ChubbyCherub said:

It is so refreshing to see this view put here...I think far too many of us conflate 'kindness' with 'acceptance' of sin and tolerance etc to the point where we have forgotten what following Christ means.

We are not supposed to 'tolerate' sin.

We are supposed to call it out, challenge it and guide people to Christ who loves them enough to see them OUT of sin. There are consquences to sin. God's kindness wants to remove those from us! He does not tolerate nor accept sin in any capacity!

I don't know when this alternative Christian viewpoint came from but it is unbiblical and wrong.

It's good to see that some still see the truth and endeavor to share it with others.

Thank you!

Click to expand...

Glory to God. Thank you for sharing that with me. I agree.

jonojim1337 said:

It’s not a sphere.

Click to expand...

It is a sphere. This is a fact.

RDKirk said:

To the extent that soldiers must consider it, those SCOTUS rulings are already incorporated into the explicit laws soldiers must obey. They are not required to interpret the Constitution themselves.

Click to expand...

They should know what is required of them.

RDKirk said:

The Geneva Conventions do not create a blanket prohibition of the killing of civilians in combat.

Click to expand...

Collateral damage which result in death to civilians will occur in armed conflicts but we are not talking about that.

The Coast Guard and Navy are highly trained in how to stop alleged drug smugglers at sea. They do it hundreds of times every year. Very few result in deaths. They know what they are doing and what is expected of them.

Now, because Trump wants to blow boats up, instead of stopping them and arresting those on board, we see murder occurring.

Anyone of those boats could have been stopped and boarded, to confirm they were operating illegally.

Landon Caeli said:

Probably less, if youre actively trying to snuff out your emotions. But in all honesty, I don't think you're capable of going all the way with that. Because it's part of your human nature.

Click to expand...

But how does one differentiate balanced from imbalanced? Surely you aren't suggesting that any attempt to override emotions with reason amounts to the introduction of imbalance. That would suggest that all reason amounts to imbalance.

I would suggest that balance occurs whenever emotions are tempered by reason, and that's all that stoicism attempts to do. It's not meant to 'snuff out' emotions, it's simply meant to temper them, so that the better of me can hopefully rise above the lesser of me.

It's a work in progress.

Description of Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:

12 I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. Having turned, I saw seven golden lamp stands. 13 And among the lamp stands was one like a son of man,clothed with a robe reaching down to his feet, and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 His head and his hair were white as white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire. 15 His feet were like burnished brass, as if it had been refined in a furnace. His voice was like the voice of many waters. 16 He had seven stars in his right hand. Out of his mouth proceeded a sharp two-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining at its brightest.

Michie said:

In a firm call to avoid “false mercy” in marriage annulment proceedings, Pope Leo XIV reminded that compassion cannot disregard the truth.

During a Friday audience with participants in the legal-pastoral training course of the Roman Rota, the Holy See’s court of appeals, the Holy Father read a lengthy speech in which he recalled the importance of the reform of marriage annulment processes initiated by Pope Francis 10 years ago.

The pontiff emphasized that theology, law, and pastoral care must be understood in a harmonious way, not as separate or opposing areas, and pointed out that annulment proceedings are not merely technical procedures to obtain the “free status of persons” but rather an ecclesial service based on the search for truth and on family pastoral care.

Judicial processes at the service of truth​

Continued below.

Pope Leo XIV warns against ‘false mercy’ in marriage annulment proceedings

In a firm call to avoid “false mercy” in marriage annulment proceedings, Pope Leo XIV reminded that compassion cannot disregard the truth.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

Click to expand...

One brick in repairing the wall.

Hentenza said:

I have addressed every single one….

Click to expand...

Wasn’t talking to you my friend.

Paulos23 said:

WHY? What agenda do they push forward with this?

Click to expand...

I agree. You can't make something great again if it was never great to start with.

Name your favorite Mickey Mouse joke. Name his best catch-phrase. You can't because he doesn't have any. He's utterly lame. That kid who said "What you talkin' about Willis?" was more entertaining.

People want to blame international Jewry for all our woes. I blame the French. The French said Walt Disney was a genius. They said Jerry Lewis was a genius. They gave us fully evolved postmodernism. They are very dangerous trolls. I can totally get away with posting this because I'm half French on my mother's side. Mickey Mouse smiles when children are endangered.

Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media

A young man is tortured with the boredom at church... And then finds one totally opposite... Good story here!


"Grandfather was kind to me and considerate of me, yet he was strict with me. I worked along with him in the field when the weather was agreeable and when it was inclement I helped him in his hatter's shop, for the Civil War was in progress and he had returned at odd times to hatmaking. It was my business in the shop to stretch foxskins and coonskins across a wood-horse and with a knife, made for that purpose, pluck the hair from the fur. I despise the odor of foxskins and coonskins to this good day. He had me to walk two miles every Sunday to Dandridge to Church service and Sunday-school, rain or shine, wet or dry, cold or hot; yet he had fat horses standing in his stable. But he was such a blue-stocking Presbyterian that he never allowed a bridle to go on a horse's head on Sunday. The beasts had to have a day of rest. Old Doctor Minnis was the pastor, and he was the dryest and most interminable preacher I ever heard in my life. He would stand motionless and read his sermons from manuscript for one hour and a half at a time and sometimes longer. Grandfather would sit and never take his eyes off of him, except to glance at me to keep me quiet. It was torture to me." - George Clark Rankin

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

I see it differntly.

Click to expand...

OK.

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

Maybe it's just semantics.

Click to expand...

Maybe so. Because I don't see us light years apart.

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

But I think the correct response to God when He leads, guides, directs, teaches, corrects, and comforts us from the intimacy of our own hearts is to believe what He says and respond as He directs.

Click to expand...

But of course.

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

If He tells us to change denominations, then we should trust His voice and do what He says. If He tells us to not change our denomination, then we should trust His voice and do what He says. If He doesn't say anything to us about changing denominations, we shouldn't concerned about it.

Click to expand...

I would agree.

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

There is no Bible verse that says, "Let your consience be your guide".

Click to expand...

There are, nonetheless, verses about conscience in the Bible

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

On the contrary, there are many Bible verses that say things like "Trust in the Lord" (Pr 3:5), "Believe me" (Jn 14:11), and "Walk in the Spirit" ( Gal 5:25). Verses like these point point us to God as our leader and guide and confirm that everyone who places their trust in Him will not stumble or be put to shame (Rom 9:23).

Click to expand...

OK. I know those verses.

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

We have an intimate personal relationship with the Lord. He lives in our hearts.

Click to expand...

Hopefully for someone calling himself or herself a Christian this is true.

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

There is no substitute for hearing Him and doing as He says. But doing so is not about proving ourselves to be faithful so that in the end we will obtain eternal life. It is about living out the eternal life that He has already given us. And it is about bearing fruit that enriches us and brings Him glory. Proverbs 3:5-6 sums it up well...

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart,​

And lean not on your own understanding;​

6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,​

And He shall direct your paths. (Pr 3:5–6)​

Click to expand...

OK. Not disagreeing one bit.

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

You might be saying the same thing in a different way, but it seems like informing our conscience and letting it be our guide creates a little distance between us and God.

Click to expand...

I should have been clearer. If you hear God speak to you, You say 'Here I am, Lord, ready to do your will'. But you also, as soon as you can after that, inform your conscience. Conscience is that guide for the times you don't hear God telling you in the moment, for example, 'Adultery is wrong'. You know the commandments. You also have this interior scruple that nags you, called conscience. And sometimes God will directly tell you. Conscience is not God. Conscience is not God talking to you. It is your own possession, one that you coordinate with what you know about right and wrong, as learned from Bible and Tradition and prayer. And if well formed it is an invaluable adjunct to living a moral life.

We might not disagree. Or maybe we do. But I think that would be you disagreeing with me more than me disagreeing with you.

ChubbyCherub said:

“No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20–21).

What does it mean that the Bible is infallible? What is biblical infallibility? | GotQuestions.org

I know I said I was leaving but this thread weighs on my spirit and I had to pray for everyone involved, including myself, for understanding and guidance.

Can anyone explain to me why this link is incorrect?

Please actually read it, though, and tell me if I've missed anything in this thread that I need to reread for understanding.

Summary of this page as it is quoted at the bottom, "The Bible is the sole objective source of all God has given us about Himself and His plan for humanity. As God’s infallible Word, the Bible is inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs."

I'm so perplexed and saddened by this whole thread and I'm hoping that is due to misunderstanding on my part........

Click to expand...

The majority of Biblical scholars don't think 2 Peter was written by the Apostle Peter (it seems to be a pseudo-graph). Nevertheless it contains truth - this particular line as well. IMHO all it says in 2 Peter 1:20-21 is that prophets spoke from God carried along by the Holy Spirit - and the report of their words are found in the TNK/OT writings. True prophecy never originates or is even influenced by human will, a prophet is supposed to literally speak on behalf of God.

And thankfully we still have those prophecy books in the TNK/OT - in Hebrew, we still have the LXX (Greek) translation of those prophets - as this translation was used a lot by the believers in the NT era (50% of the NT TNK/OT quotes are from the LXX translation) - but beware; there are still differences between the best known Hebrew text and the best known Greek text of the TNK/OT.

Taking your King James Bible and declaring that translation from cover to cover is the literal and infallible word of God verbatim is very comforting but an extreme simplification of matters and thus does not reflect reality.

I don't think the Apostle Peter when he wrote the letter 1 Peter considered himself writing an infallible document that would carry the exact same weight as a prophet speaking the words of God verbatim. But I do attribute great weight to Peter's words as a designated Apostle by Yeshua Himself, clearly guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit. To be honest, 1 Peter is one of my favourite NT books.

High Fidelity said:

Did you talk to those single girls at your church yet or arrange anything with them?

Click to expand...

It doesn’t work like that

bling said:

Sorry Mark, but my computer or CF website was having problems when I posted and posted just one line.
Everything can be understood by man's earthly objective which should drive everything for humans.
As far as God having perfect knowledge of our free will choice before, in our time frame, our making those choices we need an understanding of time.


Lots of things are predestined by God since that is what He will do and sometimes when He will do it.

For over 100 years now scientists have been trying to disproof the relativity of time and have only shown time to be relative. Since science is also saying: space, time and matter came into exist, something outside of space, time and matter had to create them.

If God’s omnipresence includes not only man’s present time, but also man’s past and man’s future time, then God is outside of time and not limited by time.

God expressing himself in anthropomorphically to humans shows why God would use our understanding of time in communicating with us. We know the results of God’s miracles but not how the miracle was done. God would not have to talk about the relativity of time or his existence outside of our time and would keep it simple and with excellent communication, talk about time from a human perspective. Time in heaven might also have their own time separate from man’s time.

If you know today historically a free will choice, I made yesterday, that choice cannot be changed, since history cannot be changed even by God (it happened). The fact you historically know a free will choice does not mean it was not a free will choice.

If God is outside of human time then God at the end of time knows perfectly historically (history cannot be changed) every autonomous free will choice man made at any and all times. God at the end of time would be able to send that information to Himself at the beginning of time before there was a known universe.

If God at the end of time knows what Adam and Eve did in the Garden, He can provide thatinformation to Himself before Adam and Eve were created, so God knows exactly what Adam and Eve are “going to do”, since they have “already done” it (God is in both places at the same “human” time).

It is difficult to think about what it is like to be outside of time and existing throughout time.

My theory would have this:

1. God perfectly knows all human future from some beginning point or before time began.

2. God knows all possible scenarios for the future that would result from His actions and man’s autonomous free will choices.

3. God has predestined in detail most of what man will experience, but this predestined set up scenario by God is to assure every mature adult has a truly independent autonomous free will choice to accept or reject His pure charity as charity, which is the individual’s choice.

4. God predestining the scenarios of man to make this free will choice would be limited to the point an individual could still chose to accept and not harden his/her heart to the point there is nothing more God could do to help that individual.

5. God knows perfectly from the beginning of time what choice every mature adult made throughout man’s history from God’s presence throughout time, but God did not make the choice for the person.

6. God predestined “before” anything was decided to be made that those humans who accepted His charity He would save.

God exists throughout human time at the same time, so there really is no past or future for God, so when we talk about the future, it is only future for us and not God.

It is not that God knows what future you will chose in the future (suggesting the future, is also God’s future), but God knows the free will choices you did make in the future (it is history for God).

The free will choice to humbly accept God's Love as pure undeserved charity and complete the transaction is need or we are nothing more hen robots programmed to accept charity and be charitable, without it being our choice.

Click to expand...

If I take this as an answer to my question, then you do indeed depend on CHANCE to cause things. Your notion of Free Will depends on it. And it is self-contradictory. Chance can cause nothing.

But, maybe you think that man is a 'little' first cause. That too is self-contradictory, if God, THE First Cause, created man and the universe in which man lives.

Further, your notion of Free Will puts God as a reactor to fact, and not the beginning of fact.

Further, or to say what I have already said, but differently, your notion of Free Will diminishes God's Sovereignty and Omnipotence.



Further, your notion of Free Will

Hentenza said:

It’s all about the context.

Click to expand...

Whose? Explain.

Hentenza said:

Alright you are gong to have to stop being cryptic. No where in the NT or OT does it state that God was born. Jesus was born a man but His deity has always been. He is the alpha and the omega. Are you still claiming that God was born?

Click to expand...

Yes he was born in my family to give me the Right of Kings.

Pray that Canadian & Indian trade negotiations r guided by The Holy Spirit so that there r talks that will allow for more Christian missionaries visas:

It's unfortunate but there are any number of teachers or professors who are teaching outside of their field & that is malpractice. Is it because they got marching orders or are they just going with a trend or do they really believe that going out of their way is so valuable to the student. Return to classical education. The gender stuff in particular is malpractice. When did any of us going thru school encounter a class in any grade where the teacher opened the lesson questioning whether some kid thought they were created wrong & the teacher is their to fix it. This gets into an area where the teacher is not licensed. When one looks back at the last decade of this stuff it shows that even in the USA, our own govt gets into social engineering no different than Mao Tse Tong. That is why people should never fawn over govt. The gender stuff is a case of body dysphoria & should be treated as a mental health issue. But here the politicians are looking to make more victim groups. I'm an educator by trade & lifelong academic & I have a lot of criticism for what the education system has become & I am disappointed in both parties. Neither party is creditable in their vision on education. On the left we have all these topics that encourage either victimization or pretending that the whole world can just do kumbaya or that we must generate animosity with tit for tat warfare. On the left it's really become about activism. Now the current view from the right I observe that they say all college is bad & no help to anyone & we should perhaps disband it. They want everyone to be a plumber. Well civilization includes people of all academics & occupations. Very sad when the right frowns on the fine arts or does not see the value of a course in sociology. So when you look at the theatrics, remember these people are just pundits. They aren't experts in anything. Can you imagine a country that had no theaters or choirs. The bookstore might as well vanish because you would only be able to sell books on plumbing. So neither side gets it.

Always in His Presence said:

You should really read and find out what is being discussed first.

Click to expand...

Did you post some secret info? I read your OP. Not much there. It's a bit difficult why you make a big deal about Plaskett getting Epstein's help? It's not like she was his buddy and partied with him for 20 years or gave Epstein's girl friend an soft prison cell, to keep her quiet.

jonojim1337 said:

It’s hard to kick against the pricks.

Click to expand...

I suppose that means something?

Pray societies around world are guided by The Holy Spirit to sincerely debate what aspects of gene-editing human babies are Biblical or Unbiblical:

essentialsaltes said:

Government employees asked a federal judge Wednesday to block the Trump administration from encouraging job applicants to demonstrate their loyalty to the president’s agenda.
In a lawsuit filed earlier this month, a group of federal labor unions argues that the White House’s “merit hiring plan” violates applicants’ First Amendment rights. The plan, put forth by the Office of Personnel Management, includes the following short essay question:

Click to expand...

The "Merit Hiring Plan" looks great, long overdue!

MAGA Vance/Trump 2028

Clare73 said:

See Ro 9:22-23.

Click to expand...

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.



The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!



This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).



Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?



If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?



This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.



Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”



Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual (this “letter” is written to Christians and not non-Christians)?



Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?



Is it really significant when it comes to what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in first century Rome?



Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?



The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).



How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.



Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.



Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!



The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.



If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potter’s signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

2 Tim. 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

Important to note is the fact: the dishonorable vessel can cleanse themselves and become vessels of honor.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

If governments were fair and just, it could be used i imagine to catch criminals and prevent crime.

Landon Caeli said:

Yes. They do.

Click to expand...

Those were your friends and coworkers! Wow!

Nebraskans lament Tyson decision to close Lexington plant with 3,200 workers


In a blow to the local economy of Lexington, Nebraska, Tyson Foods announced that it is closing the town’s longtime Tyson beef plant that employed about 3,200 people.


The Arkansas-based Tyson said in a statement that changes were designed to “right-size” its beef business and position it for long-term success.


The Lexington plant is to close on or around Jan. 20. The statement did not elaborate on why the plant in the town of about 11,500 people was targeted.