jas3 said:

That's a non sequitur - Peter is saying that the water of the Flood is symbolic of baptism. He says nothing about water baptism itself being symbolic of anything.

Click to expand...

Peter did compare baptism to persons being saved through the waters of the flood. Thus showing that water baptism likewise saves. How? Not by washing away dirt from our skin, but by making a pledge to God, for a clean conscience.
In other words, water baptism indicates that you have pledge allegiance to God.
So water baptism makes public that one has dedicated their life to God, and no longer belong to themselves.

Is that how you see it Jas?

Grip Docility said:

Thank you, Mark! I have noted all throughout the NT, that Jesus' words to the Pharisees seem to be a severe attempt at warning all of us. Just as Jesus gave us the very Perfect Image of God, He went out of His way to give us a picture of what "Damned" will look like. There was no other verse that really doubled down on the OP point, more so than the Revelation verse. I have noted time and time again that all usage of "Condemnation Scripture" in the NT, anchors to Matthew 23. I think people forget that when each word of the NT was being penned, that those that claimed to be Holy, were actually perpetually trying to Kill the NT authors. Paul even speaks of this quite frequently!

I wanted to ensure that I didn't just throw those specific identifications out in a way that "puritan culture" could misinterpret. It's kind of like when scripture speaks about "sexual immorality" in a carnal way, via NT authors. Modern day "purity" culture has no idea what that meant! The Greco Romans that Paul was pointing that towards were a different animal, as they integrated into the church. Western culture has watered down the reach of Christ's blood, in my opinion. I always feel obligated to ensure that people reading Condemnation scripture realize that the question of "Am I Saved" due to fears of being Imperfect before God, thanks to the harshness of puritan culture, can take a breath and realize that it's not as it seems, by many current teachings.

Click to expand...

I'm curious what you mean by "puritan culture", here. You use it twice, once in quotes, as though you are not referring to the Puritans, but to supposed purity or a 'puritanical' caricature, which you seem to affirm by referring to "modern day 'purity' culture", but then you refer to "Western culture". I'm not sure what you are referring to.

But I am sure you are right that righteousness is not quite what is commonly focused on. God's view of sin make ours silly both in scope and horror —not just in quality but in meaning. The antithesis of being one with Christ, and of being In Christ, is lost in modern notions of sin.

The Barbarian said:

There is no scientific theory of abortion rights. How silly.

Click to expand...

Seems a bit obvious, especially since any discussion of what is an isn't a "right" is outside the scope of science. Unfortunately, popular imagination seems to think "science" is a far broader field than it is rather than recognizing that it is all about limiting the scope of research to the testable.

Fervent said:

I'm not sure this is something particular about Americans. There are numerous sub-cultures within America that tend to respond to different approaches, and I don't think anyone likes having people use manipulative sales tactics on them and treat them like some kind of object to win. Which is where my issue with street evangelism is, rather than with street evangelism done right. Too often out of supposed concern for the lost important ethical considerations like the golden rule get lost and people become a "mission field" rather than being treated as individuals with their own value. So while I agree that there needs to be more encouragement about sharing the gospel, and more willingness to engage, the typical street evangelist model is often seriously wanting.

Click to expand...

Many of us my be uncomfortable with "street evangelism" but it is a complicated issue

There is an Indian guy at my church (EFCA) who is very committed to the faith. He was thrown out of an Indian festival in my city for passing out copies of the Gospel and spreading Christian messages to Hindus and Muslims. He wasn't aggressive about this, and he didn't get out-of-line, but the organizers didn't want him there.

He showed up the next day and tried to get back in. And then the day after that. Someone let him in, and he continued with his efforts.

How many of us are willing to go to those lengths to spread the good news? I certainly wasn't

This guy comes from a Hindu family and is absolutely convinced of Christ's message--so much so, that he is willing to go against his culture, his people, and even his community, to spread the Gospel

That takes guts and commitment

and we wouldn't have a faith or a church if it weren't for people like this guy.

so let's go easy on those public preachers and evangelicals

The Barbarian said:

As you probably know, Darwin wrote that even letting weaker people die amounted to an "overwhelming evil." (The Descent of Man) And later Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that eugenics was scientifically wrong, as well as being evil. Removing harmful recessives would require many generations of very strong controls on marriage.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware of Darwin's opinion on the matter.

The Barbarian said:

It was never a theory, but a social campaign posing as science. Remember, a theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly verified by evidence. Nothing of the kind happened with eugenics. Moreover, many eugenicists were opposed to even forcible sterilization. Dr. William Tinkle, a founder of the Institute for Creation Research, was typical in suggesting that sterilization of people he assumed to be "inferior" should be voluntary, although he thought such people should not be allowed to marry.

Click to expand...

This feels like you're splitting hairs, since it was accepted as a science alongside other similar "sciences" such as phrenology. So while it may be a discredited science, it at one time enjoyed scientific approval to a certain degree.

The Barbarian said:

By the time the Nazis picked up the idea, the entire subject had been debunked by science.

Click to expand...

The issue there is, once something has entered the public imagination as a "science" it takes on a certain authority. So while the nazi campaign relying on it may have been discredited within the scientific literature, that hadn't become a widespread understanding until much later. It still enjoyed acceptance among US and British academics and political figures. Though this all comes down to the demarcation problem, since there isn't always a hard defined line between science and psuedoscience.

chevyontheriver said:

I just found out yesterday that Al Kresta had gone home from the hospital for hospice care. He had liver cancer. Then this afternoon that he has died. This was a guy that shaped my thinking and challenged me over the years. He was born a Catholic, drifted through New Age stuff, became an evangelical, Christian bookstore owner, pastor, radio host, and then found his way back to the Catholic Church. He founded Ave Maria Radio with the generous assistance of Tom Monaghan, and has been a regular on Catholic radio with Kresta in the Morning followed more recently by Kresta in the Afternoon. He would find experts in the fields of religion and culture and do deep dives into challenging subjects. EWTN carried his program and I ate it up. I even went to see him speak once in Lincoln NE.

Right now sadness consumes me. A great and good and smart and connected Catholic man is with us no more. But I realize the blessings of having him around are that we can then be enabled to do some good as a result of it all. I'm expecting that his radio program will continue to mine his archives for the best of his programs and that Marcus Peters will be able to carry on in the coming months and years.

Al Kresta, Longtime Catholic Radio Host, Dies at 73

A familiar voice on EWTN radio, Kresta is survived by his wife of nearly five decades, Sally, as well as his five children.

www.ncregister.com

Click to expand...

I prayed for this man, Al Kresta, that he is with God. Am not familiar with his stuff, as my Catholic journey only began two years ago.

John 14:2-4, 2 Corinthians 5:1, and Revelation 21:5 say that he is in a better place, as Heaven is our new home.

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:

You mentioned a few times to simply walk away from the issue...and perhaps this issue doesn't show up on your front porch, the way it does for others. But assuming it does...say, you meet someone at work who "identifies" as the other gender, or perhaps a man introduces you to his boyfriend...how do you propose a Christian should handle the situation when it is no longer avoidable? Perhaps hearing your perspective on this will help us all converse a little better.

Click to expand...

I would be polite but keep separate from them. Like I said, want nothing to do with them.

AV1611VET said:

QV please:

The Science of Abortion Rights

Click to expand...

There is no scientific theory of abortion rights. How silly.

Guojing said:

But you said that you don't think you will be sitting on one of the 12 thrones.

Click to expand...

I did? I must have been sleep writing.
No. I did not say that because I would not say I "don't think".
I would say, I am not going to be sitting on one of the 12 thrones, because I am not chosen and called to the role of king and priest.

Guojing said:

So what makes you different from the other Christians you met here that you believe are claiming Matthew 19:28 for themselves? Are you not "born again" then?

Click to expand...

I have not met anyone on here who does not think they are born again Christians.
Do you consider yourself a born again Christian? If so, why?

From my knowledge of scripture, God anointed with holy spirit those whom he chose as adopted sons who would be sons or heirs of the kingdom.
Ephesians 1:5

He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will,

Click to expand...

Galatians 3:29

Now if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise.

Click to expand...

God indicates through the spirit, to the persons he selects that they have been selected - annointed by holy spirit. Romans 8:15-17, 23, 29

Recall that the 120 in the upper room saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Acts 2:2-4
Cornelius and his relatives and friends also spoke different tongues. Acts 10:44-46
All others who received their anointing would have been given some indication as the spirit enabled them.

I know that I have not been anointed with holy spirit for this reason, and another - the fact that God's purpose is not to adopt the entire earth of believers as his spiritual sons who will be heirs with Christ.
There are only a select few. Luke 12:32.

What has happened, for one thing, to cause many to believe that "we" and "all" in the letters of the early followers apply to them, is the teaching that all good people go to heaven to be with God, and so, everyone wants to be born again Christians.

JohnEmmett said:

Artwork created through the use of artificial intelligence.

Click to expand...

I like this one. Looks like a real painting, even though AI made it.

WarriorAngel said:

Trying to explain to people [ironic] the very dark side.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it help more to support pregnant women and young mothers so that they feel better about keeping and raising their babies?

But then we get complaints about too much going to W.I.C.

Fervent said:

To be fair, there have been theories that were held up as scientific at one point to justify murder on a number of scales. Eugenics, for example.

Click to expand...

As you probably know, Darwin wrote that even letting weaker people die amounted to an "overwhelming evil." (The Descent of Man) And later Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that eugenics was scientifically wrong, as well as being evil. Removing harmful recessives would require many generations of very strong controls on marriage.

It was never a theory, but a social campaign posing as science. Remember, a theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly verified by evidence. Nothing of the kind happened with eugenics. Moreover, many eugenicists were opposed to even forcible sterilization. Dr. William Tinkle, a founder of the Institute for Creation Research, was typical in suggesting that sterilization of people he assumed to be "inferior" should be voluntary, although he thought such people should not be allowed to marry.

By the time the Nazis picked up the idea, the entire subject had been debunked by science.

PloverWing said:

You speak as though Liberal Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians are warring tribes fighting over limited territory, as though it's impossible to have a world in which Liberal Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians can both practice their faith freely. I disagree.

Click to expand...

Well we are fundamentally different. Liberal Christians, as far as I can tell buy completely into the sexual revolution and justify it. This includes LGBT and it's no wonder you are seeking to argue that we must defend LGBT whereas I am saying we should simply ignore them because their worldview is counter to authentic Christian teaching. Seeking to accommodate them can only corrupt the Church, which is exactly what has happened to your own Church which regards the rainbow flag as more sacred than the cross.

PloverWing said:

You know, when I talk about defending the rights of religious minorities, I have you in mind as well. Eastern Orthodoxy is a minority among Christians in the United States, and a minority among our general population. But if the US government started closing Orthodox churches or monasteries, I would speak up to defend you.

Click to expand...

Did you support shutting down Churches during Covid?

BelieveItOarKnot said:

We all do evil just as Paul admitted to in Romans 7 a

Click to expand...

Paul said he got delivered from the law of sin that is in his members. This was explained in the last post to you.

Zacki said:

It begins with the eyes. What you see & what your mind thinks after you see it. If you're a guy you might relate to this. You leave the house to go somewhere. An attractive woman walks by & you don't stare but you notice. Now your mind is on that image. The next one walks by & you look a little longer & that image stays in your mind longer. If you keep looking you'll feel like you started a fire you can't put out. Same with the internet. Images pop up to get your attention & you're tempted to find more. Ok how to stop it? Look away. See a pretty girl? Look away. Until it's a natural habit. Keep looking away. It puts out the fire. No lust. You stop thinking about it & now your mind is free to let you be at peace & do fun things, productive & useful things. Some say our minds are wired for sex but this is our on/off switch. And prayer! Pray for God to help you look away until it's no longer a struggle. Looking away becomes as easy as breathing. That spirit/flesh fight becomes a MUCH easier struggle.

Click to expand...

Well, here is a devotional that could help one stop lust. And yes, we must pray to God to help us reduce our lustful thoughts, as it can lead people down the wrong path, including serious matters such as addictions, desensitization, and damaged friendships or relationships.

Mark Quayle said:

I think you need to be a little more careful than that. Just saying.

Click to expand...

Relying on both the Word of God and the ministration of His Spirit isn't being careful?

What do you mean? How could I be more careful?

Mark Quayle said:

Is any of us pure? Do we really "get out of the way"?

Click to expand...

No - which is why it is a process. We submit more and more - yield more and more.

No one is perfect in this life - save the Lord Jesus Christ.

Mark Quayle said:

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

Click to expand...

I mean - if you could be more specific?

2PhiloVoid said:

You want "nothing to do" with fellow human beings who are having massive difficulties in their lives. Y'know, I think it's a big stretch to equate being available or being willing to have compassion for other people with, as you said, "enabling them."

Click to expand...

Alright, is this universal for everyone or just Homosexuals and transgenders?

2PhiloVoid said:

I didn't say that you have to support them in their political efforts or agree with them. But you do have to learn how to listen, so that if there's any way to understand why they're at where they're at spiritually (and sexually), you can then offer the appropriate helping hand rather than simply berating them for their sins.

Click to expand...

I don't go around berating homosexuals. I understand their perspective and disagree. I realize also that I likely can't convince them and want nothing to do with them.

2PhiloVoid said:

How do you interpret the verses in Ephesians 6 where Paul says that "we wrestle not against flesh and blood ..."?

Click to expand...

I interpret it to mean we wrestle against spiritual entities. This does not mean that we ignore the political process and support those who would undermine a normative vision for society. Would you do this for everyone, regardless of who they are and what they believe or just LGBT people? Is there is a limit?

2PhiloVoid said:

Again, you're trying to make this an either or situation. That's not what this is? Are you familiar with Richard Wurmbrand by chance? I'm not asking if you agree with his theology. I'm simply asking if you're familiar with who he is and what he went through?

Click to expand...

Nope.

2PhiloVoid said:

And, again, I never said that enabling others for sin is the alternative to what you're asserting. Apparently, you're not familiar with how vociferously I denounce Hugh Hefner's Philosophy. If you understood that, then you'd understand my own view better. If people are going to be 'denounced' and charged with rampant, egregious sins and destructive philosophy, I'd start with that which has been most promoted among those who are straight people, among those who have accommodated Hefner's type of Hedonism (and the corporate structures that have more than amply enabled his views on life and sex) BEFORE we begin to point trenchantly at those in the LGBTQ+ side of the sexual continuum.

Click to expand...

I don't actually dissagree. We need to focus on the hedonism of normal people and ignore marginal issues like LGBT to begin with. As a group they simply don't matter and our time and energy could be better spent on countering the culture of the sexual revolution.

2PhiloVoid said:

We who are straight need to clean up our own damned houses first.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, hence why I don't care about the LGBT, their interests nor do I seek them out especially. Where do we disagree?

Far left is "mixed"?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Should we love our enemies more than fellow Christians? Whose interest should we be operating in?

Click to expand...

You speak as though Liberal Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians are warring tribes fighting over limited territory, as though it's impossible to have a world in which Liberal Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians can both practice their faith freely. I disagree.

You know, when I talk about defending the rights of religious minorities, I have you in mind as well. Eastern Orthodoxy is a minority among Christians in the United States, and a minority among our general population. But if the US government started closing Orthodox churches or monasteries, I would speak up to defend you.

pgp_protector said:

Yea, some of it really isn't appropriate for the little ones.
Mommy?
What does it mean "she lusted for her paramours, Whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys, And whose issue is like the issue of horses..." ?

Click to expand...

Agreed. That stuff is a little 15 to 18+ right there, depending on one's region of the world.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Actually it is political in that homosexuals and their advocates seek to influence society along certain lines which leads to sin. Why isn't it enough that I want nothing to do with these people? Do I have to support them in their political efforts as they seek to undermine the normative sexual ethos of society?

Should we love our enemies more than fellow Christians? Whose interest should we be operating in?

I would prefer a Constantine to a Maxentius or most political figures that rule us today. They may not be the model and they are guilty of sin but at least they would reform society in a direction which is geared towards Christianity. We should not as Christians take the commandment to love our enemies as enabling them or supporting their rights. This is a modern liberal concept that the historic Church never participated in.

Click to expand...

First & foremost, the premise of this thread is not what you're suggesting we're saying. The premise is to 1) love others, and 2) reject sin. What you keep bringing up, that any way we've mentioned about loving the LGBT people is accepting their sin, is one of the ideologies I've mentioned working against.

You mentioned a few times to simply walk away from the issue...and perhaps this issue doesn't show up on your front porch, the way it does for others. But assuming it does...say, you meet someone at work who "identifies" as the other gender, or perhaps a man introduces you to his boyfriend...how do you propose a Christian should handle the situation when it is no longer avoidable? Perhaps hearing your perspective on this will help us all converse a little better.

Grafted In said:

A bit off topic, but does learning a new language enhance cognitive function?

Click to expand...

From my personal experience, yes.

Grafted In said:

Does it deepen our thinking?

Click to expand...

Yes, in some way.

jas3 said:

That's a non sequitur - Peter is saying that the water of the Flood is symbolic of baptism. He says nothing about water baptism itself being symbolic of anything.

Click to expand...

Either way, it is a stretch to make the comparison. The water of the Flood destroyed all life on earth except that in the ark. It was the ark by which life was saved, not the water. The same could be said concerning the Exodus through the Red Sea. The waters of the Red Sea exterminated Pharaoh's army and did not save a single life. The Israelites were saved from the waters by a miraculous act of God's grace.

chevyontheriver said:

What is so qualified about a mostly failed businessman who had a reality TV program? What is so qualified about a guy who has to be led by the hand to the ice cream so he won't ramble nonsense? If we are serious about qualifications we are looking at two of the least qualified people in America and we are going to hand one of them four more years as head of the free world. Really? A case could be made that picking someone out of the phone book would do us better.

Click to expand...

Then how about Peter Sonski & Lauren Onak