Lady Bug said:

About the dessert. If the dessert is consumed more than 45 minutes to an hour after dinner, it really causes my head a problem.

Click to expand...

Sugar could be the problem. I would try a sugar free dessert to see what happens
You would just need the artificial sweetener that you like best
You don’t have to eat it all the time, just for diagnostic purposes

DamianWarS said:

Your argument hinges on bifurcating law, essentially elevating one over another (which is not scripturally supported). NT teaching doesn't isolate law like this; these terms we use to categorize law is not something scripture itself uses but is something the church has introduced later. What is sacrificial law over moral or ceremonial? Why is sacrificial also not moral? why is the 4th not ceremonial (since it clearly is a ceremony of rest)? Who made these terms? and why are we elevating these words over scripture? How can we be so bold to claim one law is greater than another without any scripture to back it? Christ tells us in Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." so which law did he come to fulfill? he does not bifurcate law, his reference is all-inclusive. Christ already tells us what the greatest is, so should that not settel the matter? Christ's remarks of the greatest commandments in Mat 22:40 is "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" again he makes no effort to distinguish which law is what (apparently he doesn't discriminate law); he encompasses them all in the term "All the Law and the Prophets."

you're jumping through hoops trying to establish a hidden line that these law/commandment means the 10 where another reference to law/commandment mean the other (whatever you want to call it). What establishes one group of laws over another group of laws? Circumcision is established as a sign of the everlasting covenant between God and Abraham (Gen 17) and to his descendants. It is quite explicit, it must be done physically, otherwise the offender in a twist of irony, is cut off himself. Yet Paul calls circumcision nothing. The word for everlasting is the same word used to describe the sabbath commandment, yet we are to understand circumcision in the physical as a limited law and sabbath law (in regards to physical requirement) as a neverending law? spiritually they are both everlasting in the fullest sense, but physically they are limited. how do you reconcile these concepts?

Gal 3:19 says as you quoted, "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions..." but a valuable part is missing. if we complete the sentence, it says "...till the seed should come to whom the promise was made" leaving this part out in your quote is disingenuous to the verse and seems a bit sneaky to be honest. It makes me suspicious that you're agenda-driven and carry too much bias to make an informed decision.

Galatiansis not just a bunch of cut and copy verses meant to be taken out of context. It's a short letter and can be easily read in one sitting, it's also Paul's earliest letter. when we read it's whole it's view of law is clearer than a cut apart single verse. for example, 5:14 is a pretty big one "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” now which law do you suppose this points to? it says the entire law and is clearly a quote of Christ who says "All the Law and the Prophets" do you still want to say but when Paul says this law he meant something else? Do you still wish to cut up law so that you declare one as superior to the greatest commandment?

The word "greatest" is already a superlative but do you mean to suggest the 10 are greater still? I suppose you use the term as a "summary" if so please unpack that. Where is that concept based? show me in scripture how the greatest commandments Jesus speaks of is actually a summary of the 10? these are serious matters and I can't just hand wave these missing elements and pretent it's ok to fill in the blanks myself. I instead need to use what information is there to show me how to go forward.

Click to expand...

Let's continue where I left off.....Now, let's back up in this chapter to the third verses and point out the two sets of laws. Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:3)

The spirit in this case is the word of God, but pay close attention to what Paul says at the end of the verse. "Are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Can we be made perfect by the flesh? What flesh is Paul talking about? Let's go to the book of Hebrews and find out.

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (Hebrews 10:1)

The flesh Paul spoke of was the animal sacrifices. Notice what the verse says, "never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect." That's pretty clear don't you think? Let's go back to Galatians chapter 3 and take note how Paul uses the word "law" but does not say this is the sacrificial law or the Commandments. But as we read further in the chapter we will see the difference between the two.

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10)

We have both Laws with in this verse. In the first part of the verse where it states, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse:" This law is the sacrificial law, let's skip to the 13th verse and we will see this clearly. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13)

Notice what's being said, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." How was he made a curse for us? He took on our sins and redeemed us from the curse of the sacrificial law which could never take away sin. Now take a look at the next set of verses and we will see indeed that only the sacrificial law was nailed to the cross.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Colossians 2:13-14)

Notice this, "He quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. Why was this law (which is the sacrificial law) contrary to us?

Notice this in Hebrews the 10th chapter; For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. (Hebrews 10:4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. That is why it was contrary to us. The sacrificial law simply could not make us perfect.

Now let's look at the second half of the 13th verse in the book of Galatians chapter 3.

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13) Paul is simply quoting Moses, take a look. His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 21:23)

Go into the Book of John chapter 19 verse 31 and you will see that Jesus was removed from the cross before sun down. Let's back up in Galatians chapter 3 to verses 10 and watch how we have a different law in the second half of the verse.

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10)

This law is part of the commandments. Once again Paul, is quoting Moses, let's take a look.

Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deuteronomy 27:26)

Let's take a look at some of these laws in Deuteronomy 27th chapter.

Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deuteronomy 27:19-26)

After reading through some of these commandments ask yourself, what's wrong with these laws? If we say we are followers of the Lord shouldn't we keep ourselves from doing these things? Yes! If the sacrificial law was the only law taken away when Jesus was nailed to the cross, which would mean all the other laws are still intact. Commandments, High and Holy Sabbaths, weekly Sabbaths and the Dietary law .

Abraham1st said:

The royal law is one.

Do you think a law to not commit adultery has to be in the heart of Christ, the Son of God, or it is God that is in Christ, love in Christ, and love does not need to be made to be kind, it is kindness.

I separated the verses below, so ANYONE CAN FOLLOW MY THOUGHTS.



Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.



James 2: 1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

James 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

James 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

Click to expand...

Wonderful verses, but let's look at how things fit in the word of God when it comes to the love of God, because in the days of Jesus, the religious leaders were constantly questioning Jesus in order to test Him and on this occasion a lawyer asked Jesus what is the great commandment?

Matthew (22:35) Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, (36) Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus reply was the 1st great commandment was to love God and the 2nd was to love ones neighbor. These were given as a commandment for man to love.

Matthew (22:37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

(38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

One should note that by following the 1st and 2nd great commandment they will be adhering to the 10 commandments issued by Moses. If they love the Lord they won’t have any other Gods before him, or make any graven images or take his name in vain, they will remember his Sabbath and if they love their neighbor they will honor their Father and Mother and they won’t kill or commit adultery or steal or bear false witness nor will they covet. This is why Jesus goes on to state that on these two commandments hang the law and the prophets. Because by fulfilling these two commandments one fulfills the law.

(40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus stated that these 2 commandments where the 2 great commandments however the following verses will show that these commandments were not new and that the Jews and Jesus was speaking to were aware of them. These were the same ones issued to Israel by Moses.

Deuteronomy (6:5) And thy shall love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Leviticus (19:18) Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Now that it has been established that man was commanded to love one needs to examine the scriptures to get an understanding of the love required in these great commandments.

In the following verses Moses is telling the Israelites that God chose them strictly out of His love for them.Deuteronomy (7:7) The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: (8) But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

(9) Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Note in verse (9) Moses states a condition that God requires in order for Him to keep covenant and have mercy. And that is an individual must love God and keep His commandments. The scriptures will show that there is only one way to love God and that is by keeping His commandments.

Note that Jesus states in the following verse that in order to love Him one has to keep His commandments.

John (14:15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Jesus further defines the love He requires when He states in the following verse that those who have His commandments and keep them are those that love Him. One does not have to guess at Jesus definition of love He made it clear.

John (14:21) He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Jesus also reinforced what was said in Deuteronomy verse (9) by adding that those that love Him will be loved by the Father. How does one love Jesus? by keeping His commandments and Moses said God will keep covenant and have mercy with those who keep His commandments. So therefore by following Jesus one shall receive love from Him as well as mercy from the Father.

Note in these scriptures it did not say those who profess their love for Jesus or those that claim that Jesus knows what in their heart. Jesus made a clear and direct statement if one has His commandments and keeps them they are the ones who love Him. The statement that Jesus made as well as the condition Moses gave in Deuteronomy verse (9) were based on behalf of an individuals actions not their feeling or emotions or conditions. To exhibit love towards Jesus one must engage in a specific action and that action is being obedience to the word of God. And one will see that they are to be obedient regardless of their feeling or the surrounding circumstances.

Jesus states again in the following verses what is required of an individual to receive His love.

John (15:9) As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Notice Jesus use the word if ye keep my commandments, so what happen if ye do not keep his commandments. The above verse shows to be loved of Jesus one needs to be obedient. Jesus also states in verse (10) that He was obedient to the Father by keeping His commandments and therefore abides in His love

GoldenBoy89 said:

Looks like you and @Vambram are onboard with leveraging human suffering.

Click to expand...

It is the Democrats in the Senate who are leveraging human suffering every time they continue to vote to keep the filibuster going and thus keep the government shutdown.

CoreyD said:

Deliberate :

adjective​

1. Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional.
   mistook the oversight for a deliberate insult.
2. Arising from or marked by careful consideration: synonym: voluntary.
   a deliberate decision.
3. Unhurried and careful.
   moved at a deliberate pace.

1 Timothy 2:14​

Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come into transgression.

​

Deceive :​

to persuade someone that something false is the truth, or to keep the truth hidden from someone for your own advantage

Please, in a clear and coherent way, explain which of the following is not true, and why. Thank you.

Click to expand...

We need to remember that the question is whether Adam wanted to disobey God. The scripture does not indicate in any terminology that Adam experienced any such desire/want <--see #4 meaning of 'want' below.

CoreyD said:
The question was...
Did Adam want to disobey God?
The Bible's answer: 1 Timothy 2:14 Yes, he did.

1 Timothy 2:14 Adam was not deceived.
Therefore, the man's disobedience was willful. Adam sinned willfully.

want​

1 of 2

verb​

ˈwȯnt
also
ˈwänt
and ˈwənt

wanted; wanting; wants
Synonyms of want
intransitive verb
1
: to be needy or destitute

2
: to have or feel need
never wants for friends


3
: to be necessary or needed

4
: to desire to come, go, or be
the cat wants in

wants out of the deal
---------------------------------------------
The scripture places Adam in a scenario where he is forced to choose between who to believe. Such a scenario is the product of the antecedent event caused by the serpent's lie. Therefore, Adam did not volunteer to be in the situation of being forced to choose. I believe Adam did not want to disbelieve God, but at the same time he didn't want to disbelieve the woman. He was likely disconcerted, and he did not want to be in this scenario.

freewill​

1 of 2

adjective​

free·will ˈfrē-ˌwil

Synonyms of freewill
: voluntary, spontaneous
free will
2 of 2

noun​

1
: voluntary choice or decision
I do this of my own free will


2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

CoreyD said:

• Adam was not deceived into taking the fruit from his wife Eve, and eating it.

Click to expand...

This statement is NOT ACCURATE. <-- Note I did NOT say Not TRUE. Why? Because You're taking 1 Timothy 2:14 out of context. Paul did not intend to convey the sentiment that Adam disobeyed God willfully/deliberately. I have already proven that you're misinterpreting Paul's sentiment because your misinterpretation ends in a contradiction of reasoning.

Explanation: Paul IS saying he will not suffer a woman to teach, and that the woman should not usurp authority over the man. Why? Two reasons (1) The man came first (2) The woman was the one deceived, not the man. We can ascertain that Paul intends to convey that the man should NOT be led by the woman.

You're implying that Paul is conveying that he feels the man should be in authority over the woman because the man deliberately, and willfully disobeyed God. <-- This misinterpretation makes Paul look stupid, since it's common sense that anyone who willfully and deliberately disobeys God should NOT be leading anyone.

If we look above (the dictionary meaning of 'deliberate' is posted in a negative connotation of disobedience, NOT obedience). The fact is only a wicked mind would deliberate so as to rationalize doing wrong. You are implying that Paul is conveying that Adam ate after careful consideration and therefore that Adam was wicked.

CoreyD said:

• Adam deliberately took the fruit from Eve and ate it, doing so with the knowledge that to do so he would be disobedient to God.

Click to expand...

False. The bible states that Eve gave the fruit to him Adam. It does NOT state that Adam deliberately took the fruit from Eve. We know God told him not to eat or he would die and therefore he didn't eat because Adam believed/trusted God. We know God commanded Adam not to eat, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". And we know that God said that Adam had hearkened to the woman, which implies he was persuaded to eat by the woman.

The scriptures are describing Adam in a scenario where he is forced to choose between who to believe, God or the woman. The term free will in the OP sometimes morphs a choice/decision that is unforced. Subsequently, one must ask "If a person is forced to choose between who to believe is it a forced choice? My personal assessment, with the full knowledge that a lie created the event, is yes; it qualifies as a forced decision.

CoreyD said:

• Adam deliberately - that is, without being fooled, or persuaded into believing something false to be true, acting in accord with his own will, and disobeyed God.

Click to expand...

A false statement. Scripture indicates that God said Adam had 'hearkened' to the woman, which implies Adam was persuaded by the woman, who was deceived.

CoreyD said:

A "will free from the desire to sin. A will free from the lies that evil desires arise out of" is certainly something we would welcome.
In fact, that is what God wants for us, and it will eventually be accomplished.

Click to expand...

This will be accomplished by the Holy Spirit.

CoreyD said:

What you are describing though, is not free will.

Click to expand...

I disagree. You have not even given a coherent definition of what this free will is that you're referring to.

CoreyD said:

You are describing having a nature that is free from corruption.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

CoreyD said:

In other words, you are describing a person's character... which is what God's people are aiming for, and what God is aiming them to - perfection, or a perfect state, such as at a level Adam and Eve could have had, if they had been like the son God speaks so well of.

Click to expand...

I disagree with any assertion that Adam and Eve were corrupt when in a state of innocence.

CoreyD said:

Jesus state of perfection is one where he has no desire at all, to disobey the father... that is, sin.

Click to expand...

Exactly, Jesus has no will with the capacity to desire to disobey God.

CoreyD said:

The difference here, is between free will and perfection.

Click to expand...

If the free will you're describing is imperfect, but on its way towards perfection, this would be done by the Holy Spirit of Truth, and Truth is a revelation.

Note below that this would not qualify as a free will (noun) in the dictionary.

free will
2 of 2

noun​

1
: voluntary choice or decision
I do this of my own free will


2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

CoreyD said:

Humans will reach that level of perfection, and will continue to have free will, like the angels, and Jesus, who said "My meat/food is to do the will of him that sent me." John4:34

Click to expand...

I don't believe Jesus has the same free will that has the capacity to want to disobey God. In my psycholinguistics, I don't count the capacity to disobey God as freedom.

CoreyD said:

Note the contrast...

• Jesus wanted to do, only what God wants him to do.
• Faithful angels too... they desire to do the will of God. Isaiah 6:8
• Humans who are in the new world that Jesus' 1'000 year rule will complete... they will desire to do only what God wants, and therefore, there will be "no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away." Revelation 21:4

• The angels that sinned, as well as Adam and Eve did not want to do the will of God.
• All mankind today whom God judges as wicked, do not want to do the will of God.

Both these contrasts have free will.

Click to expand...

Jesus does not have this so called free will which is an equivocation of freedom to sin and to not sin. That's' called doublemindedness. Certainly, God doesn't either.



I don't accept the assertion that Adam and Eve did not want to do the will of God. The contrast I articulate is that there are powers of Light and darkness that indicate the knowledge and ignorance of God's Person. A corrupt image of god's person, formed out of ignorance/darkness, would therefore corrupt the soul.

CoreyD said:

So, while perfection and free will can both exist together, they are not the same thing.
The angels have free will and perfection, yet they sin... that is, acted on desires opposed to God. Genesis 6:1
The mark of perfection God sets the target at, may be reached by operation/help of God's holy spirit, but the freedom of choice, or free will, is what allows one to attain that, since it requires first, choosing to submit to God. Psalm 73:28
James 4:8-10

8 Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Clean your hands, sinners, and purify your hearts, men of two minds; 9 be miserable, and mourn, and weep; let your laughter be turned to mourning and your gladness to abasement. 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will uplift you.​

Click to expand...

Okay wait a minute. The Holy Spirit testifies to the Character of God and the son. It's a revelation and therefore has nothing to do with the will of any man or angel choosing. Note that Psalm 73:28 is talking about drawing close through faith which is dependent upon a trustworthy image of God. We don't choose to have faith; Faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the Word of God.

CoreyD said:

One has to choose to be humble, and draw near to God, in order for God to respond, and help that one.
Free will allows one to choose to go against sinful desires, or to choose one course or the other... whether sinful - that is, prone to sin, or not.
The Bible does not say sickness, or weakness killed off free will, from the make up of the perfect man Adam, and his offspring.

Does being free from slavery to sin (Romans 6:6, 16, 17, 20, 22), prevent one from having the freedom to choose to become a slave to sin? No.
Hebrews 2:1; Hebrews 3:12; 2 Hebrews 12:25; Peter 2:20, 21

Click to expand...

This is all confusing.

I note that the statement that the free will you are describing allows one to choose to go against sinful desires, or with sinful desires. It is therefore doublemindedness. It is also predicated on the existence of sinful desires that in turn are based on lies and vain imaginings. This is the problem I have with the term. I do not want to cloak doublemindedness with the sentiment of freedom. We can qualify this free will as free from singlemindedness.

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

Jesus, The Word made flesh, said ---> And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. <--- These words clearly indicate that people who don't have the Truth he is alluding to need to be set "Free" by the truth. <--- This is a positive connotation of the term "Free" that we need to agree upon to receive the Word of God lest we misconstrue or mischaracterize ignorance and/or being deceived as a freewill. To be clear, I'm saying that we need to acknowledge that Jesus is conveying that the people who he is talking to are NOT FREE, so that we can acknowledge that there are wills that are FREE and there are wills that are NOT FREE, without equivocation.

unequivocal​

adjective​

un·equiv·o·cal ˌən-i-ˈkwi-və-kəl

Synonyms of unequivocal
1
: leaving no doubt : clear, unambiguous

2
: unquestionable

equivocation​

noun​

equiv·o·ca·tion i-ˌkwi-və-ˈkā-shən

pluralequivocations
Synonyms of equivocation
: deliberate evasiveness in wording : the use of ambiguous or equivocal language

childeye 2 said:
There is a premise that the serpent subconsciously introduces a false image of God to Eve through his subtilty. I'm saying Eve is not consciously aware that she is accepting a false premise. That hidden premise is (1) that God is a liar because he said you will die if you eat (2) God is keeping the man and woman down by forbidding them from knowledge that would elevate their status (3) They could be free from their blind servitude to God and become like gods themselves if they ate.

CoreyD said:
Cool.
That sounds like something I can agree with.
In other words, Satan introduce the idea of independence from God...

Always in His Presence said:

I didn't say anything about tax cuts - frankly have no clue how you even got that idea.

Click to expand...

You were abundantly unclear as to why you thought the ACA was "unaffordable". I assumed that you were saying it was unaffordable from a federal budget perspective, not from a personal budget perspective.

Always in His Presence said:

My point is that before the Unaffordable Care Act caused premiums to rise 105% and completely eliminated health care plans for hundreds of thousands of Americans (of which I was one) that were working for us. Then fining us $3,000.00 a year for not having the coverage we could no longer afford was draconian and authoritarian in scope.

At the time I had five of six children living at home - when my health insurance DOUBLED, there was little room left for the necessities of life, so I dropped the coverage and went with a cash plan my primary care provider had. Then I get hit with a $3,000 penalty for not subscribing to a health insurance plan that was double the cost of my previous one.

Thank God he stopped the $3,000.00 penalty.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that stinks. And I didn't know that the ACA impacted some people that drastically. I went back to school in my late twenties, and left my job to finish my degree (full time) shortly after the ACA was implemented. In all honesty, I could not easily afford the market coverage, so did not get it. But I managed to avoid the penalty.

The thing is... how is eliminating the ACA subsidies going to change all that? It just seems like you will be putting a bunch of people in the same situation that you faced. How will that right the ship? If you think that the ACA is a bad plan, that's fine - and maybe you're right. But where's the better plan that will replace it? Don't you think this different / better plan should be in place before pulling out the rug out from underneath a bunch of people?

SabbathBlessings said:

I personally do believe teaching the Spirit leading one away from God's law is a thin part. I do not believe Paul thought so either if reading the whole passage in its proper context. I think it's actually harmful to the spiritual life in Christ, who says If you love Me, keep My commandments. John 14:15, the Spirit is Who helps us obey these very commandments. John 15:18 so its not if we have one the other goes, the Spirit and God's Laws are in harmony, not against.

Click to expand...

I think there may have been a misunderstanding of what the post was actually saying. If you read it as written, you’ll see that the point wasn’t to dismiss the Ten Commandments, but to show that the Spirit leads us beyond them—into something deeper and more complete.

Scripture teaches that those who depend on the Law for righteousness are under a curse, but those who live by the Spirit through faith will live forever. Many sincere Sabbath keepers focus so much on the written code—especially the fourth commandment—that they sometimes miss the greater gift of righteousness offered to us through the blood of Jesus Christ.

The Bible reminds us that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” True righteousness and spiritual growth don’t come from keeping the Law; they come from knowing Christ and being transformed by His Spirit.

So the real question isn’t whether we can fulfill the Law ourselves, but whether Christ has fulfilled it in us. And when we speak of being ambassadors for Him, it’s not about promoting the Ten Commandments—it’s about representing the message of reconciliation that God has offered to the world through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

David Hine7 said:

The secular "scientists" are thicker than you guys, so please take that as a compliment.

Click to expand...

One is tempted to make the juvenile reponse it takes one to know one.

wing2000 said:

...and the only President to pull a PM in closer to him as though she were Ivanka...(the look on her face at 4:47 : )

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

I think you gave the wrong timestamp. At 4:47 they're not even touching and she's smiling broadly at him. But don't bother fixing it for me. I've already seen all of it. It was lovely.

Always in His Presence said:

All you are missing is proof.

Click to expand...

Other than other world leaders having talked about this before.

44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

English Standard Version Catholic Edition (n.p.: Augustine Institute, 2019), 2 Mac 12:44–45.

In 12:43b–46, he [Judas] takes as his starting point his firm belief in the resurrection of the dead (see 1 Macc 7) and explains the prayers and sacrifices as having atoning or expiatory value for the dead sinners so that they too might fully participate in the resurrection of the dead. The Catholic practice of prayers for the dead finds some of its Old Testament roots in this author’s interpretation of Judas’ actions on behalf of his dead soldiers.

Daniel J. Harrington, First and Second Maccabees, ed. Daniel Durken, vol. 12, The New Collegeville Bible Commentary (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012), 144.

essentialsaltes said:

If nothing else, Trump is easy to buy for.

Click to expand...

The Asian leaders certainly know how to play him. Golden golf club and ball in Japan. Golden crown in South Korea.

Paulwat said:

Not sure what board to post this in. Please feel free to move to another area of the board if it works better there.

So, I saw a post today that interested me and searched it up and found lots of similar results from other people. Apparantly hell isn't a real place and instead is a mistranslation. Apparantly awful people don't get eternal suffering and instead just cease to exist (similar to how life was for them before being born)

Here's the full post and explanation. It was reassuring to hear this as I worry about peolle I know going to hell and hate to imagine them being tortured. So it's nice to know such a place doesn't exist


perhaps you could start by realizing just how ridiculous the entire idea is and how it really isn't even supported by the scriptures.

This concept of “Hell” as a place of ‘eternal suffering in a lake of fire’ that Christians so often try to scare people with is all made up by humans and doesn't even exist in the 'old testament' and is not well supported by the 'new testament' either...

every single 'old testament' reference to "hell" is a mistranslations of the Jewish concept of "Sheol" which is distinctly different from what most people today refer to as "Hell".

• 1: Sheol is temporary - not 'eternal'. you are only there until 'judgment day'.
• 2: everyone goes to Sheol to await judgment day. (good or bad, believer or not).
• 3: everyone in Sheol atones for their misdeeds in life. everyone, regardless of whether they "have faith" or not. You don't escape punishment for your misdeeds in life just because you 'have faith'. THAT was an invention (apparently of Paul).
• 4: after judgment: the 'truly wicked' are annihilated: They 'cease to exist'. They are not "punished for the rest of eternity. (That view is not supported by anything in the bible outside of 'revelation' (and even that is pretty thin)
• 5: after judgment: everyone else goes to "Olam Ha'Bah" (aka "the world to come"; "gan eden" or "the Garden of Eden). - This did NOT require belief in or worship of "YHWH" it was based on whether you were a decent person in life; not "blind faith".

outside of 'revelation" The "New Testament" does not refer to this concept of 'eternal punishment' at all. not once, not anywhere. It is ONLY mentioned in the "Book of Revelation" (aka "The Apocalypse of John") and even those references are pretty flimsy evidence.

every "New Testament" reference to "Hell" in modern translations are mistranslating one of three words. “Hades” (which means “the grave” and does not imply torment); "Tartarus" (which appears only one time in 2 Peter 2:4) and "Gehenna".

• Tartarus is a specific reference to the pagan concept of the 'lowest level of hades'; The word “Tartarus” is arguably the closest word used to this concept of eternal torment but this word is only used in one specific verse: 2 Peter 2:4 which is talking about a place where "fallen angels" are sent and is never mentioned as a destination for humans. - Also note that this same verse clearly limits the time spent in that place to "until judgment".
• Gehenna is an actual physical place in Jerusalem, it was (in the first century CE) possibly a trash dump, garbage we know dead bodies were taken there and burned in a 'eternal fire' (a constantly burning fire that was always burning garbage). it was considered a "cursed place" due to legends about people sacrificing children there. It was mentioned in a lot of parables; often 'jesus' talking about wealthy people ending up in Gehenna (just like all the poor people). essentially saying that all their wealth doesn't save them from eventually dying and being thrown into the trash heap. - The parables did seem to imply that “Gehenna” was some undesirable place but it’s very dishonest to claim that the word literally translates to the common concept called “Hell”.

The words translated into “Eternal Punishment” in Matthew 25:46 (for instance) is also a mistranslation. The word they translate as “eternal” there is “αἰώνῐος” which is more correctly translated as “lasting for an age”. If you note the same exact word is mistranslated to ‘eternal’ in modern translations of Jude 1:7 where Sodom and Gomorrah are supposedly destroyed by “eternal fire” - Those fires are clearly not burning today as we’ve never found any such remnants anywhere on earth of this supposedly never ending fire. The other part of that phrase for “Punishment” is also a poor translation of “kolasis” which was an agricultural term basically meaning “cut off” or “prune” - possibly suggesting the concept where you “prune away part of a plant and the rest of the plant gets stronger”. It could possibly refer to “punitive correction” as opposed to some eternal torment or possibly it refers to being ‘cut off from paradise/eternal life’ which is effectively what happens when you cease to exist. - you aren’t suffering but you are denied eternal life and entry to paradise ‘for eternity’ since you no longer exist.

Outside of Revelation the most common


Outside of Revelation the most common thing people tend to bring up to support this 'eternal suffering in a lake of fire' nonsense is the story from Luke 16:19-31 of "lazarus and rich man". That parable however does not suggest "eternal suffering" at all.

• 1: Abraham, Lazarus and "Rich Man" are all in the same place. - That already sounds a lot more like "Sheol" than "Hell". the claim that all of them talking to each other is clearly not a reference to one being "in heaven" and the other "in hell" since these places are always depicted as separate.
• 2: "Rich Man" is suffering but... he's complaining about "being thirsty".... if he were burning in a lake of fire I think he'd have bigger problems than 'parched lips'.
• 3: Nothing about that story says anything to suggest that the suffering is eternal; it only implies that "Rich Man" is suffering currently, not what his fate would be down the road.

Then we have the claims from "Revelation":

• 1: the "Second Death" is mentioned 4 times in this book; and described as the "Death of the soul"
• 2: Revelation 20:6 states that only people named in the "book of life" (those "on the right") receive "eternal life" - this gift of eternal life is ONLY for the righteous people that pass into paradise.
• 3: Revelation 20:10 states that the 'beast', the 'false prophet' (aka the antichrist) and 'satan' are cast into the lake of fire where they will "suffer for ever and ever" - note that none of these entities are 'human'.
• 4: then in Revelation 20:15 - the people who's name did not appear in the 'book of life' (those "on the left") are also cast into the same lake of fire where they "suffer the second death". - Note the different language... it does not say "suffer for ever and ever" but instead states that they "suffer the second death" - this suggests that their soul dies.. which is "Annihilation" not "eternal suffering". How can there be "eternal suffering" for people that do not have "eternal life"? - (see note 2 above).

Nothing about "eternal suffering" is consistent with anything in the bible. "Eternal suffering" is sadistic cruelty without any purpose or benefit. - It makes no rational sense if they are also trying to claim that 'god' is benevolent, loving, merciful etc. - Totally logically inconsistent with this view.





In the early days of the christian church there were several competing views of the afterlife that are a lot more consistent with the rest of the bible:

• Annihilation" is the belief that "after judgment" the "truly wicked" are annihilated; they 'cease to exist' and that's it... no further suffering; they are gone. end of story. This is exactly what the Jewish traditional view of Sheol mentioned above taught and is logically consistent with the 'old testament'.
• "universal salvation" or "universalism" is the belief that eventually everyone is saved. - This view treats suffering/punishment in the afterlife as reformative/corrective/judicial - meant to correct the recipient and is finite in duration - once you have atoned for your sins you get to move on to paradise with all the other people that ever lived. These were both pretty popular views in the early christian sects prior to ~425 CE;

The early christian sects disagreed considerably about which of these three views was 'correct'. “Basil the Great” specifically commented in ~370CE that the dominant view (of the time) was a belief in a limited purgatory, and others (such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus the blind, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote extensively about Universalism. There were some (mostly in Northern Africa around the coast of modern day Tunisia/Algeria) that were advocating the view of “Eternal Torment” but it wasn't until 425CE that the church unified on this 'eternal suffering' doctrine (largely through the writings of Augustine of Hippo – who came to Rome from a city near what is now Annaba Tunisia). This became the official version the church went with and the other views were deemed "heretical" and banned along with any early christian scriptures that supported those opposing views (such as the "Apocalypse of Peter").

Click to expand...

Why didn’t you quote any of the passages that do actually support eternal punishment?

“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭25‬:‭46‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭9‬:‭45‬-‭48‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,”
‭‭2 Thessalonians‬ ‭1‬:‭8‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.””
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭14‬:‭10‬-‭11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭20‬:‭10‬-‭15‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So there is scriptural evidence to support eternal torment. However evidence isn’t necessarily proof and annihilation could be considered an eternal punishment because there’s no coming back from it. As far as your definition of the Greek word aionios that word is used to describe things that are in fact eternal and never ending. Like for example God’s reign, His glory, His kingdom, even God Himself, also the life, redemption, salvation, and inheritance that we receive in Christ. None of these are temporal and yet the word aionios is used to describe them.

As far as Sheol, it’s actually divided into two separate places. Abraham’s Bosom is the place for the righteous, and Hades is the place for the wicked where they do suffer in torment until judgment day when they will be judged then thrown into the lake of fire. So yeah Sheol is temporary, but once the wicked are taken out of Sheol that’s not the end of their punishment. They will either suffer eternal torment in the lake of fire or annihilation, they will not receive eternal life and enter into God’s kingdom. So hell is a real place according to the Bible, hell is just a word invented to refer to the place of punishment for the wicked. And yes Jesus used the word Gehenna but He used Gehenna as an illustration of what would take place after judgement. He wasn’t telling people that their soul would literally be destroyed in the place outside of Jerusalem where garbage and dead bodies were burned.

Trump gets gold crown from South Korea

President Donald Trump received a replica of a historic golden crown from South Korean president Lee Jae Myung. The gold-plated gift, decorated with trees and animals, is based on the ancient Silla Kingdom’s gold crown.

If nothing else, Trump is easy to buy for.

Belk said:

This might be helpful.

US strikes on 'Venezuela drug boats': are they legal?

Experts have suggested several attacks launched by the US may be illegal under international law.

www.bbc.com

However, to be clear, my issue is not with the legality per se but your claim that until a court rules on it it is legal. This seems to contradict the idea that we follow the rule of law which stipulates some things are illegal prior to a courts ruling.

Click to expand...

I explained my thought in my previous post. I think you are misunderstanding what I meant so I clarified stating that it is a matter of law. You are using it in a broader sense than what I said to claim that until a court rules everything is legal but that is not what I said. I am only speaking about this instance in particular and under these circumstances.

I read the article you quoted and agree that there could be legal grounds in question but none have brought to bear. With our non working government am not sure if any will actually be brought to bear. Trump cited article 2 for his reasoning and no court has challenged that yet. When and if it happens then we’ll know.

anoymous51 said:

I know that this may seem to be an anti-Christian post, but it is not.

Click to expand...

After reading your post, I would say it is not

anoymous51 said:

Christ dying on the cross made it possible for people who trust in him to go to heaven; however, there are several prices that may have to be paid to go there.

Click to expand...

It is not only about me making it to Heaven.

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Romans 8:29)

So, Biblical Christianity is mainly about what our Heavenly Father desires for Himself > to have many children who are like Jesus so we are so pleasing to Him like Jesus is. This is the main prosperity of God's word . . . prosperity for God Himself to have many such delighting children.

However, there is suffering involved in the process, including the suffering of Jesus Himself, as you say below. Once we are like Jesus with God for eternity, there will be the point when we no longer remember this universe >

"'For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
. .And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.'"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . (Isaiah 65:17)

@anonymous51 >

So, in case this world will not be remembered, at some point we will likely not remember the suffering which we have gone through, here. And whatever sacrifices and losses we go through, God brings us to so much better. I often find it is like a resurrection, from what I leave behind, to all that comes later. And we mature so we become able to handle well what comes that is more > we are more maturely able to handle things; so Jesus arranges for us to, in His all-loving management, not only for our own selves.

As I offered, we are not here only to get our own selves to Heaven, and Jesus has things go well for us but with how it can be all-loving in benefit and not only for my own self! Because Jesus is all-loving in how He rules.

Chesterton said:

He's also the only American President to meet with a Japanese PM on board a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Click to expand...

...and the only President to pull a PM in closer to him as though she were Ivanka...(the look on her face at 4:47 : )

Login to view embedded media

Oompa Loompa said:

Yes

Click to expand...

Oompa Loompa said:

Ironically, by leveraging human suffering. How quaint.

Click to expand...

Looks like you and @Vambram are onboard with leveraging human suffering.

bèlla said:

Their latest move comes after the Trump administration recently concluded it doesn’t have the legal authority to tap a USDA contingency fund to pay for billions of dollars worth of food aid next month.

Click to expand...

When has ambiguous legal authority ever stopped them before? What is the current situation if not a contingency?

wing2000 said:

Yes, Asian leaders groveling to please POTUS is historic.

Take South Korea:

"According to Mr. Kim, the United States will now lower import tariffs on South Korean goods to 15 percent from the 25 percent rate that went into effect in August. In addition, he said the United States agreed to accept cash investments of up to $20 billion a year, and set aside another $150 billion to invest in its American shipbuilding operations."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/29/us/politics/tariff-trump-south-korea-trade.html

IOW, pay up ($20 Billion / year) or face higher tarrifs.

Gangster dimplomacy.

​

Click to expand...

No one is groveling. There is no gangster diplomacy.

David Hine7 said:

The secular "scientists" are thicker than you guys, so please take that as a compliment.

Click to expand...

Which reads more like "I'm too scared to do it because they know more about what they're talking about and would rip me to shreds more than these guys did."

Come off it, David. In science, it's publish or perish, and with stuff like this, all it reads as being snooty and rude, which is poor form for any one, especially a Christian.

So simple fact: put up or shut up. Give this formula to actual scientists and be done with it. Stop blagging around on here for personal clout.