Noctilucent clouds in the sky over Gale crater on Mars

heavenly body

concretecamper said:

We do not need to stand with Israel for the sake of it being Israel. IMO, Israel is a political construct, not a nation. The nation ceased close to 2,000 years ago.

Mat 27:25 And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and upon our children.

Click to expand...

Well that why it’s an op-ed piece. He believes it along with many evangelicals. Does not mean anyone else needs to believe it.

Aaron112 said:

The messenger of YHVH, the apostle paul, did.

Click to expand...

Did Apostle Pal kept every single commandment of God? No. Thus he was a sinner in need of a Saviour.

Have you learnt nothing from Paul's letters?

Romans 3
“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” - this includes Paul

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, - this includes Paul

Romans 7
9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

rachelrising said:

Me, I do believe in Christ's rest to eternal life to, but not that we will all get through.

This rest isn't just physical; it's an assurance found in Christ's completed work for salvation, allowing you to cease striving and find peace in His presence and provision. To enter this rest, you must have faith in God, surrender your anxieties, and cease your own self-justifying efforts."

In Revelations 2-Jesus said not everybody will make it through and there were some commited pastors who didn't who did great work so that go against those who we all get through if we believe.

Click to expand...

The first para says you believe faith alone is not enough.

The 2nd para says faith alone is enough

The 3rd para says faith alone is not enough.

You have to make up your mind what to believe in.

Dan Perez said:

And ROMANS 6:14. For sin will NOT //. OV. is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE. NEGATIVE , means SIN. will never rule OVER YOU. RULE

over you. are NOT //. OV is also a DISJUNCATIVE PARRICLE NEGATIVE as you are. not under THE LAW , but under GRACE !!

Click to expand...

Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of Moses, so it is always important to discern which law he was referring to. For example, in Romans 7-8, Paul said that the Law of God is good, that he wanted to do good, that he delighted in obeying it, and that he served it with his mind in contrast with the law of sin, which was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, which was waging war against the law of his mind, which he served with his flesh, which held him captive, and which the Law of the Spirit as free us from. The Law of God leads us to do what is godly, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) while the law of sin leads us in the opposite direction by stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5). So verses that refer something that would be absurd for Paul to delight in doing should not be interpreted as referring to the Law of God while verses that refer to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying the Law of God shouldbe interpreted as referring to the law of sin. For example, Paul described the law that we are not under in Romans 6:14 as being a law where sin had dominion over him and it would be absurd for Paul to delight in sin having dominion over him, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. In Roman 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is, so we are still under it. Moreover, everything else in Romans 6 speaks in favor of obedience to the Law of God and against sin.

Dan Perez said:

Also , read 2 Cor 3:13-16. a killer VERSE. !!

Click to expand...

The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if you think that Paul should be interpreted as promoting rebellion against what God has commanded, then you should be quicker to disregard everything that he said than to disregard anything that God has commanded. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying His law, so it is either incorrect to interpret Paul as doing that or he was a false prophet, but either way followers of Christ should be followers of his example of obedience to the Law of God. The reality is that Paul was a servant of God who therefore never promoted rebellion against what He has commanded.

Dan Perez said:

And do. you have a verse HOW anyone can be saved by the NEW COVENANT ??

dan p

Click to expand...

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith alone.

Rick and Morty

catlynne333 said:

Hi I am new here, I read and agree

Click to expand...

Ditto! Shalom y'all

My parish growing up had the resurrected Christ on the cross. The next town over had him crucified.

During Lent, he was always taken down.

You are welcome to pray for me if you feel inspired. I feel like I’m stuck in worldly matters, even though I would like to live a more spiritual, Christ-like life.

Here we see religion failing to properly serve politics like its supposed to now.

In cases like this, infringement is appropriate.

Clare73 said:

See post #90, address the Scriptures there.

Click to expand...

I already have, many times. There's nothing about imputed, at least as in personal righteousness not given; there's just righteousness-and unrighteousness- with concepts such as righteousness reckoned or charged, righteousness given, many made righteous...

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Rom 5:13-14, 17-19

Same with Phil 3:9, nothing about an imputed righteousness at all:
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith."

This is all about the gift of righteousness, as we become united with Him:

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people." Jer 31:33-34

"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom 3:21-22"

"And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us." Rom 5:5

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!" Rom 5:17

“The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom 5:20-21

"You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:18-22

"For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 8:3-4

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.” Rom 8:12-14

“The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” Gal 2:20-21

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Cor 5:21

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. John 15:5-6

Perpetual Student said:

Conservatives, climate change deniers and the fossil fuel industry.
Why? Some lie because they simply don't want to face their responsibility for messing up the planet, the fossil fuel industry lies to preserve their profit, others and some politicians lied because their state or constituency depends on coal mining.

Click to expand...

How many biologist and green jobs have been created out of thin air? And you want to point fingers at climate change deniers and the fossil fuel industry?

Trillions of dollars worth of federal tax money has been distributed all across the country for green energy.

Nancy who..??

CoreyD said:

Can I ask... Does a person that wants to take money from the bank illegally, want to break the law?
Do there do so willingly? Would you argue that they don't want to break the law?

Click to expand...

If you mean to describe the act of stealing from a bank, I will acknowledge the act denotes a person who wants money and is willing to break the law to get it. I would not think they want to break the law, but rather they wanted the money and breaking the law was a means to that end.

CoreyD said:

Thanks for clarifying.
If you agree that while not deceived, Adam ate of the fruit of the tree, which God commanded him not to eat.
Then you must also agree that Adam willfully disobeyed God.

Click to expand...

I can't agree because I don't actually know. There also could be a deficiency of experiential knowledge so that it allowed Adam to be persuaded or misled.

When we work off the premise that it's wrong to disobey God, it concludes with all certainty that Adam's choice/decision was wrong. So, since we're looking at two male and female images of God, without fault in a state of innocence; then as a matter of grace, it's safer for me to say that Adam didn't know what he was doing, than to say he did.

CoreyD said:

What you appear to be saying is that Adam did not want to disobey God, but willfully did.

Click to expand...

Not willfully as in an intention to cause harm. There could exist that deviation in your paraphrase.

Scripture denotes Adam was put in a situation where he had to choose who to believe, God or Eve. Whether he willfully disobeyed would be contingent on his motive at the time. If the woman ate first and she did not die, but rather had her eyes opened, she could have been persuading Adam through questioning his reasoning to trust God, while seeing her alive and possibly telling him her eyes were opened. I don't know. He may have been focused on questioning his self and he ate to see if he was wrong, rather than he ate because he distrusted God.

So, I typically express that I think he ate reluctantly as if he were unsure about himself. But I don't know, so I go with grace.

CoreyD said:

However, since Adam was not deceived, as the Bible says, then it's a contradiction to say Adam did not want to disobey God, since Adam's choice was made with the knowledge that what he was doing was wrong against God, and so he ate the fruit, knowing full well that this was the truth.
Hence Adam willfully chose to disobey God, following the course he wanted to take.

Click to expand...

I've said this and gave supporting evidence from scripture many times, that the scriptures do NOT denote that Adam was not deceived. You're referring to 1 Timothy 2:14 where Paul is expressing that Eve was the one deceived, not Adam. Of course, we know this would be true simply because the serpent is not depicted as speaking with Adam. Subsequently, we don't actually know if Adam would have fallen victim to the crafty and subtle beguiling of the serpent as Eve did. We only know he hearkened to the woman who was deceived which he most likely didn't know, which denotes that she talked with him, he listened, and he ended up eating.

CoreyD said:

Please see above.
Adam knew what he was doing. He was not deceived.
Please review the meaning of deceived if you are still uncertain.

Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing that Adam knew what God told him. I feel the need to say that just in case you may be equating --> Adam knew what he is doing --> with -->Adam knew God said not to eat --> therefore Adam was not deceived.
.

Like I have already said when we speculate that Adam knew what he was doing when disobeying God, it suggests he either wanted to die, or he was second guessing himself, or he may have misunderstood God, or Adam thought God was not truthful or something not yet thought of.

You're relying on a mischaracterization of Paul's intent in 1 Timothy 2:14 to claim Adam knew what he was doing. If that were the case, then Paul would be asserting a contradiction that the woman who had to be deceived into eating, should follow the man who willfully and knowingly rejected God as untrustworthy.

CoreyD said:

That is extreme speculation.
We do not want to add these to this discussion.

Click to expand...

It's not extreme. There are prominent theologians like Aquinas that have written about the possibility that Adam ate because he didn't want to live without Eve.

CoreyD said:

This too, is extreme speculation.
Please, let us not get into these unverifiable guesses.

Click to expand...

It isn't that extreme. By the way, WE are speculating precisely because we don't know. The syntax in Genesis 3 denotes God expressing that Adam hearkened to the woman and therefore the implicature limits the speculation to the exchange between Eve and Adam that was followed by Adam eating. We don't know what that exchange was, but God's judgment suggests that Adam would not have eaten if he had not listened to the woman.

The extreme speculation is actually the one alluding to Adam knowing that God was not being truthful. That claim is that Adam was not misled by believing the woman who was deceived, but that Adam knew exactly what he was doing when he disobeyed God and began to die. And subsequently, it is said that Adam is seen blaming Eve. As I see it, that's all a mischaracterization of the events because God Himself verifies both Adam's and Eve's account that she was beguiled, and in a state of being beguiled, and that she persuaded her husband into eating the fruit.

CoreyD said:

Again. We would agree you are speculating.
Did Adam know what he was doing?
A willful act refers to an intentional, conscious, and deliberate action carried out with the purpose of achieving a specific result. It is characterized by a voluntary and knowing decision to perform an act or omission that one is aware is prohibited by law or contrary to duty.
Sources 1 2

Deceived :
To be deceived means to be caused to believe something that is not true, often through deliberate misrepresentation, lies, or misleading actions. It involves being misled or tricked, either by someone else's deceitful behavior or by one's own failure to recognize the truth. This can include being misled about facts, being manipulated into a false belief
Sources 1 2 3 4 5

Click to expand...

I can agree we are speculating about what exactly happened when Adam was listening to Eve, and I can agree with the descriptions of the terms willful act and deceived.

CoreyD said:

According to the Bible, and secular sources, Adam was not deceived, but knew what he was doing.

Click to expand...

This is not accurate. If they mean Adam knew God is a liar, then I don't believe that. If they mean he knew that God commanded him not to eat, then I would not disagree.

CoreyD said:

Where did you read that in the Bible? Can we agree, nowhere?

Click to expand...

It's right here Genesis 3:17 -->And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

CoreyD said:

If it comes from in your head, it's an idea, and we are not considering ideas, are we.

Click to expand...

The syntactic markers of God's judgment in Genesis 3:17 show Adam believing Eve's persuasion over and against God's command. Hence it was a circumstance where Adam had to make a choice of who to believe.

CoreyD said:

Let the Bible have the say.
Adam was not forced, but yes, he had a choice, between whether he would obey God, or not.

Click to expand...

The unwanted circumstance implies an antecedent event he did not volunteer for. The phrase "listened to" in Genesis 3:17 denotes that Adam was persuaded by his wife and he ate.

Adam and Eve are shown to be believing God right up until the serpent enters the picture and the serpent is notably described as crafty and subtle. God Himself acknowledges the account that the serpent initiated the chain of events through introducing a lie presented to two male female images of God, both pure without fault in a state of innocence. The lie was slander against God, and it was delivered through subtlety.

CoreyD said:

Adam chose to eat of the fruit God specifically told him not to eat, according to the Genesis account. Thus Adam disobeyed God. Not because he was deceived. Genesis 3:6; Romans 5:18; 1 Timothy 2:14

Click to expand...

God specifically told Adam Not to eat. Obviously, when I say Adam was forced to choose who to believe, it acknowledges that. None of these scriptures say Adam willfully disobeyed God.

CoreyD said:

Pardon me?
Please explain how the fact that Adan did not eat the fruit, prior, impress on your mind that Adam did not deliberately or willingly eat the fruit.

Click to expand...

Simple, since Adam didn't eat of it before the incident with the serpent and Eve, it infers he was believing that God was protecting them from a fruit that would bring death to him and his wife. If he deliberately wanted to disobey God and eat, he would have already done so. It's like a judge will use one's record to show a pattern or an isolated incident.

CoreyD said:

Could Adam have obeyed God of his own accord?

Click to expand...

By "one's own accord" implies by "one's own initiative". The actual initiative is God's Love based command to obey. Human initiative is typically considered a responsive disposition, not the origin. I do know that Adam's disposition obeyed God right up until the incident with the serpent and Eve.

CoreyD said:

Please answer the question yes or no, if that is not difficult for you. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Then I will say no and the reason why is because there are scriptures that denote God had a plan from the beginning such as “The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. Such scriptures show God’s plan of salvation was set before Adam’s fall and subsequently they indicate Adam could not have altered the events.

Them Trump boys. Always up to no good...

Login to view embedded media

November 8, 2025

1 Peter 2:24 KJV
[24] who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

My Interpetation:
To be set free from checks and balances scales through Jesus Sacrifice on cross death 3rd day rise again from grave.

Provided - Hand of God Taking Authority over our words and minds speaking faith , living your life like God, Christians. Giving abilities to perform and performance.
Mark 1:15 KJV
'“The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” '

To believe I'm Jesus Christ to be the truth also healing God's spoken words

Interpetation Written and Spoken by Reginald Taylor Jr

bob121 said:

SabbathBlessings, grace and peace to you in Christ. Your comment has much 'worth'—your words are worth far more than fine gold, for they point us straight to God’s own (Ps 19:10). Thank you for this rich Sabbath thread from Genesis to the new earth. It stirs the heart to treasure the Lord’s Day as a holy convocation.

Click to expand...

I accidently deleted my original post, not sure how I did that, so I may be more brief on this one.

I appreciate the warm welcome, and agree we need to treasure the Lords day as a holy convocation, but we need to honor the one God said so, no? isn’t that the whole point? I would think it would be the only one God claimed in His own words as My holy day, the holy day of the Lord, meaning there’s just one Isa8:13 and told us to keep holy on a weekly basis Exo20:8-11 Lev 23:3, the only day God sanctified in the entire Bible, as far as I know man can’t sanctify a day or sanctify themselves Isa 66:17 only God can to do this and both of these are only linked to God’s Sabbath Eze20:12 Gen2:3 Exo20:11

bob121 said:

Your verses breathe the same fire that drives my original post: God calls His people to cease, to gather, to hear His voice together. I love how you trace the pattern through Jesus and the apostles.

Click to expand...

Yes the Scriptures and pattern through Jesus and apotles are very plain. I do not think its wise to take this clear pattern and change it to a different day it loses all its value because it becomes a man-made tradition over a commandment of God, coming with His power and sanctification. Something Paul warned about in the same passage you quoted Col2:8

bob121 said:

A gentle question to deepen the joy: When the shadow meets the Substance, does the day itself shift with Him?

Click to expand...

Can you tell me how our Creator and Sanctifier could ever be a shadow of anything? Is the Creator not the Subtance? Sorry this argument doesn't make sense.

bob121 said:

Christ rose on the first day (Matt 28,28:1),

Click to expand...

Yes, He did. He rested on the seventh day, rose and went back to His Fathers work on the first day. Can you point to the verse that says because He rose on the first day, we no longer need to keep the Sabbath commandment but keep Sunday instead?

His faithful disciples who followed Jesus everywhere kept the Sabbath after His death according to the commandment Luke23:56 they were the first ones to see Jesus after He rose, had there been a change to one of His commandments why would He not tell them or anyone. An argument from silence over the plain written and spoken Word of God does not seem like a good idea to me.

bob121 said:

the Spirit fell on a first-day feast (Lev 23:15–16; Acts 2)

Click to expand...

This was an annual feast and there is no Scripture that says Pentecost was on the first day, it could have fallen on any day.

bob121 said:

, and the church broke bread and collected offerings then (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2).

Click to expand...

They broke bread daily Acts 2:46 and 1Cor16:2 was not a church offering, it was a one time at home collection to help the needy. Neither of these verses say anything about transferring the 4th commandment to the first day. That would be something only God could do, He already promised in His word He would not Psa89:34 Mat5:18-19

bob121 said:

Colossians calls sabbaths “a shadow… but the substance is Christ” (Col 2:16–17).

Click to expand...

I know this is the go to verse everyone uses to get rid of the 4th commandment but with this serious of warning of Paul’s writing doesn’t it deserve more than just a surface read if we are going to use it against the Testimony of God. Exo 31:18

2 Peter 3: 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Lets bring in some more context

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Paul is speaking about something that was handwritten and was against and contrary to us.

The weekly Sabbath was written by the finger of God along with the other 9 commandments Deut4:13 Exo31:18 and God singled out the Sabbath in this unit as the one being holy and blessed by God and points to Him as our Creator. Exo20:11 And the God we are to worship in the very three commandments. What God blessed man can’t reverse Numbers 23:20 we would need a thus saith the Lord to get rid of the 4th commandment. God said He would not alter His words Psa89:34 not a jot or tittle Mat5:18-19. Would Paul really be teaching against God? I do not think so… this is what Paul was quoting

2 Cor 33:8 and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers—only if they are careful to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses.”

God wrote the Ten Commandments which included the Sabbath commandment, its under His mercy seat, was written by the Holy Spirit of Truth, man cannot edit this as there is no one greater than He. Moses hand wrote all the other laws that included the animal sacrifices, annual feast days, that some were also annual sabbaths that had to do with food and drink offerings the context of this passage and was placed besides the ark there as a witness against Deuteronomy 31:24-26 so clearly this is what Paul is quoting and the shadow he was pointing to Heb10:1-10 Heb9:10-15.

The weekly Sabbath started at Creation Exo20:11 when God made everything according to His perfect plan, before a need of a plan of salvation so its not a shadow of anything, it points to our Creator, Exo20:11 our Sanctifier Eze20:11 and the God we are to worship Rev 14:7

Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man Mark2:27- what God made for man is not against man, so this teaching that it’s about God’s Sabbath is really an attack on the character of God.

Jesus in His own words said the Sabbath would be kept up to His Second Coming Mat24:20 and for eternity Isa66:23 so obviously Col 2:16 cannot be about God’s holy Sabbath day. Again as we see in the life of the apostles keeping every Sabbath with both Jews and Gentiles just as Jesus said Isa56:6-7 decades after the Cross.

bob121 said:

So we still gather weekly—eagerly, as Heb 10:25 urges—but on the day resurrection broke the grave. What do you make of that first-day pattern?

Click to expand...

There is no first day pattern in all of Scripture. The apotles did things daily, doesn’t mean it starts deleting the commandments of God.

Please re-read the Biblical pattern with plain Scriptures provided to you in the post you are replying to. This is God’s will, not doing something different. Making a common day as a holy day never worked out before for anyone Eze22:26. I do not think it will again.

PS: Jason in Japan, I love Japan, only went there once, loved it, hope I can go back again once day soon.

Amo2 said:

Ethics in Internet

Quotes below from link above, emphasis in quotes is mine.



It is important to note that since the time of this Papal document, the Popes have had private meetings with the owners, heads, or CEO's of all the major social media platforms. Many of which we have all witnessed exercising a great deal of censorship on their platforms. These of course only represent the censorship the public at large has noticed and therefore brought forward to be addressed.

Here we have an address from the Vatican intending to define the parameters and or narratives of communication on the internet. Which it had apparently already addressed regarding the media, and has continued to address to date regarding social media as well. Basically a call to regulate that which it has considered to deregulated. These regulations should be implemented in line with the principles of what the Vatican describes as the common good. So, who determines or defines what the common good is? Adolf Hitler’s twenty fifth point of his 25 Points of the Nazi Party was - Common Good Before Individual Good. Adolf and the Nazi’s are pretty much gone for now, so whose common good are we talking about exactly? Obviously, we are talking about the common good as defined by the Vatican and Popes. Who is the Vatican to be calling for these regulations by nations on a global scale?

It most certainly is not the voice of the people of the various nations via the representatives they have elected to convey and implement their political desires. The Vatican stands among and as another international globalist institution of unelected officials, who wish to impose their politics upon the various nations of this world with or without the consent of the people of these nations. Just like all the other international globalist institutions of unelected officials, desiring to do the same. The Vatican itself has stated and supports the implementation of the rule of certain of these international globalist institutions over all nations. All of which is to specifically bypass the will of the peoples of nations in favor of the rule of unelected elitist international globalist officials in cahoots with each other. Of which the Vatican itself is a major if not the most significant players. Being herself a monarchal leftover from the dark or middle ages, this is the form of authoritative government she most fully supports and has most often supported throughout her lengthy history. To create such a system on a global scale, would be to recreate the conditions under which the Vatican ruled with the kings of this earth for over a thousand years. Just a global version of the dark ages with the Vatican and unelected officials of international organizations ruling together over all. Rather than the dark ages version of the Vatican and unelected kings, queens, and royalty ruling together predominantly over all European nations.

Authoritative government and censorship walk hand in hand. We have already and do continue to witness attempts by globalist and or left leaning entities to censor speech that does not support and or contradicts their narratives. The most recent and appalling examples being demonstrated during the Covid-19 plandemic. As we continue to examine the topic of censorship, I intend to reveal the direct connection between the so called common good, and the same. The following post will be an article from the days of Hitler himself addressing the dangers of a supposed common good. After which we will continue to address the present Papal document under examination, followed by many other Papal documents defining “The common good”, and its connection to authoritarian government and censorship.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously blaming the Roman Catholic Church for the censorship of certain left-leaning tech firms?

I would point out you have no evidence - not even circumstantial evidence, that the Roman church has conspired with these firms. The fact that the Pope has met with their leaders is immaterial - the Pope meets with a number of people, and different Popes have had different agendas. For example Pope Leo XIV is concerned about the dehumanizing uses of AI, as am I.

Obviously since chatGPT is about to allow users to generate erotica, which the RCC is opposed to, the Pope does not have much influence over the tech industry titans.

I really feel like this accusation, and your accusation of 120 million Roman Catholic caused fatalities in the Middle Ages, are off base in the extreme, and would like to know where you found them. Whoever is responsible for initially propagating these allegations should either bring forth real evidence or apologize to Roman Catholics everywhere, such as my pious Roman Catholic friends @chevyontheriver @Michie @Valletta @boughtwithaprice @RileyG and @Xeno.of.athens

Amo2 said:

We have direct testimony and teaching from our Lord Jesus Christ concerning the proper place of tradition in relation to the law and testimony of the word of God, that is to say holy scripture.

Mrk 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Tradition itself is subject to the law and testimony or word of God. Whatever traditions contradict the teachings of the law and testimony of holy scripture, are to be sacrificed by the believer, rather than the other way around.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Click to expand...

We know our Lord was speaking of the Pharisaical traditions, and not Holy Tradition, for this reason - St. Paul expressly enjoins us to follow Holy Tradition in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and in the original Greek through the use of a word that means “traditioned” in Galatians 1:8-9.

Thus the abuse of Mark 7 as a condemnation of the Apostolic Tradition is simply eisegesis. If one reads the New Testament as a coherent whole, it is clear it endorses tradition, which was acknowledged by the early Protestants such as Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, John Wesley and even John Calvin - who did not dispense with tradition but merely sought to use Scripture to evaluate the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church at that time.

It would probably have been better to evaluate the Roman Catholic Church relative to the Orthodox churches since everything Luther was bothered by was not an issue in the Orthodox church; indeed the first proper Protestant church, the Unitas Fratrum in Moravia, under St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, was an attempt to restore those things the Czechs and Slovaks had enjoyed under Orthodoxy - communion in both kinds and the use of a language (church Slavonic) which they could understand, even if that language was not the vernacular (for some Europeans likewise Latin was appropriate as a comprehensible liturgical language, particularly in Southern Europe, indeed Italians can understand some bits of Latin even today, particularly in Sardinia, and other Latin words such as Gratias are plainly translated into other languages such as Spanish, and indeed the Roman Church originally adopted Latin as a vernacular language, to be more accessible to the lower classes of Rome who could not speak Greek, not having access in their adolescence to a Rhaetor, the Roman equivalent of a private high school, which was out of budget for all except Patricians, Plebs of Equestrian stature and wealthy merchants such as Marcion, the heretical shipping magnate.

Hans Blaster said:

I do know that a lot of people are interested in it because they want to order people around like tough guys.

If there is an agency that has earned total and complete disrespect it is ICE/BCP and it didn't start this year.

Click to expand...

There are definitely people who have no business being in law enforcement but you are judging all of them by the actions of a few.
It's not about ordering people around