Strong in Him said:

Even when God says it?

Thank you for your good wishes.
I am sad to think that you think I need "luck". I don't.

Click to expand...

Luck is just another word for God's favor.

But, yes, I do think it's a little bit arrogant to not allow for the possibility, no matter how small, or remote, of Jesus/God maybe saying he never knew you maybe, etc.

But then again, my opinion probably doesn't matter maybe, etc.

So, God's favor to you, ok.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 said:

I don't wish to argue with you further,

Click to expand...

I don't see this as an argument but a discussion.
I still think it's sad that you are almost, but maybe not 100% sure that you are saved.
I refute the suggestion that having confidence in God and his word, is a sin.

Neogaia777 said:

I just doubt any or all 100% absolutes.

Click to expand...

Even when God says it?

Neogaia777 said:

But, I do very much wish good luck to you, ok.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your good wishes.
I am sad to think that you think I need "luck". I don't.

Aaron112 said:

To me it is all part of one or several conspiracies/ businesses for profit/
and
no part of any of that all at all should have any part in the lives and conversations of followers of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Well Aaron the love of money is the root of all evil is it not. No one is immune from the temptations and allurement that it offers.

Daniel Martinovich said:

Hebrews 9:25-28
That is an interpretation not a translation.
Verse 26

​

◄ 5319. phaneroó ►

​

Lexical Summary phaneroó: To make manifest, to reveal, to make known, to show openly.​ HELPS Word-studies 5319 phaneróō (from 5457 /phṓs, "light") – properly, illumine, make manifest (visible); (figuratively) make plain, in open view; to become apparent ("graspable").

Verse 28

​

◄ 3708. horaó ►

​

Lexical Summary horaó: To see, perceive, attend to​ HELPS Word-studies 3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception). Look at it yourself. Hebrews 9:26 Interlinear: since it had behoved him many times to suffer from the foundation of the world, but now once, at the full end of the ages, for putting away of sin through his sacrifice, he hath been manifested; As I stated. There is no phrase second coming in the Bible. Only the coming of the Lord and verse 28 is not about the coming of the Lord. In verse 26 it's referring to his ministry in the flesh. In verse 28 everyone who finds salvation in Christ experiences "horao'". Plus the fact that all those who await him will see him in heaven. That other verse is not talking about seeing him with ones eyes. It's talking about a proper perception of him. Daniel 7 and the other prophets saw him with their eyes. That's why Jesus finished up that verse by saying the son of man has declared him. In other words he is saying. I am giving you the proper perception.

Click to expand...

If your talking physically that there's no "second coming", I completely agree as He didn't actually come physically the first time--He was born of a virgin here on earth, but He did come. The same with the "second coming", He doesn't come physically, but He still in His words "comes" I am coming quickly", "hold fast to what you have until I come," So, when He says that, what do you think He means.

Daniel Martinovich said:

Plus the fact that all those who await him will see him in heaven.

Click to expand...

It's not what it says, otherwise highlight where it says that. It says: "so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." Those waiting are present participles and not future participles and in perfect harmony with:
Romans 13:11And do this, understanding the occasion. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, for our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12The night is nearly over; the day has drawn near. So let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.

eclipsenow said:

I know right? "Poisoning the blood" and "eating the dogs!"

Honestly - that rich entitled racist narcissist - how did America elect him?

Click to expand...

I would hope, if the day should come when Australia, (teh gods forbid), elect a lying mountebank, that I would be a tad bit more gracious about it.

We all have Trump for up to three years and three months, telling us that we’re “in trouble” becuase of that fact isn‘t the help you seem to think it to be.

Thanks, though.

Aaron112 said:

I have not seen nor do I know .... Is he/she a young child, or perhaps has dementia, or a victim of religious deception all their life ?

Click to expand...

I can assure you I am not any of the above And BTW I am a women.

Strong in Him said:

The fact that you don't seem to know if I am saved means nothing - except that YOU don't know if I am saved.
I know, as does the Lord.

Click to expand...

I just doubt any or all 100% absolutes.

But, I do very much wish good luck to you, ok. See you at the judgement seat of Christ, ok. Judge nothing (not even your own self) before it's time, etc. Anyway, good luck to you, ok.

God Bless.

Kathleen30 said:

What question the very question that Strong in him continues to ask . Are astronauts liars but more so in reference to Charlie Duke is the question that Storong does continue to ask

Click to expand...

To me it is all part of one or several conspiracies/ businesses for profit/
and
no part of any of that all at all should have any part in the lives and conversations of followers of Jesus.

Strong in Him said:

I didn't say I was without sin.
I just don't accept that my trust in God and belief that I have eternal life and am saved, is a sin.

You can't see my eyes.

Nonsense.
If I was saying, "I am saved by my own efforts; I have done enough good deeds to persuade God to let me into heaven ....." that would be pride - and folly.

How is saying, "Jesus has saved me, it's all about him and what he has done", pride?

Click to expand...

I don't wish to argue with you further, and so if you think you can have absolute 100% full confidence that you are saved or spared no matter what, and won't have to face any kind of judgement, then who am I to judge I guess, ok. I guess I just don't live in those kind of 100% absolute certainties I guess, ok. But I am pretty certain though however, etc. But I guess I just don't like 100% absolutes I guess, etc.

Anyway, good luck to you, ok.

God Bless.

JSRG said:

They did rule against him on Abrego Garcia.

It is true that for the most part, the Supreme Court has been taking his side since his re-election. However, one should note that few (any?) of them are actual merits cases and are just injunctions. In a legal podcast I listen to (can't remember which one, but I'm almost certain it was either Advisory Opinions or Divided Argument), I remember it being noted that after Abrego Garcia, it seems Trump's Department of Justice has been more careful with its injunction appeals, pointing out as an example the actions against the law firms haven't had their injunctions appealed, probably because there's a higher likelihood of failure in those.

There are some actual merits cases coming up that involve Trump, so I suppose we can see in those. There's Learning Resources v. Trump (the Tariffs one) and Trump v. Slaughter (the Independent Agencies one). A case on birthright citizenship will probably get added sometime this term too.

Click to expand...

Perhaps John Roberts is fine with being the last Chief Justice?

JosephZ said:

What Hamas is fighting for is irrelevant at this point.

Click to expand...

Not irrelevant until they are disarmed and another ruling body in place. If they are simply replaced by Fatah, getting rid of Hamas will have been a worthless endeavor.

But right now they are the ones with the guns, so what they are fighting for is very relevant.

Armed and still warring with Israel and nothing good will occur, because you can't rebuild when the war is still going on.

So long as major factions are doing things like tearing up water lines to use the material to make rockets and rocket launchers, you can't fix the water infrastructure because all the materials being shipped in are just used as implements in the war effort (it continues when we are talking about all the things you need for desalinization water plants and the electric grid needed)

We have to be able to have peace in order to rebuild because you have to not only rebuild all this - but better - but also be able to protect it once it's in place

Therefore, factions like Hamas are indeed relevant until they are disarmed, and the worst of them jailed, so long as they are armed they are a danger and they will stop the rebuilding efforts and any ability thereof.

JosephZ said:

The occupation of the Palestinian territories and unjust treatment of Palestinians provided a fertile environment for the rise of an Islamic terrorist group and its ability to recruit and gain support among a largely Muslim population.

Click to expand...

First of all, the Jews having a state is not occupation - so we will end this here.

The Jews have a right to self rule. Israel exists, it's not "occupied Palestine"., it's the nation of Israel next to what people are calling Palestine. Palestine is not "occupied" because Israel exists.

When people recognize the nation state of Israel we can talk. It's a legitimate state. When we recognize the state of Israel, we can move forward with the infrastructure of Palestine.

Aaron112 said:

question? what question? haha......

astroknots, true or false, come and go, and no one knows for sure , really, because liars abound more (way way way more) than the righteous) even on 'church' sites..... ouy vey

Click to expand...

What question the very question that Strong in him continues to ask . Are astronauts liars but more so in reference to Charlie Duke is the question that Storong does continue to ask

markbrewer said:

what is "holiness"?

Click to expand...

In Scripture "holy" means set apart <by The Creator> from the world, from the flesh, from carnality?, set apart and always away from, not a part of , different from , the flesh and the worldly and the carnality of people/ society.
It is always an adjective, never a name nor a title in Scripture.

Neogaia777 said:

I am (more than likely) saved, and know the truth, but I don't know about the rest of you right now currently, etc.

Click to expand...

The fact that you don't seem to know if I am saved means nothing - except that YOU don't know if I am saved.
I know, as does the Lord.

David Lamb said:

Yet in your opening post on this thread you wrote: "I’m not perfect, but compared to how vile some people are, who profess themselves to be normal, have a job etc… I have no problem calling myself a saint."

Click to expand...

Yes, I’m a saint compared to those people.

rjs330 said:

Steve, it is a rarity for people to support open borders. Because most view open borders narrowly as people coming and going as they please with no laws or barriers for doing so. And that is true.

What most liberals and progressives seem to believe by the things they spouse is ALMOST open borders.

You seemed it constantly in the desire to stop ICE from picking people up who are here illegally. They don't like the methodology. How many timea have we heard that an illegal is here and doing work and not being a criminal, which means rhey should be allowed to stay. In essence thats an open borders policy. If one can sneak in and keep their head down and their nose clean then they should be allowed to stay. An almost open border policy. If you get in and you arent a criminal, then oly oly oxen free.

Then ther are the asylum seekers. Granting asylum is for very specific reasons. Yet so many on the liberal side talk about how crappy rhe country is where those people come from, as if that is a legit reason to stay. And we are cruel and uncaring if we send them back. In essence an almost open border policy.

Bottom line appears to be that only criminals from other countries should be kept out. Everyone else should be allowed in especially if they are from a poorer country.

Not really open borders, but almost.

Click to expand...

No matter how many people we let in we aren’t making a dent in the number of people in the world who live in poverty. Those people need to be helped where they are. We can’t take everyone and you’re correct that seems to be the goal

CoreyD said:

Thank you for taking the time to consider the OP, and respond to it.
Can I answer based on what you understand from, first of all...

1 Timothy 2:14​

The Bible says Adam was not deceived.​

Thus Adam acted on his own free will.​

Do you disagree?

Click to expand...

Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

I see the question you posted above. However, I cannot agree or disagree without you first qualifying what YOU mean by "his own FREE will". To be clear, I can say with complete certainty that we each have our own individual will exactly like Isaiah 53:6 conveys above, but what is the will supposedly free from when you say it? We really need to qualify what the will is free from when we assert a free will (noun), otherwise it's not a stable term to reason upon.

We need to acknowledge that there is a carnal will that seeks one's own comfort and avoids discomfort. The flesh is hardwired to like pleasure and dislike pain.

We also have to acknowledge that the context of 1 Timothy 2:14 is not about a will (noun) at all. It's about whether the man should have authority over the woman.

As pertains to the intent of your question and 1 Timothy 2:14, it looks to me like Paul is expressing his opinion that the woman should not usurp authority over the man based upon the reasoning that the man was made first (woman was made from a piece of the man) and also that the man was not the one deceived (in the garden).

Therefore, I do not think this scripture can be used to infer that Adam or Eve, in a state of innocence/ignorance, were capable of avoiding the events set in motion by the serpent who, by the way, is markedly described as the craftiest creature. If I am to assume that Eve's actions are more excusable because she at least was beguiled, it would be contradictory for Paul to say that the man, who unlike Eve has no such excuse, should be in charge over the woman because he knew exactly what he was doing when he counted God as untrustworthy.

Not only that, but we know that God told Adam his mistake was listening to the woman (who was deceived), God did not say "Adam, you knew exactly what you were doing was wrong". Furthermore, since I don't believe God is disparaging the female as unworthy to ever listen to; I think God is saying that Adam should have trusted to his own judgment and not been so malleable to the woman.

As for who should be in charge, elsewhere in scripture Paul states that there is no Jew or gentile or male or female, for we are all one in Jesus Christ. With the understanding that the greatest is the one who serves the rest, that sounds to me like it doesn't matter if you're a woman or man.

Finally, the assertion that mankind has a free will is often used to apply blameworthiness, or some measure of culpability for wickedness and sin. This type of freewill theology is based on the either-or question of who is to blame for sin, man or God?

Neogaia777 said:

And you seem to think you have no sin,

Click to expand...

I didn't say I was without sin.
I just don't accept that my trust in God and belief that I have eternal life and am saved, is a sin.

Neogaia777 said:

and there is no fear of God in your eyes,

Click to expand...

You can't see my eyes.

Neogaia777 said:

and probably very little humility either.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.
If I was saying, "I am saved by my own efforts; I have done enough good deeds to persuade God to let me into heaven ....." that would be pride - and folly.

How is saying, "Jesus has saved me, it's all about him and what he has done", pride?

AetheriusLamia said:

I've yet to hear a good reason; let's hear it.

Click to expand...

There’s too much criticism of Roman Catholics on this forum and I am not going to debate my Catholic friends on this issue, particularly since if I wanted to go to a Catholic liturgy without the filioque, most Byzantine Rite Catholics omit it (the RCC doesn’t use the filioque in Greek, which raises the possibility that indeed, as some have argued, the issue was one caused by the differences between the Greek and Latin language, and what troubled the mainly Greek speaking Orthodox under St. Photius would not have occurred to the Latin speaking Christians in Spain who added the Filioque while dealing with a major outbreak of Adoptionism).

Also its obviously the case that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ sent God the Holy Spirit to be our comforter and Paraclete (of course, God the Holy Spirit sent God the Son and Word into the world by descending upon the Blessed Virgin Mary, causing her to conceive, and become the Theotokos, the immaculate* Mother of God, while remaining a virgin, a status she retains even now.

*Although in Orthodoxy our model of original sin, which also used to be favored in the West, based on the writings of St. John Cassian rather than those of St. Augustine, who we also venerate, does not cause a need for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, our hymns, which are of great antiquity, do frequently refer to the our most glorious lady Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary as Immaculate, for we believe she did not commit any sins in her life, and additionally the Dormition or Assumption was for us dogmatic at least 1500 years before being recognized as a dogma by Pope Pius XII.

David Lamb said:

If you mean Strong in Him, as far as I am aware, she is not moderator, and not in a position to ban anybody. Like all of us, she can report posts - whether she ever reported any of yours, I have no idea, but she couldn't as far as I know, ban you.

Click to expand...

She has tried her hardest to get me to call Charles Duke a liar so she could report me which would have incurred a warning for me, but I didn't play her game this time & she knew this & this is why she has left the thread.

David Lamb said:

All astronauts are not Freemasons. You make the statement that they are without a shred of evidence. I imagine that, like the rest of the population, some of the astronauts are Freemasons, and many are not.

Click to expand...

Not all but some certainly are. And there also be the whole administration to consider there certainly be Freemasons in most levels of all secular administrations and religious ones too

There is something ridiculous about
JavaScript and python - they are case sensitive. That makes a programmer's life harder, unnecessarily.
You have to remember so much. Apart from that, you have to deal with security issue for JavaScript.
Writing a database driven web page involves so many things - html, CSS, PHP, JavaScript and security, perhaps even SEO.
The PHP, html, CSS and JavaScript all in one file, it's the real spaghetti code*.

* Spaghetti code was a term for messy software code with excessive use of jumps (like goto statements), or lack of modular structure

Hans Blaster said:

It's the conversation of *this* thread. I'm not talking about "users". I am talking about unsubstantiated claims of the naval operations. One that is complete nonsense is "fentanyl" being on those boats.

Click to expand...

Most fentanyl comes from China to Mexico then to the USA. Cocaine and heroin come from South America. I don’t know what is on these boats that have been destroyed