Latest activity

concretecamper · 2025-09-16T16:55:30-0500

If a mother or father, who is a US citizen commits a felony, they will be separated from their family. No difference.

Chesterton · 2025-09-16T16:55:25-0500

essentialsaltes said:
Only in jurisdictions where sexual orientation is a protected class.

Good point. And the Bill of Rights applies everywhere.

NewLifeInChristJesus · 2025-09-16T16:54:49-0500

Indentured Servant said:
Both Timothy and Titus use the phrase "sound doctrine" twice in their respective letters.

In the context of each, or all, of these passages of Scripture, what is "sound doctrine?"

What does it mean?

What is the goal of Timothy and Titus by saying this?

Here are all the NT instances of ὑγιαίνω (the word translated sound in reference to sound doctrine in 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus)...

Luke 5:31 - Jesus answered and said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Luke 7:10 - And those who were sent, returning to the house, found the servant well who had been sick.
Luke 15:27 - And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and because he has received him safe and sound, your father has killed the fatted calf.’
1 Tim 1:10 - for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
1 Tim 6:3 - If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness,
2 Tim 1:13 - Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.
2 Tim 4:3 - For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
Titus 1:9 - holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
Titus 1:13 - This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
Titus 2:1 - But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine:
Titus 2:2 - that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience;
3 John 2 - Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers.

essentialsaltes · 2025-09-16T16:53:08-0500

Troops in DC encounter few crises, but plenty of walking and yard work

For nearly a month, Guard members hailing from D.C., Louisiana, West Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Ohio, South Dakota and Georgia have donned their Army fatigues to help combat what President Donald Trump’s administration has called “intolerable risks” to federal government functions in Washington.

More than a dozen Guard troops who spoke to Military Times on the condition of anonymity in recent days view their current deployment as “part of the job” but say they simply haven’t seen “emergency” levels of crime since being assigned to the D.C. mission.

“Have I seen [an emergency]? I’d better not answer that,” one Guard member said, shaking his head. “Besides people falling off the steps, not really.”

Some troops walking around the nation’s capital said they feel like an experiment, a “test force” to see if this type of deployment could be replicated elsewhere.

[in re beautification] A National Park Service official told Military Times on Thursday the service had lost between 130 and 180 national capital region employees, in addition to manpower loss due to the administration’s freeze on maintenance contracts.

“There is this little bit of irony about the fact that the administration did all these cuts, and then went to the buyouts, and now the National Guard started kind of making up for that,” said the official.

Cutting 130 to 180 employees from the D.C. parks would have likely saved millions of dollars for American taxpayers, but the savings amount to a fraction of what the Guard deployment will end up costing over the course of multiple months.

Oompa Loompa · 2025-09-16T16:52:09-0500

wing2000 said:
Yes, let's not discuss the messy reality and stick to a narrative.

Yes. So will leave the conversation and take my messy reality with me.

Vambram · 2025-09-16T16:50:51-0500

RocksInMyHead said:
If I have to listen to hours of content in order to "properly" contextualize a few sentences (rather than simply the full conversation in which those sentences were said), then the speaker must not be very good at expressing himself. And that's not an accusation that I'd level against Charlie Kirk.

Snippets taken out of context can be used to say anything. But, I am sure that nothing a conservative says will change your mind.

RandyPNW · 2025-09-16T16:49:27-0500

Spiritual Jew said:
That's how it comes across.

Nowhere in the Scriptures do we see the word "two Israels."

Spiritual Jew said:
That comes across as two different Israels. One that you call "Israel proper". The basis of being part of that Israel is only on one's DNA. And the other you call "True Israel" which consists only of "faithful Jews". You can say it's one Israel within another or a subset, but you are still coming across as if you are referring to two different Israels. One that's based on nationality and faith and one that's based on nationality only.

Not at all. There is one group of Christians in our church. Some are faithful, and some are not. This does not make our church "two churches."

Israel is one nation. Some are faithful, and some are not. The fact that only some are faithful does not make them "two Israels" or "two nations." You are arguing something that does not follow or is irrational, to fit your theology.

Spiritual Jew said:
So, in the case of the Jews, why not just call them either faithful or unfaithful instead of referring to "Natural Israel" and "True (or Faithful) Israel"?

I've had to explain to you that the fact that there is a "true Israel" does not mean there is a "2nd Israel."

Spiritual Jew said:
Why talk of them as a separate entity that you call "Faithful Israel" when you only believe in one Israel and not two Israels?

I'm not talking about them as a "separate entity." Rather, I'm speaking of a single entity with one group being faithful and one group being unfaithful. The fact I group them as such is not creating separate "entities."

Spiritual Jew said:
God's people are only those who have faith.

That isn't true. God called Israel to have faith even before they fully had it--some didn't get it at all. Those who proved to be faithless were cut off.

But the fact they were "Israel" before they were cut off indicates that they were not named Israel strictly because they had faith initially. The entire *nation* was called Israel, and the entire nation was called to have faith.

They were Israel before they had yet proved whether they would be faithful or not. Their initial faithfulness was simply the choice to leave Egypt together to find God's Law on the mountain.

Many Jews today are in the same position of wanting to know what God wants of their nation. They have chosen to gather together with other Jews, viewing their elect culture to be worth gathering with.

They should be properly called "Israel," regardless of whether they are Christians. That is the normal definition of "Israel."

Spiritual Jew said:
Don't make something simple into something complicated. This doesn't mean that those who do not have faith right now can never come to have faith and become part of God's people, of course. But, this is very simple. God's people are those who have faith. If you don't have faith, you're not a child of God.

Don't agree. Israel is "Israel" before they have Christian faith. That has always been true.

Spiritual Jew said:
Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Being "children" is different from being "Israel."

Vambram · 2025-09-16T16:48:05-0500

Larniavc said:
That you decline to elucidate.

I already have multiple different times on multiple different threads.

probinson · 2025-09-16T16:47:02-0500

Say it aint so said:
You can't "both sides" this when one of the sides is internet commentators, and the other is not only the government, but law enforcement agencies within that government.

I've come to the conclusion that MOST people (maybe even the majority) don't really support free speech. They support speech as long as they agree with it and it conforms to their agendas and narratives.

Freedom of speech is hard. A good test to see if you really believe in freedom of speech is to ask yourself if you support the rights of people you vehemently disagree with to say things you find offensive. If your answer is "no", then you don't really support free speech.

For example, I find the posts and videos of people celebrating Kirk's death reprehensible. But because I believe in the importance of free speech, that means I believe they're free to be as callous and deplorable as they choose. In a weird way, I actually appreciate it. It shows me who they really are. A wise (corrected) woman once said, when someone shows you who are, believe them. We saw it during COVID and we're seeing it again right now with Kirk's assassination. Some people are just awful. But so long as they are not actively promoting harm, they can mock and laugh and jeer all they want as far as I'm concerned.

Most people don't feel that way. Once someone says something they find offensive, they'll label it "hate speech" or some such thing. Your quote from Kirk in the OP is apropos and bears repeating.

"Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment,"--Charlie Kirk.

Vambram · 2025-09-16T16:46:31-0500

The Barbarian said:
For reasons we all understand.

Explosive alleged text messages between suspected Kirk killer and his transgender roommate obliterate liberal narrative | Blaze Media

The texts appeared to be sent while Robinson was still near the UVU campus.

www.theblaze.com

Perhaps this text chat revealed by the FBI will be understood.

Kathleen30 · 2025-09-16T16:45:45-0500

Ophiolite said:
Ophiolite said:

Well, I'll apologise again for conveying a message to you that was not my intent.

Now, my signature is not the words below my avatar, but three observations below the text of each message, which the forum chooses to call a signature. The relevant observation reads:

If you have not understood what I have posted the fault is probably mine. Ask for clarification. I expect the same courtesy from you.

You can view it by hitting the words Toggle Signature. at the bottom of this post.

As to being a talking ape, scientifically that is beyond dispute. Humans are classified as apes. When you look in a mirror you see an ape. If that offends you I can be of no help in the matter. You would need to take it up with hundreds of thousands of zoologists, anthropologists and the like. If you wish to debate that, best start a new thread, we've derailed this one enough.

Click to expand...

Ophiolate. Yes I did now find your signature reading in your profile page. As to the apology we simply put it down to a misunderstanding of one sentence in a heated moment . Of which you explained later with the extra context. As to the ape one and what anthologists say of the ape being our ancestors. Well me not sure. Yes it was once a established fact with the discovery of the Piltdown in 1911-1912 by Charles Dawson which probably gave the theory its established credibility for some 40 years all the way up to 1953 when it was finally discovered to be a forgery. But I guess with the likes of Pierre Teilhard De Chardin the discoverer of the Peking man which actually turned out to be fully human skulls upon closer scrutiny. And with Teilhard lurking around in Sussex also in 1912 . . Some do say that Charles Dawson never acted alone in the deception, and that there may have been others involved in the deception as well.. So I not so sure that the theory is established as scientific fact. So I guess that elusive missing link remains just that. So when I look in the mirror. I continue to look upon the reflection of beautiful mother Eve and not so much think upon Lucy the ape . But yes we be-some off topic I not write any more. Ophiolate I hope you a nice evening for you . Kathleen

Jeff Bacon · 2025-09-16T16:37:46-0500

linux.poet said:
I have been doing evangelism, both online and off, since I accepted the Gospel as a child. I was that kid in public school who would confront her friends with the Gospel and the claims of Christ, and yes, I would do the science class debates and get rebuked by my teachers lol. However, God has never given me the privilege of watching someone accept the Gospel. I still do it, and pray for God to correct my errors if I’m driving people away from the truth by accident.

I think I suffer from lack of knowledge more than anything these days and so I struggle with some of the debate points that are raised against me. Most of my evangelism encounters inspire me to improve something, whether it’s my knowledge of science or knowledge of political movements or knowledge of theology. (I probably have the spiritual gift of knowledge, actually, instead of evangelism. Though I have to give the caveat that my congregation understands the spiritual gifts a bit differently than your denomination might, so I have to be careful with that talking here. I think all giftings evangelise, but they do so differently.)

These days, I think my best witness is my story, rather my lackluster apologetics. The secular prognosis for CPTSD is grim: a cycle of abusive relationships, prison, and suicide. By the power of the Holy Spirit, I have been able to subdue my body so that I don’t have any of those things anymore. Without God, I wouldn’t be alive today. I’m still thinking, but I believe that this story needs to be told in some form (as a website series and/or memoir) and pushed out there for others to see. That’s probably where I will concentrate my ineffective evangelism efforts in the near future.

You don't have to have a lot of knowledge to evangelize. Practice. Study the Romans Road. Look up the wordless book...it's a old and time-tested method that is mainly for children but I think it works fine for adults. There is also Share Jesus Without Fear. I would put as many tools in the toolbox to make you more comfortable and just go practice in the real world. Once you get comfortable with that move toward apologetics so you can answer some of the common objections.

Reluctant Theologian · 2025-09-16T16:33:13-0500

FireDragon76 said:
It's mostly an American and Israeli phenomenon owing to American Evangelical politics often being pro-Israeli, and there's rarely a coherent theological justification given. I'd imagine it's far from universal, even then. It seems more like a political move on the part of Israelis to express sympathy and solidarity for the death of a political figure like Charlie Kirk who was quite ruthless in his pro-Israeli messaging.

In Europe in countries like Germany and The Netherlands, many churches are relatively pro-Israel (as a safe home country for Jews), and these do communicate the corresponding theology for that. Churches/denominations that have moved beyond traditional replacement theology typically arrive at that position.

david p · 2025-09-16T16:32:43-0500

david p said:
So my question is that.. if a person is not within that 'line' of Truth in their own 'belief' system, per se... can that person be a sound and sane person?

Example. Was the Jewish Holocaust so wrong because Mr. Hitler was sane and sound?

Why were the Jews targeted which led to others being targeted?

Tropical Wilds · 2025-09-16T16:31:56-0500

Chesterton said:
But the person I replied to suggested MAGA is a group, but not a protected group. I think they are protected by the Bill of Rights.

Bill of Rights covers individuals within the US regardless of citizenship, and in areas governed by our government, not groups.

Chesterton said:
Kirk was not a politician. We're talking about printing for the memorializing of a murder victim.

So then his death wasn’t an assassination?

Jeff Bacon · 2025-09-16T16:30:28-0500

bèlla said:
Look around you. Do you see how christian’s behave in this medium. What makes you think they’re different in a church? Look at the arguments and debates. How many conversations are conducted amicably when difficult issues are raised? There’s a lot of contention in this space and I’d expect a similar response elsewhere and the data proves it.

We’re going to see an increase in online ministry. Why should they put up with all of that foolishness when they can turn on a camera and share their heart without the drama and demands with better pay and a schedule to boot. And they’re growing by the day.

Whether it’s the speaking circuit, the internet or a combination of the two. We’ve entered a different time and the pulpit isn’t their only option. You’ll find yourselves competing for shepherds instead of driving them away. Appreciate the ones in your midst.

~bella

I'm just saying pastors are not always the good guys. I've seen many a corrupt pastor, both on staff with me and as a member of the church. Sometimes the congregation needs to man and woman up to defend the Bible or the bylaws so that a rogue pastor is held accountable. Sometimes that takes forceful action and tone, which too many people would rather run away from. When good people do nothing evil wins the day. Yes, many pastors quit and get burnt out, but that doesn't excuse them from their call. We don't get to quit until God uncalls us. I think too many uncalled or unqualified people are in the ministry.

Godcrazy · 2025-09-16T16:30:13-0500

peter2 said:
Actually, my own experience of "purity" doesn't match with what your exorcist said:

This is why i spoke with this metaphor of the piece of wood on the seashore, like a hope for no longer being pulled back toward the ocean (the sinning).

Indeed, when i succeed in making myself purer, i have to face more agressive temptations

I don`t think the evil gives up that easily. Think about the apostles. Even Jesus. temptation and attacks all the time. Think about it, those who are living like they want, usually, the evil leaves them alone, as he has them where he wants them. And why would Jesus warn about evils attempts and temptations, if it was not a fact even no matter what. Denyting of spiritual warfare does not make it go away, it just leaves one unprepared for it. Eph 6:12

essentialsaltes · 2025-09-16T16:29:06-0500

wing2000 said:
What?

I SAID TRUMP WANTS TO EQUATE PROTESTS WITH CRIMINAL RACKETS

Latest activity

Latest activity

Troops in DC encounter few crises, but plenty of walking and yard work​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Troops in DC encounter few crises, but plenty of walking and yard work