New Posts

lismore · 2025-12-07T22:00:45-0600

FaithT said:
I knew it happened in Africa, don’t know if I ever heard of it in Asia or Middle East. So this is happening with people From these countries when they move to Scotland?

According to the newspaper article yes, 1200 reported cases in Glasgow.

DamianWarS · 2025-12-07T22:00:14-0600

FredVB said:
Maybe you are right. I myself am not sold on a position. So when I read something in Bible passages bringing it up, why should I not bring it here? If you are sure of your position, why don't you explain it? What do you think of this?

Isaiah 56:
1-2
Thus says Yahweh:Keep justice, and do righteousness,
For My salvation is about to come,
And My righteousness to be revealed.
Blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who lays hold on it;
Who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil.
6-8
Also the sons of the foreigner
Who join themselves to Yahweh, to serve Him,
And to love the name of Yahweh, to be His servants
Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And holds fast My covenant
Even them I will bring to My holy mountain,
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
Will be accepted on My altar;
For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.
The Lord Yahweh, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says,
Yet I will gather to him
Others besides those who are gathered to him.

There was application for foreigners in the times of the old covenant, that is fair to say. But the context of these passages is prophetic, when salvation is to come and righteousness will be revealed, even when they will come to God's holy mountain, where the vision of the everlasting times in the end applies, with no more suffering and no more death. For this gentiles, those not born of the people of Israel, are with their faith in Yahweh God through Christ grafted in with Israel, those of which who remain in the end will all be saved, in the latter times, when there is God's house of prayer for all nations.

You're reading Isaiah 56 as if it's giving a future Christian obligation to keep the Sabbath, but that’s not really what the text is doing.

Isaiah is talking to Israel under the Old Covenant, and the blessing he describes assumes that same covenant framework: Sabbath-keeping and sacrifices and the Temple system (“burnt offerings,” “My altar,” “My holy mountain”). If you take the Sabbath part as binding for Christians today, you’d need to be consistent and also take the sacrificial system and covenantal markers with it, because the passage treats them as a single package.

The prophetic hope Isaiah points to (“My salvation is about to come”) is fulfilled in Christ, not in a return to the Mosaic system. The NT consistently reads these “house of prayer for all nations” promises as fulfilled through Christ’s body, not through the continuation of Israel’s ritual law (cf. Mark 11:17, Eph 2:11–22).

Foreigners joining Israel under the Old Covenant is totally true, but the NT makes a big deal that Gentiles are now included without taking on Torah markers (Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws). Acts 15 is basically the Church settling this exact question.

So Isaiah 56 is beautiful, but it’s not prescribing Sabbath-keeping for Christians in the end times, it’s describing the inclusivity of God’s salvation as it looked from within the Old Covenant categories. If someone wants to argue Sabbath is binding today, they need to do it from the New Testament, not by importing Moses + temple + altar + sacrifices into the church age.

Neostarwcc · 2025-12-07T21:58:12-0600

We made it to Ohio okay. It took us 14 hours to get here. We left at 8 am this morning and we got here at 10 o clock at night. I'm tired I'm going to bed it's been a long day. Just figured I'd let everyone know we made it to Ohio okay.

DamianWarS · 2025-12-07T21:49:00-0600

Xeno.of.athens said:
The Law, as revealed by God and fulfilled in Christ, serves as a moral compass and pedagogical guide for the Christian faithful. It includes the Mosaic Law, especially the Decalogue, and finds its perfection in the New Law of the Gospel. “The Law has become our tutor unto Christ” (Galatians 3:24), and its enduring moral precepts are reaffirmed by the Church as binding. The Catechism teaches that “the Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel” and “remains necessary for man” as it “denounces and discloses sin” (CCC §1963–1964).

The Ten Commandments, given to Moses on Sinai (Exodus 20:1–17), are “fundamentally immutable” and “engraved by God in the human heart” (CCC §2072). They express the natural law and are reaffirmed by Christ, who deepens their meaning in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5–7). The Commandments are not abolished but fulfilled in charity: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). They are the foundation of Christian moral life, guiding the faithful in their duties toward God and neighbour.

For the Christian in this world, the Law and Commandments are not burdens but paths to freedom and holiness. Grace enables their fulfilment, and the Spirit writes them anew on the heart (cf. Jeremiah 31:33; CCC §1965–1966). The faithful are called to interiorise the Law, living it not merely by external observance but through love: “Love is the fulfilment of the law” (Romans 13:10). Thus, the Commandments remain essential, not as relics of legalism, but as living expressions of divine wisdom and the way of life in Christ.

You’re merging multiple “laws” into one thing. Paul doesn’t treat “Law,” “Mosaic Law,” “Decalogue,” and “New Law” as interchangeable. He distinguishes between the law of works, the law of faith, the law of the Spirit, etc. Flattening them into a single category is a post-biblical move, not a textual one.

The idea that the Ten Commandments = natural law = permanently binding isn’t a biblical argument. Scripture never isolates the Decalogue as the “moral law” distinct from the rest of Torah. That’s a later Christian framework. James 2:10 actually warns against dividing the Law into keepable vs. non-keepable parts.

Galatians 3:24 is used selectively. Yes, the Law was a tutor. But Paul’s whole point is: "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the tutor" (v. 25). You can’t use v. 24 to argue ongoing obligation while ignoring v. 25.

Jeremiah 31 doesn’t say God will write the Ten Commandments on the heart. It says “My law,” and explicitly contrasts the New Covenant with the one made when Israel came out of Egypt i.e., Sinai. The New Covenant is not just Sinai internalized.

“If you love Me, keep My commandments” doesn’t refer to the Ten Commandments. In John’s Gospel, Jesus’ “commandments” are His own teachings, especially His new commandment to love as He loved (John 13:34-35), not Moses’ commands.

Paul repeatedly calls the Sinai covenant a ministry of death and slavery (2 Cor 3; Gal 4). So saying the Commandments are “paths to freedom” needs to reckon with Paul’s language. He explicitly locates Christian freedom in life by the Spirit, not adherence to written code (Rom 7–8; Gal 5).

Most of your argument depends on the Catechism, not Scripture. If the question is “What does the Bible say?”, the Catechism can't settle the issue by itself. The NT nowhere says the Decalogue survives as a uniquely binding law code for Christians while the rest of Moses doesn't. the OP may present a well-accepted Catholic interpretation, but biblically speaking, it assumes distinctions the text doesn’t make and ignores the parts of Paul that undermine the conclusion. The NT’s moral vision is grounded in the Spirit and the law of Christ, not a selective continuation of Sinai.

Christsfreeservant · 2025-12-07T21:45:31-0600

I got on YouTube today, and I clicked on a link to a particular church’s Sunday gathering, and I was immediately struck in my spirit by the shirt the pastor was wearing in front of his congregation. The shirt read: “The Boys Are Back in Town!” And underneath that was, “Merry Christmas!” And the caricature was of Jesus Christ and Santa Claus together on a sleigh riding through the air. Santa was in front, and Jesus Christ was pictured further back and partially behind him. Both were laughing. And the caricature of Jesus had his arms out at the side, and Santa’s arms were lifted upward.

And I was appalled! What blasphemy! It upset me to the core! How could a “man of God” who pastors a church congregation wear such a shirt? And then I recalled a writing the Lord had given me originally in 2018 titled “Christ’s Dismissal,” which I will share parts of here with some additional comments added. For it really helps to explain why I was so appalled at this pastor’s shirt he was wearing in front of his congregation as he prayed and as he preached his sermon to the people.

Christ’s Dismissal

Christmas, as it has come to be known, is largely considered to be a Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, God the Son. But there is another (false) god that is celebrated on Christmas Day, and his name is Santa. So, what does the word “Christmas” literally mean? Well, the first part of the word is Christ, meaning the Anointed One, meaning Jesus Christ, the Son of God (See: Isaiah 61:1-3; Luke 4:18-19).

But, what about the word “mas”? What does that mean? Well, it is generally held that the word “mas” means “dismissal.” Yet, whether you agree with that or not, it doesn’t really matter, for I believe we shall see here, by the evidence itself, that indeed that is what is intended.

Satan and His Angels

From what I have been taught, and from what I understand, Satan used to be an angel in heaven, but he wanted to be God, and so he rebelled against God along with about a third of the angels, and so God cast them down to the earth (Isaiah 14:12-14; Luke 10:18; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 9:1; Revelation 12:3-9).

“How you are fallen from heaven,

O Lucifer, son of the morning!

How you are cut down to the ground,

You who weakened the nations!

For you have said in your heart:

‘I will ascend into heaven,

I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;

I will also sit on the mount of the congregation

On the farthest sides of the north;

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,

I will be like the Most High.’” Isaiah 14:12-14

Now, let’s think about Santa Claus for a moment. Where does he live? The North Pole (“on the farthest sides of the north”). How does he deliver gifts to children all over the world in a single night? He rides on a reindeer-driven sleigh up in the sky, on the heights, or “above the heights of the clouds.” And on the pastor’s shirt today, Santa was pictured in a sleigh above the stars of God in a position next to, but in front of (superior to) Jesus Christ.

And what attributes is this false god Santa given? He is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, meaning he is present in all places at all times, he is all-knowing, all-seeing, and he is all-powerful. And what this means is that he has been given the attributes of Almighty God, because he, Santa (Satan), wants to be God. And the shirt pictured him in a position as though he is God, like God is Father, then Son, then Holy Spirit, in that order.

Don’t believe me? Well, Santa knows when every child across the world is sleeping and when they are awake. He knows when they have been good or bad, too. He is also able to be in multiple department stores all across the world, all at the same time, holding children on his lap, promising them presents they will most likely never receive. And he is able to magically deliver gifts to every child on the globe – that is the ones who have been good, so he says – and in a single night, too. So, he must be able to see all, know all, and be everywhere all at the same time, and be all-powerful, too.

The Christmas Deception

What is the central focus of the celebration of Christmas, in reality? Is it not the buying of gifts, many of which people do not need, and many of which those buying them cannot afford? And is it not about Christmas trees and decorations. And, then there is all the baking of cookies, and the shopping, and the Christmas cards, and the new clothes and shoes and hats, and all the parties and games, and for some, raunchy Christmas movies, too.

So, what does any of that have to do with Jesus? Well, they say that Jesus was given gifts when he was born and thus we give each other gifts when we celebrate his birthday. But does that even make sense? Some will say Jesus was our gift and thus we give each other gifts, but that doesn’t make sense, either. For the gift of Jesus is the gift of salvation from sin, so the gift we should give each other is the message of how we can all be forgiven our sins and be delivered from our bondage, and now walk in Christ’s holiness.

And, when we celebrate each other’s birthdays, who gets the gifts? The person with the birthday, right? So, if we are truly celebrating Jesus Christ, then should he not be the one to receive our gifts? And what gift does he want from us? He wants are all on the altar of sacrifice laid, living holy lives, pleasing to him, no longer conformed to the ways of this sinful world, but transformed in the renewing of our minds away from what is sinful to walking in Christ’s righteousness and holiness, in his power and strength.

Also, when we celebrate each other’s birthdays, does everyone in the room, besides the one with the birthday, all congregate together and give each other gifts, and then pass around pictures of what we looked like when we were helpless babies, while the one having the birthday gets ignored? But that is what people do, isn’t it, when they picture Jesus as a helpless baby in a manger, and they put a manger scene somewhere in their houses, and then they all gather together and give each other presents and play games and eat lots of food and watch movies, too? (If that is what you do.)

Ok, so let’s go back to Santa, for he plays a huge role in this deception, too. For, while Jesus Christ is pictured as a helpless baby in a manger doing nothing but just lying there, Santa comes on the scene in all his glory. And he promises to bring gifts to children and to ride through the sky on a sleigh and to deliver gifts across the globe on a single night. And he asks children across the world to write him letters (like prayers) requesting what they want from him. And, children, who have long awaited his return, are anxiously anticipating his soon arrival (like Jesus’ return one day).

So, who has the hearts of children on Christmas? Jesus Christ? Or Santa? And, who wanted to be God? And, who masquerades himself as an angel of light? Santa (Satan). And, what has the hearts of most adults during the Christmas holidays? Shopping, presents, parties, food, games, movies, etc.

Know the Truth

The whole point of Christmas, from the point of its creators, is to dismiss Jesus Christ in favor of Santa, a false god, who is truly Satan who wanted to be God. It is to dismiss Jesus Christ in favor of gifts, commercialism, greed, worldliness, and idolatry. Jesus is pictured as a helpless baby in a manger on purpose, while Santa, a false god, is given the attributes of Almighty God, and he steals the hearts of children away from God; away from Jesus Christ.

So, don’t listen to these thieves and robbers who want to pull us and our children away from pure devotion to Jesus Christ. Don’t give your hearts away to false gods and idolatry and commercialism and to ignoring Jesus.

If truly you want to celebrate Jesus Christ, then do it the way Jesus says. He says to remember him by remembering his blood that was shed on the cross for our sins, and by remembering his body which was given for us in his death so we can die to sin and live to righteousness. And this remembering of him is not a mere formality or a mere ritual we go through, either.

For, when we remember him and what he did for us, we examine our own hearts to make certain that we are worthy to partake in his blood and his body via confession of sin, in true repentance, and in committing our lives to our Lord and to his service. For, what he wants from us are not our festivals and our parties, which he largely hates, in reality. But what he wants is our all on the altar of sacrifice laid, our hearts, thus, under God’s control.

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 10:19-39; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22]

Oh, to be like Thee! blessèd Redeemer,
This is my constant longing and prayer;
Gladly I’ll forfeit all of earth’s treasures,
Jesus, Thy perfect likeness to wear.

Oh, to be like Thee! Oh, to be like Thee,
Blessèd Redeemer, pure as Thou art;
Come in Thy sweetness, come in Thy fullness;
Stamp Thine own image deep on my heart.

Lyrics by Thomas O. Chisholm, 1897
Music by W. J. Kirkpatrick, 1897

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

Jesus Christ and Santa Claus
An Original Work / December 7, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Owlette · 2025-12-07T21:40:28-0600

peaceful-forest said:
I have a Bachelor's degree too. I had thought about going to a technical college when I was in the college age, but I was discouraged by family members, claiming that it was not legit and wouldn't get me a job. Sometimes I wonder if they were wrong. Because how do other people get computer jobs? (I wanted to repair computers.)

I wonder if having a technical degree would've helped me. Because my Bachelor's degree sure didn't. Not to get off topic and rant, but I do blame my mom quite a bit on this issue.

Yes, somewhere along the line I was influenced to get a Bachelor’s too! It seemed like what I was supposed to do. I really didn’t know what I was doing. My mom actually influenced me to go back to tech school and get the degree I got, which made my whole career work out. I think Bachelor’s degrees must have seemed like the ultimate goal back then. Yet mine did nothing for me, it was a more generic degree. I wish I would have picked something more specific, like accounting or something. Or stuck with my original choice of music.

It’s really too bad how one person’s influence can really throw one’s life off course.

The Barbarian · 2025-12-07T21:39:33-0600

SkyWriting said:
The sun increases the rate of entropy.

Perhaps you don't know what "entropy" means. What do you think it means?

SkyWriting said:
Nothing becomes more
complex or increases in information due to the sun.

Plants, weather systems, river valleys, animal populations. Would you like to learn about specific examples?

keras · 2025-12-07T21:35:43-0600

CLEEB said:
From what I gather there are two Israel’s, one carnal, one spiritual. Ancient Israel is GODS elect under the law, the church is GODS election according to grace. Romans 11:5 Even though GOD divorced carnal Israel HE has not forgotten HIS promise to Abraham concerning them. The church did not replace carnal Israel because the olive trees roots predated both Israel and the law. The promises to the church are different than to carnal Israel. Just compare the blessings given to carnal Israel in Deuteronomy to those blessings given to the church which has better promises. Hebrews 8:6 Hebrews 7:22 2 Corinthians 3:6 The differences are obvious.

God has no future blessings or promises to the people who claim to be Israel. Jesus informs us who they belong to; Revelation 2:9b
All -Jew and Gentile become the Spiritual descendants of the Patriarchs, by accepting Jesus. Galatians 3:23-29

mourningdove~ · 2025-12-07T21:29:26-0600

(Yep, those were the days! )

peter2 · 2025-12-07T21:21:40-0600

The Liturgist said:
and we get something even better- salvation in Christ.

i agree, but i wouldn't find useless to assume Mary was supported (and may be supported the apostles) by her belief during the three days of death. As called Peter, i assume the apostle (Peter) must have felt sheepish of his denials before her, even after resurrection, at least up until Jesus gives him back the leadership over his shep, may be still when waiting for the Holy Spirit.
i wonder whether it's not in what preceeds that part of this motherhood of Mary Jesus gives to John (indirectly to Peter) consists

High Fidelity · 2025-12-07T21:16:44-0600

So it's been a few months now. What progress have you made? Have you found investors?

Chesterton · 2025-12-07T21:06:04-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
The right to be tried in front of a jury of our peers is supposed to be a benefit or "check" on institutional power and biases.

One of the many problems with multiculturalism is that finding peers becomes increasingly harder.

jonojim1337 · 2025-12-07T20:54:54-0600

prodromos said:
Meme responses show lack of ability to respond intelligently.

Lady Bug · 2025-12-07T20:46:40-0600

mourningdove~ said:
Between 75 and 80???? Holy mackerel!

This man is wanting a young woman to take care of him in his old age ... and you are qualfied! He saw what a great job of it you did for your parents.

Now, that's not to say that a man his age doesn't still have desires for 'closeness', but honestly ... he is old. And getting older every day. He is looking for a caregiver.

... lol lol! Oh no, I don't think you are looking for that job, are you? LOL

p.s.
Unlike you, I do not think he is stupid. He's pursuing a vulnerable woman (alone, grieving) who hasn't yet been able to say no to him. Some men take that to mean 'yes' ... that there's still hope. He is hoping to wear you down ... catch you in a weak moment ... so no, I don't see him as being stupid at all. You would be a great prize, if he could win you over.

I think your last paragraph nails it, lol. I can see so clearly now. I'm laughing even though it's not technically funny, lol.

samaus123456789 · 2025-12-07T20:40:52-0600

List the locations in Isaiah 11:11–12 “In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea.” (ESV / similar in most) Key places: Assyria Egypt (includes Pathros = Upper Egypt) Cush (Ethiopia / Sudan region) Elam (SW Iran) Shinar (Babylonia / Mesopotamia) Hamath (Northern Syria) Coastlands / Islands of the Sea (Mediterranean coastal & island regions)
List the locations in Acts 2:9–11 “Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians…” (Acts 2:9–11) Key places (grouped): East / Mesopotamia–Iran area Parthia Media Elam Mesopotamia Anatolia (Turkey) Cappadocia Pontus Asia Phrygia Pamphylia Levant / Judea Judea Africa Egypt Libya (Cyrene) Mediterranean islands & West Crete Rome South / East Arabia
Now map conceptual matches: Isaiah 11 ↔ Acts 2 It’s not a 1:1 name match, but a regional / typological match. Here’s the breakdown: 1) Elam Isaiah 11: explicitly Elam Acts 2: explicitly Elamites ✅ Exact same name, same region (SW Iran). 2) Shinar (Babylonia / Mesopotamia) Shinar in the OT = region of Babylonia / Mesopotamia (Gen 10:10; 11:2; Dan 1:2). Acts 2 mentions Mesopotamia. ✅ Shinar (Babylon) ≈ Mesopotamia (Greek term for same general area). 3) Assyria Isaiah 11: Assyria (upper Mesopotamia / N Syria–Iraq area). Acts 2 has Jews from Mesopotamia, Parthia, Media—all territories in or east of what was Assyria/Babylon/Persia. Not a literal “Assyria” label, but the same broader exile zone beyond the Euphrates. ✅ Regional continuity: exilic lands of Assyria/Babylon/Persia. 4) Egypt Isaiah 11: Egypt and Pathros (Upper Egypt). Acts 2: Egypt. ✅ Direct match: Jews from Egypt in both. 5) Cush Isaiah 11: Cush (south of Egypt, Nubia / Sudan / Ethiopia). Acts 2: Egypt and parts of Libya around Cyrene—so Jews from North Africa; also, in the broader NT we meet an Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), indicating a known Jewish/God-fearing presence in Cush-region. Not named directly in Acts 2, but: Cush = African belt south of Egypt Acts = African Jews from Egypt/Libya, plus Ethiopian believer shortly after This one is adjacent region, not exact name in Acts 2, but fits the African axis of the dispersion. 6) Hamath (Northern Syria) Isaiah 11: Hamath = city/region in Syria, to Israel’s north. Acts 2 doesn’t list Hamath by name, but Jews from Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia (Anatolia) and Arabia represent the northern/eastern surround of Judea. Again, more regional continuity than exact labeling. 7) Coastlands / Islands of the Sea Hebrew ’iyyim = coastlands / islands—usually: Mediterranean coast Maritime / island peoples Often extended symbolically to western lands Isaiah 11: “coastlands of the sea”. Acts 2: Rome (far western Mediterranean), Crete (Mediterranean island), and “visitors from Rome” clearly representing the “islands/coastlands” of the sea. ✅ Strong typological match: western maritime diaspora.
So is “matches exactly” literally true? Strictly, no: Isaiah doesn’t say “Parthia, Media, Cappadocia, Rome, Crete, Arabia”… Acts doesn’t explicitly say “Assyria, Shinar, Hamath, Cush”. But the pattern is the same: East / Mesopotamia–Persia (Assyria, Shinar, Elam) ↔ Parthia, Media, Elam, Mesopotamia South / Africa (Egypt, Cush) ↔ Egypt, Libya, Ethiopian contact North (Hamath, Syria-region) ↔ Anatolia & northern territories West / coastlands & islands ↔ Rome, Crete, other Mediterranean Jews present So a more accurate statement is: Isaiah 11:11–12 sketches the same geographic directions of the Jewish diaspora (east, west, north, south; Egypt, Mesopotamia, coastlands) that we then see specifically named in Acts 2:9–11. In other words: Isaiah gives the prophetic compass directions & key archetypal exile lands. Acts gives the actual list of provinces & cities in that same “world”. Your theological move—linking Isaiah 11’s remnant-return with the multinational Jewish crowd in Acts 2—is legit and well-grounded typologically, but it’s better phrased as echo / fulfillment / pattern, not “every individual name matches 1:1.”

It says God will reach out his hand a second time, and this was Pentecost. The first time was rescuing the Israelites from Egypt

Exodus 3:20

“I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt…”

Exodus 6:6

“I will redeem you with an outstretched arm…”

Exodus 7:5

“I will stretch out my hand on Egypt and bring out Israel…”

Isaiah 11 There will be a highway for the remnant of his people
that is left from Assyria,
as there was for Israel
when they came up from Egypt.

it is looking back when talking about the first time not a prophecy about it happening twice in the future.

It means around the time of Pentecost a bunch of rivers / bodies of water dried up so the remnant of Israelites from the 10 tribes exiled by the Assyrians 722 BC in Kings/Chronicles could come back to Jerusalem. The rivers drying up was not recorded.
They will swoop down on the slopes of Philistia to the west;
together they will plunder the people to the east.
They will subdue Edom and Moab,
and the Ammonites will be subject to them.

This seems to be about Maccabees as Israel fought against all of those nations in Maccabees except one, and Josephus mentions Israel fighting against that one in his writings.
The start of Isaiah 11 is about Jesus, and

The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together;
and a little child will lead them.

was fulfilled in the gospel of Pseudo Mathew which Jerome said was written by Mathew the apostle, and I believe that.

So all of Isaiah 11 is in the past, and none is in the future.

The Liturgist · 2025-12-07T20:36:21-0600

MarkRohfrietsch said:
I saw one based on the statement "Jesus flipped over the tables at the Temple" it provided a picture of our Lord summersaulting over tables.

That’s hilarious! I would actually like to see that. I wonder if some people interpret that verse, or if in the future if knowledge of Koine Greek becomes extinct, and English is the only surviving language, if our descendants will grow up assuming that in response to sacrilege, our Lord drove the money changers out of the temple by crushing them in a dance-off.

Richard T · 2025-12-07T20:28:52-0600

mindlight said:
The new American national security review suggests Europe needs strengthening. Is Europe facing civilizational erasure? Is American policy good for Europe or not?

The report points to various weaknesses and issues to work with:

1) A declining share of global GNP - 25 --> 14% since 1990
2) Problematic cultural and civilization erosion - activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.
3) Despite possessing a greater hard power than Russia in every category but nukes Europe lacks self- confidence.

The policy of the USA should therefore be:

Our broad policy for Europe should prioritize:
• Reestablishing conditions of stability within Europe and strategic stability with Russia;
• Enabling Europe to stand on its own feet and operate as a group of aligned sovereign nations, including by taking primary responsibility for its own defense, without being dominated by any adversarial power;
• Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations;
• Opening European markets to U.S. goods and services and ensuring fair treatment of U.S. workers and businesses;
• Building up the healthy nations of Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe through commercial ties, weapons sales, political collaboration, and cultural and educational exchanges;
• Ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance; and
• Encouraging Europe to take action to combat mercantilist overcapacity, technological theft, cyber espionage, and other hostile economic practices.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

Sounds sort of anti-federalist. If individual nations want to give up their sovereignty to a regional body the only reason to care is that as a group they are far more powerful. The USA 13 colonies did just that. But weakness 2 seems to contradict some of the broad policies that suggest working together. Wonder what "Cultivating resistance entails?"

Sounds like talk from S. Africa before they gave up apartheid. Does Trump really just want the EU to be whiter? I call this the last gasp of white hegemony. Lets all consolidate the whites for a longer lasting leadership?

Sif · 2025-12-07T20:26:30-0600

When I send/give out Christmas cards I use my own photos. I also tend to make sure the message is for the specific person. What I mean is to a Christian, I will make sure it says, "Merry Christmas". To a Jew I will have it say "Happy Hannukah". If the person celebrates some other holiday (Yule, Solstice, or Kwanzaa) I will have the card say that. I print my own.

Here are some of the images I've used:

Late Fall 2012 Never Summer Range 013.JPG

Late Fall 2012 Never Summer Range 010.JPG

Late Fall 2012 Never Summer Range 001.JPG

Mark Quayle · 2025-12-07T19:56:49-0600

Mark Quayle said:
Well, yes, I can, if 'free will' goes by the adjective, "uncaused". Nothing happens uncaused, except God. Everything that is —except God— is so because it was caused to become so.

SuperCow said:
I see an opinion. I do not see any proof. And there's two problems here. First is that just because God caused creation (and everything that goes along with it), that does not mean that he knows everything that will happen. It could mean that, but it could just as easily be that things were created and God let things happen and guided it along the way. Or technically it could even mean that he created things, didn't know what the result would be and changed things as they went. Or it could even mean that he caused the Big Bang, and went off to some other dimension when we didn't live up to our responsibilities.

I agree it is opinion, as is everything philosophy and science uses for proof. It assumes that God is the only uncaused thing. But if you can show me how there is anything else uncaused, be my guest.

Second, as a believer in Scripture, it is my assumption that Scripture is true. And as Scriptures present an omniscient God, then he knows everything. Likewise, good reasoning shows God as the uncaused causer, the 'first cause', and, as I assume, to say that there can be more than one first cause is to contradict the meaning of "first cause".

Mark Quayle said:
If freewill is uncaused, man does not have freewill.

SuperCow said:
This reasoning is entirely backwards. Freewill that is caused is not freewill, and to think that it is creates a paradox.

No. It is definition. There is nothing uncaused, except first cause. Therefore, if "freewill" is uncaused, there is no such thing in the created being. Your "paradox" assumes freewill is a valid concept. So, again, I say that if freewill is uncaused, man does not have it. Uncaused freewill is not a valid concept, except in God.

Mark Quayle said:
So you believe that God is not omniscient, if I follow your reasoning, here.

SuperCow said:
I believe "FutureAndAHope" provided a scripture that implies otherwise, and I provided two others. You have not provided any, from what I can see. All you have provided is opinions about what you think God should be to make sense to you, and what you need to do is provide a scriptural answer as to how an omniscient, omnipotent God can feel regrets in multiple scriptures in the Bible.

I'm sorry. I don't follow. "...implies otherwise."? You provided scripture that implies that you do NOT believe that God is not omniscient? Or are you saying that @FutureAndAHope (and you) provided scripture that demonstrates that God is not omniscient? If I remember @FutureAndAHope right, he would take issue with the notion that God is not omniscient.

As for what you ask me to do, (and I could make your point better than you do—God even 'repents of' what he did, and 'changes his mind' about what he was going to do, according to the translations. He also says that 'it never entered my mind that they should do that'.) Several logical rules apply to hermeneutics and produce good exegesis. To take verses out of context, for example, is not a good hermeneutic. And to assume that a modern day reading of the English is all that is necessary for understanding a statement in scripture, is not exegesis. All Scripture agrees with itself. Therefore, the 'whole counsel of God' is to be brought to bear when drawing meaning and doctrine from a verse. If the Bible says, "God is not a man....that he should change his mind." and in another place, "God changed his mind", there is

Mark Quayle said:
So that they are without excuse. And so that we would know that they had no excuse.

SuperCow said:
Again, this is entirely opposite reasoning to logic. If my actions are "caused", then my excuse is that God made me sin, as I had no choice.

On the contrary. If God caused that I sin, it is by use of my [willed] choices. We know that it is logically self-contradictory to say that God can sin, (because God does nothing against himself, and sin is against God.) Likewise, Scripture says that God tempts nobody. So sin comes, just as James says, from our lusts. Follow that line of causation all the way back. There is God. He does not tempt, and he does not sin. We do. Satan does. Our lusts do. And the whole of creation was caused by God to exist. You can't escape that, except by ignoring it, or by claiming that God is less than omnipotent.

Mark Quayle said:
If God is not omniscient, he is not God.

SuperCow said:
Nonsense. If aliens created us in a lab, they technically would be our creator. If they continued to control us by force, they would technically be our God (or gods). This would be true regardless of our ability to resist or their ultimate abilities as a species.

Yes, definitely "little 'g'" gods. As the story goes, the scientist argues that he can create life. All he needs, he says, is a spark of electricity and a bit of dirt. And God says, "Nope. Go get your own dirt!" Aliens can't create anything, technically. They would not be our creators; that is just a figure of speech. They are not first causers, and not omnipotent. Not God. I will accept nothing less than The Omnipotent as my God. If you want to discuss something or someone less than omnipotent as God, then we have no common frame of reference. If God created, he is the uncaused causer, and the only one.

Mark Quayle said:
Why do you think "choice" is synonymous with "free will"? I believe we have choice. In fact, we are commanded to choose, and we can't help but choose all day long. But that doesn't mean our choices are uncaused.

None of the Bible makes sense if choice is uncaused

SuperCow said:
That depends on what you call "free will". You could say that slaves do not have free will, but they can choose to defy their overlords and die. But what I am calling free will is the ability to make a choice. If my choice is caused by God, then as you say I have no free will, but that means I am nothing more than a biological robot who is just following its pre-programmed path, and so are the 8 billion other people alive today, along with however many billion who have lived in the past. We might as well all be part of a computer simulation in that case.

Logical rule of thumb:

My choices are caused : Any choice I think I have is an illusion, and I am an automaton.
My choices are my own : I can choose to serve God, or I can choose to reject him, but I might suffer consequences.
God is omniscient : God is all-knowing about the future, and so is unable to create anything that that has real choices, because his act of creating them automatically forces a path that he has pre-conceived. Therefore my choices are caused and I am a biological robot.
God is omnipotent : In this case it is impossible to also be omniscient, because God cannot create a creature with free choice, which then means there is something that is impossible for God to do. But then we already know God isn't omnipotent, because Hebrews 6:18 says "it is impossible for God to lie"

Please, for the sake of brevity, show that your axiomatic statements are actually valid. When I used as axiomatic, "Nothing happens uncaused, except God." I assume it is valid, but reason (and not just my own) validates it. If there is more than one uncaused causer, then neither are uncaused, but are subject to facts they did not make, such as the fact that there are two. It is self-contradictory, then, to say that there can be more than one uncaused causer.

If your existence is caused, your choices are caused. Your choices are your own, and are caused. You have a will. A robot does not. Your will is to do according to your inclinations. You will always choose to do what you most want to do at that instant of choosing. Why do you have that inclination? Why do you want to choose what you choose? These things don't happen in a vacuum. You could not have chosen anything if you had not woken up to see the options. What caused you to wake up? How do you have any thoughts? Are these things entirely spontaneous? No, they are causes of effects and they in turn are effects of earlier causes. Your options are not illusions, but it will only ever be possible to choose what you end up choosing. And you don't know which one that is until you choose. Can you demonstrate that all options on the table are possible to choose? It is human to see them that way, but in the end, only the one is ever chosen, as history consistently demonstrates. And the whole scenario is God's. It doesn't happen by itself, but is established by God, in whom we live and breath and have our existence.

You attempt to show a logical self-contradiction with your syllogism built on the premise "God cannot create a creature with free choice". The premise is faulty—the statement is bogus. It is not that God cannot do it, but that the whole notion is logically self-contradictory. Would you say that the statement, "God cannot create a rock too big for him to pick up." is a valid statement? It is utter foolishness. Why would God even consider such a thing? He would not. It is not even a thing, but oxymoronic self-contradiction.

Hebrews 6:18 (which, by the way, you took out of context) is talking about the fact that it is impossible that God would lie. It is a logical self-contradiction to suppose that God would lie. He is not a man, that he should lie. (Numbers 23:19 Just in case you decide to ignore my scriptural references because I didn't include the address and zip code.

DragonFox91 · 2025-12-07T19:50:15-0600

If you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall.
1 Corinthians 10
New RSV

Delvianna · 2025-12-07T19:44:04-0600

BobRyan said:
Try my "AI Friendly form"

==================================

Identify the largest Trinitarian Christian denominations that (1) explicitly state that Scripture is sufficient to test all doctrine, (2) possess a single global administrative authority, (3) maintain one unified set of binding official doctrines for all members, and (4) contain no autonomous subgroups within their membership

New chat, pasted your exact prompt

FaithT · 2025-12-07T19:34:34-0600

RileyG said:
I have a brother stuck in that lifestyle. It harmed him so much it breaks my heart.

I just read a book called The Dogs of Venice. I thought dogs and Italy, how could the story be bad? But it was another novel featuring a homosexual character which I didn’t know until I started reading. So many do these days. Paul was getting a divorce from his partner. I thought that based on the title, his orientation would play a minor part of the story, but it wasn’t. He picks up a male waiter or maybe the waiter picked him up and the book involved a non-graphic, but still disturbing, sex scene where the waiter quickly leaves afterward, telling Paul he’s going to see his girlfriend. It was a short book that not only ok’d that lifestyle but ended abruptly, leaving out very much of what could’ve been part of a story about a relationship between between a dog, his human friend, Italy and Europe in general. I’ve read a couple of other books by this author but forgot his name. They were about homosexuality, too, and at least one of the two others included another sex scene, albeit also pretty non-graphic. I was disappointed.

New Posts

New Posts

Exodus 3:20​

Exodus 6:6​

Exodus 7:5​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Exodus 3:20

Exodus 6:6

Exodus 7:5