Latest activity

Maria Billingsley · Nov 3, 2025

Henrik Kochan said:
Although I’m not Christian myself, I’m deeply interested in these topics and would love to hear what my Christian friends here in the forum think about them.

Good to hear! We will certainly tell you what we think as you navigate through this forum!
Be blessed

Say it aint so · Nov 3, 2025

Aldebaran said:
So much for the notion that he thinks he's a king.

‘I Have the Right To Do Anything I Want’ Because ‘I’m the President’ --DJ Trump

He hasn't provided benefits yet, but what he has done is ignore judges rulings in the past.

Maria Billingsley · Nov 3, 2025

Henrik Kochan said:
Hello, my name is Henrik Kochan. I'm an author living in Israel.

My books in Hebrew include The Meaning of Life – Socrates, Jesus, Nietzsche and Jesus and the Laws of Moses. I’ve recently completed my first book in English (not yet published), titled Steps to Heaven: On Morality, God, and the Soul. It explores themes such as salvation in Judaism and Christianity, Jesus and Paul, the Holy Spirit, atonement, and more.

Although I’m not Christian myself, I’m deeply interested in these topics and would love to hear what my Christian friends here in the forum think about them.

Welcome!

wing2000 · Nov 3, 2025

stevevw said:
Why was there no protests in the streets or on campuses for the almost genocidal levels of Christian persecution throughout the world.

Maybe because that is not happening. You really should dial back your rhetoric.

Studyman · Nov 3, 2025

Carl Emerson said:
Another good example of this was His refusal to comply with the Law and have the adulterous woman stoned.

Carl, Jesus followed God's LAW to the Letter with the Adulterous women. I am trying to learn how to be civil when men further popular falsehoods about my Lord and Savior. I have to careful because there is no malice on your part, you are just promoting what you and I were both taught. I will show you real quickly, through scriptures, how Jesus obeyed His Father's Commandments perfectly, and I hope you do the study yourself, and can be corrected of your teaching that Jesus "Refused to comply with His Father's Laws".

John 8: 1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, "that they might have to accuse him". But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

Notice here that you are also accusing Him of Sinning against His Father's Laws. In fact that is the very purpose of your reply. Now listen to what Jesus told the mainstream preachers of His Time, and is telling you now.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, "let him first" cast a stone at her."

Notice that Jesus didn't forbid them to stone this woman at all. And the Law of Moses says that if someone transgresses God's Laws, they are to be put to death, stoned with stones. "by the congregation of the Lord". And these men were the Pharisees and Scribes who sit in Moses seat.

So why didn't they stone her? Jesus gave them His blessing? So what did they do?

9 And they which heard it, being "convicted by their own conscience", went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

Jesus didn't tell them to abandon their wickedness. They knew that according to the "Law of Moses" they all should have been already stoned.

So that left Jesus ALONE to accuse her.

Carl, listen to God's Laws here, they are written for us so we can discern between truth and falsehoods.

Duet. 17: 2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, "that hath wrought wickedness" in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,

3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;

4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:

5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

6 At the mouth "of two witnesses, or three witnesses", shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth "of one witness" he "shall not" be put to death.

7 The "hands of the witnesses" "shall be first upon him" to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

Jesus didn't bring her to be stoned, it was the witnesses that brought her, which according to the LAW must be first to stone her. But they departed and left Jesus "ALONE". So what did Jesus say?

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, "where are those thine accusers"? hath "no man condemned thee"?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee": go, and sin no more.

He was "one witness", not two or three. "BY God's LAW" He wasn't allowed to Stone her.

Do the study.

And yet Carl, since you are I were kids, we have been taught by this world's religious sects and businesses "who come in Christ's Name", that Jesus "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws" concerning the adulterous woman. But as you can surely see, when a man actually studies the scriptures for themselves, this teaching is an insidious lie, a complete and utter falsehood. Jesus followed God's Laws perfectly in the matter of the adulterous woman, to the very letter.

I know you mean no malice, and too was deceived into believing this falsehood for a long time. And I am very passionate about these things. But please, be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and stop furthering the blasphemy that is so popular in this world's religions system, that Jesus rejected His Own Fathers Commandments. Because HE didn't.

Jerry N. · Nov 3, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
Thank you for this.

New Testament means New Covenant. Jesus lived in the New Covenant and I understand why it would be convenient for people to say the New Covenant started after His death so therefore we would not have to follow the example of God who is Jesus that became flesh or follow and believe His teaching, as sadly so many people believe and teach. His covenant was ratified by His death but started much sooner.

There has been plenty of debate about when the New Covenant started. Personally, I think the Old Covenant ended when Jesus said, “It is finished.” The New Covenant started with the coming of the Holy Spirit on believers. I might be wrong, but Jesus and the apostles kept the Law of Moses, but not the law of the Pharisees. Beyond that, it is not important to me 2000 years later. The Old Covenant has been fulfilled but not negated. The New Covenant is based on the working of the Holy Spirit.

Hentenza · Nov 3, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
You're the one that says the commandment that we don't like get deleted in the New Covenant, not me, not God.

Quote my post where I said that. Never have. My argument has always been that the new covenant has different terms than the old covenant and Jesus fulfilled the sabbath in Him. Prove me wrong. I asked you for two verses that you are yet to post to prove your argument. You know which ones they are.

SabbathBlessings said:
I am not going to go down this rabbit hole.

But you keep going down your rabbit hole by repeating the same argument that I have refuted many times.

Fervent · Nov 3, 2025

Bradskii said:
Then I guess that Jan 6 was not justified. But hey, we both knew that anyway.

You sure do have a bad habit of selective editing and failing to respond to the central point.

wing2000 · Nov 3, 2025

Reuters' extensive, open-source reporting of the build-up of US forces in the Caribbean. This reads like a DIA Intelligence report....

While the endgame of the massive buildup is not yet clear, the pieces are in place for operations inside Venezuela, something President Donald Trump suggested last Thursday.

“The land is going to be next,” he said.

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CARIBBEAN/MILITARY-BUILDUP/egpbbnzyrpq/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily-Briefing&utm_term=110325&lctg=62347fe4ea3e6439186f0ea6

Hentenza · Nov 3, 2025

Jerry N. said:
Several years ago, I had a long discussion with a pastor of a church I did not attend. We talked about how the Sabbath rest never moved to Sunday. It was a friendly conversation. He told me that his whole life was dedicated to his church and that the cost was too great to his ministry to start keeping the Sabbath. My opinion about that conversation has gone back and forth since. Was he choosing the lesser of two evils? Was he a coward? Was his choice justified? He was a good man who spread the gospel and served his people.

He made the right choice.

Hentenza · Nov 3, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
The summary of the law does not delete

You already messed up. No one here is claiming that anything was deleted. Wrong argument.

SabbathBlessings said:
the details from being written on stone (all Ten Det 4:13 Exo 31:18 according to God) to being written on the heart Heb8:10 2Cor3:3

Fulfilled in the person of Jesus.

SabbathBlessings said:
We do not get to pick and choose which commandments are Gods laws, unless we think we are god, which is breaking the very first commandment and love is keeping God's commandments, not breaking them 1John5:3 Hopefully you will see this one day.

Jesus gets to pick what is part of the new covenant. You don’t get to force old covenant terms into a new covenant. You don’t get to force the Christian into the law.

Hentenza · Nov 3, 2025

HIM said:
It does not matter what any "all" believe. What matters is what God has said. And He said it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath Matt 12:12. Not that the Sabbath was done away with.

The sabbath was fulfilled in the person of Jesus. God gave us a new covenant and the 4th commandment is NOT included.

Fervent · Nov 3, 2025

Bradskii said:
I can start here.

'Do unto others...' is a suggestion as to how one should live a valued life. It's been common throughout the ages. From Egypt and India, Greek and Roman, Christianity...all major religions and philosophies have their version. Earlier you said that Jesus has your moral answers (a matter I'll address later), so I'm certain that you agree with it. To the extent that it is a fact of life.

To expand on that...

I don't want to get smacked in the mouth. If I hit you then there's an excellent chance that you'll retaliate. So hey, that Golden Rule comes in handy. It is a fact that if I don't interfere with your well being then you are not going to interfere with mine. I'm treating you as I would like to be treated.

I also like living in a relatively peaceful society in general. My family is reasonably safe in the one in which we live. There is a social contact to which we (mostly) adhere which keeps things on an even keel. If smacking people in the mouth at random were to be the norm then that social contract dissolves. Violence would increase. Theft would increase. People would start thinking that hey, if he can do what he wants then so can I. Golden Rule again.

Add to this the fact that I don't like to see people in pain. That's empathy allowing me to understand what they are feeling. Empathy is not an emotion. It allows you to understand someone else's emotional state. What I feel about it may vary. I may be distraught. I may be happy. I may be indifferent. Yes, all feelings. But I can't change them. I can't decide to be happy when I see a child being hurt. I can't decide to be indifferent if my daughter is depressed. And you can also add to that that I (mostly) don't like causing pain (the last fight I had was in school and as soon as I punched the guy (he deserved it) I was immediately concerned that he'd been hurt).

So, what have we got here. Lots of facts. You've been smacked in the mouth. That IS a fact. You may well retaliate. That IS a strong possibility. I don't want to be hit. That IS another fact. I like living in a world where this sort of violence doesn't happen. That IS yet another fact. It IS a feature of my character that I don't like hurting people. It IS also a characteristic that I don't like to see people hurt.

All of this speaks to why you might want to present as meek and mild, but none of them speak to a moral imperative. Simply a fear of retribution/consequences.

Bradskii said:
So all these IS statements keep adding up. To a point where we OUGHT to do something to prevent all these non desireable outcomes. So if smacking you in the mouth IS going to cause all these problems then I OUGHT not to do it.

And here you've taken a turn, and seem to be making a category mistake between compliance with external powers and an internal morality. There is no proper reason to comply except with what is being enforced socially which is not a basis for morality.

Bradskii said:
Now what I have given you are some facts why I OUGHT not to do it. And one way you may address it is by saying that some of those weren't facts but emotions. But we can't help our emotions. They spring unbidden into our lives. We're not Spock cooly and calmly determining consequences. Neither of us. Our emotions are simply facts of our characteristics. Built into our DNA. And mine come from an extremely long line of ancestors who felt roughly the same. As did yours. They come from a line of ancestors that managed to keep procreating through time until we arrived. And through an evolutionary dice toss they were generally the ones that thought that living in a society where people (mostly) didn't randomly attack each other was a better way of living. And so we think that way. You can't think any other way. It IS a fact.

So we OUGHT to live like that.

And you've presented a series of non-sequitors, and an argument that morality can only come from an external source and a fear of consequences. You haven't established a relationship between descriptive statements and prescriptive ones.

sjastro · Nov 3, 2025

When GPT-5 gave a description of the world famous sock analogy in science in Post #10 this caught my attention.

Sock Pair #42
A: Red top
B: Stripes middle
C: Star toe

#42 is a very significant number in the world of literature.
I asked GPT-5 what was the point of Sock Pair #42.

Ah! I see what you’re asking — in my sock analogy earlier, I labeled a pair of socks as Sock Pair #42. That choice wasn’t physically significant… it was a cultural reference

42 is famously known as:

“The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.”

Click to expand...

…according to Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

So the significance in Sock Pair #42 was simply:

✅ A playful Hitchhiker’s reference
❌ Not a physics constant, not a special number in Bell’s inequality

It was just a little Easter egg hidden in the analogy

If you'd like, I can relabel the sock pair to another number — but personally, 42 is always a good answer.

I assure you I did not prompt GPT-5 to give this answer, while various posters have made jokes about socks in this thread, when AI starts engaging in humour about socks it is frankly rather creepy.

Jerry N. · Nov 3, 2025

Several years ago, I had a long discussion with a pastor of a church I did not attend. We talked about how the Sabbath rest never moved to Sunday. It was a friendly conversation. He told me that his whole life was dedicated to his church and that the cost was too great to his ministry to start keeping the Sabbath. My opinion about that conversation has gone back and forth since. Was he choosing the lesser of two evils? Was he a coward? Was his choice justified? He was a good man who spread the gospel and served his people.

hedrick · Nov 3, 2025

Here’s what Moo’s commentary says. If he is right, it appears that the issue can be settled entirely by grammar.

“It is harder to know whether “in his blood” indicates the object of “faith”—“faith in his blood” (see KJV), modifies the verb “set forth”—“through his blood God has presented him,” or modifies hilastērion—“a propitiation in blood” (note the reversal of terms in NASB: “a propitiation in his blood through faith”). But Paul never elsewhere makes Christ’s blood an object of faith, so the latter is preferable. “In his blood” singles out Christ’s blood as the means by which God’s wrath is propitiated. As in several other texts where Christ’s blood is the means through which salvation is secured (Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Col. 1:20), the purpose is to designate Christ’s death as a sacrifice.”

Hentenza · Nov 3, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
Do you apply this to the commandment not to commit adultery as well?

Yep. It was repeated by Jesus two love commandments so your aha moment is gone. Can you show me the verse where the 4th commandment was repeated by Jesus two love commandments?

Fervent · Nov 3, 2025

partinobodycular said:
But doesn't Hume's argument simply boil down to the observation that you can't derive subjective beliefs from objective truths? In which case my response is... that's a keen observation, but so what? It just means that I'll have to use some other means to determine morality, and I'm perfectly happy with that. It also means that your concept of morality may differ from my concept of morality, but I'm perfectly happy with that too.

Not exactly, the argument maintains that you can't draw prescriptive statements from descriptive ones. Just because a certain state of affairs exist, doesn't speak to how things should be.

partinobodycular said:
@Bradskii has chosen to use the Golden Rule as his basis for morality, which I find to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It's not exactly the same principal that I use, but I'm a solipsistic outlier, so I tend to wander a bit outside of the box.

But where did that come from? Isn't the goal to derive morality through reason? So how was the golden rule determined to be a guiding principle, and is it a moral absolute?

partinobodycular said:
From my perspective it's perfectly reasonable for morality to change from time to time, and place to place, because what's best for society may sometimes require behavior that other times may deem to be immoral. When you find a time and place that's perfect, let me know.

So there are times when the golden rule is not the appropriate moral principle?

partinobodycular said:
As I'm wont to say, until I've walked a mile in your shoes, I have no right to judge you. However, in every time and in every place there are those behaviors that lead to survival and there are those behaviors that don't, and therein abides a judge from which we can't escape.

Adaptability is hardly a determinant of moral behavior.

Jerry N. · Nov 3, 2025

Servus said:
What's the difference between picking (breaking off) the tops of wheat, and picking up flakes of manna?

And how was wheat harvested if it didn't involve picking heads of wheat? And how did the wheat grains get seperated for food without threshing being involved?

Collecting heads of wheat and then separating the grain from the husk is labor intensive. People were employed to do that kind of work.

Deut. 23:26 When you enter another man’s field of standing grain, you may pluck ears with your hand; but you must not put a sickle to your neighbor’s grain.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Nov 3, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
Bounty Hunters, check.

ICE wants to unleash bounty hunters on immigrants: report
Bounty hunters are in line to become the next tool of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under a procurement document reviewed by the Intercept, the website reported Friday.

"Under the plan, bounty hunters may receive 'monetary bonuses' depending on how successfully they track down their targets — and how many immigrants they then report to ICE," the report said. "According to the document, which solicits information from interested contractors for a potentially forthcoming contract opportunity, companies hired by ICE will be given bundles of information on 10,000 immigrants at a time to locate, with further assignments provided in 'increments of 10,000 up to 1,000,000.'"

Last year, many discussed President Trump's mass deportation policy and questioned whether Americans would support it if fully implemented. Now, as the policy is being enforced, mainstream media (MSM) covers ICE activities only sporadically. If MSM consistently showed how ICE conducts arrests—including detaining children near schools or single parents at home—public perception might change.

Jerry N. · Nov 3, 2025

Studyman said:
What a good point. But according to God's Own Definition of His "New Covenant", where is a change in the 10 Commandments mentioned, suggested or even implied? There is no mention at all, concerning the abolition, change or removal of God's Definition of Holy, Righteous, Clean and Good at all. In this world's religious system there is, but in the Law and Prophets, specifically the promise of a New covenant, the only "change" mentioned is "the manner in which God's Laws are administered to His People", and "the manner in which forgiveness for transgression of God's Law is provided for". Both of these things were exclusive duties of the Old Priesthood "after the order of Aaron", which from the beginning was only to be in place until the Prophesied Priest, "After the Order of Melchizedek" should come.

We have been taught since our youth, not by the Bible, but by this world's religions "who come in Christ's Name", that God Promised to end of God's definition of Holy, Just and Good that Jesus said to Live by. I think this doctrine is "Leaven" and has influenced you and I to believe things that are not true about God's Salvation.

No different than the "leaven" promoted by the mainstream religions of Christ's Time, that it was against God's Sabbath Commandment to take a walk in fellowship with Him on the Sabbath Days, and pick a blackberry to munch on along the way.

And I understand your believe that the promised New Covenant didn't start until Pentecost. I was taught the same thing. But Jesus, before HE was murdered, forgave sins. And not once did HE follow sacrificial "works of the Law" required under the Old Priesthood, at least according to my understanding of what is written. I could be wrong about that, so please do your own study of the Scriptures discerning this belief.

And I can't get my head around the implication of God's New Covenant not starting until after HE ascended, because HE was the High Priest of the Apostles in my view. So while I believe the New covenant still has parts that are even today, yet to be fulfilled, it seems that it started the day Jesus was anointed High Priest of God by a True Levite Priest, "John the Baptist", "for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness".

Give this some thought, and let me know what you think, even in PM if you want.

But if a man who professed to know God, stole from people, and another man who professed to know God didn't steal, is there a problem?

I would say it would be a problem if a man didn't judge one Law of God above another. But if we have judged that One Law of God is more Holy, more righteous, more worthy of our honor and respect than His Other Laws, then it might not be a problem.

Isn't that the reason God rejected the Priests in the first place?

Mal. 2: 7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but "have been partial in the law."

So if a girl chooses to stay a virgin her whole life, in service to God, but judged some of His Commandments as unworthy of her honor and respect, would that be a problem?

I love your perspective and questions Jerry. These are good, but perhaps sometimes uncomfortable discussions to have among men "Seeking the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness".

But is Paul talking about God's Law here? "One person is loyal to his wife, while another person cheats with many different women". Would Paul not rebuke this person and tell them as he has others, "he who committed adultery, commit adultery no more".

What difference does it make what day one man esteems, or another man esteems. In the Holy Scriptures, God Esteemed one day a week above the other 6, and sanctified it and gave it to men. Then will a man who "Yield himself" to God, and submits to God's Righteousness, not be fully convinced in his mind concerning God's creation of the day and the week?

I think Him was pointed in the right direction when he said these men, "weak in faith" are dealing with opinions they have adopted "Wherein in time past they walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience". And God will reveal to them what is important, as Paul also teaches.

Phil. 3: 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God (The Perfection that was) in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. (Let each man be convinced in his own mind)

Yes, this is why Paul Labored.

2 Cor. 5: 9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

Great topic, great points and ones I have pondered myself for years. I appreciate that I can share what my studies have found.

My point was not to argue for the Sabbath, because I try to keep it and have for many years. Everything you wrote is correct, but I was pointing out the inconsistencies I have seen in those who have told me that my keeping of the Sabbath in not Biblical. Maybe my writing was not as clear as I intended. I am in no position to condemn or support those who don’t keep the Sabbath, because I can’t go a week without committing some offense toward God. It is the Holy Spirit’s work to convince people of what is right. I’m not half the saint of thousands of Christians who kept Sunday as the Lord’s Day, so who am I to say what they do is sin. Civil law is something else.

bbbbbbb · Nov 3, 2025

yum

winter melon?

bbbbbbb · Nov 3, 2025

left hand

DaisyDay · Nov 3, 2025

rjs330 said:
Your the one who asked why I should care because it doesnt affect me.

If your husband was to beat you that wouldnt affect me either. But I would care anyway.

Again with your fantasy of my being beaten. This obsession is bordering on the pathological.

rjs330 said:
Just like I care that millions of people have been killed by those drug dealers even though it doeant affect me personally.

Now do you get it? Its patently a faulty argument to say, "why do you care if people are hurt or killed, it doesn't affect you."

That is not my argument. Reading comprehension! Perhaps address my actual argument instead of this nonsense? I realize this is unlikely as you seem to be committed to disputing something I did not say.

rjs330 said:
No it doesn’t. You are to forgive someone who sins against YOU. It has nothing to do with government paying for helping drug addicts who won't stay clean.

Sure it does.

rjs330 said:
Good

Me too.
I see, its always an all or nothing thing with you?

No, that's major projection on your part.

rjs330 said:
There can be no compromise on governement interventions? This is why we cant really find agreement. Either government pays all the time everytime for everything always or nothing.

What the heck are you on about? Who ever said there can be no compromise? The government has never paid all the time for drug addiction rehab and I have never thought they did. Maybe if you try you can understand my actual argument, but that would require your wanting to understand.

rjs330 said:
Im.sorry, but with that kind of attitude and thinking we can never find common ground.

Im done with you on this subject.

And yet, three minutes later: ^_^

rjs330 said:
Ive addressed this numerous times now. Yes it is. They build into their drugs lethal doses. They do it becauae it produces a greater high and it actually makes their drugs more desirable.

That's ridiculous. Smugglers don't sell direct to consumers. The dealers don't want their customers to die because dead people are notoriously non-customers, but it's probable that they don't really know the actual composition of the drugs - it's not like they do quality assurance testing. This is why heavy regulation would ease the dangers of addiction - think of methadone clinics.

bbbbbbb · Nov 3, 2025

actually love others as we love our own selves.

As for myself, . . .

Latest activity

Latest activity

ICE wants to unleash bounty hunters on immigrants: report​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

ICE wants to unleash bounty hunters on immigrants: report