Latest activity

Chesterton · Oct 29, 2025

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

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.

Yarddog · Oct 29, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
All you are missing is proof.

Other than other world leaders having talked about this before.

Colo Millz · Oct 29, 2025

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.

wing2000 · Oct 29, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
If nothing else, Trump is easy to buy for.

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

BNR32FAN · Oct 29, 2025

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").

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.

essentialsaltes · Oct 29, 2025

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.

Hentenza · Oct 29, 2025

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.

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.

com7fy8 · Oct 29, 2025

anoymous51 said:
I know that this may seem to be an anti-Christian post, but it is not.

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.

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.

wing2000 · Oct 29, 2025

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

...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

GoldenBoy89 · Oct 29, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
Yes

Oompa Loompa said:
Ironically, by leveraging human suffering. How quaint.

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

essentialsaltes · Oct 29, 2025

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.

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

Vambram · Oct 29, 2025

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.

No one is groveling. There is no gangster diplomacy.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 29, 2025

David Hine7 said:
The secular "scientists" are thicker than you guys, so please take that as a compliment.

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.

David Hine7 · Oct 29, 2025

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

fide · Oct 29, 2025

FaithT said:
Forgive me if I’ve asked this before. My OCD is better but it’s still there. I’m just really high strung most of the time. I know meditating can be wrong, but what about relaxation exercises and emptying the mind of thoughts, you know, quieting the mind? Is that ok?

Meditation has become a very confused word in the West, including Catholics. Eastern mediation frequently means "emptying the mind" - a very foolish thing to attempt, wise teachers would say. The evil one loves an empty mind to move into.
In the Catholic Faith "meditation" traditionally means - or meant - what is now more specifically and technically called "discursive meditation" to clarify that no, do not think of emptying your minds, Catholics! Many do anyway. Post Vat II many Eastern religious ideas were brought into Catholic parishes.

I'll quote something from a book I've recommended here before - an introductory book to traditional Catholic spirituality grounded in Thomas Aquinas and John of the Cross, The Ordinary Path to Holiness (3rd edition)sold thru Amazon:

Discursive meditation is defined as the application of reason to some spiritual truth in order to engage its meaning, to penetrate its meaning, and to integrate the truth into one’s life. Mental activity and attention are clearly required, and the first goal is the enlightenment of the mind with the truth. It is important to realize that Christian meditation is not achieved with the simple presence in the mind of some truth; the ultimate goal is the integration of that truth into one’s life.

(R. Thomas Richard, PhD. The Ordinary Path to Holiness (Third Edition) (p. 123). (Function). Kindle Edition. )

Thus one seeks the fullness of truth in true meditation, the opposite of emptying the mind. Meditation is crucially important to growth in the interior life - because Truth is crucially important, to know, to believe and to live.

Belk · Oct 29, 2025

Hentenza said:
Not backing out at all. Just trying to figure out how you would bring charges against those responsible and under what law. In criminal law those that commit the crime are just as guilty as those who command or direct the crime. Even if the person or entity that commanded the crime are not in proximity to where the crime occurred they could still be charged under the jurisdiction of where the crime occurred.

The “crime” occurred in international waters so the “flag” country would usually have jurisdiction although coastal countries could share jurisdiction. So the US has not claimed jurisdiction and the US is the “flag” country and the coastal country in some of the incidents is Venezuela and they have not claimed jurisdiction hence at this time the incidents are legal. This has nothing to do with something being legal until proven illegal but a matter of law.

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.

Hentenza · Oct 29, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
Jesus He fulfilled the law by magnifying it Isa 42:21 which means making greater not smaller.

No. Jesus fulfilled all of the law by completing it.

“And He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭37‬-‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Matthew 22:37-40 And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘YOU SH | New American Standard Bible -

And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘YOU SH

bible.com

The WHOLE law hangs in these two commandments. He didn’t have to expand it because He streamlined it and made it much better.

SabbathBlessings said:
Why He goes on saying

Mat 5: 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Least in heaven means not there according to the next verse. And then quoted from the Ten Commandments to say which commandments we are not to break the least of or teach others I would consider taking this warning more serious, but we have free will. The commandment that identifies who the God is of the other 9 commandments that God blessed and made holy and said to Remember I do not believe is a least commandment, but even if we think it is, Jesus said clearly not to break or teach others to break with some serious consequences.

Move to chapter 22. Jesus does not contradict Himself.

SabbathBlessings said:
It doesn't say that's why they went to the temple but instead it clearly says to hear the word of God, both Jews and Gentiles the entire town. Just as Jesus said His house is a house for all nations for those who keep the Sabbath and hold on to His covenant.

This is 40 years after the Cross, which is not an example of Jesus saying His Sabbath ended after the Cross, The Sabbath verse is sandwiched between the destruction of Jerusalem and His Second Coming, I do not think Jesus does anything random.

This is not 40 years after the cross. The gospel of Matthew was written prior to the destruction of the temple. The estimated date of writing is between 55 to 65 ad. The Jews still inhabited Judea.

SabbathBlessings said:
This is a prediction of the New Heaven and New Earth, You just don't seem to understand prophecy and don't seem that interested in what it teaches so I am going to let you be on your way and we will see how it all works out.

I understand prophesy just fine but you are trying to use prophesy to justify your belief. The book of Isaiah was written with the Jews as the audience even if this part of the book contains future prophesy. Since Isaiah was written to the Jews then the imagery and examples would be something that the Jews would understand. The book of Isaiah, written between 739 and 685 BCE, was written to prophesy to the kingdom of Judea. The book was primarily, probably exclusively, read by the Jews and was not read by others until Christ. Again, context is important.

Vambram · Oct 29, 2025

Republicans dub Fetterman 'voice of reason' after he accuses his own party of 'playing chicken'

Republicans celebrated Sen. John Fetterman as a "voice of reason" after he accused Democrats of "playing chicken" with 42 million Americans' food security.

www.foxnews.com

Oompa Loompa · Oct 29, 2025

Fantine said:
Democrats shouldn't cave. Republicans have made a chaotic disaster out of the last nine months, and this is one of the rare opportunities Democrats can to prevent more incalculable human suffering.

Ironically, by leveraging human suffering. How quaint.

com7fy8 · Oct 29, 2025

David Lamb said:
Sorry, to me, that doesn't make sense. You begin by saying He was already supreme. You end by saying, "Jesus became supreme as Lord by becoming Lord." How could He be "already supreme" if He also needed to become supreme?

Who He is always has been supreme, but He has not always been *functionally* supreme.

Maybe it is like how a baby son of the king is already royal. However, he is not royal and functioning as king, which comes after he has developed for the position.

Oompa Loompa · Oct 29, 2025

GoldenBoy89 said:
Is a government shutdown worth it to prevent that?

Yes

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 29, 2025

David Hine7 said:
I must admit I find you guys on here very amusing. Rather like Professor Einstein trying to wise up Tesco shelf fillers with deeper maths than needed for counting out tins of beans.

Maybe you'd get a better and more stimulating result if you actually put your maths out in to the wider scientific community, rather than a random Christian forum.

Just saying.

Latest activity

Latest activity

​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page