stevevw said:

See this is you butting into a discussion you were not involved in and misunderstanding it. Now your doing exactly what your accusing me of doing.

Go back and read what I actually said in its context and stop putting everything I say under a microscope looking for bad stuff all the time.

I actually used Christian belief or in the case of Warden Deistic belief as an example of an alternative knowledge that cannot be explained by the science. The point was in demanding peer review and science to prove alternative knowledge which may include experience and belief and transcedent knowledge is wrong as it belongs in another realm or category of reality.

So an obvious comparison is religious belief. In this case Christian belief which is common on this forum. So demanding science and then calling all alternative knowledge as whacko or pseudoscience is actually calling Christian whacko and pseudoscience.

By the way Warden is not a Christian. He is a Deist and thats completely different. But nevertheless I was not calling anyone anything. In fact it was the other way around. By making out the alternative knowledge of the ancients which included spirituality and belief in transcedent things as whacko it logically follows also calling Christianity as whacko. Why don't you object to this. Your very selective in your moral outrage. You also don't properly read posts.

Ok so if the ancients used spiritual knowledge or transcedent knowwledge. Some sort of knowledge that cannot be explained or verified by science. Then that knowledge is referred to as whacko and pseudoscience.

How does this not follow that the same kind of knowledge is derived from religion in general including Christianity or Indigenous knowledge. How does it not apply as well. How does the same logical arguement not apply to all relaigion and trancedent knowledge of ancients and indigenous peoples.

It all cannot be peer reviewe or verified by science. So if not meeting the science standard equals pseudoscience its a logical followon.

Otherwise are you saying that no one thinks this knowledge is pseudoscience. then why are people calling it pseudoscience when its suggest such knowledge existed. If they are not saying that then they have to retract all objections to such knowledge being unreal and not a valid form of knowledge. Thus proving my case that such knowledge existed.

Did not Warden say absolutely everything I said is pseudoscience. I included the ancients rteligious beliefs and spirituality as a big part of that knowledge. So it logically follows that all religion and belief is pseudoscience.

In fact did not I use this exact analogy and logic to you earlier. I have repreated this logic about 10 times in this thread and you suddenly realise and get it completely out of context lol. Please read carefully what I say. I know I have poor grammar and spelling but its not that bad lol.

Click to expand...

"Transcendent" or "spiritual" knowledge doesn't cut stone. Craftsmen working with tools cut stone.

Job 33:6 said:

But again, the point here that you're ignoring is that nothing material actually comes into existence.

Click to expand...

According to Job 33:6 on an internet forum?
Of course I am ignoring that. Why should I not ignore a claim from someone who makes claims constantly without any reliable source backing her up?

Do you swallow everything every person opens their mouth and tell you, when they cannot support what they say?
Is that not gullible?
I'm not doing that.

So, you are saying no house came into existence; No shoes came into existence; No plant came into existence... right?
Please... please name one reputable scientist that agrees with you.
To originate means to begin to exist.
Did the areophane have an origin? Was there a time it did not exist?

Job 33:6 said:

God isn't transplanting hearts. It's not about physical matter coming into existence.

Click to expand...

J. You make some wild absurd claims, I have to say.
When you support these wild claims, you would have said something worth considering.

You obviously can't support any of your claims, because I gave you the opportunity in one of my previous response to you, and you had nothing to say. So, it looks like we aren't going to be hearing anything factual from you at any time.
However, life is full of surprises. Surprise me.

I saw this on Facebook today!! It is very encouraging!! Thank You God!!

BPPLEE said:

Makes one wonder how an ignorant, dim witted old man became a billionaire

Click to expand...

Inheritance

BPPLEE said:

and was elected president twice

Click to expand...

he's not the only one.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

The Ten Commandments, which Sabbath is part of, were not given until Exodus 16.

Click to expand...

Joseph knew that it was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9, which is one of the Ten Commandments, so your claim is demonstrably false.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

Not Abraham, not Isaac, not Jacob, none of the patriarchs kept Sabbath (Fathers prior to Egypt did not keep the Sabbath: Deut 5:2-3 "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today."). The first time the Sabbath is mentioned in some significant way is in the 16th chapter of Exodus, when God feeds the people manna from heaven as they wander in the wilderness.

Click to expand...

God made the New Covenant with us that he did not make with the ancient Israelites, but that does not mean that any of the commands in the New Convent were not previously given, so the fact that God made a covenant with the ancient Israelites that He did not make with their fathers does not mean that any of its commands were not previously given.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

And the manna comes every day except the Sabbath day, and the day before they get enough for that day, so that they don’t have to work on that day. And that gives them a little preview of what’s coming, because in the 20th chapter you have the Ten Commandments, and in the Ten Commandments, prescriptions are given that do set down laws for the Sabbath day. This is the first time any such laws have been given by God.

Click to expand...

The fact that Exodus 20 is the first recorded instance of God commanding against adultery does not mean that it is the first time that God commanded against it.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

The Sabbath was not instituted for man in Genesis. It was instituted officially in Exodus, in the law of Moses. A further understanding of that comes from Exodus chapter 31. The Lord speaks to Moses in verse 12, and He says to him, “As for you, speak to the sons of Israel saying, ‘You shall surely observe My Sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you.

“‘Therefore you are to observe the Sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. For six days work may be done but on the seventh day there is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall surely be put to death. So the sons of Israel shall observe the Sabbath, to celebrate the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.

“‘It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever;’” - why? - “‘for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased, and was refreshed,’” - or rested. Here we find that Sabbath is a sign; it is a sign. That is to say, it points to something else. It is a symbol, connected to the Mosaic covenant.

When God made a covenant with Noah, He promised Noah that He would never destroy the world again, and God identified a sign. What was the sign of the Noahic covenant? Rainbow. When God made a covenant with Abraham, He made that covenant with Abraham and He designated a sign, and the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, participation among the covenant people Israel, was the sign of circumcision. And here you have in the Mosaic covenant another sign, and the sign this time is the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

The fact that God gave the Sabbath as a sign does not mean that it was not previously a sign. If you think that the things that the Sabbath is a sign for are true, then you should live in a way that testifies about their truth by following Christ's example of keeping the Sabbath holy rather than a way that bears false witness against those things.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

It was only a sign. Observing it with a duplicitous heart gained nothing. In fact, Isaiah 1:13 says, “Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and Sabbath.” The prophet Hosea pronounces a similar judgment on their hypocritical Sabbaths: “I will put an end to all her gaiety, her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths.” It didn’t mean anything to observe it outwardly without a heart of love and devotion to God.

Click to expand...

In Exodus 20:6, God wanted His children to love Him and obey His commandments, so obedience to God has always been a matter of the heart.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

The Sabbath was a reminder of creation. The Sabbath was to remind the people of Israel that they had forfeited paradise; that man had forfeited paradise. The law said to them, “Obey this law and you will be blessed.” God said that repeatedly: “Obey this law and you will be blessed,” to show them that righteous behaviour would restore a taste of Eden’s paradise. Righteous behaviour would also point to a future, a future kingdom when paradise would be regained.

Click to expand...

The Bible states that the Sabbath is a memorial of when God rested after Creation, but it does not say that it is a memorial that Israel had forfeited paradise.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

So, the Sabbath, every Sabbath that went by, when they rested, they were reminded of a perfect creation, a paradise of God dominated by righteousness, which had been forfeited by sin and could only be regained again by righteousness. God then institutes the seventh-day system - not for everybody in the world; in fact, specifically, it says, for Israel. Verse 17: “A sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever.” Every seventh day was a reminder that they were living in a fallen world. Every seventh day was a reminder that they had lost paradise.

Click to expand...

In Ephesians 2:12-19, Gentiles were at one time separated from Christ, alienated from Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, and without hope and God in this world, all of which is in accordance with Gentiles at one time not being doers of God's law, but through faith in Christ all of that is no longer true in that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens but are fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints in the household of God, all of which in accordance with Gentiles becoming does of God's law, so Gentiles become joined to Israel through faith in Christ.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Old Covenant. Because we are now under the New Covenant, we are no longer required to keep the sign of the Old Covenant. The New Testament nowhere commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

In Matthew 4:!5-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and God's law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which includes repenting from breaking the Sabbath. Jesus also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to God's law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6), which includes keeping the Sabbath holy. So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey God's law by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Ivan Hlavanda said:

Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but never about breaking the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3), so he affirmed God as being an authoritative source, which includes affirming what God spoke in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 in regard to keeping the Sabbath holy, and we have no need for Paul to repeat everything that God has spoken in order to know that we should still obey God.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

The early church Fathers, from Ignitions to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship.

Click to expand...

So when God has commanded something and the early church commentators taught to rebel against what God commanded, then who has the highest authority and which one should you follow?

Anonymous0210 said:

why is that?

Click to expand...

I have a lot going on right now, and I am feeling just a little drained, that's all.

Douggg said:

Randy, the 24 elders were wearing crowns of gold - Revelation 4:4.

So I don't think they are angels, but significant figures in the bible who loved and worshiped God. We are not told each one's specific personal identity.

In Revelation 5:10, the 24 elders said...

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

So, I don't think the 24 elders are angels.

Click to expand...

The symbolism carried by the 24 elders may symbolize something that they're doing on behalf of men, or they may be keys to identifying who they are. I happen to believe they are angels because I don't believe this heavenly scene conveys the presence of men, but rather, of angels in the millions, and probably many more.

In the OT we have the cherubim who are thought to be angels with special callings. And they also had appearances with symbolic inferences to men.

The cherubim in the garden of Eden were associated with a flaming sword that guarded the way to the Tree of Life. A sword infers a human weapon.

In Isa 6, seraphim had faces, feet, and carried a live coal in their hand. These anatomical features also infer something human.

In Eze 1, the cherubim had human faces and had feet that appeared like bronze. Again, the inference is human, though we know these were angelic creatures. The fact the cherubim in Rev 4 had crowns of gold infers something human, but is also likely angelic.

The centerpiece of the story of Revelation is the Lamb's sacrifice on behalf of men so that we may enter the Kingdom of heaven. So, these angels around the throne, including the cherubim, are carrying out acts on behalf of mankind, who were called from the beginning to rule on earth.

We are called to be lords, in a sense, over a chaotic earth, by remaining true to the judgment of God and true to the image of God for which we were created. Once man fell, it became the job of those redeemed by Christ to reflect God's truth and righteousness, through which He will judge the wicked earth.

Gen 1.26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Hans Blaster said:

I track replies backward starting from your post about rape and fitness that lead to the posting of that paper title to post #800 (I didn't read any intervening posts that were not on the direct backward line):



Which as you can see is about "innate senses of acceptable behavior" as "objective standards for morality. I have a slightly different take on the relation between morality and evolved mind properties.

Click to expand...

I can't be bothered to trace it back myself, but if you look at @partinobodycular's subsequent posts you will see that they accepted my assessment of their perspective.

Hans Blaster said:

It is clear that morality is not universal. The base instincts are present in all societies, but not all individuals. Morality is what we build on top of those instincts.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is so clear, as the question is not what individuals recognize but whether there are universal standards that can be applied.

Hans Blaster said:

Not going to discuss examples.

Click to expand...

Oh? Any particular reason?

Hans Blaster said:

Sigh. I am not grounding morality in evolution. Evolution is merely the process that shaped the natural moral instincts. As for this "fallacy" nonsense. I am not defending any specific moral position. I am discussing the process from which non-absolute morality arises. Given the things I have stated, it should be clear why I don't consider the concept of an absolute morality as even coherent.

Click to expand...

You may not be, but the poster I was interacting with was.

Hans Blaster said:

Then tell them that, not me. I'm not interested in your problems with them. I've got enough issue with your implying things to me from my posts that I didn't say or imply. I don't need what ever you think they have done.

Click to expand...

You stepped into an ongoing conversation, so my reply to you depended on that context.

Hans Blaster said:

One does not need a detailed description of how minds arise to determine that individual humans are able comprehend what others are, or might be, thinking anymore than you need a detailed theory of gravity to determine that the Earth is spherical. You seem to be confusing Theory of Mind with philosophy of mind. Theory of mind is key to empathy, strategic thinking, interpersonal relations, etc., and everyone uses it all the time.

Click to expand...

I think the confusion here is I took your use of theory of mind to be speaking of a scientific theory of mind, rather than a personal one. We all may have a sense of other minds but the nomenclature you chose to use leaves much to be desired.

Hans Blaster said:

Stated above.

Click to expand...

Not quite, because when I say universal I don't necessarily mean absolute. Universal just means that we can consistently develop the same standards and apply them across the board, regardless of culture or current social milieu.

Hans Blaster said:

I wrote a post about an academic paper (and not one I found particularly persuasive or impressive). You aren't even close to demonstrating that absolute morality is even possible. I think the notion is laughable.

Click to expand...

I don't intend to make any such demonstration, my position is one of skepticism towards bootstrapping morality because of the is-ought problem and the related naturalistic fallacy.

I am watching The Twister: Caught in the Storm now

Dikaioumenoi said:

What are you talking about? Who says "the means is strictly His regenerating them"?

Click to expand...

Well, not according to me but I believe your theology maintains that a person is regenerated first? And then believes, repents, etc. as a result?

Dikaioumenoi said:

Are you intentionally being obstinate? You're not even listening to what it is I'm saying. Look at the verse:

"No one can come to me..."

That is a statement of inability, not unwillingness. How does one obtain the ability to come to Christ? The verse continues:

"...unless the Father... draws him."

So who is able to come to Christ? Those drawn, and only those drawn. If you are not drawn, you cannot come. You said, "He gives enough grace for them to come." Yes, that's called drawing:

"No one can come to me... unless the Father draws him."

If not A, then not B. If not drawn, then not able. The drawing is the grace of God that enables sinners to come to Him. So, is it possible for someone to come to Christ if the Father does not succeed in that enabling activity?

Click to expand...

Why? Methinks you're the one being obstinate here. Enabling someoone to do something simply doesn't mean they'll do it! So of course the Father can enable without succeeding. I've worked with drug addicts and they can be given all the reason and means to change, but that doesn't mean they will. They have to want it, as we must with God once we see the treasure He offers, and then continue wanting it, continuing to value that treasure, to value Him and our relationship with Him.

Dikaioumenoi said:

What does the rest of the verse say?

Click to expand...

The group He's speaking of: those who came, and in light of the fuller counsel of Scripture, remained and persevered to the end in doing good, being holy, producing good fruit etc, He will raise up.

Dikaioumenoi said:

I'm asking out of curiosity; the point isn't a relevant one. Plato is Classical, Modern is Modern. Neither is Koine. The language has changed significantly between those three periods. Words in Classical Greek frequently carry specialized meanings limited to philosophical contexts, and Modern Greek is even further removed, with vast lexical and semantic drift. Appealing to Modern Greek usage is like using Modern English to define the meaning of words in Shakespearean English. It's anachronistic.

Click to expand...

But it's a case of a certain possible meaning from the two time periods I referred to, that sandwich the period in question, with both at least offering or establishing a reasonable pattern, while you've maintained that the word must adhere to a certain meaning only, without offering anything other than opinion as far as I know. Anyway, from my understanding, being no expert in either Greek or Plato, he said this in line 238 of Phaedrus as one instance of his use of the word:
"Now when opinion, guided by reason, leads and prevails, this is called temperance; but when desire, leading unreasonably and dragging (ἑλκούσης) us toward pleasures and having become the master within us, is given the name hubris (wantonness/arrogance)."

Dikaioumenoi said:

And in all of this you still fail to recognize that this whole line of argument -- trying to attach a softer meaning to ἑλκύω -- is undermining your position, not helping it.

Click to expand...

Ok, except that I don't see how God, making it possible to come without making it inescapable, such that there's no excuse for a person to fail to come other than their own prideful willfull stubborness, and as if justice, itself, demands that they do come, that they accept the light after all He's shown and done for them, should be a problem with all of Scripture in general or specifically here as the word is used in the sense of "appeal", "coax", "persuade". Maybe you can point me to your post where you explained it and I'll reconsider.

Chesterton said:

I'm going to talk with him next week.

Click to expand...

... that things go well in your discussion with him.

JosephZ said:

86% of all SNAP benefits go to households with gross monthly income at or below the poverty level.

Click to expand...

Sure. If I just quit my job

JosephZ said:

86% of all SNAP benefits go to households with gross monthly income at or below the poverty level.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Like I said previously. My household can be "at or below the poverty level" if I were to legally divorce my wife and continue living with her. She would be legally left as a single, unemployed mother of four and just raking in all the benefits and subsidies while I just kept working my same home and bringing home the same income. This is the game that so many people are playing. This is the political incentivisation of the single mother. Heck, why should a woman not get herself knocked up by multiple men and rake in thousands of dollars in entitlements and child support? Would it not be foolish to get married and lose the additional income and subsidies? I will tell you that I personally have family members who are single mothers with multiple baby-daddies who refuse to get a job and live better than I do, who consider people like me a "sucker and loser" because they have manipulated the system more than I.

Johann Weisman had everything: good income, status, and a life of extravagance. A celebrated doctor turned
businessman, he lived in a world where nothing came cheap. He scoffed at meals below $20, considering
them an insult to his refined palate.

One evening, to celebrate securing a new contract, Johann and his business partner Hans set out in search
of a fitting restaurant in Vienna. Their demanding tastes and fussiness turned the search into a prolonged
ordeal, as they scoured the city for an establishment that could match their impossibly high standards—even
though every venue they encountered was among the most expensive in town. They sneered at each upscale
spot, dismissing the polished menus and lavish decor as unworthy.

At one glittering venue with sky-high prices, Johann spat, "This dump has the unrefined charm of a grimy cafeteria built for drifters," while Hans derided another, branding it "a pathetic food truck on wheels that dares to charge extortionate rates." At yet another high-end restaurant, Johann smirked and added, "This looks like a place for the homeless." Their
disdain was palpable, their arrogance unrelenting.

After nearly 5 hours of scrutinizing menus and scoping out venues, they finally settled on an upscale location
that promised a first-rate experience. Bringing with them aged whiskey and expensive cigars, the pair were
preparing to indulge freely. But they were kicked out after only 20 minutes—abruptly told it was closing time.

They staggered out into the city streets, their judgment clouded by their revelry. They didn’t notice the black
van parked nearby until it was too late.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


The van screeched forward, headlights blinding. Before Johann could react, rough hands yanked him back. A
hood was shoved over his head, muffling Hans’s protests as they struggled. Their kidnappers moved swiftly,
bundling Johann into the van while leaving Hans behind. Johann’s world blurred into darkness.

Johann’s new reality began in a dim room in the beautiful rural town of Bad Goisern on Lake Halstatt. His two
kidnappers' goal was to demand a ransom of 2 million.

The two kidnappers, Karl and Rob sat slouched in the dim room, their cigarettes dangling lazily from their
fingers. A half-empty bag of fast food sat between them, grease stains spreading across the table.

Karl: "After we get the money, we’ll be set for life. A life of eating and drinking without work or learning,.... Just
happy days ahead."
Rob: "Yeah....our dream lifestyle is not far away...Ha, ha..."

Then they started to laugh, which got louder and louder, their mouths stretching wide, exposing every inch of
their cigarette-stained front teeth.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Eventually, the kidnappers dragged themselves back to reality and walked into Johann’s room, the ransom
note clutched tightly in the first one's hand.

"Alright, doc," Karl said, leaning against the doorway with a smirk. "Time to make your family cough up the
cash. Two million bucks—that’s all we’re asking. Not too much."

Rob chimed in, "Yeah, they’ll pay to get you back. I mean, who wouldn’t? You’re worth it, right?"

Johann, calm and composed, met their gaze. "My family’s wealth has declined a lot, We don’t even have two
thousand, let alone two million. They won’t pay you two million."

Karl and rob looked at each other for a while, then Karl’s smirk faltered, replaced by a confused frown. "What’re
you talking about? You’re rich!"

Johann: "You're wasting your time..."

The two kidnappers looked at each other, not knowing what to say.....



The two kidnappers grew increasingly frustrated. A few hours later, they inspected Johann's clothes and took
most of his money and valuables away, leaving only some coins.

Johann’s response remained unchanged, and boredom crept into the kidnappers’ routine, dulling their edge.
Cigarettes became their distraction, their escape from the monotony. They smoked constantly, the acrid fumes
filling the small room.

Noticing this, Johann attempted to turn the situation to his advantage. “This air,” he said one evening,
coughing dramatically. “It’s unhealthy. You’re smoking yourselves to death, and you’re taking me with you.”

The kidnappers laughed dismissively. “No, you’re bluffing, doc,” one of them sneered, exhaling a plume of
smoke. “We’ve been smoking our whole lives, and we’re fine. I don't think it's harmful.”

Johann frowned, retreating into silence. He bided his time, observing them as they grew more restless and
started chain-smoking even more.

Over the next few days, the smoke thickened, clinging to the air like a suffocating fog. Johann, who had been
coughing intermittently, noticed the kidnappers themselves beginning to cough more frequently. They rubbed
their throats, visibly annoyed.

Sensing his opportunity, Johann struck again. This time, his words carried more weight. “You see? Even you
can’t ignore it anymore. This air is toxic,” he rasped, clutching his chest. “It’s not just me—it’s affecting you
too.”

The kidnappers, though still skeptical, exchanged uneasy glances. Their growing discomfort validated
Johann’s claims, and he seized on their hesitation. “If I die,” he said weakly, “you lose everything. No ransom.
You’ll have nothing to show for your trouble. I need a specific medicine to counteract this.”

Their resolve finally faltered. Reluctant but desperate to keep him alive, they asked Johann what medicine he
needed. Johann provided them with a list of ingredients: vinegar, ground nutmeg, crushed chili peppers, and
adelwez. He explained that the ingredients must be cooked together and insisted the concoction be prepared
with all windows closed to retain potency.


Johann explained carefully, emphasizing that the ingredients must be cooked together in precise proportions
to ensure the mixture’s potency. He insisted the concoction be prepared with all windows tightly shut, claiming
that even the faintest draft could weaken its effectiveness.

Many people know it's dangerous to cook while closing all windows, but not them.
Knowing nothing of the risks, the kidnappers followed his instructions, bolting the windows and sealing every
crack.

The small, dimly lit room grew increasingly stifling, the air turning thick and oppressive. As the mixture simmered on their wood-burning stove, an ominous transformation began. A new toxic gas crept into the room, its presence subtle but a bit dangerous. Apart from that, the lack of ventilation caused carbon monoxide levels to rise imperceptibly, unnoticed by the kidnappers who remained focused on their ransom plans.


Johann, fully aware of the consequences, stayed low to the ground, breathing the marginally clearer air near
the bottom edge of the door. From his position, he watched intently as the effects of the gas began to take
hold. Gradually, their movements slowed, their once-brisk actions reduced to sluggish, clumsy gestures. Their
speech became slurred and incoherent, their heads drooping as if weighted down by invisible hands. Johann
remained still, his heart pounding, as the room sank into a suffocating silence.


One by one, they fainted. The older among them slumped heavily against the wall, his cigarette slipping from
his limp fingers to the floor below. The other stumbled forward, falling to his knees as he mumbled something
incomprehensible before collapsing in a motionless heap.

Rabbi's Daily Devotion ...


David resolved to praise his God “continually.” He awoke each morning with prayer and praise: “In the morning, O Lord, You will hear my voice; in the morning I will order my prayer to You and eagerly watch.”

I love that the priests of Israel were commanded to praise God every morning and evening: “They are to stand every morning to thank and to praise the Lord, and likewise at evening.” Our praise and prayer are to be perpetual, which means we must be bold enough to say, “Praise God,” in public. Through our praise, we become lights revealing Father to the world.

I realize there is a time and place for everything, but too often we aren’t conveying God’s praise to the world as we should. Beloved one, don’t let anyone keep you from acknowledging your Creator! David didn’t compartmentalize his life so that he only praised God in specific places or at certain times. All David’s talk was seasoned with praise to HaShem.

Likewise, we need to love God so much that we don’t hesitate to speak of His goodness. May His praise be continually in our mouths, for we “are a chosen race, a royal priesthood…a people for God’s own possession, so that [we] may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called [us] out of darkness into His marvelous light.”
___________________________________

Rabbi Kirt A. Schneider, Entering His Presence (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2023), Used by permission.

Both knew, and Jesus also recognized that the temptations were a recapitulation of Israel in the desert. Every temptation Satan presented was a test the Israelites faced and where they fell short, Jesus succeeded and quoted the passages from Deuteronomy that were relevant to the temptations.

Akita Suggagaki said:

Why did he choose to become poor and remind us that he identifies with the least among us?

Click to expand...

Because there's nothing holy or good about being flashy with riches or showing off. Jesus teaches us humility.

Akita Suggagaki said:

How are you suffering so that you feel the need for compassion?

Click to expand...

People don't need to be suffering in order to receive compassion -in fact, some of the most arrogant and flashy people I know, I offer them the most compassion, because I feel sorry for them, as they are likely to be the most spiritually lost people... It's a different kind of suffering.

DialecticSkeptic said:

I followed a somewhat similar path—but only "somewhat." I inherited young-earth creationism from my Baptist mentor who led me to Christ, along with a host of other ideas that I have since shed along the way (e.g., Arminian theology, dispensational premillennialism, etc.). The wealth of scientific evidence convinced me that the universe had to be billions of years old, but I didn't know how (and therefore didn't try) to square that with Genesis. For various reasons, I couldn't accept either the Gap view or the Day–Age view; on the textual evidence, I was convinced the days had to be normal solar periods, and on the theological evidence, I was convinced Adam and Eve were historical individuals. But how does all of that work within a universe that has been around for billions of years? I had no idea. But, like you, either way I was staunchly opposed to evolution as something "of the devil." I was an undefined old-earth creationist who was contemplating the framework hypothesis (the main proponents of which were Kline, Ridderbos, Blocher, and Waltke).

That is where John Walton and Michael Jones entered the picture, providing the impetus I needed to harmonize all of these seemingly disparate facts—along with Greg Beale, Denis Alexander, J. Richard Middleton, G. C. Berkouwer, Herman Dooyeweerd, Michael Heiser, Joshua Mortiz, and others including Audrey L. Moore (despite him being a raging anti-Calvinist). Due to Beale and Walton, I see the Genesis account referring to the cosmos as temple or the dwelling place of God, and due to Middleton, Berkouwer, and Dooyeweerd (and Mortiz to some extent) I came to understand the imago Dei in terms of the royal-functional view—i.e., vocational, not substantive or relational.

At the end of the day, I came to realize there is no conflict—either actual or plausible—between Genesis and evolution. I didn't accept evolution at that time, but I realized that I could (and eventually I did). For me, the reason why there is no conflict between creation and evolution is similar to why there is no conflict between the biology of human reproduction and the belief that God knits us together in the womb. It's not a zero sum game; both can be true. There was only one belief that couldn't stand—namely, Adam and Eve being the first humans. But there was no compelling biblical reason to think they were and no essential Christian doctrine that requires them to be, so letting that go was relatively easy. (I am still in the process of identifying and resolving any wrinkles with this view, using a professor at a Reformed seminary as my sounding board to ensure biblical and confessional orthodoxy—because I remain a hardcore fundamentalist.)

Click to expand...

It's funny how different paths come to similar conclusions. For me, I've never concerned myself with being orthodox though I didn't want to invent beliefs whole cloth. In the end, I found myself in agreement with a lot of EO doctrine regarding soteriology, the role of tradition and Scripture, and other key issues...but find the mytho-history position compelling(and fits nicely with an iconic/canonical view of Scripture) largely from drawing on a variety of unnamed sources. So to be in agreement with someone who is staunchly reformed is interesting to me.

In passing...https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/08/senate-republicans-trump-obamacare

'...a social media post on Saturday from Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma senator. Mullin posted four photographs of himself and two other Republican senators meeting with Trump in the Oval Office, with the caption: “Working through the weekend with President Donald J Trump. It’s always an honor to be in the Oval Office– I never take this opportunity to serve Oklahoma for granted.”

Well, at least Trump is there in the Oval Office, nose to the grindstone, working whatever hours needed to end this dispute on behalf of all Americans. Except...

'...the photographs were taken on Friday, before Trump left for a weekend golf trip at his Florida resort.'

Let them eat cake!

What is the knowledge of God’s will? Well, there is his expressed and definite will for our all of our lives expressed in the Scriptures, which is for all of us who believe in Jesus Christ to be Lord and Savior of our lives. And then there is God’s will for us individually, which is not expressed in the Scriptures, but which is discerned of the Holy Spirit as he calls us and directs us in the ways of the Lord in doing the specific will of God for our individual lives, but which must never contradict the written will of God in the Scriptures.

For God has assigned each of us specific body parts within the body of Christ, as a whole, and he has given us gifts of the Spirit individually which are to be used of God to minister to the body of Christ to encourage one another in our walks of faith in obedience to our Lord. For we are all necessary parts to the proper working of the body of Christ, his church, as each of us fulfills our God-given assignments under the direction of the Holy Spirit, and in the power of God, but never from our own flesh nature.

[Acts 2:14-18,42-47; Romans 12:1-8; 1 Corinthians 12:1-31; 1 Corinthians 14:1-5; Galatians 6:1; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:1-16; Ephesians 5:15-21; Ephesians 6:10-20; Philippians 2:1-8; Colossians 3:12-16; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:13; Hebrews 10:23-25; James 5:19-20]

And this is not to be led of man, but of God. Certainly what we do within the body of Christ must be in line with the will of God, which is expressed in the Scriptures, and if done in a group setting, it should fall under the authority of the church elders (overseers) who should be men of God of great integrity and spiritual maturity. Or it should fall under the authority of whoever is leading a gathering of the church, the body of Christ, but still according to the will of God and according to the teachings of God and not of flesh.

But please note that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord,” is a child of God and a servant of the Lord and of his righteousness. There are many “wolves in sheep’s clothing” among us disguised as pastors and elders and ministers of the gospel who are not of God but are of human flesh. And so they are not under the authority of God and his Word, but they are under human authority, often being led by marketing literature on how to “grow their churches” and how to attract the world to their gatherings, so not of God.

So be wise and be discerning in who you listen to and who you get your direction from, and make sure what you are hearing and believing is truly of God. And we do this via prayer for spiritual discernment and by being serious students of the Scriptures who study them in their appropriate biblical context, comparing Scripture with Scripture to make certain that what we are believing is the truth of God’s word, and not the teachings of human wisdom and knowledge that is separate from the will of God.

And the purpose of us discovering the will of God, via the Scriptures, is so that we will walk in a manner worthy (proper, suitable, fitting) of the Lord, to please him all respects. And no, we are not pleasing to God merely because we once made a verbal profession of faith in him with our lips. But we are pleasing to God when we are obeying his commands, and when we are doing his will (both the collective and individual will of God), and when we are putting sin to death in our lives, by the Spirit, and we are living holy lives.

And if our faith in Jesus is genuine biblical faith, and we are walking (in conduct) in a manner worthy of God, to please him in ALL respects, it should be obvious by what we produce, by us bearing fruit (spiritual results) in every good work, which God prepared in advance that we should walk in them (see Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 2:11-14). But all of this is not of human flesh, but only as led by and empowered by God, as he teaches us steadfastness and patience, giving thanks to God for and in all things, “who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light (Christ).

[Matthew 10:37-38; Matthew 22:8; Luke 9:23-26,62; John 15:1-11; 1 Corinthians 15:58; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:1; Philippians 1:27; Philippians 2:12-13; Colossians 1:9-14; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:11-12; 2 Timothy 2:21; Titus 2:11-14; Titus 3:8; James 2:17]

Your Servant Witness

An Original Work / March 13, 2012
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Humbly I bow, Lord, before You,
Bringing my requests to You.
May I listen; hear You speaking.
May I follow You in truth.
Gently lead me in Your service.
Guide my steps and strengthen me.
Fill me with Your love and mercy.
May I live for Thee!

Let me be Your servant witness,
Telling others of Your grace.
May I always share the gospel
With those I meet face to face.
May I show the love of Jesus,
Caring for the needs of men;
Be Your servant witness always
For my Lord, Amen!

My desire to be like Jesus,
Living for Him ev’ry day.
May I obey all His teachings
Given me, so I’ll not stray.
Love You, Jesus, Lord, my master.
You are the King of my heart;
Follow You where’er You lead me;
Not from You depart!

Login to view embedded media
Walk Worthy
An Original Work / November 8, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love