The corporate plural of the sins only tells us how the sins are counted; it does not redefine the scope of the salvation promised.

Click to expand...

Like I argued in my recent post it has nothing to do with "abstract sense", it's prophetic promise to the covenant Jewish Israel. We see this language in the OT. We understand it sematically, it's the faithful among the covenant Israel that will be saved from sin, but it's not explictly stated in Matt 1:21.

Dikaioumenoi said:

Even if the phrase historically refers to Israel, that does not determine what Matthews means in context.

Click to expand...

I don't see how you get the context to mean the elect among Jews and Gentiles. I see nothing like that, quite the opposite.

Dikaioumenoi said:

Matt. 1:21 defines the referent by the nature of the salvation promised. The angel promises redemptive salvation from sin, not national deliverance. You've conceded that much, but that concession eliminates an ethnic reading. Once the salvation is spiritual and effectual, the referent cannot remain merely national. A nation can experience political or covenantal privilege, but it cannot, as a collective entity, be forgiven of sin apart from the individuals who compose it.

Click to expand...

You seem totally disregard the OT covenant language. Of course the nation Israel can't be forgiven apart from the individuals it's composed of. But we see from OT covenant language, it does not mean all people of the Covenant Israel are effected by the statement "save from sin".

MarkSB said:

So to be clear, you think that you can lay the entirety of those increases at the feet of Obama and the ACA? Health care cost inflation was a thing before the ACA existed, and it will continue to be a thing even if the ACA were completely removed.

On the graph below, I see a straight line right through 2010. No major change in the slope whatsoever.

View attachment 373209

How does medical inflation compare to inflation in the rest of the economy? - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

In June 2024, medical inflation (3.3%) outpaced inflation in the overall economy (3.0%) for the first time since the beginning of 2021.

www.healthsystemtracker.org

Click to expand...

This is the problem with the ACA. It did NOT do what was promised. It was promised that it would bring down the costs and it didn't. You think the continuation of the rising cost was good? When we were told it would bring it down? Thats not a win, thats a total loss.

Phil G said:

Hearsay is when somebody says what they have heard from somebody else.

Click to expand...

And this exactly what people do, they've either read it somewhere or heard it throgh thr grapevine.

Dont believe all you read instead use your eyes, feelings & most important use your brain, after all isn't this why God gave us one ?.

Well, I mean, you can go as big and formal and complex as you like, I suppose. But it can just start with some basic things:
- Is this objectively an issue? (Is it interfering with the church's mission, are people being hurt/harmed/unsafe, are laws being broken, etc ?)
- If no, what's the button that's being pushed for me? (Why am I sad/angry/hurt/disappointed etc?)
- What's the proper approach to take in raising the issue (if it's not my issue), or getting help to deal with the issue (if it is my issue)?
- How might I communicate with the relevant person or persons concerned? (Eg: chat to vicar, letter to secretary of parish council, or so on)
- What's the right thing to do if the outcome I want doesn't happen?

I mean, to give you an example of one situation I'm aware of (and I've heard versions of it from both the vicar concerned, who is a friend, and a parish council member, whom I visited in hospital), there was conflict over what colour to paint the interior of the church. The person who was upset by the decision did not use appropriate channels/processes to attempt to resolve the issue, did not accept the outcome when they essentially lost the vote, and ended up behaving very inappropriately towards others, such that he has had to be removed from his lay leadership position due to breaches of the relevant code of conduct.

All because he couldn't figure out how to cope with not liking the colour of paint that parish council chose!

essentialsaltes said:

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.”

Click to expand...

We don't need or want more citizens. We have enough right now. We especially don't need more citizens from 3rd world countries who are coming here and transforming areas into where they came from.

essentialsaltes said:

“Not sure what is worse: this actually happening or the admin thinking this is a ‘win.’”

Click to expand...

I think streamlining the process is good. I think cutting down on the paperwork is good. And better vetting is good as well. I'm concerned that its not good enough.