bling said:

OK Good, but is there a question?

Click to expand...

Just a praise!

Apple Sky said:

What & read more lies - Thank you, but no thanks.

Click to expand...

But you can’t prove that it is a lie. There is absolutely no evidence that it is a lie. Your conspiracy theory has crumbled. Your belief has been proven wrong. Why do you continue to hold on to a lie?

o_mlly said:

Do all atheists possess your supernatural mind reading skills? It seems so. It is their usual predicate to post their strawman arguments.

Click to expand...

That is how you present yourself. No mind reading is needed.

o_mlly said:

By my reckoning there are 2 atheistic types in these boards:

1) He who knows not,
and knows not that he knows not,
is a fool; shun him.

2) He who knows not,
and knows that he knows not,
is a student; Teach him.

You will know how I categorize you in the absence of any further replies to you.

Click to expand...

There are things I know and things I don't, but there are two relevant things that I do know...

You are the most arrogant poster I have encountered on this board, and I don't think it is even close.

There are many who claim absolute morality, but none have demonstrated it and merely claim it in reference to their god.

Shalom

The first Jesus March will take place here in Salzburg, Austria, on October 31st.

Can you please pray that God's will be done and that the Lord Jesus is glorified in Jesus' name?

We are also experiencing a lot of opposition. Can you please also pray that all evil is disempowered, disarmed, and exposed in Jesus' name?

Thank you for your prayers!

May the Lord bless you abundantly (Luke 6:38; Job 42:10) and bless Israel in Jesus' name. Amen!

Soli Deo Gloria

Its not just religion. It is the worldview of society. Well western societies that have been allowed to cultivate such ideas. A natural progression from modernisim and critical theories. We are either deep into a Postmodernist world or maybe even coming out. But what that will be who knows.

But definitely todays thinking is relative and plural. There are no objective truths or facts or canons of western knowledge. Knowledge is relative to culture and experiences. In fact experiences and narratives are the new truth and reality.

So this has spilt into the church. Which really is another way of saying the church has conformed to secular thinking. All is contextual and needs to be adjusted to todays thinking and modernised. Changed with the times.

In fact in some ways theres a general adversion to rules, laws, disicpline and punishment as they are cruel and harsh and Christ was soft and loving. A sort of watering down things so as to not come across unloving.

But this seems a general idea of how society softened. The cotton wooling of upbringing. As though feelings were the measure of right and wrong and not Gods unchanging law and truth.

That there are so many denominations who are increasingly becoming divided and even conflicted. But certainly not united in mind and spirit is another sign of how relativisim has blurred the lines of Gods word and truth.

Another sign is that even other religions are regarded as equal. Even promoted as an equal right by a growing number of churches. Like trying to build a DEI utopia on earth rather than Gods Kingdom.

It seems people generally hate there being a single truth or God.

But I think by the very nature of Gods truth in Christ that it cannot be sustained that there is so much ambiguity of faith. I think just like in the wider society where these divisions end up creating clear lines of either standing with the truth or with hate and evil. The nature of Gods truth is that it will divide people either for or against Christ. So people will have to choose whether they are for or against Christ.

Clare73 said:

Tell it to Paul in 2 Co 5:1-8.

Click to expand...

Spirit as Life Force: The Hebrew term rûach and the Greek equivalent pneuma mean “wind, breath.” But the emphasis is on the dynamic nature of the wind, its movement, and power. When applied to humans, it describes individuals who function as a dynamic life force in bodily form. The spirit is the breath of life that God breathed into Adam (Gen. 2:7), the life force that characterizes a person. It is God who gave it to us (Isa. 42:5), and it is He who takes it back (Eccl. 12:7; Ps. 104:29; Acts 7:59).

Nowhere in the Scripture is the spirit defined as a self-conscious entity that preexisted the body or continues after death.

Genesis 2:7 states that Adam was formed from “the dust of the ground,” and was lifeless until God breathed into his nostrils the “breath of life”—not an immortal soul. Without breath, human beings will die.

18I said to myself, “As for the sons of men, God tests them so that they may see for themselves that they are but beasts.” 19For the fates of both men and beasts are the same: As one dies, so dies the other—they all have the same breath. Man has no advantage over the animals, since everything is futile. 20All go to one place; all come from dust, and all return to dust.

Daniel 12:2
And many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to everlasting life, but others to shame and everlasting contempt.

The Bible does not explicitly state that humans possess an inherent "immortal soul," and verses like Ezekiel 18:4 state, "The soul who sins shall die". The concept of an immortal soul entered Christianity through Greek philosophy and isn't directly taught in the Hebrew texts where the word for soul (nephesh) means "living being". Instead, the Bible emphasizes God as the sole immortal being, with humans receiving immortality through faith in Jesus Christ and the promise of a resurrection.

Fraiser

Xeno.of.athens said:

do you believe that God cares about how you worship him? should you kneel when you pray, should you be standing when you pray? Should you receive Holy Communion Every time you gather should you be baptised once or more than once? is it OK to dance while you're in church? is it OK to speak in tongues even if you had no idea what those tongues might mean and you don't know what you're saying?

cheque out your answers to see if they fit with what the Bible has to say. The Old Testament has a few things to say about worship so does The New testament.

Or do you not really care very much about what the Bible has to say on worship and you just go along with whatever your denomination says is good?

Click to expand...

I believe the Lord permits various expressions to worship God in spirit and in truth ( John 4:24 etc.).If somehow a person does this in light of His commandments ( John 14:15-18 etc,) then I guess it must be right. How it all works, the Lord knows.

Personally, I worship within the liturgy and the Eucharist is given to the faithful. We should discern where necessary but realize expressions vary among Christians.

Scarpetta by Patricia Cornwell

Who remembers The Next Generation?

HENEX

Servus said:

Various news reports.

Click to expand...

News reports are legal rulings now?

Servus said:

Title 10 of the US Code.

Click to expand...

Quote it.

ETA: To clarify, the federal government only has authority over federal law. In order to justify federalizing the National Guard, the government must show that federal law is being willfully violated by the state. See, for example, Eisenhower federalizing the Guard to enforce the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court ruling on Brown v. Board of Education. That is a federal law (the Constitution), and the governor of Arkansas had directed the state's National Guard unit to support its violation, forcing the President to seize control.

Local police not doing their job to your satisfaction is not grounds for a federal response. It is not a national emergency, it is not a violation of federal law, it is not a rebellion or an insurrection. In cases where the feds intervene in local law enforcement matters without the state's request, there must be an explicit violation of federal law, as determined by the Courts.

Xerxes

Titus

Yuck

Shepards' pie?

Soup

Youtuber

BobRyan said:

Rev 13 has the dragon of Rev 12 already existing in Rev 13:1.
Rev 13 says the first beast arises out of the sea but does not say when it arises. Although the Rev 13 text says that the first beast did all of the 1260 years of damage already discussed in Rev 11 and again in Rev 12.

Rev 13 does not say that the first beast arises out of the sea after the first beast received at deadly wound. Rather it says that second beast arises after the first beast arose from the sea, received a deadly wound and did the 1260 years worth of damage.

Your statement that the first beast must joins in consolidation with 6 other heads (where each head is one of the 7 total heads in Dan 7), and the ten kingdoms of divided Rom unite, is also not in the text of Rev 13.

Click to expand...

Bob, so glad we are dialoging in a written format, because what you claim I said can be shown to be a
misunderstanding on your part. But first, you state, "Rev 13 says the first beast arises out of the sea but does not say when it arises. Although the Rev 13 text says that the first beast did all of the 1260 years of damage already discussed in Rev 11 and again in Rev 12".

Rev. 13:3, states in was after one of its heads which had, [past tense] a fatal wound was healed [past tense]. Quite clear.

And you are correct when you say, "Rev 13 does not say that the first beast arises out of the sea after the first beast received at deadly wound." Nor did I say that if that's what your implying. But rather the texts says this beast arises after one of its heads fatal wound has been healed. (past tense)


You go on to say, "Rather it says that second beast arises after the first beast arose from the sea, received a deadly wound and did the 1260 years worth of damage." Yes, the second beast coming up out of the earth vs. 11, will appear after the first beast, but you read vs. 3, which say, "One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had (past tense) a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed (past tense). You interpret as, "One of the heads of the beast will received a fatal wound which will be healed after it arises from the sea. That is a blatant distortion of the texts which a unbiased jury would agree.

And you last statement is a total distortion on anything I have ever said. You fail to grasp that the first beast when it appears on earth consist of the seven heads and ten horns. It is not some earlier beast that then gathers in the seven heads and ten horns. No! No1 No!.

Erie, Pennsylvania