Latest activity

Fervent · 2025-11-06T22:36:49-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
He doesn't present an argument for why it would apply to ethics in the Problem of the Criterion. He just present it as fact. You do realise that there exists many metaethic theories, finding one that agrees with you is not enough.

I am well aware, but your protest isn't really relevant. It's not about metaethics, either, it's a metaepistemological treatise. It just happens that his point about objectivity and normativity is salient to our discussion.

Stopped_lurking said:
I act on them because acting on moral feelings is in itself satisfactory to me. But where is the need for objectivity?

Do you, or do you not, treat it as if when you are correcting a wrong you are in fact addressing something that is wrong? What is it that is giving you satisfaction when you act on such feelings?

BCP1928 · 2025-11-06T22:36:14-0600

Chesterton said:
In 14 years of frequent posting, I think this is the first post sympathetic to Christians that I've ever seen you make. Has Fuentes rubbed off on you from all the recent threads about him?

They are primarily Antiochian Orthodox, not Greek. We Antiochians and Greeks are theologically the same, the only difference is geographical location. I'm a conservative MAGA Antiochian Christian, and I have sympathy for them.

So do I, but if you expect any sympathy from the Evangelical Protestants who are the main drivers of MAGA you will be disappointed. Most of them don't even think you are a "real" Christian.

lucypevensie · 2025-11-06T22:36:09-0600

Best you mind your manners.

lucypevensie · 2025-11-06T22:35:10-0600

Horse race

BPPLEE · 2025-11-06T22:33:27-0600

Bradskii said:
And there was me thinking he had a Greek background.

Someone needs to tell his apologists

camille70 · 2025-11-06T22:33:21-0600

rambot said:
No.
FUNDAMENTALLY, God tells us he is in control...whether it's a secular, Christian or Islamic government.

Calm down and don't be so ~~scared~~ paranoid.

He's got it. It'll be fine.

I was wondering when someone was going to push back on all the fear mongering with all authority is God Ordained.

camille70 · 2025-11-06T22:31:11-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Christian Nationalists are actual people who have a stated goal of some sort of unconstitutional theocracy.

As far as I know, Mamdani has expressed no such desire for an Islamic theocracy.

We know not all Christians are Christian nationalists. I have no reason to believe any random Muslim is a 'Muslim nationalist'.

His Jewish supporters seem to like him.

https://x.com/AdameMedia/status/1986145281348403636

DialecticSkeptic · 2025-11-06T22:30:13-0600

Michie said:
No I said they were real people. And Paul was discussing covenants. Admittedly, I was scattered when I read this thread given the other things I was attending to at the time. Adam, Eve, Sarah, Hagar were real people. Using their situations as allegories to teach about covenants is not the issue, my misunderstanding was quickly reading through the thread while distracted and misunderstanding. So if you want to debate it, you aren’t going to find it with me. My apologies for hopping in and misunderstanding.

That's fair: You misunderstood. No worries, mate.

Bradskii · 2025-11-06T22:27:21-0600

BPPLEE said:
The hypocrisy meter is reminding me of all the criticism of George Soros that’s labeled as anti Semitism

And there was me thinking he had a Greek background.

Dikaioumenoi · 2025-11-06T22:25:40-0600

zoidar said:
No, why? The angel was only revealing part of the plan to Joseph.

The angel's words are a definitive explanation of the very name of Jesus. The γάρ explicitly grounds the naming. His entire identity and mission on earth are defined by this statement. So the angel's words cannot be only a partial disclosure of that mission.

zoidar said:
"From their sins"? That exactly what Jesus will do, save the Jewish people from their sins, not every indidual Jew though. The deliverance "from their sins" clarifies what kind of salvation the Messiah brings, spiritual redemption rather than political liberation, not who is included in the scope of that salvation.

But that reading isn't grammatically defensible. The future indicative σώσει ("He will save") expresses a definite, declarative act, not an attempt, offer, or possibility. The construction σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ is a promise of fulfillment, not a general intention.

So your qualification, "not every individual Jew though," can only be introduced if defining "His people" in a way that likewise "does not include every individual Jew." Grammatically, the text doesn't allow for a subset within "His people." Whoever that phrase encompasses, their salvation is certain and complete. He will save "His people" from their sins.

In other words, either "His people" refers to all Jews (in which case the angel's statement fails, since not all Jews are saved), or it refers to the covenant people who truly belong to Him; that is, the ones who actually are saved. The grammar itself forces that conclusion.

zoidar said:
Why do you believe the purpose of Matt 1:21 is to reveal the whole plan of redemption to Joseph?

Because the angel explicitly ties Jesus' name to His mission. The verse isn't a partial hint; it's the divine explanation of His very identity and purpose on earth: "You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

Matt. 1:21 isn't a statement about who Jesus ministered to first; it's a statement defining His entire identity and purpose on earth.

zoidar said:
In the Gospels where "His people, My people, His own" is mentioned it always refers to the Jewish people. Why then do you think there is this exception in Matt 1:21?

It often does, but claiming it always refers to ethnic Israel is a stretch. Lexical precedent doesn't control referential scope when the author himself redefines the covenant category in his own narrative. What matters is how Matthew uses the term in context, and the theological implications (like those mentioned above) of reading it ethnically in Matthew 1:21 are disastrous.

Matthew himself broadens the covenant category to include Gentiles and excludes unbelieving Jews (8:11-12; 12:48-50). John does the same: Jesus' "own" (τὰ ἐμά) are not limited to Israel, for He calls sheep "not of this fold" (10:14-16). Even John 1:11-12, which you cited, makes the point explicit: "His own" rejected Him, but whoever received Him, Jew or Gentile, became God's true children. Yes, "His own" refers to Jews there, but the point of the text is to redefine that. The whole point is that the true people of God is not defined ethnically.

Luke 2:31-32, which you also cited, likewise frames Israel's glory in the inclusion of the Gentiles. The Savior from Israel brings salvation "for all peoples." The covenant community, therefore, is not defined by national boundaries but by redemptive union with Christ. Yes, "His people" clearly refers to Israel there, but again the point is that the true covenant community is defined beyond national bounds.

Again, the critical issue is usage in context, not default semantics. Reading "His people" in Matt. 1:21 as merely "the Jewish nation" collapses the verse into either (1) a failed national redemption or (2) universal Jewish salvation, both of which contradict Matthew's entire theological purpose.

zoidar said:
Also the Gospel of Matthew was primarily written to Jews. Scholars often call it the “most Jewish” of the four canonical Gospels. That gives us a reason why it was specifically pointed out in Matt 1:21 that Jesus is the saviour of His people, the Jews.

Yes, Matthew was written for a largely Jewish audience, but that fact does not tell us what "His people" means here. Authorial audience and referential scope are not the same thing. Matthew's Jewish readers were precisely the ones who needed to see that covenant membership is no longer defined ethnically but Christologically.

Hence, the "most Jewish" Gospel is also the one that most clearly dismantles Jewish exclusivism. From the Magi (Gentiles) in chapter 2, to the centurion's faith in chapter 8, to the Great Commission in chapter 28, Matthew's message is precisely that the promised Messiah of Israel brings salvation to all nations.

BPPLEE · 2025-11-06T22:24:49-0600

Bradskii said:
Offensive behaviour at a push. The officer should have just looked at the guy and said 'Really?' Surely they're trained to not over react. His colleagues are having fun at his expense putting plastic sandwiches on his work desk. That's all it's worth - a minor press report that's worth a joke or two. ICE and The DOJ come out of it looking pathetically idiotic - which is the only newsworthy aspect of it all.

It starts with a sandwich, then it’s spit, then it’s a slap, you can’t just let it go

Fervent · 2025-11-06T22:23:08-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Intrinsically preferable? I just said that others have different feelings sometimes. Did Cushion talk about moral feelings when he wrote that?

He was talking about any discussion involving normativity.

Stopped_lurking said:
I'm explicitly not presenting my moral feelings as being preferable to any one but me. That doesn't stop me from acting in them. Also are you using objectively as synonymous with intrinsically now?

Not quite, objectivity in this sense is on their normative value. It may not stop you from acting, but it makes you inconsistent when you deny that there is any objective element to your preferences. You act on them because you believe that your feelings truly reflect how things should be, the question is why do you insist on denying as much?

Bradskii · 2025-11-06T22:22:27-0600

BPPLEE said:
Assault was overcharging. They should have just charged him with disorderly conduct.

Offensive behaviour at a push. The officer should have just looked at the guy and said 'Really?' Surely they're trained to not over react. His colleagues are having fun at his expense putting plastic sandwiches on his work desk. That's all it's worth - a minor press report that's worth a joke or two. ICE and The DOJ come out of it looking pathetically idiotic - which is the only newsworthy aspect of it all.

BPPLEE · 2025-11-06T22:21:11-0600

Bradskii said:
He's been charged with war crimes AND he's Jewish. He hasn't been charged with war crimes BECAUSE he's Jewish.

You should get someone to check your monitor.

The hypocrisy meter is reminding me of all the criticism of George Soros that’s labeled as anti Semitism

Soyeong · 2025-11-06T22:16:42-0600

Dan Perez said:
And Romans 6:14 says. For sin shall NOT // OV. , is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE and the Greek word OV

means that SIN will neverrrrr everrrrr. RULE over you for you are NOT //. OV. UNDER the LAW but under Grace. , which

that the Law. of MOSES has been set ASIDE FOR. EVER !!

dan p

Everything else in Romans 6 is speaking in favor of obedience to the Law of Moses and against am the law of sin, but if you want insist that sin has dominion over you because you would prefer to go in the opposite direction, then you can insist that sin has dominion over you because you are under the Law of Moses.

Bradskii · 2025-11-06T22:13:16-0600

Chesterton said:
I can smell the anti-Semitism through my monitor.

He's been charged with war crimes AND he's Jewish. He hasn't been charged with war crimes BECAUSE he's Jewish.

You should get someone to check your monitor.

BPPLEE · 2025-11-06T22:10:26-0600

Bradskii said:
Chille sauce! Hit the floor! He's got a ham roll loaded with chille sau...

Thwack!

Man down! We have a man down!

Groan...

It's ok buddy. You're going to make it! Milk! Dear heaven, where is the milk!

Tell...cough, cough...tell Jenny I...I love her...

Assault was overcharging. They should have just charged him with disorderly conduct. Surely you don’t think it’s okay to throw things at people, even if you don’t like them

Fervent · 2025-11-06T22:09:27-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
That is how it feels. Others sometimes feel differently (very seldom though when asked).

A quote from Chisholm's Problem of the Criterion seems appropriate to explain the issue I am pointing out:

"It is one thing to say, objectively, that one state of mind is to be prefered to another. It is quite another thing to say, subjectively, that one state of mind is in fact preferred--that someone or other happens to prefer the state of mind to the other. If state of mind A is to be prefered to state of mind B, if it is, as I would say, intrinsically preferrable to B, then anyone who prefers A to B is mistaken in his preference."

The problem is, you're presenting your moral feelings as being objectively preferable such that those who disagree are implied to be mistaken. So you're trading on objectivity while trying to hide behind subjectivity to sidestep defending the objectivity. If it were merely a subjective preference, then it couldn't be wrong or right it could only be whatever it is.

Gene2memE · 2025-11-06T22:05:34-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Jury acquits D.C. 'sandwich guy' charged with chucking a sub at a federal agent
WASHINGTON — Jurors showed no appetite for the Justice Department's case against "sandwich guy," the D.C. resident who chucked a Subway sandwich at the chest of a federal officer, finding him not guilty Thursday after several hours of deliberations.

The jury — which feasted on sandwiches for lunch Thursday, according to a person familiar with jury lunches — deliberated the charges for several hours Wednesday and Thursday before delivering the verdict.

In closing arguments, defense attorney Sabrina Shroff argued that a sandwich could not and did not cause harm.

Delicious!

Fervent · 2025-11-06T22:00:42-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
My feelings are real to me.

No one said they weren't, but being private to you they have no relationship with the world beyond your mind.

Stopped_lurking said:
This just you restating your position. Why do I must believe "it is actually wrong", why can't I act on my "subjective preference"? You often add qualifiers like "actually" as if they mean something, what is the difference between wrong and actually wrong?

You tell me, what makes your preference wrong in a non-objective manner? How can something be wrong, but only be a subjective preference with no objective content?

Fervent · 2025-11-06T21:58:05-0600

Richard T said:
The one principle that I think God endorses is that government treat everyone equally in regards to prosecution.

This is along the lines of the kind of opinions I was hoping would get discussed in this thread. Though I'm not sure it is a lone principle.

In particular, what I was hoping would get focused on is what it is that governments are instituted to preserve/protect...and whether or not the Enlightenment value of protecting individual liberties as the primary function of governments passes Biblical muster.

Christsfreeservant · 2025-11-06T21:56:54-0600

“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.” (Ephesians 1:7-10 NASB1995)

In Christ Jesus, by God-gifted and God-persuaded faith in our Lord Jesus, we have redemption through his blood which was shed for us on that cross. Jesus paid the cost for us to be set free from our slavery (addiction) to sin so that we will now walk in holiness and in righteousness in obedience to his commands, in the power of God. For he bought us back for God out of our bondage to sin so that we will no longer serve sin, but so that we will serve God with our lives. We are not just forgiven, but we are delivered from sin.

For God’s grace, which is bringing us salvation, is training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives while we wait for Jesus’ return. For Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (See Titus 2:11-14; Ephesians 2:8-10)

For by God-gifted faith in Jesus Christ, which is not of our own doing, we are crucified with Christ in death to sin and raised with Christ to walk in newness of life in him, no longer to live as slaves to sin but as slaves to righteousness in walks of obedience to God’s commands. We are no longer to permit sin to reign in our mortal bodies to make us obey its desires. For if sin is what we obey, it results in death. But if obedience to God is what we obey, it results in sanctification, and its end is eternal life with God (see Romans 6:1-23).

And that is the will of God for our lives. For our salvation from sin is not just about being forgiven our sins so that when we die we get to go to heaven, but it is about being set free from our slavery to sin so that we will no longer serve sin, but so we will now serve God with our lives in surrender to his will and to his purpose for our lives. For even before God created the world he predestined that we should be conformed to the likeness of Jesus Christ and that we should be holy and blameless before him (see Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:3-4).

God is now to be Owner-Master (Lord) of our lives, and our lives are to be surrendered to him to doing his will. He should be the one guiding and directing our lives, and not us, and not our flesh, and not other humans, either. Certainly we can hear the counsel of other humans, and if it is good counsel, and if God approves it, then we can move forward with it. But our dependency should never be in other humans to know and to do what God has purposed for our lives, no matter who they are. For we are all human.

For Jesus Christ taught that to come to him we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin), and follow (obey) him. For if we hold on to living in sin and for self, we will lose our lives for eternity. But if we deny self, die daily to sin, by the Spirit, and we walk in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in his power, then we have eternal life with God. For not everyone who calls him “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one DOING (obeying) the will of God (see Luke 9:23-26; Matthew 7:21-23).

And we learn in 1 John 1-3 that if we claim that we have fellowship with God, but yet we walk in darkness (sin), we are liars. If we claim that we know God, but we do not obey his commandments, in practice, we are liars. For it is not the one who claims he is “in Christ” who is “in Christ,” but it is the one who has denied self, died with Christ to sin, and who is now walking in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in practice, and no longer in sin. We have the hope and the promise of eternal life with God in heaven.

And with this all in mind, this is how we are to live our lives from now to eternity. This is not saying that we will be perfect in every way or that we will never sin again (1 John 2:1-2). But we should be living holy lives, pleasing to God, in surrender to his will, in obedience to his commands, and no longer should sin have mastery over our lives. And one day Jesus is going to return to take his faithful bride to be with him for eternity. But all who live in sin and in disobedience will not inherit eternal life with God. Believe this!

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 10:19-39; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22]

Oh, to Be Like Thee, Blessed Redeemer

Lyrics by Thomas O. Chisholm, 1897
Music by W. J. Kirkpatrick, 1897

Oh, to be like Thee! blessèd Redeemer,
This is my constant longing and prayer;
Gladly I’ll forfeit all of earth’s treasures,
Jesus, Thy perfect likeness to wear.

Oh, to be like Thee! full of compassion,
Loving, forgiving, tender and kind,
Helping the helpless, cheering the fainting,
Seeking the wandering sinner to find.

O to be like Thee! lowly in spirit,
Holy and harmless, patient and brave;
Meekly enduring cruel reproaches,
Willing to suffer others to save.

O to be like Thee! while I am pleading,
Pour out Thy Spirit, fill with Thy love;
Make me a temple meet for Thy dwelling,
Fit me for life and Heaven above.

Oh, to be like Thee! Oh, to be like Thee,
Blessèd Redeemer, pure as Thou art;
Come in Thy sweetness, come in Thy fullness;
Stamp Thine own image deep on my heart.

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

We Have Redemption Through His Blood
An Original Work / November 6, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

fhansen · 2025-11-06T21:49:25-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
What I'm trying to point out to you is that your understanding of ἑλκύω necessitates that God does not necessarily make it possible. That is the implication of what you are saying, whether intended or not. What is the verb in John 6:44 that ἑλκύω conceptually modifies? δύναται, "is able." The drawing act of the Father is an act of moving the recipient from the state of "unable" to the state of "able." So if you say that this drawing can fail, what you are saying is that there is no guarantee that the Father succeeds in making it possible for people to come to Him.

If the drawing can fail it's only because while God makes it possible for people to come to Him, He leaves it up to them to assent, or not.

Dikaioumenoi said:
So when you suggest that ἑλκύω itself is not guaranteed to succeed, what you're implying is that God can attempt to make it possible for someone to come to Him, but there is no guarantee that attempt will succeed, that is, in making it possible.

Not so. That's like saying I can give all the advantages to my child that pertain to acheiving a good life: good role models, recreation, socializing, religious and secular education, access to the greatest higher education with tuition and boarding paid, etc,- but if they then proceed to fail in life I'd be accused of not making it possible for them to have succeeded?!

Dikaioumenoi said:
It does not hurt your position in any way, in other words, to agree with me that ἑλκύω refers to a decisive movement from one position to another. That is not where the argument for irresistibility lies in the verse. The argument that the drawing (enabling) of the Father leads irresistibly to faith in Christ is a grammatical one, focused on the identity of αὐτόν ("him") grammatically uniting the actions of "draws" and "raised up."

1) The elect will be drawn, of course
2) The elect will come, of course
3) The elect wil be raised up, of course.

Does that mean that all who are drawn will necessarily come? Or that all who come will necessarily remain? No and no.

Fervent · 2025-11-06T21:45:45-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
This is just you trying to force me to believe that there must be some objectivity. The reason I act is because I feel it distasteful.

I'm not trying to "force" anything. I'm pointing out that it is inconsistent to claim that they are just subjective preferences while treating them as if there is a real reason to prefer them. You find it distasteful enough to act because you must believe on some level that it is actually wrong and not just your subjective preference.

Richard T · 2025-11-06T21:45:40-0600

Pepperdoodle said:
The government is to promote justice, acting as agents of justice and retribution for wrongdoing.
The government is to restrain evil and punish those criminals.
The government is to uphold the laws and hold those who break them accountable.
The government is to giving each criminal the right punishment for their crimes.

Sadly as we have seen in society, especially the last 15+ yrs it's mainly the Left who are soft on criminals.
Giving slaps on the wrist doesn't help the criminal or society.
Yes, there can be restorative measures, but they should be along with time served whether in jail, prison, but also maybe community service, repayment if money is involved, etc.

Evil, sin and wrongdoing have always been, but they need to be dealt with properly and sadly some governments aren't doing what they should be doing in that area for whatever nefarious reasons they have in not properly dealing with criminals.

Do you think governments handle criminals properly?

I think that the right are too soft on white collar crimes. Fraud, money laundering, bribery, price-fixing and violations of anti-trust laws are examples. I could cite many specifics of people who have been pardoned, laws ignored, or where the government has refused to prosecute that come from the right.
The one principle that I think God endorses is that government treat everyone equally in regards to prosecution. That does not always happen. Sometimes too the right has issues with being overly aggressive. The use of deadly force on drug smugglers is such a policy. The Godly principle "let everything be established by two or three witnesses" also is sometimes ignored.

Americans especially need to be concerned because sometimes policy motivations on the war on terror are sometimes falsified. The case for the war in Iraq for instance. Both the left and the right do this though I chose the right mainly in my examples to illustrate that the imbalance comes from both sides.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Jury acquits D.C. 'sandwich guy' charged with chucking a sub at a federal agent​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Jury acquits D.C. 'sandwich guy' charged with chucking a sub at a federal agent