Latest activity

Bradskii · Oct 31, 2025

Fervent said:
I've stated the two errors that must be taking place, because either his argument is frontloaded by assigning moral character or the premises do not lead to the conclusion. Either his argument is covertly frontloaded with an unspoken moral premise, or there is no relationship between the state of affairs and the conclusion that is being drawn.

You don't agree with me so '...the two errors must be taking place...'

I think that sums it. You've just said that you think I'm wrong, so there must be a mistake in my argument somewhere. Followed by an 'It's either this one or that one'.

I can't decide if that sounds desperate or just plaintive.

Be specific. Where is the moral promise in the premises? Quote it.

Fervent · Oct 31, 2025

Bradskii said:
No, it's not a feeling. It's the ability to understand what others are feeling.

It's a feeling, an feeling of emotional connection. But still nothing more than a feeling.

Bradskii said:
No, I haven't. As I have the ability to empathise I know what you will feel if I smack you in the mouth. I haven't decided if it's acceptable or not at that point. I might enjoy it or I might not. It may be acceptable or maybe not. The morality of the act at that point has not been decided.

So what bridges the gap?

Bradskii said:
So there is no moral evalution snuck into the premises at all.

Then the premises are not connected to the conclusion.

Bradskii said:
Well, it's obvious you haven't at this point. Just repeating that it's invalid all the time gets you nowhere. As we keep seeing.

Your lack of understanding of the is-ought problem is not a failing on my end.

Bradskii said:
And this is a forum. For exchanging ideas. 'I think you're wrong and this is how I think morality is determined...' should be a requirement for you to put your case.

Why do I need to put forward a case? Mine's simple, God determines what is an isn't moral. You think you can establish morality without God, so the only discussion I need is to point out your ersatz morality doesn't measure up.

Bradskii said:
All we've had so far is the equivalent of a schoolyard 'Shan't. Don't have to!'

I've pointed out the errors, you simply seem to be too dense to understand.

Bradskii said:
Good grief, man. Make an effort to present your case for heaven's sake...

God said it, case closed.

mark46 · Oct 31, 2025

stevevw said:
I find this strange that once again people are choosing to highlight certain situations about Isreal and the Jews over many, many other issues. I am not saying that the Isrealis do stuff wrong.

But its the hypocracy of the moral outrage against one people when there are glaringly much worse situations which we don't here one word about. Or which are minimized against what is happening in Isreal.

For example as mentioned Hamas are executing Palestinians in the streets. People talk about the injustice of Isreal making the men help defend their nation. But then never mention the long list of injustices Hamas has done to its own people for decades.

IMagine if the US or my nation Australia where the government built bomb shelters and amunitions wharehouses under hospitals. Where US citizens were used as shields to save the government. Or where if your gay, trans or happen to believe in the wrong religion your either submitted to being a slave or thrown off a building. Which by the way is happening right now.

Yet there has never been a protest. Not before the conflict or after. If there were protests against Hamas before the conflict then perhaps we would not be in this situation.

But certainly there is a very, very imbalanced reporting and protesting of all this. To me when this happens. When theres a bias like this it clearly shows ideological belief and not facts or a true concern for justice for all. Its selective according to which people they think deserve more attention for ideological reasons.

Now this situation may be a real injustice. But we see these injustices even in the west and even then we don't fixate as much on one group.

But we also clearly see injustices happening of a much worse scale and stuff the west has moved on from for 100 years or more. That people don't even mention this of some groups and would rather highlight and make more of an issue of one group or nation.

You begin to see the pattern and really it makes everything that the protesters claim and get outraged about as nothing. Meaning absolutely nothing. Because they have already done that themselves. They have made real evil nothing so everything is nothing. Its just words, Its like the Boy who cried wolf.

There is a media slogan for this phenomenon "no Jews, no news"

No one cares how many folks are killed every day in the various wars in Africa and Asia, and in their autocracies. Christians and homosexuals are both being ethnically cleansed in Africa regularly.

I don't support the methods used by the IDF in Gaza or by the Israeli government in the West Bank. However, in the media and universities of the US, that's all we hear about. How many have been killed in the various wars in Africa and Asia? Americans neither know nor care. The media and universities get it wrong because they don't understand the Middle East. But, at least, there are sometimes open discussions in some media and on some campuses. About Africa and Asia: almost nothing unless Trump interferes to help end a conflict.

Bradskii · Oct 31, 2025

Fervent said:
Empathy is a feeling, not a moral issue.

No, it's not a feeling. It's the ability to understand what others are feeling.

Fervent said:
You are sneaking a moral evaluation into the premises of your "argument" when none need be present.

No, I haven't. As I have the ability to empathise I know what you will feel if I smack you in the mouth. I haven't decided if it's acceptable or not at that point. I might enjoy it or I might not. It may be acceptable or maybe not. The morality of the act at that point has not been decided.

So there is no moral evalution snuck into the premises at all.

Fervent said:
And my criticism of your position doesn't require me to put forward my own argument. I just have to point out that what you think passes for an argument is structurally invalid.

Well, it's obvious you haven't at this point. Just repeating that it's invalid all the time gets you nowhere. As we keep seeing.

And this is a forum. For exchanging ideas. 'I think you're wrong and this is how I think morality is determined...' should be a requirement for you to put your case.

All we've had so far is the equivalent of a schoolyard 'Shan't. Don't have to!'

Good grief, man. Make an effort to present your case for heaven's sake...

JSRG · Oct 31, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
I have done no such thing. You have inserted this red herring into the conversation.

The alleged motivation for eliminating the penny is that it costs the government money to make.

But the loss in government revenue seems very likely to be much larger than the cost savings.

What is your evidence that the loss would be higher than savings? I don't think you've posted any evidence on that, unless I missed it.

Tuur · Oct 31, 2025

Just got the printer going. Painlessly setting up a printer in Linux? Who knew?

Fervent · Oct 31, 2025

partinobodycular said:
Well, you asserted that @Bradskii's argument was flawed in one of two ways.

Either:

That is in fact a reasonable assertion to make, but you need to follow it up by showing us where exactly he did that. Otherwise it's just an assertion.

It's not simply an assertion, it's a statement of fact because he shifts from a feeling to aa moral value, the connection of the two is a mystery.

partinobodycular said:
Or:

Another reasonable assertion to make, but you failed to follow it up by explaining exactly why the relationship between the premises and the conclusion amounts to a non-sequitur. Thus it's just another assertion.

It may appear an assertion, but it's a statement of fact because he has failed to bridge the gap between things that are, including his particular feelings, and how things ought to be. His empathy may motivate him, but it says nothing about what ought to be the case.

partinobodycular said:
So you see, it really wasn't a rebuttal at all. Just two unsupported claims, with nary an argument between them.

No, it was a rebuttal. His argument only works if we put the moral evaluation into the premises, or the link between the statements of fact and the moral conclusion is a mystery.

partinobodycular said:
Now I'm not trying to pick on you, but @Bradskii is right, you can't just assert that his argument is flawed without actually showing us where.

I've stated the two errors that must be taking place, because either his argument is frontloaded by assigning moral character or the premises do not lead to the conclusion. Either his argument is covertly frontloaded with an unspoken moral premise, or there is no relationship between the state of affairs and the conclusion that is being drawn.

Richard T · Oct 31, 2025

Valletta said:
The day before the start of the latest shutdown drama, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declared that Republicans were “lying” about the Democrats’ hostage demands to turn the lights back on. No, the left’s spending plan would not pay for health care for illegal immigrants, the New York Democrat said. Doing so would require a change in federal law that bars such a thing, echoed Jeffries’ pals in corporate media.
“Nowhere have Democrats suggested that we’re interested in changing federal law,” he told NBC News for a story under the misleading headline, “GOP misleads with claim that Democrats shut down to give health care to ‘illegal immigrants.’” The story, like a lot of reporting from the corporate media, hasn’t aged well.
Hakeem and his team are lying to the American people. The truth is, hundreds of millions of dollars in direct and indirect spending is going to pick up the tab for the explosion of illegal aliens in this country.

Exclusive: Report Tracks $200M Spent On Health Care For Illegals

'When elected officials argue that taxpayer dollars aren't going to illegal immigrants that just isn't true,' Open The Books' John Hart said.

thefederalist.com

Indeed, the wording in the law the Democrats are demanding be removed was intended to stop taxpayer money ending up paying for health care for illegals.

The 200 million in funding is nothing as the USA spends 4.9 trillion on health care. Historical | CMS
The Federalist does report far more indirect spending on medicaid. I wonder though if this is from the liberal states?
As to the billions spent on education? It would be interesting to know what percentage of illegals actually are In the USA, legal or not for at least 20 years of their working life. Also it is true that Illegals pay billions into social security and medicare and pay more in than they give back.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265288246_Illegal_Immigrants_Are_Bolstering_Social_Security_With_Billions

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20250122/117827/HHRG-119-JU01-20250122-SD003.pdf

Too bad the Federalist is not balanced enough to note this.

JosephZ · Oct 31, 2025

Valletta said:
People should not suffer because of a political stunt.

SNAP benefits can, and always have, continued during a government shutdown. It should have never been an issue. It's a shame that the Trump administration had to be sued in order to keep people in this country from going without food.

Richard T · Oct 31, 2025

Trump is going all in. The problem I see is that it will polarize the two parties even more. I mean if your budget or new law can't get a few votes from the other party, it likely is a bad direction for the country. If you have to shake up how you redistrict to gain representatives every election you also are out of bounds too. It means that some people will change districts every two years.

Usually both parties have some people of backbone that will vote against things based on their principles. That is why Trump can't pass his tariffs in Congress because some of the GOP will not go along. So in essence they just leave him alone and see what the courts say.

I think it seems obvious we are headed for a collision, or even a milti-car pileup. A few in the GOP are going to fall out of line and oppose Trump.
The Supreme Court is going to deny Trump some things too that he has been doing. The frustration of inflation ,the economy, and health care are going to boil over. There will be issues with some of Trump's appointments. I think things could be so bad that Trump could resign before this term is up.

prodromos · Oct 31, 2025

I'm going to have another attempt at installing Ubuntu sometime soon as I want to set up a Network Video Recorder using Shinobi. I had set it up once before but messed up on the storage allocation, so the video files were being written to the 100MB boot volume and not to the 2TB drive I wanted them on.
It was my first go at installing both Linux and Shinobi in well over a decade, so I was a bit rusty.

67_Reasons · Oct 31, 2025

Dikaioumenoi · Oct 31, 2025

BNR32FAN said:
What about John 12:32? According to what Jesus said here, the way a person is drawn to Him changed after His crucifixion.

“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.””
‭‭John‬ ‭12‬:‭32‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

What do you mean by "the way a person is drawn to Him changed"? I recently commented on John 12:32 in another thread. I'll reproduce those comments below:

John 12:32 occurs within the context of Jesus responding to the report that "some Greeks" desired to see Him (v. 20). The arrival of Gentiles signals that the redemptive focus is widening beyond Israel. Jesus interprets this event as the indication that His "hour" has come: the hour of His glorification through death (v. 23). Thus, when He says He will be "lifted up," He refers to His crucifixion (v. 33).

So when he says πάντας ἑλκύσω ("I will draw all people"), the phrase must be read in light of the preceding Gentile reference and the Johannine theme of universal scope of the gospel, not universal salvation (or the attempt at such). In other words, "all" here does not mean "every individual without exception," but "all kinds of people (Jew and Gentile alike) without distinction." The arrival of Greeks prompts Jesus to declare that His crucifixion will effect a drawing not limited to Jews. The verse, therefore, celebrates the inclusiveness of the atonement's scope (its sufficiency), not the universality of its effect (its efficiency).

In short, the "drawing" of John 12:32 refers to the world-wide proclamation of the gospel, through which all nations are summoned to faith. It is not a statement on the wooing effects of God's work on the hearts of individuals. The text is missional, not soteriological. Christ's cross will be the magnet of gospel appeal to every tribe and tongue.

I also went on to say this regarding John 6:44:

In contrast, John 6:44 depicts a different kind of drawing. There, Jesus addresses unbelieving Jews who are grumbling over His claim to be the bread from heaven (vv. 41-43). He rebukes them, essentially telling them to knock it off (μὴ γογγύζετε), as if to declare that it is pointless for them to complain. Why? Why not just address their concerns and try to reason with them? He answers: "No one can (οὐδεὶς δύναται) come to me unless drawn," the implication being that they hadn't been, hence the reason for their persistent unbelief. The problem is not that they haven't been invited, but that they cannot believe. The issue is moral and spiritual inability, not ethnic scope.

Same verb as in John 12:32, but its sense differs. In John 6, the "drawing" is effectual; it infallibly results in saving faith. Grammatically, the object of "draws him" (ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν) is the same as the object of "I will raise him" (ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν), both referring back to οὐδεὶς. Thus, while the text explicitly says that the one who is drawn is enabled to come, the grammar also entails that the one who is drawn is the one who comes, believes, and is raised. In other words, the text assumes no distinction between "enabled to come" and "those who do come." It presents man in two categories: those who are unable to come, and those who, being enabled, do so. (More on the grammatical argument for this below.)

So the Father's drawing in John 6:44 is not the external call of gospel proclamation (as in John 12:32), but the internal, regenerative work of grace whereby the sinner's will is made willing (cf. v. 65, which restates v. 44 but replaces the verb with that of v. 37).

...

The main clause, οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ("no one is able to come to me"), asserts total inability. The verb δύναται ("is able") makes ability, not willingness, the issue. The conditional clause, ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ... ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν ("unless the Father... draws him"), introduces the single remedy for this inability: divine initiative. The construction is a present general third-class conditional, meaning Jesus is appealing to a general or axiomatic truth about humanity: mankind as a whole is naturally incapable of coming to Christ, apart from the Father's drawing.

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."

Who is the one raised? The one enabled to come; the one drawn by the Father. We could say, theologically, that the one raised is the one who actually comes. But what the logic of John 6:44 is declaring is that there isn't a distinction. Jesus assumes no difference between those enabled to come, and those who actually do so. The drawing is effectual -- not in making people into "automatons," but in changing the disposition of their hearts such that the sin they once loved they now hate, and the God they once opposed (Rom. 8:7-8) they are now naturally inclined toward. They will as their heart desires, and their heart desires Christ.

This aligns with verse 37, which says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Interestingly, verse 65 restates verse 44, but replaces the verb with that of verse 37. That interchange of ἑλκύω ("draw") and δίδωμι ("give") indicates a paradigmatic relationship between the two verbs within parallel syntagmatic contexts, suggesting that the Father's drawing and giving are conceptually identical acts:

"All that the Father gives/draws to me will come to me."

"No one can come to me unless the Father draws/gives them to me (the one drawn/given will be raised up on the last day)."

Bob Crowley · Oct 31, 2025

Ozempic is being produced for Diabetes 2 and to help control obesity. But apparently it owes its origin to the Gila Monster, or at least some of it.

Health, Medicine and Behavioural Sciences

At the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Behavioural Sciences (HMBS) we drive innovative solutions that transform healthcare and improve wellbeing.

medicine.uq.edu.au

Enter a poisonous lizard

In the 1980s John Pisano, a biochemist with a penchant for venoms, and a young gastroenterologist Jean-Pierre Raufman were working with poisonous lizard venom from the Gila monster, a slow-moving reptile native to the south of the United States and north of Mexico. By the 1990s, Pisano, Raufman and colleague John Eng identified a hormone-like molecule they called exendin-4. This stimulated insulin secretion via action at the same receptor as GLP-1.

Excitingly, exendin-4 was not quickly metabolised by the body, and so might be useful as a diabetic therapeutic.

stevevw · Oct 31, 2025

bèlla said:
@stevevw This was posted today. The Haredi have been standing against military enlistment for a while.

Netanyahu Faces ‘Revolt’: Unseen Clips Emerge As ‘Angry’ Israelis Storm Jerusalem Against IDF

Tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews flood Jerusalem in mass defiance. Protesters chant “We’d rather go to jail!” as they reject Israel’s draft orders. Police deploy 2,000 officers; chaos grips city streets and transport systems. One protester killed after falling from a nearby construction site. Netanyahu’s fragile coalition faces collapse amid the raging exemption crisis.

Login to view embedded media

I find this strange that once again people are choosing to highlight certain situations about Isreal and the Jews over many, many other issues. I am not saying that the Isrealis do stuff wrong.

But its the hypocracy of the moral outrage against one people when there are glaringly much worse situations which we don't here one word about. Or which are minimized against what is happening in Isreal.

For example as mentioned Hamas are executing Palestinians in the streets. People talk about the injustice of Isreal making the men help defend their nation. But then never mention the long list of injustices Hamas has done to its own people for decades.

IMagine if the US or my nation Australia where the government built bomb shelters and amunitions wharehouses under hospitals. Where US citizens were used as shields to save the government. Or where if your gay, trans or happen to believe in the wrong religion your either submitted to being a slave or thrown off a building. Which by the way is happening right now.

Yet there has never been a protest. Not before the conflict or after. If there were protests against Hamas before the conflict then perhaps we would not be in this situation.

But certainly there is a very, very imbalanced reporting and protesting of all this. To me when this happens. When theres a bias like this it clearly shows ideological belief and not facts or a true concern for justice for all. Its selective according to which people they think deserve more attention for ideological reasons.

Now this situation may be a real injustice. But we see these injustices even in the west and even then we don't fixate as much on one group.

But we also clearly see injustices happening of a much worse scale and stuff the west has moved on from for 100 years or more. That people don't even mention this of some groups and would rather highlight and make more of an issue of one group or nation.

You begin to see the pattern and really it makes everything that the protesters claim and get outraged about as nothing. Meaning absolutely nothing. Because they have already done that themselves. They have made real evil nothing so everything is nothing. Its just words, Its like the Boy who cried wolf.

Dikaioumenoi · Oct 31, 2025

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
Your exegetical claims, as you call them, twist the truth into a pretzel. It doesn't matter how expertly you explain it, there is no way to change the truth that God forgives sins and gives spiritual life to those who believe. It's not the other way around.

It's not the other way around, as I demonstrate in the OP. Now, if you'd like to challenge the argument that's been provided, by going to Scripture and showing the contrary to be true, I'll gladly engage with you.

Dikaioumenoi · Oct 31, 2025

d taylor said:
-

God draws, The Holy Spirit teaches (Jesus is The Messiah) and people respond by either believing in Jesus for Eternal Life or they do not believe

Nope God has foreknowledge so God know who will believe in Jesus and who will not so God. So God has already given the believers He knows will believe in Jesus, to Jesus.

That has noting to do with God electing a specific amount of people to Eternal Life. There is no verse in The Bible that states God elects people to Eternal Life.

Bare assertions offer me nothing to respond to, especially one's I've already argued against. Please interact with my comments in post #35 if you wish to continue.

DialecticSkeptic · Oct 31, 2025

hopeforhappiness said:
The denomination I am attending is Wesleyan Methodist. Atonement is part of the official catechism.

But which catechism? This is important because their catechetical statements differ sharply before and after 1932, when Wesleyan Methodists, Primitive Methodists, and United Methodists merged to form the present-day Methodist Church of Great Britain.

Prior to 1932, Wesleyan Methodist catechetical material explicitly affirmed penal substitutionary atonement (emphasis added):

Why did the Son of God become man?

That he might be an example of perfect holiness, teach us his heavenly doctrine, and suffer and die in our room and stead.

Was it necessary that Christ should thus suffer death upon the cross for our redemption?

Yes, for by that means he offered a full satisfaction and atonement to divine justice for the sins of the whole world.

– Catechisms of the Wesleyan Methodists, No. II, pp. 11-12 (1846) (PDF).

But now (since 1932), modern catechetical materials (e.g., What We Believe: A Catechism for the Use of the People Called Methodists) are consistent with the Wesleyan-Arminian understanding of atonement as universal in scope, moral in purpose, governmental in nature, and conditional in efficacy.

bling · Oct 31, 2025

tdidymas said:
No, not everyone humbles himself, this is the why of Luke 14:11.

Jesus defines humility in the context of the whole parable:

Luke 14: 7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. 11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Humility is not like some pill you swallow, but is an emotion found within the individual. There is nothing wrong with felling humble, but it is also not a gift given only to the elect, since the parable is talking about a proud person becoming humble without going through a rebirth.

tdidymas said:
If a person accepts the gospel as charity, it means they understand that God wants to reconcile with them, which is a measure of faith in Christ, since it is the gospel. I suppose that Hagar and Ishmael accepted charity from God because they were desperate enough, not because they had a "saving faith." So I do accept your idea that unregenerate people can accept charity, but the fact is, they have to be desperate enough, otherwise they will proudly decline.

Stop! I am not talking about the sinner, “accepting the gospel”/salvation, but accepting charity as charity.

I do not know if Hagar and Ishmael accepted God’s charity as charity, since they could feel deserving of help, but I also do not know if Hagar and Ishmael did not become part of the elect.

tdidymas said:
But we aren't talking about mere acceptance of charity by natural order. The subject matter is regeneration preceding faith in Christ. This is an apples/oranges distinction. Desperation to accept charity in the natural sense can lead one to a spiritual wisdom to accept Christ, but since the latter is a spiritual matter, it requires God's supernatural dealings. A person must first see himself spiritually bankrupt before looking to Christ for help. Only those people who God reveals the truth to are able to exercise hope in Christ, after seeing their spiritual bankruptcy. Therefore, properly reading 1 Jn. 5:1, Eph. 2:5, 1 Cor. 2:14 and other places shows us that if a person comes to real faith in Christ, they have already been regenerated.

I love the way people say: “Only those people who God reveals the truth to are able to exercise hope in Christ” and give no Biblical reason for God to not reveal the truth to everyone. Do you have the Biblical reason?

The Biblical reason I see for God to reveal the gift of truth to some and not others is because “others” are unwilling to humbly accept any and all God’s gifts as pure undeserved charity.

It is not a one-sided transaction, since the receiver of God’s gifts has to accept those gifts as charity to complete the transaction (Matt. 18).

tdidymas said:
So it is not correct hermeneutic to claim that just because a person can naturally accept charity, therefore you can conclude that a person can naturally believe in Christ. But if you agree that faith comes after regeneration, then what is your point about this natural humility?

Again, I did not say or claim: “…a person can naturally accept charity, therefore you can conclude that a person can naturally believe in Christ”.

The issue is: “What Biblically logically determines who is “regenerated”?”

Look in scripture to find the value and importance of being humble.

tdidymas said:
I don't get your point in this. If a person can naturally accept charity, how does that relate to faith after regeneration? Things that happen in the world and things that people do can point to a spiritual truth, if one looks for it. But I don't see that your argument makes a valid point contrary to the OP.

I’m pointing to the obtaining of the regeneration, which than produces faith and faithfulness. There is a natural type of free will faith and hope which needs to generate a willingness to be humble to the point of accepting God Love/charity as charity. You get nothing if you are unwilling to even selfishly accept pure undeserved charity as charity.

tdidymas said:
Cults also use lots of good verses, but it doesn't mean they are righteous before God. I don't see a clear answer to my question. But I'll explain v. 17 to you, since you seem vague on it: Jesus was accommodating the Pharisees by saying "I did not come to call the righteous..." because they thought they were righteous, not because they actually were. Jesus was calling those who knew they were sinners (and actually were).

Jesus describes Himself as a physician healing the sick (sinners), but there is nothing about them “knowing” they were sick (sinners) and Jesus was going only to those who knew they were sinners.

tdidymas said:
Ok, finally I think this is the crux of the problem, the real issue. Why does God save some and not others? Is this a good paraphrase of your question?

God has no obligation whatsoever to save anyone. According to Eph. 2:1-3, we all came into the world living unworthily and sinfully, and are culpable for the sin we commit. And as the scripture testifies, we will all be judged according to our deeds. Nevertheless, we are not saved by our deeds, good or bad. God's grace is unmerited, which means those of us who are gifted by God did nothing to deserve it. God's mercy toward us is an exception to His justice which He will exercise eventually on everyone else. "God is just, and the justifier of the one having faith in Christ."

Therefore, God intends to exercise His justice on the world. But He has some on whom He had mercy, and called them (us) out of the world. These people will see the ultimate joy of His grace which He has bestowed on us - Eph. 2:7. So then, it was totally and completely in God's mind and in His hand who He chose to regenerate (and continues to choose, since there is a remnant of people who are still coming to Christ). Here is real spiritual humility - to acknowledge that only God has control of me being saved.

I could have been lost with the rest of the world, happily on my way to hell in a hat basket, and would certainly have deserved lake of fire judgment. But God interrupted my self-centered life, and called me out of it, that special calling talked about in Rom. 8:28 in which we are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. It's according to God's purpose, not mine.

According to a subjective and self-centered experience, it may look as though we have control of our eternal destiny. People claim "we chose to believe," which is a false idea. We choose to believe in Christ because we already believed. No one can choose to believe something they don't believe in. No one does that. We choose to submit to God and become a follower of Christ because we have been convicted by the Spirit of the truth of the gospel. And being convicted, we already know it to be true, which means we believe it. There is no unbelieving it. There may be resistance because of sin or confusion, but when the Spirit convicts, He is persistent. Such drawing is the powerful hand of God. How can God's mighty hand be resisted by our feeble foolish wills? God makes a way.

From a strictly human perspective, it looks as though you are choosing, and God is passively waiting for you to choose rightly, so that He can respond with spiritual action. But it only looks that way, because it's traditionally taught. Note the words of the song, "see on the portals, He's waiting and watching, calling 'oh, sinner, come home'." But in the spiritual realm, God is at work - revealing Himself, illuminating the truth, giving His Spirit to join with you - Eph. 2:5. Spiritual wisdom is needed to favorably respond to the gospel heard, and only God can grant that.

So the logical reason why God saves some is that He has mercy, and love, toward those He chose to save. Why then doesn't He save everyone alike? Is God obligated to that? Obviously not. How can God reveal His grace to those He saves, unless there is a contrast of the justice He exercises on those He does not choose to save? How can we gratefully appreciate God's love for us, if He loves everyone the same? God electing some out of the world induces a greater appreciation of His gracious action, and should induce greater worship of the God who saves.

Thank you for typing out your thoughts on the matter, but please help me with a few questions your word generated:

Would a rescuer going into a burning building to save a few people when he could just as easily and safely save everyone be as glorious as a rescuer who saves everyone?
Would God show greater Love by saving everyone over saving just a few?
By your saying “if God loves everyone the same”, suggesting God does not “Love” everyone the same, but are we not called upon to Love everyone the same which means we are told to have a greater “Love” than God?
How does God choose who He will and will not “Love”, since we are all the same?
Could God Loves everyone, yet some go to hell, be the result of the some refusing to humbly accept His Love/Charity?
If a person refuses God’s Love even though the person really desperately needs God’s Love and does not want to Love or be around Love, be happy in heaven?
I am saying God has done all He can to help the hell bound person to humbly accept His charity as charity, so there comes a point at which there is nothing more God can do for that person to accept His Love. That refuser of Love takes on the lesser objective of helping others to accept God’s Love, partly by going to hell. God still Loves them, so how do you explain it?
You asked: How can God reveal His grace to those He saves, unless there is a contrast of the justice He exercises on those He does not choose to save? Wow! The “contrast” is between how I was before being saved and after I am saved, which is our witness and what Paul taught us to use. I do not know who is/will be saved and not saved, but I do know about myself.
How do you feel about the lost (What keeps you from having survivor remorse?)? I can see it as being their free will choice to not accept charity and thus be very unhappy if they went to heaven where there is only Godly type Love, but what is your logical explanation?

Oompa Loompa · Oct 31, 2025

mark46 said:
bills become laws when signed by the president

Login to view embedded media

Lukaris · Oct 31, 2025

For me it comes down to a basic function that we need to follow our conscience to know right from wrong ( much of what Paul tells us in Romans 2). Without the Gospel my ability to do this is hit or miss; my conscience needs to be in touch with the Lord ( 1 Timothy 1:5). The Lord’s commandments are holy and common sense to live life as we should ( Romans 13:1-14, especially verses 8-10).

Of course, our living conditions influence how challenging this might be ( John 16:33) but this is the basis of practical living by faith ( Romans 1:17, John 14:15-18).

I don’t claim to be anything special and often read the golden rule ( Matthew 7:1-12) to keep my head straight. I also see a glimpse of the full sense of truth that Paul tells us of but even he says it is fuzzy to all of us ( 1 Corinthians 13:9-13 as per 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 ).

Bob Crowley · Oct 31, 2025

This is an AI generated response to the comment about decaying fish glowing. It is actually due to certain bacteria.

Decaying fish can glow due to bioluminescent bacteria, such as Photobacterium phosphoreum, that grow on the fish's surface as it decomposes. This is a form of bioluminescence where bacteria produce light through a chemical reaction, and this phenomenon has been observed in decaying fish for a long time.

As a fish dies and begins to decay, bacteria that are already on or in the fish can start to multiply rapidly.

Some of these bacteria are bioluminescent, meaning they produce their own light. A common example is Photobacterium phosphoreum, which is often found on dead seafood.

The light is produced by a chemical reaction involving an enzyme called luciferase, which is similar to the one found in fireflies.

This glowing effect is not new; historical records from ancient Greece and Rome mention the light produced by decaying fish and other organic matter.

This phenomenon only occurs when specific types of bioluminescent bacteria are present and thrive on the decaying fish.

The glow is a result of the bacteria, not the fish itself, and is a sign of spoilage.

While the glow itself is just from bacteria, it indicates that the fish is decomposing, so it should not be eaten.

Tigran1245 · Oct 31, 2025

The Liturgist said:
Otherwise you’re basically saying that Orthodox women don’t have the right to self-determination.

In the Orthodox Church (Eastern or Oriental, it doesn't matter), only the Lord Jesus Christ has authority, who exercises His will through the Ecumenical Bishops. The Church is not a democracy where decisions are made collectively by all believers. Yes, there are lay institutions of governance in the Local Church that decide certain matters. But they have authority only insofar as it has been delegated to them by the bishops.

The Liturgist said:
They are definitely powerful enough within the church, and have enough allies among the episcopate who have spoken of the ordination of women, like Metropolitan Kallistos ware, that if the majority wanted it, as was the case in your denomination, they would have it.

If women's ordination is accepted, we can say goodbye to a united Eastern Orthodoxy. The Russian Church will never have anything in common with Churches that have female priests. We can also say goodbye to unification with the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches. None of them recognize women's ordination as valid. The only exception is deaconesses, although even here there is debate as to whether this constitutes a full priestly rank.

Tuur · Oct 31, 2025

YeshuaFan said:
As some 4 Million have reported that has happened to them, and it seems like we are getting more "space alien" encounters annual basis, is this building towards something ng then or?

I hate how the term UFO is equated with "flying saucer." UFO is simply Unidentified Flying Object. If a UFO was known to be a flying saucer, it would no longer be unidentified.

There are indeed unidentified flying objects. The last I saw turned out to be a Starlink Chain. Had just enough data to do a back of the envelop estimate of the altitude, and kept coming up with numbers above the atmosphere. At the time thought it was in the atmosphere, but nope, it was indeed outside of it. Once identified as a Starlink chain, ity was no longer unidentified.

One that remained a UFO was a light in the 1970s during the CB craze, and that let multiple observers get a fix on it. No attempts at altitude or positioning estimates, but two of us managed to be on opposite sides of the thing. Military exercise? Test aircraft? Who knows? It was unidentified, flying, and an object.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page