SabbathBlessings said:

I think you have the wrong idea about God’s Sabbath. The Sabbath is about spending time with God on the day God set aside as holy time for us to do so. It’s not about earning anything, it’s about wanting to spend time with God because we love Him, instead of using that holy and sanctified time doing secular things when God asked us not to Isa58:13 Exo20:8-11. The Sabbath is part of the gospel message and has always been. Heb4:1-10, Rev 14:6-12. Worship the Creator who made the heavens and earth and everything in them Rev14:7 Exo20:11 Resting in Him from sin, obeying Him through faith and love.

Click to expand...

One day in 7? Why not everyday all day long?

ViaCrucis said:

For what it's worth, there is a small update. During a small exchange I was asked if I was a Christian, which I affirmed. When asked what sort of church I attended I answered honestly, Lutheran.

I do believe she means well, so for those whose focus was on the details of my story (though I want to emphasize that my intent, originally, was not to focus on the details of my anecdote, but address a larger picture). Though there was some discomfort when she was trying to push a book from her church's tradition (Apostolic) about spiritual warfare. I didn't believe it appropriate, while on the clock, to engage in theological debate; so it was largely an uncomfortable situation. But, I do want to be clear: I do believe her intent is sincere. Though I also believe that if I offered my own frank opinion, she would be offended--which I did not share.

In the same way that my original intent was not to hyper-focus my personal experience; but rather discuss a more general subject. I also don't want this to become a theological quibble. I am more than happy to engage in debates and conversations on the subject of "spiritual warfare" on more appropriate boards here on CF.

But, for whatever it's worth, I want to bring closure to the fact that I do think she means well.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I don't think sincerity alone mediates the more problematic issues that come with the hyper-focus on evangelism that so often passes for being missional. It is far too common for well-meaning people to engage in dehumanizing high pressure sales tactics in the name of evangelism, and there's a lot floating around there that rarely gets discussed or reflected upon. You raise an important topic, which ultimately boils down to whether or not we'd want to be subjected to sales tactics that focus more on getting to "yes" than on natural relationship building and following the Spirit's lead on when and where to make a proclamation of the gospel message.

I say this not to denigrate street evangelism, because God works through it all, but to point out that we must look and act like Christ if we are to be effective witnesses. We must pay attention not only to the pathos and logos of our message, but also to the ethos.

Yarddog said:

Other than other world leaders having talked about this before.

Click to expand...

No it was Sgt. Mustard in the kitchen with a candlestick

Novel ... from one of the people who love to make fun of Trump's verbal gaffs.

HARK! said:

Again it's a summary of his writings. It's not that difficult to understand.

Click to expand...

You said:

HARK! said:

“Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value, zero.” -- Voltaire (1694-1778)

Click to expand...

You didn't say this was a summary. You presented it as an actual quote of his. Now you're trying to claim it was some kind of summary even though you presented it as a bona fide quote.

HARK! said:

How did you like that last Keynes quote? Did you like that one more?

Click to expand...

Well, first, that quote wasn't there when I replied to your message. What you added later via an edit was:

HARK! said:

If you don't like that one; here's another Keynesian one:

View attachment 372330

British Lord John Maynard Keynes (the father of 'Keynesian Economics' which our nation now endures) in his book "THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE" (1920).

Click to expand...

Your statement of "the father of 'Keynesian Economics' which our nation now endures" indicates that you don't have a high opinion of him, and if so, that makes you quoting him as evidence seem a bit odd.

Now, the simple fact a famous historical figure (whether it be Voltaire, Keynes, Lincoln, or someone else) happened to say something doesn't mean much of anything in terms of whether it was true or not. However, if one is going to quote a historical figure, it's very important that someone quote them properly, and not give false quotes they didn't say. That is my problem here.

As for this Keynes quote, this one is inaccurate as well. It is, to be fair, an edited version of something he actually said, but still an inaccurate quote. Here is what he said:

"If, however, a government refrains from regulation and allows matters to take their course, essential commodities soon attain a level of price out of the reach of all but the rich, the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent, and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer."

The inaccurate quote you offer rewords the beginning and then cuts out the middle half of the sentence without using anything to show that is the case (such an ellipsis).

HARK! said:

How about this one?:


"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- Abraham Lincoln in a letter from to Col. William F. Elkins, November 21, 1864

I don't need Abe to tell me about what I can see with my own eyes.

Click to expand...

Well, if you don't need Abraham Lincoln to tell you something, what does it matter if he said it or not? However, we run into the problem that this quote appears to be a total hoax, as explained here:

So you've given three quotes. The first one, attributed to Voltaire, appears false, or at least no one can point to the source. The second one, from Keynes, is more accurate, but still is edited and cuts out half of the sentence. The third one appears very much to be a total fraud.

I must ask at this point: Why do you accept vague Internet quotes like this so easily? Why don't you make sure they're real before spouting them off? Do you not care if you falsely ascribe words to someone that they did not say?

In fact, speaking of Abraham Lincoln, he had very wise words on this very subject:

Lol. Saw rhat video. American law enforcement.

For what it's worth, there is a small update. During a small exchange I was asked if I was a Christian, which I affirmed. When asked what sort of church I attended I answered honestly, Lutheran.

I do believe she means well, so for those whose focus was on the details of my story (though I want to emphasize that my intent, originally, was not to focus on the details of my anecdote, but address a larger picture). Though there was some discomfort when she was trying to push a book from her church's tradition (Apostolic) about spiritual warfare. I didn't believe it appropriate, while on the clock, to engage in theological debate; so it was largely an uncomfortable situation. But, I do want to be clear: I do believe her intent is sincere. Though I also believe that if I offered my own frank opinion, she would be offended--which I did not share.

In the same way that my original intent was not to hyper-focus my personal experience; but rather discuss a more general subject. I also don't want this to become a theological quibble. I am more than happy to engage in debates and conversations on the subject of "spiritual warfare" on more appropriate boards here on CF.

But, for whatever it's worth, I want to bring closure to the fact that I do think she means well.

-CryptoLutheran

Postvieww said:

You do realize there is very little in the political spectrum we are going to agree on. What you call childish behavior by Trump is his response to the same kind of behavior from liberals who tee up the ball for him to knock out of the park. Trump is trolling gullible liberals who continually give him reason to do so. You spend all of your time complaining about Trump while ignoring the provocations of liberals.

Click to expand...

Have you considered it’s the liberals who are triggering him? I mean if he responds in kind every time he becomes pretty predictable, right?

Nithavela said:

Don't know which thread you've been reading, but in this one, there are plenty of people who's general tone of post is "Well, shouldn't have colaborated. Hamas did what they had to.".

I believe that you personally feel different, but don't pretend that people on the left that defend those killings by hamas don't exist in meaningful numbers.

It's okay. You don't have to make their opinion your own just because you share a lot of other opinions.

Click to expand...

I did catch that after the fact. And am saddened by it. I don't believe that defending Hamas aids the Palestinian cause. I support Palestine, and more importantly I support Palestinians--but Hamas is objectively wrong. And defending Hamas is ultimately hurtful, harmful, and discredits meaningful support for Palestinian people who suffer.

-CryptoLutheran

Everything is being overcomplicated nowadays. I don't understand why I have to answer 10-15 yes or no questions to pump gas, but for some reason the station with the lowest prices near me asks everytime. Printers are notoriously finicky, so adding a whole login process to it sounds extremely onerous.

Strong in Him said:

Oh, so he's coming back twice?

Click to expand...

The Lord will not be seen on His terrible day of vengeance and wrath. Psalms 11:4-6..... He SENDS fire to destroy His enemies. Habakkuk 3:4, +

Strong in Him said:

So now the Lord's coming back in 36 years, not between 15-20?
You think you're going to live to be 120?

Click to expand...

I hope to be with Jesus in the Millennium, in 15-20 years.

Genesis 6:3 says it is possible; Moses did it. Also, Isaiah 65:20 tells us people will live for much longer in the Millennium. I believe our atmosphere will have a higher proportion of Oxygen then.

Strong in Him said:

If you think that being in heaven is about your good deeds - forget end times, you've got fundamental problems.

Click to expand...

I worded my reply incorrectly. As a believer in Jesus, I have His Promise of Eternal life, John 3:16 With God, on the new earth. Rev 21:1-7

If ' jumping to conclusions' was an Olympic event, you would get the gold medal.

The politicians usually seem aloof.

ALOOF

It could be a variety of things such as the first several digits being the site code of the library itself.

DragonFox91 said:

It's all play. You can't add or subtract an hour from the day. It's dark either way

Click to expand...

I'm not sure the legitimacy of the attribution, but I have heard about an old native response to daylight savings time, where he said, "Only the white man would think that by cutting two inches from the top of a blanket and sewing it on the bottom he has given himself a longer blanket."

Here in la-la land we voted a few years back to get rid of the time switch. I forget whether we wanted to stay on PST or PDT, but whichever it was the court overruled the initiative because they found it to go against the CA constitution.

fhansen said:

Yes, by grace He draws all men to Himself. And yet He won't force anyone to come, or to remain. God's never been in the business of producing automatons. But if we come to Him and remain in Him we will produce much good fruit. those who do so to the end are the elect. Meanwhile there will by some who beleive they're His but who are not, and others who didn't know they were His but are.

Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind someone else chiming in on your comments. I wanted to offer some detailed food for thought.

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.

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).

fhansen said:

It means to draw, to appeal to, to coax, to prompt, to inform, to grace, to call, to knock on our door. And then, as we respond, we draw near to Him, and the nearer we draw to Him, the nearer yet He draws to us. That's the whole point of our faith; that's man's purpose, that's man's state of justice, his wholeness, his holiness, his complete and uncompromised happiness, to be near to God and to remain there in this life, and then be there eternally as this union is fully consummated in the next.

Click to expand...

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. In John 6:44, it accomplishes (at the very least) an enablement to believe; in John 12:32, it accomplishes the worldwide extension of the gospel's appeal. These efforts do not fail. They describe an effectual change of position -- from unable to able to believe (6:44), and from restricted to universal scope in gospel proclamation (12:32). That's the semantic force of ἑλκύω, "draw."

fhansen said:

I agree, we cannot possibly be saved unless we’re drawn. Our difference lies in whether or not a person can refuse to be drawn, or can turn and walk back away after being drawn.

Click to expand...

The syntax of John 6:44 is decisive on this. 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)."

fhansen said:

And still some, after having tasted of the heavenly gift (Heb 6:4), or coming to the knowledge of Christ (2 Pet 2:20-22), may yet prefer to return to their death, to the flesh, like a dog to its vomit.

Click to expand...

These warnings describe those who are exposed to the blessings of God's gospel (tasting, seeing, or experiencing) without being truly regenerated. They illustrate the danger of false profession and the severity of rejecting God's gift. They do not demonstrate that the elect, those whom the Father draws and Christ saves, can finally fall away. The "return to death" is evidence of those who were never truly born of God (1 John 2:19).

I think the political baggage is inevitable. The movement has long since abandoned being a distinctly female enterprise, as it supposedly aims for more egalitarian policies across the board not just women. Where it largely goes wrong is that it misses that while WASPy men tend to be the ones in power, the system has always functioned for the benefit of WASPy women. Men typically seek power not for the sake of having power, but for the sake of having access to high status women. By ignoring the privilege that such women have typically had and perpetuating a simplistic victim mentality and focus feminism is bound to foment resentment on all sides. The whole oppressor-oppressed narrative frame is too far removed from the reality of such things to be of any use in actually correcting the self-perpetuation of systemic issues.