Latest activity

Aryeh Jay · 2025-11-21T09:47:32-0600

iluvatar5150 said:
I have trouble understanding the desire to attempt to rehabilitate the image of a public figure who's deliberately constructed a persona of being a jerk.

A compassionate jerk.

CoreyD · 2025-11-21T09:46:05-0600

CLEEB said:
Because Adam wasn’t deceived and Eve was is proof of free will because if there was no free will their response would have been the same. It shows a difference in wills between Adam and Eve. Why is it so difficult to see that both Adam and Eve did not acquire the knowledge of good and evil until Adam ate the forbidden fruit ? In order to sin you must have the knowledge of good and evil and do the evil instead of the good. James 4:17 Adams sin was unique because it determined the course of humanity our sins do not. Today every man dies for his own sin. Adam and Eve at their creation were not innocent of sin because they were righteous but because they were ignorant.

Question here.
Did Adam and Eve know it was a sin against God to take fruit from the tree of good and bad... Did they not know what was good and bad?

BCP1928 · 2025-11-21T09:44:57-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Are you actually referring to Venezuela?

That was my mistake--already fixed.

ThatRobGuy said:
Argentina is where Trump's buddy Javier Milei is, correct?

For the time being.

PloverWing · 2025-11-21T09:44:04-0600

Welcome to CF! :wave:

CoreyD · 2025-11-21T09:43:25-0600

CLEEB said:
Scripture proves a choice between two trees in Eden. A choice under the law to choose life and live. A choice to count the cost of answering GODS call, again one of life or death. Perhaps this is why many are called but few are chosen. Without free will how would GOD judge us righteously ? Are we condemned to death for reasons we had no part in ? Even though GOD is omniscient this means HE knows all things but HE has not caused all things. Did GOD force Lucifer to rebel ? Did HE force Adam to sin ? Or is it that HE just knew in advance all these things and made them all work together for good in the end ? The father of lies and sin isn’t GOD, it’s Satan . In order for humanity to choose between good and evil the presence of both is required and in this Satan is but a tool GOD uses. In eternity GOD knew before HE created the angels that a third of them would sin against HIM and it would be their free will choice to do so. GOD permitted this angelic sin knowing HE could use these fallen angels in HIS work to make human beings a joint heir with HIS son of all things HE created. GOD has in eternity known all HIS saints even having their names in the Lambs book of life from the foundation of the world. This HE could do because HE knew who would genuinely repent and submit to HIS will and those who would not. GOD has known the free will choices of humanity but did not make them for humanity. GOD planned out HIS salvation with all this in HIS mind. It is extremely important to GOD that we have free will because HE wants us to love HIM with it.

You are correct that God "has not caused all things"
Since you raised this here, and I believe it can falls in line with the subject matter of free will, I'll like to ask... how is it God knew that his intelligent angels would rebel, but did not know Abraham would sacrifice hid son in obedience to God's command?

jonojim1337 · 2025-11-21T09:40:35-0600

Akita Suggagaki said:
So lets all talk in riddles so people can try to search out what we might mean?

He who has ears let him hear.

iluvatar5150 · 2025-11-21T09:40:34-0600

GoldenBoy89 said:
It’s weird one would even have any need to come up with a list like this

It's weird that anybody would even want to come up with a list like this. I have trouble understanding the desire to attempt to rehabilitate the image of a public figure who's deliberately constructed a persona of being a jerk.

Aryeh Jay · 2025-11-21T09:39:19-0600

wing2000 said:
....yea, but they speak Spanish. They're not REAL Americans.

You got that right! Gas is in litters, speed in kph, signs all in gibberish.

Where could we deport them to?

BCP1928 · 2025-11-21T09:38:22-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Were the servicemen not following their oath or something?

No, but it appears likely that they may soon be unequivocally ordered to do so

fhansen · 2025-11-21T09:36:32-0600

Dan1988 said:
2 Thess is speaking about people like you, who do not obey the gospel of the Lord Jesus. all you have done so far is reject the gospel and make false accusations.
All I have done is proclaim thew gospel and you respond with slander. You have never identified a single error in my theology, so you just resort to making false accusations.

If you had something to offer, you would correct me, but it's obvious you have nothing to offer.

Dan1988 said:
Wow, you don't even know what theology means. And you believe there are many gods, so we are worlds apart. You can have your religion all to yourself, it is an abomination to me.

It's almost amusing. You don't even attempt to perform the due diglence required in order to find out the truth for yourself, and then still endeavor to take the moral high ground like some kind of priggish Pharisee, while accusing me of your own fault.

Again, Insitutes is theology, systematic theology, and 2 Thess 1:8-10 specifically states, over and against your position, that those in hell will be "shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed."

Oh well, this discussion has descended into one of those rare moments when I'll express my distaste with the ignore button.

BCP1928 · 2025-11-21T09:36:18-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
But the circumstances in question here aren't "clearly illegal orders".

This isn't a case where a commanding officer is overtly telling troops to demand to be quartered in private residences without the consent of the homeowner or telling them "go shoot anyone who doesn't agree to be a Christian".

This is stemming from the president federalizing and deploying troops to states where the governors (and local law enforcement at the orders of their governors) are refusing to go along with federal laws (and in some cases, even declaring intent to obstruct federal law enforcement)

Legally speaking, it's still in a state of ambiguity.

As I noted before, there is historical precedent for similar circumstances, most notably, Eisenhower deploying the Airborne division to Arkansas when the governor down there was ignoring federal mandates and obstructing.

So people are trying to depict this as if it's a no-brainer and an easy judgement call that's so obvious that even the legally-uninitiated 19-23 could make it...but it's not.

You're right, it's a difficult decision. Admiral Holsey resigned rather than make such a decision. Is it legal to kill unidentified civilians on the high seas by blowing up boats not headed for America? Presumably whoever replaced him think it is not manifestly illegal, but where does that leave subordinates?

Now on to the big question: The President appears to be on the verge of ordering an invasion of Venezuela--without reference to Congress or the Constitution or even a well-defined military objective. There is nothing to stop him but the refusal of the military to go along with it. If the officers don't have the balls to stand up to him then it will be up to the enlisted men to refuse.

CoreyD · 2025-11-21T09:34:52-0600

CLEEB said:
Does GOD force salvation on anyone ? Hebrews 10:26 to willingly, willfully sin after being converted there is no more sacrifice for sins. This describes a person who with knowledge of the truth blasphemes the Holy Spirit , there is no forgiveness.

Interesting you should ask this.
I said this to @childeye 2 earlier:

Free will allows one to choose not to act on sinful desires, nor have a mindset that is against God's will - setting one's mind on the flesh.

One can choose to set one's mind on the spirit, and keep walking by spirit, or allow oneself to be led by the spirit.

Romans 13:11-14

11 Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now [a]salvation is nearer to us than when we first believed. 12 The night is almost gone, and the day is near. Therefore let’s rid ourselves of the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let’s [b]behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and debauchery, not in strife and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.

This is a choice you and I have to make.

It is not a built in program that we automatically follow.

These involve action on our part... a doing - willingly; voluntarily; unforced; of one's own accord.... free will.

In case you will make the argument that the spirit dwelling in a person is what makes their will God's, and therefore their will is not free, I have a question for you...

Ephesians 4:30 reads... And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

How does one grieve the spirit? Isaiah 65:10

He never answered the question,
We both know what the answer is.

I asked him to point out the noun, but haven't heard from him as yet.
There is no noun in the statement. Free will is an adjective.

This was made clear several times, including in the OP.
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).
Post #69; Post #145; Post #169;

@childeye 2 acknowledged this several times as well.

childeye 2 said:
The definition of freewill in Greek that you have given above is an adjective, not a noun. It describes a certain type of action or choice that is uncoerced/voluntary.

He even admitted to free willed decisions.

childeye 2 said:
The proper way to articulate it is an unforced decision is a free will decision. That's an adjective describing a voluntary decision.

childeye 2 said:
Like I said, it's an adjective meaning voluntary/willing, not a noun.

I believe an attempt at dragging on this debate is being made, although it has been proven very consistently and thoroughly, that humans have free will.
However, I am willing to go the mile, if need be, to establish this truth.

I won't be going through what has already been clearly, and simply stated, but anything that needs clarifying, I will address.
So, to be clear... "free will" in this statement is not a noun, because the noun 'will' has been modified by the adjective 'free', resulting phrase is typically referred to as an adjective phrase or adjectival phrase.
Phrases such as, of one's own accord; of one's own free will; freedom of choice... all fall into this same category.

There really is no need to spend time arguing over words, and doing so while avoiding the topic, or discussion at hand.

durangodawood · 2025-11-21T09:29:18-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
But the circumstances in question here aren't "clearly illegal orders".

This isn't a case where a commanding officer is overtly telling troops to demand to be quartered in private residences without the consent of the homeowner or telling them "go shoot anyone who doesn't agree to be a Christian".

This is stemming from the president federalizing and deploying troops to states where the governors (and local law enforcement at the orders of their governors) are refusing to go along with federal laws (and in some cases, even declaring intent to obstruct federal law enforcement)

Legally speaking, it's still in a state of ambiguity.

As I noted before, there is historical precedent for similar circumstances, most notably, Eisenhower deploying the Airborne division to Arkansas when the governor down there was ignoring federal mandates and obstructing.

So people are trying to depict this as if it's a no-brainer and an easy judgement call that's so obvious that even the legally-uninitiated 19-23 could make it...but it's not.

I dont believe the video in questions mentions any specific circumstances.

The sense is that the president does not feel constrained by law in his presidential actions (and in fact is not constrained as of recently). And so who knows whats coming down the pike. Its a pro active reiteration of a valuable principle. There is literally nothing about any particular circumstance in the message.

Jerry N. · 2025-11-21T09:28:36-0600

Apple Sky said:
No, what I'm saying is the earth cannot be moved & the sun stopped in the sky. Forget all this miracle stuff that's just wishful thinking & it's not accepting that the actual sun is in the sky.

And that the earth supposedly travels around the sun is just ludicrous. Anyone with eyes & an open mind can see this is not the case.

If I put a brick on the floor of my car and travel down the road at 60km/h, the brick does not move unless I slowdown or speed up. Secondly, lots of people with eyes and open minds can see the earth revolving around the sun.

Apple Sky · 2025-11-21T09:28:00-0600

prodromos said:
A shame you didn't consider that before you decided to wade in here

Login to view embedded media

So who's mocking now ?

fhansen · 2025-11-21T09:26:18-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
You're pointing out your own incoherence. You say that one can "thwart the enablement," but then you also say "even though enabled." That's a contradiction. If the enablement has been thwarted, then it never occurred. If it has occurred, then it was not thwarted.

So what do you mean, then, by "even though enabled"? Who's enabled? Not the one who's thwarted God's attempt to enable them...

The category of "resistance" belongs to the exercise of an ability, not to the creation of the ability itself. I have repeatedly pointed out, with no real acknowledgement that I can recall, that John 6:44 concerns the latter. The Father's act of drawing is the granting of the capacity to come, not the coming itself. To speak of "resisting" the generation of the capacity is meaningless. It smuggles in the second category into the first and muddles the syntax of the text.

Then you're only being a bit eristic here. I explained my poorly worded intended meaning with "thwart the enablement": that even though enabled, a person can refuse to act on it. IOW, I specifically denied that one would be ""resisting" the generation of the capacity".

Dikaioumenoi said:
You keep answering a question I'm not asking and affirming a proposition I never denied. You still have not yet addressed the actual issue here: whether the Father's act of enabling in John 6:44 succeeds or can fail. This is a relevant question given how you chose to define ἑλκύω going all the way back to post #42.

Only because in post #33 you first brought up the word in attempting to establish or force an intrinsic link between it and the act necessarily being accomplished:

Dikaioumenoi said:
This is too soft a definition of ἑλκύω. The lexical range of ἑλκύω is primarily in the realm of "drag" or "haul" (see John 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; James 2:6). It's a term that expresses decisive action resulting in movement, not gentle persuasion. Even when used metaphorically, as in John 6:44 and 12:32, the same strength of meaning carries through, because the drawing accomplishes its intent.

Dikaioumenoi said:
Can you please answer the actual question I have been asking you? Can the Father's act of granting the ability to come fail?

If it can, then you beg the question when saying "having been given the ability." We're not talking about the implications of that ability. We're talking about whether the ability itself even exists.

I have answered it, more than once. Either way, yes, the ability exists. God grants it. Again, whether or not I possess the ability to succeed at something, does not mean that I'll necessarily even begin to act on that ability. For that matter, everyone has the ability to believe with no excuse according to Paul in Rom 1-but that still doesnt mean they will.

Dikaioumenoi said:
The final clause, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ("and I will raise him up on the last day"), is not part of the condition, but its logical consequence. Grammatically, the αὐτὸν ("him") in both ἑλκύσῃ ("draws") and ἀναστήσω ("will raise") refers to the same person. Thus, the one drawn is the one raised. This is easily seen if restating the logic of the verse contrapositively: "If he is able to come, then the Father [has drawn] him, and I will raise him up."

The verse can also logically be rendered thusly:

"If he has come, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up."

This does not preclude the ability to come but to refuse anyway, to refuse to open the door when He knocks, to put it differently.

Hentenza · 2025-11-21T09:23:18-0600

Apple Sky said:
No, what I'm saying is the earth cannot be moved & the sun stopped in the sky. Forget all this miracle stuff that's just wishful thinking & it's not accepting that the actual sun is in the sky.

And that the earth supposedly travels around the sun is just ludicrous. Anyone with eyes & an open mind can see this is not the case.

The fact that the earth and the rest of the planets orbit the sun has been thoroughly and completely proven. The fact that the earth is round has been thoroughly and completely proven. This is simply how God’s creation is. There is no room for any other belief. It’s like saying that humans don’t breathe oxygen.

It is your burden of proof to prove the nonesense that the earth is flat and that the sun moves back and forth.

durangodawood · 2025-11-21T09:19:01-0600

zippy2006 said:
....The whole framing of the issue as, "How the federal government can create an economy that works for everyone," is remarkably naive. It is just another symptom of the top-downism that is the problem in the first place.

Is that the framing? I mean, the OP is pretty neutral re the fed govts role here except to express skepticism about a couple fed govt proposals.

Fervent · 2025-11-21T09:18:45-0600

BCP1928 said:
Because we think you are exaggerating it. Don't forget that the OP is about people giving up religion as a meaningful part of their lives, and I doubt very much that Islam, "fundamentalist" or otherwise, has played much of a role in leading them away.

In your ignorance, you refuse to recognize the threat. And I'm aware this whole conversation has been off-topic, which is why I haven't gone all out in citing the Islamic sources to prove my point. So why have so many of your ilk been so quick to defend Islam, some even blindly quoting Islamic apologists as if such sources are trustworthy on points that are embarrassing to Islam?

rocknanchor · 2025-11-21T09:17:40-0600

Long before even half-way through Ken Burns new documentary, The American Revolution, did I realize he and his some twenty-two ‘historians’ and writers had no interest in securing America’s Christian founding. AI itself has concluded against Mr Burns’ full omission of including the Black Robe Regiment throughout the Revolution as integral beyond it's influence, with his lamest of all saying, the founders were all “Deist”. Which if he had one bit of journalistic integrity, he would have tapped just one of the nation’s largest privately-owned collections of founding letters and archives available. It was not.

“If the founding fathers were not Bible believing church uh church Christians, why did they put Leviticus on the liberty bell? Leviticus 25:19. Proclaim liberty throughout the land of which you are in, , you need to read the state constitutions before anything else. Nine out of 13 of the original states required you to be a Bible believing Christian to serve in government. All 13 required you to have a declaration of faith, nine out of the thirteen required you to be a Protestant, except Maryland which was Catholic which still required a declaration. In almost every single one of the original state constitutions, Pennsylvania included, they had I profess Lord in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior in the original state constitutions. Secondly, 55 out of 56 of the original signers of the declaration were Bible believing church attending Christians.

This idea the founding fathers were a bunch of enlightenment common law deists, ,The reason they hate it is because if they, the reason they must say this is that if we actually go back to our Christian roots and we go back to where we once were, , no longer a Christian nation but we have a Christian form of government, , it's America's best hope for revival and for a great future." – Charlie Kirk, springtime 2025

BCP1928 · 2025-11-21T09:15:27-0600

Fervent said:
That's a different discussion.

Why the emotional turn? The point is simple, it's to speak to the danger that Islam presents. Why should I be silent on it?

Because we think you are exaggerating it. Don't forget that the OP is about people giving up religion as a meaningful part of their lives, and I doubt very much that Islam, "fundamentalist" or otherwise, has played much of a role in leading them away.

iluvatar5150 · 2025-11-21T09:15:19-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Since it's apparently acceptable to use funeral situations as a means for political posturing based on the invite list...

View attachment 373420

If that's supposed to reference waterboarding, then legit lol.

Apple Sky · 2025-11-21T09:13:48-0600

Jerry N. said:
Are you saying that God couldn’t do it if the earth was a globe?

No, what I'm saying is the earth cannot be moved & the sun stopped in the sky. Forget all this miracle stuff that's just wishful thinking & it's not accepting that the actual sun is in the sky.

And that the earth supposedly travels around the sun is just ludicrous. Anyone with eyes & an open mind can see this is not the case.

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-11-21T09:11:10-0600

Gene2memE said:
This seems like what the government should be doing in Federal court, while testifying under oath.

"Turning to Bovino, the Court specifically finds his testimony not credible. Bovino appeared evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing “cute” responses to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s questions or outright lying.
...
Bovino’s and Hewson’s explanations ... strains credulity.

Most tellingly, Bovino admitted in his deposition that he lied multiple times about the events that occurred in Little Village that prompted him to throw tear gas at protesters.
...
Overall, after reviewing all the evidence, the Court finds that Defendants’ widespread misrepresentations call into question everything that Defendants say they are doing in their characterization of what is happening at the Broadview facility or out in the streets of the Chicagoland area during law enforcement activities."

https://cst.brightspotcdn.com/49/34/daecfb4d4b86971a884bd736a564/ellisopinion.pdf

But hey, the boss couldn't lie straight in bed and obviously doesn't care if his toadies follow the law, obey professional ethics or even exhibit basic human decency.

“The fish stinks from the head down.”

Fervent · 2025-11-21T09:07:02-0600

BCP1928 said:
That doesn't mean they are right.

That's a different discussion.

BCP1928 said:
Why are you so eager to prove that a fundamental tenet of Islam is to kill all who won't convert? What's your point

Why the emotional turn? The point is simple, it's to speak to the danger that Islam presents. Why should I be silent on it?

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page