Aaron112 said:

Why? Do you believe someone is not trying to over-throw the country ? (actually the plans are centuries old)

Click to expand...

Your art of expression is beyond me. Please speak in simple style.

bèlla said:

Are you hoping that’s the case? I think their position is largely influenced by their overseers. The invisible hands behind the monolith. I’ve never believed politicians were running the show. Including the president.

Click to expand...

Ok so you have identified that there is some power or motivating factor that can force the State to adhere to certain ideologies or agendas. So the State is never neutral and can either be beholden to certain ideaologies from individuals and groups they side with. Or just their basic ideology as a party is antagonistic to opposing beliefs as we have seen in the culture wars.

They may descriminate against certain groups and deny funding merely because of a disagreement of ideological beliefs. Not facts or science or the truth about whats best. But merely because they don't like the other groups beliefs.

bèlla said:

I know what you’d like me to say but I can’t. The bible provides enough examples about christian’s place in the world and our hardships. Why we exacerbate the latter is beyond me.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that Christians or Christian organisations who may be descriminated against should accept that descrimination as part of the hardships they must endure. Say nothing.

I understand that we must not get into culture wars and make Christianity political. Like some sort of theocracy on earth through political or worldlly power. That is more or less becoming the world.

But where is the line. To what extent can a Christian organisation exist in the world without being the world. Maybe thats why I think Christians should be offering help for free. No strings attached and no obligations to anyone but God. But then they will still have to abide by the worlds ideologies.

Peter and Paul say Christians should be subject to the authroities even if they are unjust. Be Christlike and submit even if its unfair as the good example will turn people to God.

bèlla said:

Someone suggested that was the case in a previous post.

Click to expand...

I am not sure. If this is the case then it must be that people are assigned certain areas or health carers that are in their area. Like schools. So maybe that is the only hospital in her area. But then how can the hospital refuse to treat her if its suppose to be her care facility. \

Its also weird that a person would want to go to a hospital that could have actually caused her death. I would be staying well away lol. She would have to be at some other hospital now as she needs to be treated. I don't know.

bèlla said:

There was a time when I contemplated running a charity. But I decided against it for many reasons including the above.

Click to expand...

I mean setting up your home kitchen to cook meals for the needy is one one. But even then you have to be careful as it gets to a point where you have to start worrying about registrations, workplace health and safety ect.

But people still do it. They cannot help but start grassroots movements in helping others. They try and keep it quiet and do it in the background. I know of many who are driving round at night with meals and blankets helping those on the streets.

bèlla said:

Nothing in the world is free. Including charity. Someone must earn the means or create the resources you dispense. It doesn’t fall from the sky.

Click to expand...

Yes and thats those more able. A big cost is labor but as Christians doing it for no return helps a lot. This is how social welfare began with organisations like the Salvos. What you notice is that its infectous and then others come out and donate and want to help. It can be done for little money.

bèlla said:

Given the level of litigation in our society and the malpractice insurance rates they pay. I’d assume there‘s profit involved even if it appears otherwise. It’s a risky business.

Click to expand...

Obviously if your going to work with others you have to have some minimal costs like insurance and any State fees. But musch can be done with volunteers. I mean are not Christians suppose to help others like the Good Samaritan. Pool all their resources and help the poor. Even going without themselves.

Otherwise Christianity becomes just another version of corporate society in the world.

bèlla said:

How do you intend to do that? Or what have you done? I’ve noticed a pattern on the site concerning this subject. You only quote the bible and say what should occur. But I rarely hear personal tales. It’s kind of odd.

Click to expand...

First forget about what anyone has done. Either the bible is correct or its not. Christ and the disciples are clear. We are to help the poor even if that means sacrificing our own place in the world as far as riches and comforts. So it doesn't matter what others do as its a truth teachings.

MOst people agree Christians have become too comfortable with one foot in each world. Unlike the early church which proves its possible. We just forgot and the world has overtaken.

But ultimately the worlds suppose to hate Christ and Christians. So it doesn't matter as a true Christian will be called to stand up and suffer anyway. As for myself I try to help as much as I can. I am disabled so I cannot do a lot. But any work I have done has been to help others and now I volunteer as one of those free workers that helps run a organisation that helps the disadvantaged. I could do more.

bèlla said:

@Carl Emerson posed a question along these lines and I responded to the thread. My answer was based on something I drafted for myself concerning patronage and the direction I want us to take in our household. When the desire to give is deeply felt you do things like that. You don’t speak in platitudes or wag your finger. You put things in place and act.

Click to expand...

I think principly Christianity is not something that is always felt. Like the person has to feel in the mood for giving or helping. I think its a duty and even when we don't feel like it. Its something we have to make a priority even over our choices of work and personal investments ect that will create some nest egg and empire in this world.

Now I know this is incredibly hard especially in a consumer, modern tech and material world. But that is the aim. It will depend of course on family commitments as the bible says we have to first look after our family. How can we help others if we cannot look after our own family. But as a family that can make us stronger as a group to help others as well.

But its hard and ultimately its up to each individual and what they believe is right for them in their situation. But definitely I think we are to give up the world as much as we can and trust God.

Otherwise I think there will come a time where just being a Christian in this world will be too hard for many because by nature this world hates Christians and one way or another whether they voluntarily sacrifice themselves or not. They will suffer if they are truely standing with Christ.

bèlla said:

I’m not suggesting you‘ve done so with your post but it’s something I’ve noticed. And I‘ve been in circles where philanthropy is the norm and joined an organization known for its generosity in my twenties. I wasn’t walking with the Lord at the time but my commitment to patronage was great.

Click to expand...

It is natural for people to help others. But Christians are suppose to do it in secret. NOt tell others. As then it becomes about self rather than God. Theres a new phenomena called PC and social marketing which is all about the organisations social imprint and how this itself is now a marketable aspect of business in scoring brownie points in the eyes of society.

bèlla said:

I mentioned the value of a moral compass earlier and your comment has me weighing it once more. Many of the things I do aren’t on account of my faith. I don’t need the bible to tell me to give, live decently and so on. The desire to do so is already there. Perhaps that‘s why christians struggle so much. You’re working against your nature. It’s easier to follow the current than swim against it.

~bella

Click to expand...

I find desire is a feeling that can come and go and hard to maintain. Whereas as a principle helping others is a duty. A fruit that tells us we are in Christ and not of the world. Ultimately sacrificing ones life for another for no return. Which goes against human feeling and instinct.

Michie said:

I agree. It can turn into a phobia of sorts. Among many other things.

Click to expand...

The subject of the end of the world is affected by my OCD. In fact I just emailed my pastor (priest) about this again today.

AvilaSurfer said:

Zzzzzzzzzzz. This long boring car is over. Have fun.

Click to expand...

Yeah - facts are a bit much when they challenge firmly held personal opinions

Hentenza said:

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread? And why are you attacking me?

Click to expand...

Why do you feel as if attached? I merely answered your post(s).

Simply flying airplanes is very expensive .... even more so planning to go to space or the moon.

High school homecoming celebrations in Mississippi ended in gunfire, with two separate shootings on opposite sides of the state Friday night that left at least eight people dead and many more injured, authorities said.

Six were killed in downtown Leland after a high school football homecoming game in the Mississippi Delta region on the state’s western edge, according to the county coroner. On the east side of the state, a pregnant woman was among the dead, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves said.

Some 20 people were injured in the gunfire after people gathered in the downtown area following the game...

Meanwhile, police in the small Mississippi town of Heidelberg in the eastern part of the state are investigating a shooting during that community’s homecoming weekend that left two people dead.

Both of them were killed on the school campus Friday night, Heidelberg Police Chief Cornell White said.

Men want (desire) what they do not have, and go to war for it.

timothyu said:

Did He not say from beginning to end to put His will first?

Click to expand...

And it is clear in The Bible how to rule. The Instructions from the Creator are plain, and neither men nor women obey.

Acorn squash

ViaCrucis said:

As much as I think this topic can be worthwhile to discuss in nuance, that's not going to happen here.
In this particular instance, however, I feel that this is an attempt to deflect.
So for our purposes here: I oppose abortion as morally wrong. Which I also stated already in my previous statement.

Click to expand...

ViaCrucis said:

Yes. Obviously so.
Let's explore this topic more.
If Israeli soldiers attacked Palestinians and kidnapped Palestinian families, held them hostage, and if Hamas responded by bombing Israeli towns and villages (including civilian buildings like hospitals, schools, and synagogues) would your position be the same as the one you hold?
More specifically: Is your position, morally speaking, that killing innocents is wrong (no matter who does it); or is your position, morally speaking, that Hamas is wrong? Does the religion, ethnicity, nationality, or identity of the people involved change your position morally? Or do you maintain a universal moral rubric?
Do you believe that the life of a Palestinian is of equal value as the life of an Israeli? Do you believe the life of a Muslim is of equal value to a Jewish person?

Click to expand...

Since it's my post and I brought it in, it's fine to discuss abortion.
Not a deflection.

First, hamas attacked Israel on 10/7/23.
So would you expect them to just dust off the dead people hamas murdered, bury them and go on with life without any retaliation?
It was an act of war on innocent people just going about their day. Children having fun with their families.
Should they have turned a blind eye to it and invite hamas over for tea after the funerals?
Killing innocent ones world wide is wrong...and hamas is evil.
All innocent life is of value, even innocent ones growing in the womb. Is your moral rubric just for those you can see outside the womb, but not the innocent growing ones you can't see in the womb?

Akita Suggagaki said:

Trump, “Nobody knew healthcare was so complicated.”

Well, maybe some people knew.. like almost everyone but the stable genius.

Click to expand...

The great hoax ..... so complex that no one can grasp it, and it is impossible to change it for good.

Treating symptoms in order to increase problems is not helpful nor healing with almost no exceptions.

The methods of healing that were once known were made federal law illegal and difficult if not impossible for people to 'legally' be healed. On purpose, wicked sinful men designed the system for profit and for control.

Michie said:

Pope Leo XIV has put a spotlight on the risks of artificial intelligence in his choice of theme for next year’s World Day of Social Communications, as the Vatican emphasizes the important role of Catholics in media and AI literacy.

The pope’s choice of theme for the 60th World Day of Social Communications 2026, published Monday, is “Preserving Human Voices and Faces.” The day is celebrated every year on Jan. 24, the feast of St. Francis de Sales, patron saint of journalists and writers.

The Vatican’s explanatory note emphasizes the risks of AI, including that it “can generate engaging but misleading, manipulative, and harmful information, replicate biases and stereotypes from its training data, and amplify disinformation through simulation of human voices and faces.”

The theme of the World Day of Social Communications was released as the Vatican’s communication department is struggling to stem the tide of “deepfakes,” false images and videos of Pope Leo XIV saying and doing things he did not say or do.

Continued below.

Vatican: Catholics must respond to AI threat to authentic, human communication

The pope’s choice of theme for the 60th World Day of Social Communications 2026, published Monday, is “Preserving Human Voices and Faces.”

www.catholicnewsagency.com

Click to expand...

These are legitimate concerns about abusive misuse of AI. Part of what I’m trying to do with my research is create an ethical approach to AI which is radically different from how most people presently use it, in response to the concerns raised by Pope Leo XIV. AI is only good if it is anti-humanizing, something which promotes rather than detracts from the sacredness of the imageo dei.

joymercy said:

I think it's possible he's a widow, as death comes for everyone, young and old. so he's not too young to be one.

Click to expand...

Not that I want anyone dead but...ok

Chesterton said:

Would I let it vote? Only if Elon Musk selects the team who designs it

Click to expand...

That said I’m not a huge fan of Grok 3 compared to its competitors from chatGPT - it was faster but had a number of limitations. However in all fairness I have not had a chance to evaluate Grok 4.

As regards the woman, she should have walked away, nothing required her to keep listening.

As regards your friend, was he really evangelising, or was he engaging in eristics?

BobRyan said:

Heb 10:4-11 makes it very clear that the ceremonial law of "animal sacrifices and offerings" ended at the cross. It then contrasts it to the "once for all" atonement of Christ saying "He takes away the first, to establish the second" Heb 10:9.

(So much for the -- no mention of two distinct forms of Law--suggestion

Click to expand...

1. Context: What is the “first” and the “second”?​

Hebrews 10:9 says:

“He takes away the first, that He may establish the second.”

Click to expand...

To understand what is being taken away, we need to read the argument that begins in Hebrews 8 and continues through Hebrews 10. The author is contrasting two covenants, not two laws.

• Hebrews 8:7 — “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for the second.”
• Hebrews 8:13 — “In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete.”

The “first” and “second” in Hebrews 10:9 echo that same theme — the old covenant system of priesthood and sacrifices is being replaced by the new covenant established by Christ’s blood (see Heb 9:11–15).

So, the contrast is not between two laws of God, but between two covenants or systems of worship — the old, symbolic, shadow-based one, and the new, real, and eternal one.

2. The “law” in this passage refers to the sacrificial system, not the moral law​

Hebrews 10:1 begins:

“For the law, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices... make the comers thereunto perfect.”

Click to expand...

This “law” refers specifically to the sacrificial regulations that governed the tabernacle worship (see Heb 9:1–10). It is not saying that the Ten Commandments were a shadow — those moral precepts were never a “shadow” but expressions of God’s own character (Romans 7:12–14).

Paul confirms this distinction in Galatians 3:19 — the law “added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come” — clearly referring to the ceremonial/sacrificial law that pointed to Christ’s sacrifice, not to the eternal moral law that defines sin (Romans 3:20; 7:7).

Thus, Hebrews 10 shows that the sacrificial aspect of the law was temporary and typological — not that there were two coequal “laws” of God.

3. Christ did not abolish the moral function of the law — He fulfilled it​

Jesus Himself said:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17)

Click to expand...

Christ’s perfect obedience upheld the moral function of the law’s authority even as His death brought the ceremonial types to their fulfillment. The sacrificial system ended because its purpose was completed, not because the moral law was abolished.

So when Hebrews says, “He takes away the first to establish the second,” the “first” refers to the old covenant with its priesthood and sacrifices, and the “second” refers to the new covenant grounded in Christ’s once-for-all offering(Hebrews 10:10).

Hebrews 10 does not teach two laws of God — it teaches two covenants, one temporary and symbolic, the other eternal and real. The ceremonial sacrifices ended at the cross; the moral function of the law remains, now written on the heart under the new covenant (Heb 8:10).

boughtwithaprice said:

Even the Orthodox who I believe deny the immaculate conception due to disagreements with doctrine on original sin, recognize that the term Kecharitomene means Mary has been kept free from sin

Click to expand...

To be more precise, we do not believe our glorious lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary is guilty of voluntary sin. And our understanding of original sin is not that you are forensically guilty of Adam’s transgression, but rather that the fallen state of humanity is like a hereditary illness which results in most of us sinning with every thought, but through the grace of God, we can not only be forgiven for sin but given the ability to overcome the sinful passions, as St. Anthony the Great was able to do through great struggle in the desert, in the face of repeated onslaughts of different kinds of diabolical temptations and demonic attacks.

All Christians should pay attention to the Life of Anthony, because St. Athanasius, who wrote it, is also responsible for our 27 book New Testament Canon and also defended the faith against Arianism, the denial that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, in His divinity of one essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and likewise consubstantial with us in His humanity (St. Athanasius in particular insisted on the term “of one essence”).

At any rate, regarding the Theotokos, she was able to resist sin because with foreknowledge that she would consent to give birth to Him in the person of the Son and Logos, God specially graced her, as indicated by St. Gabriel when he addresses her as “Kecharitomene,” which was not a title used for St. Stephen the Illustrious Protomartyr, who was the first Christian to win a crown of martyrdom and is greatly venerable, but the Theotokos who carried God in her womb is uniquely venerable.

I don’t understand what motivates people to try to deny or downplay the holiness of the Theotokos. The word “Holy” means something set aside and consecrated, and the the Blessed Virgin Mary was consecrated as the Holy Theotokos, the immaculate* vessel by which Christ our True God was carried, who gave birth to Him and raised Him as His only biological parent.

I also don’t understand why people would attack the doctrine of the perpetual virginity, a doctrine accepted and commended not just by all Early Church Fathers but also by Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer and John Wesley, and a doctrine which is plainly indicated by the same scripture its opponents use to try to attack it - many of these same people are opposed to the idea of holy celibacy and a monastic vocation despite the fact that St. Paul praised virginity and celibacy as being superior even to marriage, a theme echoed elsewhere in the New Testament. Now marriage is not wrong, but the idea that holy celibacy is wrong is unscriptural.

Perhaps our Lutheran friends @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis or @Ain't Zwinglian might have insights, or our Catholic friends @Michie @RileyG @Xeno.of.athens and @chevyontheriver or our Orthodox friends @prodromos @jas3 and @FenderTL5 , because I myself am utterly bewildered by this phenomenon.

It is not new however; antidicomarianism was documented by St. Epiphanios of Cyprus in the late fourth century, and was also a motivating factor behind the dreadful schism caused by the Christological error of Nestorius, who abused his position as the Patriarch of Constantinople to use force to try to suppress the veneration of Our Lady as Theotokos, and to justify this opposition to her veneration, developed a distorted Christology by manipulating certain speculations of Theodore of Mopsuestia into a radical Christology of separation and division between the divinity and humanity of Christ, one which compromises the idea of the Incarnation by leaning towards the idea of the Divine Logos and the man Jesus being two separate beings united by a single divine will (itself another Christological error, Monothelitism).

David Lamb said:

Yes, I should have mentioned, it is clear from the bible that when angels appear to people, they assume human form, but even so they are still spiritual beings.

Click to expand...

And I believe you already have known all along, they cannot reproduce at all.
Just as humans cannot reproduce with things that are not human.

jonojim1337 said:

There’s only one.

View attachment 371405

Click to expand...

Caesars are pretty scarce these days. I think maybe Mussolini tried to recreate
"the glory that was Rome", but it really didn't work out.

RileyG said:

It wasn’t an order. It was a request that Jesus honored. Simple.

Click to expand...

If simple, what so much idolatary and confusion ?

Or, what request ? (in the Bible, not in tradition)

bèlla said:

I know who he is but never delved into his teachings. My time at Moody taught me a lot about the influence many have over believers and they’ll take their words as gospel. I remember a session in Precepts when we’re sharing our feedback on the lesson and one of the women in the class kept quoting John MacArthur. Every reference she had came from him and she wasn’t the only one. There was a deaconess seated near me who was bothered. I saw her expression and she said they treat him like a God and I agreed. Half the class were quoting him.

The point was driven home during a service. I was sitting with my prayer partner and the deaconesses and the pastor’s wife was in front of us. My prayer partner looked at our pastor and said he’s a fine man. I told her be quiet. You don’t know what he’s like behind closed doors. And said jokingly, he’s getting on her nerves just like yours is. His turned around and laughed and nodded and said yes.

They put them on pedestals but they’re not infallible. Believers are seduced by their public face but I’m not. My parents used to drive that home growing up to prevent us from being too trusting and believing what we see. They were never starstruck about ministers of any stripe and weren’t afraid to express their concerns. That wasn’t common back then.

That experience was impactful and I stopped listening to Moidy radio afterwards. I felt there were too many voices and that would make it difficult to find the leaven. Several years passed before I listened to anyone. And I only choose one to gauge my spirit‘s response. You’ll miss a lot when there’s too many. At this point I’m leery of the majority. But there’s one I like whose message is kingdom centered. Everything he says goes back to that and he addresses sin as well.

Max Lucado has always struck me as a ”feel good.” When I look at the covers on his books I think of Debbie Macomber. I don’t expect to be challenged. I could be wrong but I doubt it. Resources are nice but it isn’t the word and if you don’t understand the source you can’t discern the other.

~bella

Click to expand...

Bella, thank you for sharing all of that. Yes, we need to not put our trust in other human beings, and we should not treat anyone like they are a god to be worshipped, and that includes politicians and preachers. And we should test everything we hear or read against the Scriptures taught in their correct biblical context. And sadly there are many wolves in sheep's clothing among us who are leading people astray by the thousands or millions. Yes, Max Lucado is a "feel good" preacher, but one of the most deceitful of them all in the things he teaches which are so antibiblical. And I am not saying that he never teaches anything truthful, but that his teachings have many false narratives among them. Sue

Empathy isn't necessarily either pagan or christian. I've never heard anyone say they are an "Empath" however. How can you be an Empath? Empathy is something between people, not something one is! Being capable of empathy (lets use the term right) is simply something human beings have a capacity for, its certainly not that some are born with that and others are not.

Colo Millz said:

St. Paul writes to the Hebrews (11:6): “He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a Rewarder to them that seek Him”. It is asked by many: “Can man, without the light of faith, by his reason alone, know that God exists?” He certainly can. For the 18th Psalm says: “The heavens show forth the glory of God”; and St. Paul writes to the Romans (1:20): “The invisible things of Him (of God) from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also and Divinity”. Hence the Vatican Council, in 1870, defined that it is possible for the existence of God, the Beginning and the End of all things, to be gathered with certainty from created things, by the aid of the natural light of human reason (Sess. III, Ch. 2).

Charles Coppens, A Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion, Nineteenth, Twentieth and Twenty-First Editions (St. Louis, MO; London: B. Herder Book Company, 1917), 117.

Click to expand...

Akanakten believe in one God and it could have been the one true God. The priests hated him for it.

US military will use R&D money to pay troops if shutdown persists​

Oct 11 (Reuters) - The Trump administration said on Saturday it would pay troops during the federal government shutdown by tapping unused funds that had been set aside for research and development.

"I am using my authority, as Commander in Chief, to direct our Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to use all available funds to get our Troops PAID on October 15th," President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

Trump did not identify funding sources or the total amount that would be used for troop salaries, and the White House did not respond to a request for comment. But a Pentagon official said that about $8 billion originally slated for research, development, testing and evaluation would be used to pay members of the military if the shutdown continues after October 15.

~bella