jonojim1337 said:

Daniel 7 ESV

Click to expand...

What about Daniel 7?

jonojim1337 said:

Both, the beast and the false prophet. Arguably the false prophet is a teaching that causes the "worship" of the Beast, and it's principalities, rather than the Word of God.

Click to expand...

There is more than one beast in Revelation and Daniel. Which one are you referring to?

Hazelelponi said:

My thinking here is this.

Firstly, Butker was asked to give an honorary speech at a private Christian university, a university that espouses a faith quite similar or identical to Butker's himself.

It was on his own dime, in his own time. It was a speech given nearly a week prior to anyone in media even catching onto the fact he gave a speech anywhere at all about anything.

Whereas Kapernick did it at the start of the game literally on the time and the dime of the NFL.

As for me, I have no idea why anyone at all at the NFL would disavow what was said in a player's private time amongst their own faith community, but not disavow what is done on the field during a game when it expresses hatred for the very people that provided him the opportunities in life he was clearly blessed with.

And then, if the NFL is criticizing publicly what a player said in private amongst their own faith communities, why then aren't they publicly critical of the criminality found among their other players, since their private lives are open to public scrutiny by the NFL?

Oh that's right, it's just heterosexual white Christian men who are openly hated and harassed these days.

Maybe, just maybe, the NFL leadership could use some Christianity in their lives, and I don't know, just allow their players to have private lives without their input.

All my young life my dad worked for a Jewish man and his family. He never once felt the need to comment on the fact we had a different faith from him - and we were close.

Click to expand...

Yes. He is a conservative Catholic speaking at a private traditional Catholic university. He was invited to speak there. He was not at a public or even Protestant school where some would take umbrage to parts of his speech. I agree with what Whoopi Goldberg said on the view (and I don't watch the View) but I've read and heard what she said.
Also, last time I checked we still have the First Amendment and religious freedom in this country, and again he was speaking to fellow Catholics at a private University. He did not say that women MUST stay home, he simply said being a wife and mother is an important vocation along with fatherhood being an important vocation. I did not agree with anything he sai d(re:birth control) as a confessional Lutheran, but again, he wasn't speaking at a Lutheran college he was speaking to members of his own church. I'm concerned about the doxxing and calls for him being fired, the other side is acting like those they claim to be against. Speaking strictly for myself I was not offended when Kapernick,etc took a knee, and I agree with the other poster- I wish national anthems weren't played in professional sports sometimes. But Kapernick was in a diverse public event, Butker was not.

Does Oscar need treatment soon?

TREAT

Raisi was returning from the inauguration of a joint dam project with Azerbaijan when his helicopter made a “hard landing,” state media reported. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said on social media that he was troubled by news of the “crash-landing,” and he offered his country’s assistance.

Heavy fog has made air rescue efforts impossible, Babak Yektaparast, spokesperson for Iran’s emergency services, told state media.

The Tasnim news agency initially reported that “a number of people with the president have managed to make telephone calls and this has raised hope that this accident may not have any casualties,” in the immediate aftermath of the incident, but it provided no further details.

“We have been in communication with the president’s companions, but due to the complexity of the area, communication is somewhat challenging,” Interior Minister Ahmad Vahidi said in a statement carried on state television. “We are awaiting the arrival of rescue teams at the scene of the incident and the helicopter’s landing site to provide us with information.”

BobRyan said:

an example is in Matt 16 -- Jesus said "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees"
And what He meant was "beware of the TEACHING of the pharisees" -- but the disciples thought He meant that they should not BUY BREAD from Pharisees.

Matt 16:
5 Now when His disciples had come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”

7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”

8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

By contrast in John 10 -- Jesus said "I am the DOOR" - yet no disciple thought he was a wooden door - nor does anyone know of a much-supposed-Christian literalist saying Jesus was a wooden door in John 10.

Clearly we need to dig a bit deeper to get to the bottom of this discussion.

Indeed - but usually that is not what we are talking about in the case of the Bible and interpreting it.


Agreed but as in the case of Matt 16 above we do see cases where Christ's own disciples took Him too literally

Click to expand...

You are correct. I agree this needs looking at more closely, and digging deeper.
Do you have any suggestions on how we can do that?
I created a thread here, to look specifically at all the literal accounts which persons take as figurative, and I also plan on looking at those that people take literally, although they are clearly figurative.

Valletta said:

My response was intended to point out that Congress has oversight power of the Executive branch (implicit in the Constitution) while the Executive branch has not been found by the Supreme Court to have oversight over the Congress. The comment led me to believe this was not understood.
Obviously we know about the intent of three branches of government that are separate and equal. In this particular case the "best evidence" is the actual recording. Since a transcript has already been released without claiming executive privilege it seems next to impossible to claim the recording cannot be released under executive privilege. It would be the same for texts of Congressional hearings, a video would be better, I have seen sentences of testimony missing from text that are present in a CSPAN recording.

Click to expand...

There are limits to each of the three branches. The recording may have information that should not be released to the public.

And there is the expectation that Comer and friends will manipulate the the recordings to present it falsely - like they have done with other documentation that they got. They have people who act the fool like Greene.

The Gospel is you were dead in sin & have been reconciled to the Father thru Christ for all eternity & so you can trust him.

It is not material blessing or politics (he wants us to be Democrats or he wants us to be Republicans), true.

ARBITER01 said:

If you are not doing HIs will, then you're doing your own.

Click to expand...

John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me".

Notice how there is a CHOICE between our will and doing the Will of our Heavenly Father?

Deuteronomy 30:19 "This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live"

The promises of God are amazing. Even we can choose health or sickness. In 1 Samuel 2:12 "12Now the sons of Eli were wicked men; they had no regard for the LORD" Why are they called evil, wicked, vile, useless? Because they ate the fat. "15Even before the fat was burned,"

The US Government health guide is 30 grams of fat a day. A cheeseburger with fries at McDonalds has 51 grams of fat. Coronary artery disease (CAD) kills more than 600,000 Americans annually, and more than 17 million people worldwide.

I had a friend tell me McDonalds is ok, he would eat breakfast there all the time. He died from a heart attack. I was surprised because he had a garden and I thought he liked to eat healthy. I guess he liked meat also.

How do we wrap our brain around the fact that 17 million people a year died from eating a high fat diet?

The world assumes we should accept oppression as its governance. God says the opposite.
The ultimate form is now coming into play across the world as people are increasingly being monitored and punished for speaking out against a controlled narrative, most recently with a law passed in Canada of all places. Of course it is for our own protection LOL Little despots like our current PM are feeling quite smug about this new power, one which could eventually put an end to free elections as opposition to globalist power would be seen as illegal.

DragonFox91 said:

"I have come not to bring peace but a sword"

Unity in sin is wrong. All love & no discipline is wrong.

Sin isn't political until it is, then it's made mainstream.

So we need groups to stand up against sin.

Yes many of us have put politics before God. Many of us think Jesus would be a Democrat or a Republican. Reality: salvation is in him alone.

Click to expand...

Division is sin. Of course we obey God but that means putting away things that divide us.

Was Noah and the flood a literal historical account, or an allegorical story?
Genesis 5:28-32; Genesis 11:10; 1 Chronicles 1:1-5; Isaiah 54:8, 9; Ezekiel 14:14; Ezekiel 14:19, 20; Matthew 24:36-39; Luke 3:23-38; Luke 17:26-30; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:18-20; 2 Peter 2:5

God himself; Jesus Christ the son of God; three Prophets of God; four disciples of Christ, all refered to the person and genealogy of Noah, and the flood account as historically real - not allegorical.

The apostle Peter said:

For if God did not spare the angels having sinned, but having cast them down to Tartarus, in chains of gloomy darkness, delivered them, being kept for judgment;
and He did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, one of eight, having brought the flood upon the world of the ungodly

Click to expand...

2 Peter 2:4, 5

God said:

In a surge of anger I hid My face from you for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have compassion on you,” says the LORD your Redeemer. “For to Me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So I have sworn that I will not be angry with you or rebuke you.“

Click to expand...

Isaiah 54:8, 9

If any of us insist that Noah and the flood are allegorical, we are contradicting God and his word - making the word of God invalid by our own doctrine.
Is contradicting God a righteous thing to do?
Romans 3:4

...let God be true, and every man a liar, as it has been written: "That You may be justified in Your words, and will prevail in Your being judged."

Click to expand...

Deborah~ said:

That is the very purpose of Christian fellowship, that we might help one another, comfort one another, pray for one another, cheer and support one another. Life, and its joys, and especially its burdens, are meant to be shared.

Click to expand...

Many find that here.

Conviction drove this post. This is in Soteriology because the doctrine of Election is composed within four books specifically titled "Institutes of Christian Religion". This is no small title. This is in Soteriology Debate, because it is a "Biased" opinion of evaluation of another human beings Extra Canonical writings about their "Biased Opinions" that now motivates and is embraced by some 80 million believers worldwide. "The World Communion of Reformed Churches, which includes some United Churches, has 80 million believers. WCRC is the third largest Christian communion in the world, after the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches."

People that adopt this belief system are not wicked people. They are to be Loved as All Creation that Jesus Bled for. These people that adhere to these ideas are merely under the conviction, that they are true. They need Love and Gentleness by the Body, in response to their very specific belief that they are Proselytizing the Gospel, as they insist that all of Christendom embrace the tenants of Jehan's writings. I dare not even suggest that Jehan, himself was a bad person, but simply that God is his judge, and no other... as it is so, with all of us.

I, in no way, desire to question the authenticity of the Believer's Belief in Jesus, that adhere to these precepts. This is not an indictment of them. This is a specific evaluation of the Author's exact words that establish these precepts.

Institutes: a commentary, treatise, or summary of principles, especially concerning law.
of Christian: Towards ALL of Christendom, that was first named in Acts 11:26
Religion: a particular system of faith and worship.

The very Title of Jehan's writings implies that these four volumes of Jehan's are;
The Principles of Law towards all of Christendom that define it's TRUE system of Faith and Worship.

After reading the first 2 books of Jehan's theological opinions, a reader will eventually arrive at book 3 of Jehan's Institutes. It is at Chapter II, section 11 and 12 that peculiar writing can be found. This is where Jehan attempts to explain how even the Reprobate is reaching out to Jesus, and spoken to, by the Holy Spirit, yet still Reprobated by God's Pre-Creation very design. This passage is a direct result of all scripture that refutes Jehan's writings, thus it is one of his most important writings, in efforts to defend his prolific writings about his presentation of the Gospel, using all books of scripture, that takes over 455,500 words across 1,822 pages.

I have taken the time to exegete this writing per scripture and knowledge of how human PROPHETS (Those that proport to clarify scripture for others) reinforce their projected systems of scriptural understanding.

“FAITH” EVEN AMONG THE REPROBATE? I know that to attribute faith to the reprobate seems hard to some, when Paul declares it the result of election

Click to expand...

This is Calvin about to address why some Reprobates appear to have a semblance of “Faith”

Yet this difficulty is easily solved. For though only those predestined to salvation receive the light of faith and truly feel the power of the gospel, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected by almost the same feeling as the elect, so that even in their own judgment they do not in any way differ from the elect

Click to expand...

This is Calvin saying that Reprobates are “almost” in touch with God, but God doesn't desire them. He goes on to say that they “feel” almost as “The Elect” feel.

Therefore it is not at all absurd that the apostle should attribute to them a taste of the heavenly gifts and Christ, faith for a time; not because they firmly grasp the force of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith, but because the Lord, to render them more convicted and inexcusable, steals into their minds to the extent that his goodness may be tasted without the Spirit of adoption.

Click to expand...

This is Calvin saying that God Himself allows the “Rejected Creation” to sometimes have Faith, but because this creation is destined by design for damnation, He makes them feel saved, and “understand” His “Goodness”, but God, refuses to give this person reaching for Him, his Holy Spirit. God is essentially “Tricking” the reprobate, into thinking that they are saved.

Suppose someone objects that then nothing more remains to believers to assure themselves of their adoption. I reply: although there is a great likeness and affinity between God’s elect and those who are given a transitory faith, yet only in the elect does that confidence flourish which Paul extols, that they loudly proclaim Abba, Father

Click to expand...

This is Calvin interweaving his belief system into the very place that the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ stands within a human heart. He is setting up to suggest that a believer that doesn't adopt his exact precepts of written statement, that the person is not saved. He demands that any “Believer” that does not follow his theological theorem, is only a “likeness” of the elect, but not a genuine believer.

Therefore, as God regenerates only the elect with incorruptible seed forever so that the seed of life sown in their hearts may never perish, thus he firmly seals the gift of his adoption in them that it may be steady and sure. But this does not at all hinder that lower working of the Spirit from taking its course even in the reprobate.

Click to expand...

Here, Calvin is now saying that Repentance has no place in the believers life, because the Holy Spirit will be incorruptibly sown within his “PRE SELECTED” people, due to their ELECTION, ALONE. This also means, that God sows INTENTIONALLY “Corruptible” seed, in place of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, into the Reprobate, to trick them into believing that they are saved. Calvin then calls this “Corruptible seed"... “The lower working of the Holy Spirit, within the Reprobate”

Now, what we have here is Calvin saying that GOD HIMSELF IS INTENTIONALLY BLINDING THE LOST FROM THE SAVING GLORY OF JESUS CHRIST. This is now calling God, “Satan”, per scripture. It is even more so directly confining these acts of The Holy Spirit to a concept of "Lower Workings".

In the meantime, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest the confidence of the flesh creep in and replace assurance of faith. Besides this, the reprobate never receive anything but a confused awareness of grace, so that they grasp a shadow rather than the firm body of it.

Click to expand...

This is saying that God authors CONFUSION within the Reprobate, specifically for the purpose of grasping at a shadow of Grace, rather than it's actual constitute, again demanding that it is God that Blinds men to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Calvin has actually, now Blasphemed the Holy Spirit of God, in these words and associated chicanery with the Abba of all Creation.

For the Spirit, strictly speaking, seals forgiveness of sins in the elect alone, so that they apply it by special faith to their own use. Yet the reprobate are justly said to believe that God is merciful toward them, for they receive the gift of reconciliation, although confusedly and not distinctly enough.

Click to expand...

Calvin, here, is associating “KNOWLEDGE” with SALVATION, and in this, he is implying that the words he is writing within these volumes, is that Knowledge. Calvin is not only exalting Gnosticism in this passage, but it is the very Gnosis, that “HE” is imparting, in place of the Holy Spirit, with Calvin now sub-textually insinuating that his very understanding IS THE HOLY SPIRIT. He is passively implying that Christians that don't believe in his system of salvation are missing the Sealing of the Holy Spirit and the necessary Gnosis to have genuine RECONCILIATION with God.

Not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God, but because they seem, under a cloak of hypocrisy, to have a beginning of faith in common with the latter. And I do not deny that God illumines their minds enough for them to recognize his grace; but he so distinguishes that awareness from the exclusive testimony he gives to his elect that they do not attain the full effect and fruition thereof.

Click to expand...

God, by Calvin, working within men, via the Holy Spirit, is now saying that God within the Reprobate, Partially ILLUMINATES the Reprobate with his Grace, but because the Reprobate is pre-selected to be Damned, the Rep is only given Partial testimony of salvation, on purpose by God, so that the Reprobate is not saved.

This is where that other half of the “ILLUMINATION” becomes important. This means that Darkness is cast into the mind of a Reprobate, by God, through the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, for the purpose of Damning a soul. Calvin is now saying that God, through His Holy Spirit is intentionally blinding a Reprobate Believer from the Gospel, and thus has the Holy Spirit actively deceiving a believer. This is actually worse than saying that Jesus is casting out Demons by the power of Demons. This is literally saying that to uphold God's predestined Decree of lottery based selection unto Damnation of a Reprobate, that The Holy Spirit is not only hiding Salvic Grace and Faith from a person reaching out to Jesus, but that The Holy Spirit is actively BLINDING A SOUL to the Gospel of God. This tramples the very blood of Jesus Christ and mutilates the Person of the Godhead we know as The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Olive Oil that Revelation speaks of. The Wine is the Blood of Jesus Christ that Revelation speaks of. These are demanded to not be harmed, within apocalyptic warning!

He does not show himself merciful to them, to the extent of truly snatching them from death and receiving them into his keeping, but only manifests to them his mercy for the time being.

Click to expand...

This is Calvin doubling, tripling and quadrupling down that God refuses to save the Reprobate, even if they reach out to Him. This is Calvin saying that God only shows his MERCY to the reprobate for the purpose of deceiving the Reprobate into “Believing” they are saved, but unknowingly being withheld Salvic KNOWLEDGE (Gnosis) by God Himself, to whom they are reaching towards.

Only his elect does he account worthy of receiving the living root of faith so that they may endure to the end. Thus is that objection answered: if God truly shows his grace, this fact is forever established. For nothing prevents God from illumining some with a momentary awareness of his grace, which afterward vanishes.

Click to expand...

Here, Calvin binds his writings and perception of the Gospel through the two preceding volumes to this THIRD volume that we find this writing and then saying in a very sub-textual manner, that God only reveals CALVIN'S understanding of God to the ELECT (Saved).

The questions that this very section of Calvin's institutes would make a person who adopts them think, would be along the lines of; “Am I reprobate?”, “How do I know for sure that I'm not one of those that God would only, purposely, partially reveal Himself to?”, “How do I plug in to God's Salvation and KNOW that I am Elect?”.

I removed Calvin's use of scripture from these writings, because they were abysmally written in a distinctly eisegetic way! These writings are online, and anyone is welcome to reassemble the scriptural quotations that Calvin believed bolstered his writings. In my opinion, They were consistently employing abrogation of contextual meaning. The only answer to those above questions that a person who has waded through 2 proceeding, monstrous in size writings of Calvin, by this point, would be to reconcile that ONLY CALVIN'S Gospel interpretation is correct and ANYONE who denies it, is a reprobate. The answer to the questions that Calvin subliminally imparts to the readers of this passage can only be stringent adoption of Calvin's writings, with a conviction to hold on to them as their very seal of salvation.

Why Did the US Spend $320 Million on a Rube Goldberg Pier For Gaza?

For some relief and a future beachhead.

Ophiolite said:

And yes, the capricious and exploitative consumption of substantive quantities of di-hydrous oxide with non-linear bond angle goes on unabated.

Click to expand...

Even more immediately, they still continue to consume the chemical diatomic oxygen with its linear molecular form.

Postvieww said:

I am comfortable with my assessment of the situation here. Sometimes those that think the liberal way is the superior way are just a little blind themselves.

Click to expand...

Which is a strange comment to put forth to me given I am conservative

iluvatar5150 said:

No, he’s an old school California liberal who’s also pretty dumb and very contrarian. He strikes me as the sort of guy who saw a bunch of the problems on the left and abandoned them, but wasn’t smart enough to realize that everything was worse on the right.

Click to expand...

Well... While I don't care a lot for Dore (he cusses so I don't watch him much) let's not call him dumb for supporting Trump. It's quite unnecessary.

We can disagree with other's choice in political candidate without resorting to personal insult.

I am myself a right-winger..

"You are giving and forgiving"

That's beautiful, I love that

It's really nice that your poetry seems to be almost just from the Word of God, that's good. It puts a lot of Scriptural ideas together for the reader and it's really good for the reader. Thank you for your work and encouragement.

HopeSings said:

Two spirits in love are one
I long to be my father's son

Lord, help me be like you
Let my heart be pure and true

Let the meditation of my heart be pleasing
And the words from my mouth forever praising

Turn my eyes from worthless things
Open my mouth as my heart sings

To be his son, one day I will know
O my heart, how i love him so

Click to expand...

"Two spirits in love are one"

That's so precious and beautiful

That'd be more a reason to not join!

RocksInMyHead said:

Last I checked, the burden of proof was on the party claiming that something untoward has happened. That's how our legal system operates - innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. These weren't criminal trials, so there's no guilt or innocence to find, but the principle remains the same. If you allege election fraud, it's up to you to show that it happened, not for the other party to show that it did not occur. After all, you can't prove a negative.

So you'll need to tell me in which evidentiary hearing it was proven that substantive election fraud took place (there are a few cases of minor fraud from the 2020 election - most of which were perpetrated by Republicans, ironically - but nothing systemic, or that would have affected the outcome of any races).

Click to expand...

That was my claim - there were no evidentiary hearings.

Can we really believe anything he promises?