doubtingmerle said:

In other words, true morality does not rely on moral absolutes.

Click to expand...

Nor can it be purely contextual.

Objective principles are necessary, otherwise, morality becomes solely what societies say it is.

tdidymas said:

How can an infant who dies be corporately guilty without incurring lake of fire judgment?

Click to expand...

By being redeemed.

tdidymas said:

I don't see how "corporate guilt" applies. It sounds like rhetoric that has no real application.

Click to expand...

"It sounds like" and "I don't get it" are not logical criticisms but rather autobiographical statements, telling us something about you. The only thing I can really say is, "I'm sorry to hear that."

Again, mankind is corporately guilty by imputation because Adam was our federal head in covenant relationship to God—and infants are a part of mankind, as are children, teenagers, young adults, the elderly, etc. And then, on top of being sinners, we are held personally guilty for our sins (transgressions), whether by commission (doing what we ought not) or omission (failing to do what we ought).

A popular way of expressing this view: "We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners."

And Adam is why we are sinners.

tdidymas said:

If the difference between "corporately guilty" and "individually guilty" is that they aren't guilty enough ...

Click to expand...

That is not the difference. "Corporately" means all mankind in Adam, condemned by imputation (original sin); "individually" means each man in himself, condemned by transgressions (actual sins).

We sin (personal guilt) because we are sinners (corporate guilt).

(Notable consideration: The idea that "we are sinners because we sin" is the Pelagian heresy.)

tdidymas said:

[Given Romans 8:10], how can sin not be connected to the body somehow?

Click to expand...

I never denied a connection between sin and our bodies. Our sinful corruption is a product of our sinful condition—and, again, Adam is why we are sinners.

tdidymas said:

I just don't see scripture teaching a "corporate guilt" that doesn't do anything until someone commits a sinful act.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you don't see it because nobody proposed it.

tdidymas said:

In Romans 7:9 [Paul] says, "I was alive without the law once." Are you trying to say this is not a literal statement? I take his language to mean that before he knew any law, he was (spiritually) alive; but after he knew the law, the sinful nature in him came to "life" and he died spiritually.

Click to expand...

I don't think your view can be maintained in the larger context of this epistle. Paul did not consider himself spiritually alive until the law; rather, he wasn't aware of his spiritual death until the law—for it exposes and condemns what is already there (Rom. 5:13-14). This fits with the broader argument that the law functions to bring knowledge of sin (3:20; 7:7).

tdidymas said:

Where does scripture teach that all mankind is in covenant union (and with whom)?

Click to expand...

That is a separate question. If we assume federal headship in covenant theology for the sake of argument, mankind's corporate guilt and condemnation logically follows (and infants are a part of mankind). I would remind you that the opening post questioned whether infants are included in this corporate guilt and condemnation.

It sounds like you now want to challenge that premise: "What if we don't assume that for the sake of argument? Does scripture actually teach this doctrine?" That is a great question but it's a separate one from the question being asked in this thread.

(The short answer is, "Yes, it does.")

tdidymas said:

Here are 3 verses that imply infants have not sinned: ...

Click to expand...

Those regard personal sin, not corporate sin (i.e., category error). I will concede that infants have not committed any personal sins.

tdidymas said:

What if the federal headship of Adam had to do with inheritance of the sin nature? What if we in Christ are of a new nature, being a new creation?

Click to expand...

That is what Reformed theology teaches. However, it is not only corruption but also condemnation that we inherit from Adam—just as in Christ we receive not only a new nature but also justification. "Condemnation for all people came through one transgression," Paul said (Rom. 5:16-18).

Vambram said:

What do you propose?

Click to expand...

Lol! Nothing that you would see thr sense of.

The Liturgist said:

Indeed, but conversely that’s also very often very important, so for many academic projects the lead author is more of a manager and financier, like the producer of a film, than a creative principal.

Click to expand...

I have no argument there, because you are correct. I just don’t like people claiming to be experts in fields where they don’t participate in the hands-on research or their role is not clear. If we say “Solomon built the Temple,” it is okay, even if Solomon never touched a stone, because we have a good idea how it worked. It isn’t always so clear in academic circles. I would not ask a hospital bookkeeper for medical advice, but I admit their work is important.

Vambram said:

You may deny the truth of what your fellow career bureaucrats have said. But, doing so won't change what they admitted.

Click to expand...

Let's see that poll then.

wing2000 said:

"Last month, I signed an executive order to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances. This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room because it’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control. It won’t get out of control."


Anthropologist James Greenberg writes:

"Trump’s recent language points toward a model of governance that treats dissent as insurgency. His definition of the “enemy within” is intentionally vague, shifting from day to day depending on who stands in his way. At times it is Democratic leaders like Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi, at times city governments, and at other moments judges, bureaucrats, or journalists. The category shifts by design. Its vagueness is the source of its usefulness.

In anthropology, words are not just descriptions. They are practices that shape reality. To call someone an “enemy within” is to reclassify them. It redraws the boundary of belonging, transforming neighbors into adversaries and dissent into betrayal. This is cultural work carried out through language, and its effect is to redefine citizenship itself.

At Quantico, speaking to military officers, Trump warned that “the enemy from within” would be their responsibility to confront. The remark was deliberate, meant as a signal. By invoking a domestic “enemy,” he collapsed the civic frame of politics into the military frame of war. Opposition was no longer disagreement among citizens but a threat to be suppressed."

Prelude to Military Dictatorship

The “enemy within” and the militarization of American politics

jamesbgreenberg.substack.com

Click to expand...

It also diminishes what they consider their primary mission, the "enemy without."

They can't maintain a cohesive force that does both equally well. The military trains to kill people and break things at high volume. They can do less, but every hour doing less "de-trains" them from their primary mission. By "de-training," the military means "We are need to react in X manner to Y situation in order to prevail. But we're being required to react in Z manner to Y situation, which decreases our ability to respond in X manner--when it will really count." They have to train for their primary mission.

They need to be actually operating in "X manner" or training to operate in "X manner." What Trump really wants--and what he was actually saying--is that he intends the military to be a Federal Internal Security Force.

Michie said:

I hope you realize not everything I post means I agree with it. Been that way for years. I thought I should bring that up since you mentioned the Pope. These topics are meant for reading and discussion.

Click to expand...

Yes I know. My complaint is not with you, it is with the article. Maybe consider posting what the Pope said outside his summer residence on Tuesday about this administration?

CerebralCherub said:

Might I request you speak plainly. I'm on cold medicine and lack of sleep from time zone change so not understanding.

Are you saying that you agree or disagree with the 2A? I may have read wrong and so responded in a way that wasn't appropriate to your view.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Hopefully, the direction of my sarcasm is entirely inappropriate. I just didn't want the handling of the organic 2A being thought of as an overzealous ''agenda''.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

How many times do we have to repeat this?

Everyone who loves knows God and is born of God. 1 John 4:7

Why are your technicalities soooo stingy?

Click to expand...

The issue is relying on out of context verses to make a theology. Just about every time you post a verse in defense of UR there are verses following the one you posted that clarify the meaning and does not support UR. Take 1 John 4:7 for example. Look at what comes after:

“Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him, and he in God. We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him. By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, we also are in this world.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭4‬:‭15‬-‭17‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Only those that confess Jesus is the Son of God remain in God’s love. By staying in God then love is perfected in us and THEN there is no fear of the day of judgement. Verses cannot be understood in an island. Context is critical to understand both the meaning and the writer’s intention which leads to the correct interpretation.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Well of course God is and can only be contingent in your formulas, being completely worthless to do anything unless someone else "reacts." That makes God very much only contingent, or worthless as the case is when God can not save because of someone else.

Click to expand...

lol I hold no formulas and me, a tiny created being, can never make an infinite being contingent. Think about what you are saying. This is an emotional fallacy.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Are you really going to write off everyone who ever lived before Christ came?

Click to expand...

Again, read your Bible.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Everyone who never heard the Gospel?

Click to expand...

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭18‬-‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

No one has an excuse.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Every mentally deficient person who can't understand? Just toss them all in the eternal fire? What kind of ogre does that? Has your position no heart?

Click to expand...

Again, read your Bible.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Your argument is circular i.e. doesn't make sense. God is very specifically contingent on your reactions to Him. You must for example "heed the call." Otherwise, no dice.

Click to expand...

The Bible CLEARLY teaches that faith is necessary for salvation. There is no wiggle room here but God does as He wills.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

And for the record, no one escapes the facts of having evil present within them. No one. Mark 7:21-23 is not contingent or optional, but ROCK SOLID FACT observable by anyone in reality, internally or externally.

Click to expand...

The difference is that those in Christ have been justified and cleansed of all sin through Christ sacrifice while those that are not in Christ remain in their sins. Big difference here.

Michie said:

I am a Christian nationalist.

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s worshipful memorial service, the political left has predictably busied itself with slander, labeling the event “Christian Nationalism’s biggest moment” or even a Nazi rally.

Neither of these heinous descriptions are accurate. The Babylon Bee satirically mocked these claims with the headline “Nazi Rally Inspires Millions to Forgive And Love Their Enemies.” Indeed, Erika Kirk’s public and emotionally charged forgiveness of her husband’s murderer was one of the most powerful redemptive moments of our time.

It’s now undeniable that the Left aims to label everyday conservative Christians who are politically active as “Christian Nationalists.” Their exaggerated smear tactics are now widely recognized, consistently branding anyone who disagrees with them as Nazi, racist, homophobic, transphobic, “far right” and other melodramatic terms.

This lengthy list of slanderous accusations has lost its ability to intimidate. It has so altered and diluted the meaning of these terms that some on the political right are now proudly adopting them. The Left intends to attach a negative connotation to Christian nationalism and use it as a cudgel to slander Christians. We should embrace the term and welcome the challenge.

But what is Christian nationalism? Why does the Evangelical community seem so divided on this issue, with some condemning Christian nationalism as heresy and others embracing it as the conduit for the coming millennial Kingdom of Jesus Christ?

Continued below.

Yes, I'm a Christian nationalist — and you should be, too

We should embrace the term and welcome the challenge

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

Jesus taught, “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

Is another argument against Christian nationalism needed? I don’t think so!

eleos1954 said:

God declares, "As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live".

Click to expand...

Yes, this tells us the very nature of God. He doesn't even want the wicked to perish. That's why he's so long suffering. But knowing these verses we are to believe he would torture someone for an eternity? When we take the bible as a whole it's always been life or death.

eleos1954 said:

Unquenchable fire: This fire is "unquenchable" because no human can put it out, not because it burns forever. The fire will only go out after it has fully consumed the wicked, turning them to ashes. The end result is eternal, but the process itself is not.

Click to expand...

Exactly. That's what I've always stated. This is a fire that can't be put out. But it will burn out after it's served it's purpose. That's what a fire does. We are told what will happen to the wicked in Malachi. Which lines up with Christ's teaching about both body and soul being destroyed. And we are told there will be a new heaven and a new earth and that the former things will be passed away.

Servus said:

The answer is that while Jesus helped others, his main focus was on healing and helping fellow Jews. He put the needs people of Israel first. I get that liberal Christians want US citizens to pay for taking care of millions of illegal aliens while ignoring fellow citizens in need, but let's not pretend that's how Jesus operated.

Click to expand...

I find this line of reasoning rather perplexing but if we must, here are accounts of Jesus Christ of Nazareth interacting with the non- Jewish community. I will also add the importance of these interactions. From revealing who He is, to pointing out a person's great faith to exposing the greater mission of spreading the Gospel to the world. And one more thing, Jesus Christ of Nazareth emphasized that there are " other sheep " that are not of the Jewish fold.



AI Generated

Here are key accounts where Jesus interacted with non-Jews (Gentiles) or Samaritans:
* Samaritan Woman at the Well: Had a lengthy theological and personal conversation with her, revealing Himself as the Messiah (John 4:1–42).
* Roman Centurion: Engaged with him (or his representatives) and healed his servant, praising the Centurion's great faith (Matthew 8:5–13; Luke 7:1–10).
* Canaanite (Syrophoenician) Woman: Spoke with her and healed her demon-possessed daughter, commending her persistent faith (Matthew 15:21–28; Mark 7:24–30).
* Gerasene Demoniac(s): Traveled to the Gentile region of the Decapolis, cast out many demons, and told the healed man to share his testimony with his non-Jewish neighbors (Mark 5:1–20; Matthew 8:28–34; Luke 8:26–39).
* One of the Ten Lepers: The only one who returned to thank Jesus was a Samaritan, whom Jesus singled out and praised (Luke 17:11–19).
* Pontius Pilate: Had a significant exchange and dialogue with the Roman governor during His trial (John 18:33–38).
* Greeks/Gentiles Seeking Jesus: Jesus was informed that some Greeks wanted to see him, leading to a profound statement about His upcoming death and glorification (John 12:20–36).
* Multitudes in Decapolis: Taught and performed numerous healings and the feeding of the four thousand in this Gentile region (Matthew 15:29–39; Mark 7:31–8:10).
*The Centurion at the Cross:
Interaction: A Roman Centurion (Gentile) was present at the crucifixion and, upon witnessing the events, famously proclaimed, "Truly this man was the Son of God!" (Mark 15:39; Matthew 27:54; Luke 23:47). This is an interaction based on observation that led to a powerful verbal testimony by a non-Jew.

Wow, DVDs. That takes me back.

Probably a late season of Buffy or Angel.

Vambram said:

I have read those short articles. Have you?

Click to expand...

Yes. They don't refute anything I've said, which is why I questioned whether or not you've read them.

JAM2b said:

Was there a series that you thought was great, but the producers and writers continued it too long? Stretch it out making it tedious and slow? Jump the shark? Cousin Oliver? Or continuously kept introducing new plots and characters and never getting a sense closure or finality?

Was there one that ended too soon with unanswered questions or plenty of life and possibility left?

For me shows that went too long were:
Once Upon a Time
Little House on the Prairie
SpongeBob SquarePants

Shows that ended too soon were:
Firefly
The Fall
Covington Cross

Click to expand...

Fringe. I could have done with another series. Also Blake’s Seven.

24 went on too long.

I think that the only such series is The Walking Dead.
I loved it, especially seasons 1 and 2, but after they added too many characters, there were too many series, and I think I stopped on season 6 or 7, I don't even remember
There is also Supernatural, but I managed to finish it after all

BelieveItOarKnot said:

The smoke of "their torment" to be precise. IF they were merely dead then there is no torment.

Click to expand...

You do realize that verse and those above it are not talking about Satan and his devils right? They are talking about those that take the mark and worship the beast.

And once again, Christ is very clear about the second death. And I will certainly take his word over yours.

Once the Lake of Fire has served it's purpose it will cease to exist. It will be a "former thing" and afterwards Christ will make all things new.

Richard T said:

There is no health care susidies for illegals. There is a million or so working legal immigrants on green cards, that qualify for Obamacare subsidies. Some too are legal by refugee status and recieving benefits,. The list is below. Most of these immigrants work and pay taxes. This is because proof of income is required to get on Obamacare. Normally those with less income get state Medicaid in most states. However, green card recipients now have a five year mandatory wait to recieve most, if not all, types of welfare, They could however access the health care exchanges and recieve Obama care subsidies if the household income is enough to qualify for Obamacare.

Here is a hypothetical, suppose you married a foreigner and brough the spouse to the USA. Your income is enough to immigrate (125% above the poverty level) but not enough to pay for U.S. health care insurance. Currently this couple (kids too) can get health insurance subsidies through Obamacare. That expires this year though, not just for the legal immigrant spouse but some of the subsidy that helps the American citzen is also at risk. So these working families will have either no coverage or have to come up with some 800 plus a month (varies by age or state) for the new spouse and in addition the U.S. citizen too will be paying hundreds more each month for their coverage (some estimates are a thousand if older). Without the subsidies the couple will lose their health insurance.
So that is the big part the dems want to protect.

Here is a list of the legal immigrants that currently qualify.

"Consumers who don't live in one of these states who have an immigration status listed below may be eligible for Marketplace coverage. Get a list of states where you may be eligible.

Source: Find out what immigration statuses qualify for coverage in the Marketplace

Immigration statuses that may qualify​

These immigration statuses may be eligible to get Marketplace coverage:

• Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR/Green Card holder)
• Asylee
• Refugee
• Paroled into the U.S.
• Granted an employment authorization document (EAD), also called a work permit or I-766
• Individual with Non-immigrant Status including workers visas (such as H1, H-2A, H-2B), student visas, U-visa, T-visa, and other visas
• Deferred Action Status

Click to expand...

The Democrats are wanting to repeal portions of the big beautiful bill they don’t like for their vote for a seven week extension on keeping the government open while negotiations are ongoing. This is absurd and against previous public statements by many democrats in past similar situations. If the democrats want to change law they need to win elections and give up blackmail tactics that hurt real Americans. This is backfiring on democrats and only opens the door for Trump to make more cuts in the federal workforce not a very smart move for Democrat leaders IMO.

SabbathBlessings said:

Yes, it was made with Israel which is God‘s church. God never made a covenant with the Gentiles, only with Israel. We are only grafted into His covenant by faith and are part of the promises Gal 3:26-29

Click to expand...

Wrong.

“And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

There is a new covenant in the blood of Christ for the Christian. This covenant is different than the covenant given to the house of Israel. The Christian covenant is based on the Gospel which included Jesus sacrifice of blood for the propitiation of our sins. The Christian is NOT under the law.

Michie said:

I am a Christian nationalist.

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s worshipful memorial service, the political left has predictably busied itself with slander, labeling the event “Christian Nationalism’s biggest moment” or even a Nazi rally.

Neither of these heinous descriptions are accurate. The Babylon Bee satirically mocked these claims with the headline “Nazi Rally Inspires Millions to Forgive And Love Their Enemies.” Indeed, Erika Kirk’s public and emotionally charged forgiveness of her husband’s murderer was one of the most powerful redemptive moments of our time.

It’s now undeniable that the Left aims to label everyday conservative Christians who are politically active as “Christian Nationalists.” Their exaggerated smear tactics are now widely recognized, consistently branding anyone who disagrees with them as Nazi, racist, homophobic, transphobic, “far right” and other melodramatic terms.

This lengthy list of slanderous accusations has lost its ability to intimidate. It has so altered and diluted the meaning of these terms that some on the political right are now proudly adopting them. The Left intends to attach a negative connotation to Christian nationalism and use it as a cudgel to slander Christians. We should embrace the term and welcome the challenge.

But what is Christian nationalism? Why does the Evangelical community seem so divided on this issue, with some condemning Christian nationalism as heresy and others embracing it as the conduit for the coming millennial Kingdom of Jesus Christ?

Continued below.

Yes, I'm a Christian nationalist — and you should be, too

We should embrace the term and welcome the challenge

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

I am registering my complaint that this article is woefully misleading and dangerous . Christian Nationalism is not in the will of the Father. One just needs to go back to basics and read His words in scripture. Even the Pope is against Christian Nationalism.
Be blessed.