ThatRobGuy said:

And that's different from the way a significant of the left talks to most of the right, how?

Click to expand...

I'm really not interested in whataboutisms.

ThatRobGuy said:

And as far as his views being "abhorrent", which ones?

Click to expand...

Women, gays, trans, guns, abortion...is that enough to be getting on with?

ThatRobGuy said:

And his views on immigration, crime, drugs, and gay marriage weren't much further right than that of mainstream democrats circa 2010.

Click to expand...

It looks like I'll have to point out this rather obvious fact again (well, it seems rather obvious to me): His views on matters such as those that I have just listed were abhorrent AND he was a conservative. They weren't abhorrent just BECAUSE he was a conservative.

It seems to be a surprise to some people that being conservative doesn't necessarily mean that you denigrate gays and trans people, suggest that a few dead kids are the price you have to pay for the right to bear arms and abortion and contraception are evil.

ThatRobGuy said:

And that's different from the way a significant of the left talks to most of the right, how?

Click to expand...

People from the left aren’t expecting people to universally mourn them in their passing, nor did they develop lists of people to target after things like Nancy Pelosi’s husband being attacked or the assassinated Minnesota official. In fact, I think people who aren’t in the far right weigh the behavior that we’ve seen from the right’s representatives and figure their behavior is par for the course and don’t expect any better from them. We know when Obama dies, people will say vicious things. Same with Hilary and Bernie. We saw what people said when Biden was diagnosed with cancer, after the events I already mentioned. We’ve had plenty of time and experience managing the vitriol and know that’s just how the right is.

ThatRobGuy said:

And as far as his views being "abhorrent", which ones? How many of his views are radically different from views that a mainstream democrat or independent would've held in 2010?

Click to expand...

Uhhhhh… Basically all of them… From forcing a raped daughter to give birth to rejecting feminism to his comments on Islam… Lots and lots and lots of things.

A really interesting thing I read on Facebook that got me thinking was that, previously, when an influential icon died you’d see people flood social media with the poignant, insightful quotes from that person. Speeches, books, influential art. Didn’t matter if it was Martin Luther King (“I have a dream”) or Maya Angelou (“I know why the caged bird sings”) or David Bowie (“there’s a starman waiting in the sky”) or John Lennon (“imagine”). People knew it, could recite it, their contributions folded into everything from award ceremonies to school curriculums.

That didn’t happen for Charlie Kirk. Pictures in front of fireworks and flags, AI nonsense with Jesus, occasionally his tagline, proclamations that he’s a good Christian, and resume-style “oh he founded this and has that website.” But even those who mourned his death the loudest, from his wife to Trump to cousin Eddie on Facebook… But not an all-encompassing quote or speech or pivot point contribution they could point to as a pivotal cultural touchstone people could draw in in grief. Because what quote will they use that is a rallying cry? “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.”? Or “If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?” Or maybe “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.” Or “all men are created equal in the eyes of God, all men and women, but not all cultures are created equal.” Not quite “I have a dream,” is it?

And that says a lot, I think.

I’m starting to wonder if this isn’t a case of the dialogue between Hamilton and Burr about Mercer Street from “Hamilton.” Or if the real shock is that there was this belief of invincibility and infallibility, and now realizing that republicans too can be the victim of the culture they created, they’re scared. It went from being “it won’t happen to us” to “it happened to us” and they’re rattled.

ralliann said:

I never said we are not to be charitable. I am asking if every Christian is supposed to give up all as were those called to be his witnesses? There may come a time that we will be persecuted and this is upon us to do. Many people are being persecuted and being killed today in some places.
But again, in every instance are all supposed to not have any earthly goods?

Click to expand...

Doesn't everything belong to God? Has he not merely entrusted it to us? And is not a portion entrusted to us on behalf of the poor?

Tropical Wilds said:

TV, movies, and such do not have a “toxic hate” warning, just content advisories and generally flexible age restrictions. With websites, especially social media, the type of content that could be on the site and the steps to moderate that all exist in the terms of service. Besides which, websites clearly fall under what’s called “inherent risk.”

Click to expand...

Look, I know you mean well by pointing out these things. I'm a minimalist type of guy (short attention span). I use the least amount of words to get my point across believing the reader is smart enough to fill in the blanks of what I write. Yes, I know there isn't a "toxic hate" label for movies, tv shows and music. What should have been a given so I wouldn't have to write all these words is that the movies, tv shows and music have labels telling people what the content contains such as violence, foul language, nudity, smoking... I really believed people reading this post would understand the connection.

I still feel that a label on the website by a third party would be the best way to get these websites to tone down their inflammatory killing rhetoric. And that goes for both liberals, conservatives, left leaning, right leaning, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, humanists, atheists, gorgons, Klingons...

So please next time you read something of mind just realize a lot is implied because I dislike typing a lot. I lose track of my point and what I'm trying to say .

Clare73 said:

It is incorrect that no one can go into heaven, for Paul did (2 Co 12:1-4).

Click to expand...

1 It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast.
I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord:

Paul had a vision from God; He did not physically go to heaven.
Paul did not know if [a man] was in the body or out of his body...

1 Timothy 6:16 (KJV) John 1:18, 1 John 4:12 , 1 John 4:20
who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man
can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see:
to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.

Mortal mankind would die by just Gods brightness of His glory,
only a man changed to a spirit being can see him in person.
No mortal man has been to the 3rd heaven except Jesus Christ,
who came down from heaven. King David is still dead and buried.

"As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness:
I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.

"If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my
appointed time will I wait, Till my change come. Job 14:14

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear
what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear,
we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2

joechristianwarrior said:

I am curious to hear you guys' thoughts on the issue of "equality", and whether it even matters to Jesus. I've heard many on the political left argue that it does, though I've heard many others (usually on the political right!) say it doesn't matter, that it's all just "woke" and "Marxism"; and that the only justice important to Christians is that we'll see when Jesus returns.

What do you guys think? I'd encourage everyone to check out this 4-minute video before you reply, as I think it sets good context for some of the dilemma I'm trying to get at with my question. And then let me know what you think, thanks: Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

There is a REASON that the concept of human rights developed in a Judeo-Christian culture. And no, it doesn't come from the enlightenment--there is nothing about science or logic that leads to belief in equality.

Some ideas just have to simmer on the stove a long, long time before the soup is finally ready. The concept of equality and human rights spring from two ideas that you find in the Torah.

The first is Genesis 1:27, where all humans are created b’tzelem Elohim (“in the image of God”). That means every person shares equal worth and dignity, since the same God stamped His image on everyone. This is one of the strongest theological roots of human equality.

The second is more roundabout. If there is only one Creator, then all people ultimately come from that same God. No group can claim to have been created by a higher or different deity. This undermines religious or tribal hierarchies based on having a "better" god. Similarly, if one God rules over all, then His moral law applies universally. There aren’t separate sets of laws or standards for different peoples in His eyes. This idea eventually develops into the principle that justice and righteousness are universal, not privileges of a certain class, race, or nation.

A single God is not just a local or tribal deity but the God of heaven and earth. That means His concern extends to everyone, not just to one chosen group. Even in the Hebrew Bible, while Israel has a covenant role, God is also depicted as caring for all nations and holding them accountable to moral standards.

It has taken thousands of years for the ramifications of monotheism to reach this level. Who knows where it may take us in the millennia to come?

Thanks for everyone for the replies, and prayers if you did.

I prayed and prayed for the pain and anger to go away. But during one prayer, I was asking God to make the anger and pain go away and put my heart at peace. I was telling God I was so mad at the shooter for what he did and I know it was wrong but I was hoping he gets the death penalty. About at that time I heard the words "what he DID" repeated in my head, and there was a strong emphasis on the word "did". And just like that all the anger was gone.

For some context, I've never had anything in my life where I was like that's definitely God, I haven't even had one that was maybe possibly God. But after this, I don't know.

I was able to mentally separate the person from the deed, I wasn't mad at the person, but the action. The sadness didn't go away, but the anger just vanished. As I lay there thinking and news story pops up on the TV that was showing all the childhood photos of the shooter. I started actually feeling bad for the kid. I'm not excusing the action at all, it's vile and heinous. But he was a good kid, had a good family, he just got radicalized in school and made a huge mistake that will more than likely cost him his life. It got me thinking about what Charlie would want done with his killer, and knowing how much Charlie loved everyone and valued life so much, I don't think he would want him killed. I honestly think Charlie would like to see him come back to God and go to heaven. And I pray that happens before he passes.

2PhiloVoid said:

Who is "the" Anti-christ? Honestly, I've never attempted to answer that question via reference to the definite use of a definite article.

Click to expand...

It comes from Daniel 7, where the "Little Horn" appears among a group of 10 nations to corrupt the Kingdom of God. God's temporal Kingdom has been on earth in the form of Christian governments, which are rapidly going away.

The Son of Man is coming with the clouds of heaven to establish God's eternal Kingdom on the earth, also called the "2nd Coming." 2 Thes 2 indicates the Son of Man will come to destroy the "Man of Sin," and to gather God's People, ie the Christians, to deliver them.

Godcrazy said:

well... I am sure not one of them that considers ai as beneficial at least the way they intend to use it to control everyone totally inside out. if it was done to ease and help another story but it is not. I am speaking more about actions. and what is said. chipping people. no. if it stays on helping the ill. yes, but it is a bait. talking about chipping everyone and control. no. talking about ending humanity. no. wake up everyone

Click to expand...

I hear ya, but the book of Revelation is not about technology, which can be used for good or for ill. The book of Revelation is about being loyal to Christ in the face of an Antichristian Apostasy. Christian Civilizatioin is in the midst of an Apostasy. But I believe we're here to bear witness to the truth even when things get bad. In the meantime, I kind of like the technological advances, though I'm not going to go for the creepy things that get into my head or under my skin.

Clare73 said:

Prophecy is given in riddles (dark sayings, Nu 12:6-8), which are subject to more than one interpretation.

Click to expand...

We should let the bible interpet the bible itself. Isa 28:10-Isa 28:13
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, [ rightly dividing the word of truth ]."

“Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make
to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk,
and drawn from the breasts” Isaiah 28:9 (Proverbs 1:7,Proverbs 3:5)

What is the beginning of wisdom? Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 9:10.
The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Revelation 19:10
Jesus spoke many parables and prophecys. Matt 13:10-11, Matt 13:34

11And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable,
because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because [they thought that
the kingdom of God should immediately appear].

12He said therefore, A certain nobleman [Christ Himself] went into
a far country[heaven] to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
-

6When they therefore were come together, they asked of him,
saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom
to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the
times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Jesus did not correct them, a physical kingdom coming to earth.
Christ will restore the Kingdom to Israel and sit on Davids throne.
King Davids throne is never mentioned being in heaven. We are to pray
"Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in/on earth, as it is in heaven.

King David will be king over all twelve nations of Israel.
(Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:24-25).
Each of the original twelve apostles will be king, under David,
over one of these nations in Jerusalem. (Matthew 19:28).

Servus said:

I already did. What rdkirk is saying is that if there's a debate over the existence of leprechauns, and someone demolishes that notion with truth, there are people who will still insist that leprechauns exist. But that doesn't mean the truth didn't win out. Truth wins out over malarky for those with the capacity to see reason.

Click to expand...

No. I mean while that may be true or not, that isn't what that poster was referring to.
At least that's not what I took.

His response to you started with "certainly not".

I believe he said that truth is just what it is and is harder to swallow. Falsehoods are usually presented very conveniently and convincingly but without substantive truth in it. That makes them easier to take.

Could be wrong but...

public hermit said:

What is the relation between belief and moral culpability? Is it wrong to believe/not-believe certain things?

Is it wrong to believe X if a more thorough investigation would show that X is false? In other words, do we have a moral obligation to do as thorough an investigation as possible before accepting the truth/falsity of X? If so, how would we know when our investigation is sufficiently thorough?

I assume the answer may differ depending on the belief in question. Beliefs that lead to right/wrong actions will clearly have a moral component. But what about beliefs regarding evolution or that the earth is flat/spherical?

Do we have a moral obligation to seek the truth? I'm not sure that we do. Is it wrong to believe what is false?

Please avoid theological subjects such as whether one is morally culpable for belief/non-belief in God since such subjects are not allowed in this forum. I know that's a big ask, but I believe we can do it! Maybe I'm wrong in so believing, i.e., such a belief is false, but is it morally wrong for me to so believe?

Click to expand...

I don't attach moral culpability to making honest mistakes. And not everyone is a scholar, so it is not reasonable to expect people to do extensive research. Finally, our minds are hardwired to tune out information that goes contrary to what we already think--confirmation bias is so strong that it's a wonder anyone ever changes their mind on anything.

A New Dawn said:

You seem to have no idea how wrong you are.

Click to expand...

True since everything I've said is fact. I do know how wrong you are.

A New Dawn said:

Some people were charged just because they were in Washington that day.

Click to expand...

That's totally wrong. Anyone charged was at the Capital building. Now, if you have any evidence backing up your false claims, I'd be happy to check them out.

A New Dawn said:

Others were charged for walking around taking pictures.

Click to expand...

If they were inside the Capital or within the security barriers, they were trespassing.

A New Dawn said:

And as has already been mentioned, some took plea deals just to get out of being held without charges for over 2 years.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, the only ones not booked and released had been had very serious charges.

A New Dawn said:

Contrasted to the 14 time violent repeat offender that was released without bail each time and ended up killing the Ukrainian refugee in Charlotte last week.

Click to expand...

That guy had serious mental issues. He belonged in a mental hospital but Reagan ended those.

A New Dawn said:

No, justice is not blind.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Trump is free while innocent or poor Americans are in jail.

SuperCow said:

That's an interesting choice of options in the poll. I think at different points of my life I've been in one way or another guilty of all of them. One that I think that is missing is that you might not be sure exactly what you believe or who has the correct beliefs.

Click to expand...

Some people may not know what they actually believe. But in this case, the issue is more likely to be that the person is not a Christian. Believers should know that we deserve punishment, but Jesus took that punishment on the cross. I think what is more common for believers is that they do not know how to articulate the Gospel. In this case, it means the person has not been equipped to say it. This would come under "Feeling unprepared"

SuperCow said:

Regarding the "cowardly" question, I think that it refers to people who go along with evil, even though they know it is wrong. They are willing to kill innocent people, because they are scared for their own life. Serving in an unjust war. Being part of a violent gang. Being bullied into doing something illegal or immoral.

On the other hand, there are many things that one could call cowardly (in the strict definition of the word) that definitely wouldn't be included. Running away from a fight, lying to protect someone (including yourself), having a panic attack or PTSD from extreme stress you were never taught to handle. Refusing to do some activity that seems risky like sky-diving, bunny jumping or just scared of the new roller-coaster at the fair, etc.

Click to expand...

I agree that Revelation 21:8 isn’t talking about everyday fears like sky-diving or roller coasters, panic attacks, or self-preservation in non-moral matters. The “cowardly” in Scripture is a moral cowardice, choosing to go along with evil, denying Christ, or failing to obey Him because of fear. That includes failing to share the Gospel when God gives us the opportunity. Even if it isn’t life-threatening, refusing to proclaim the truth out of fear falls under the warning. So there’s a difference between natural fear and spiritual cowardice.

The Liturgist said:

And neither do I. That said, the kind of outdoor preaching engaged in then is at present difficult to undertake except at organized events. St. Paul benefitted in Athens from the Aereopagus, a hill where people could present what they wanted, and there likewise exists a place in Hyde Park where people can stand on a soapbox and articulate whatever they wish (Muslims have been preaching there of late, among others, and evangelicals have tried counter-preaching, but the net effect is that the majority of people going to Hyde Park to recreate simply avoid that area like the plague).

Click to expand...

I am not just talking about open air preaching. We can simply share the Gospel with people we know. So, simple 1 to 1 evangelism

The Liturgist said:

Actually, the oldest surviving church dates from 57 AD and is in Kerala, India, near the spot where St. Thomas the Apostle was martyred in that year. and we still have the Cenacle as well - admittedly it has been redecorated (it is now a monastery under the control of the Syriac Orthodox Church, dedicated to St. Mark the Evangelist, whose house contained the famed Upper Room). Until 2016 an ancient house church was among the archaeological discoveries at Dura Europos in Syria along with a synagogue; the house church had a sanctuary that was particularly splendid, and which featured iconography. Likewise the houses of that era were not commonly made of clay (you seem to be conflating the sophisticated Mediterranean civilization with the more primitive civilizations elsewhere, which some of the Apostles did reach, such as St. Andrew) rather constructed using bricks and stones on the lower level, with wood on the upper levels, while in Rome concrete was available and was used, and indeed the Roman concrete used in the Pantheon, now a Christian church, is among the finest concrete ever used, superior to most concrete used at present in quality. And regarding music, here again you are inaccurate, for the Jewish custom was always to sing the Psalms and prayers, and early Christian worship was taken from Jewish worship, and 100% of ancient liturgical rites sing or chant scripture rather than reading them in an ordinary voice. So basically your entire post is a string of unverified assumptions.

But what really matters is what is working, and what is working is the Orthodox approach. If your church was obtaining an 18% growth rate, per annum, we might want to adopt the methodology you propose. The problem is that you seem to regard ineffective methods of evangelism as a religious duty, which they are not - on the contrary, I would argue we have an obligation to not tarnish the image people have of the Christian faith by spending time annoying them, when we could be spending time loving our neighbors as ourselves, which is an activity that consistently wins people over to Christ and causes conversion, as the Salvation Army and the Anglo Catholics in London, who both made a commitment to care for the poor of the city, discovered (of course in their case it wasn’t so much conversion, but the rechurching of people who were baptized but who had become unchurched or secularized, and to a large extent in the Western World that remains our goal - to take those people who would be Christians had it not been for the devastation inflicted on Christianity by the conflict between liberal theology on the one hand and various non–traditional forms of more conservative theology on the other, such as premillenial dispensationalism and pentecostal worship, which were unknown (in their present form) prior to the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively, and the use by both groups of Christian Rock music and Praise and Worship music during worship services, something which has not occurred in the Orthodox churches because thankfully our church specifies the hymns for each service, which the Roman Catholic Church used to do at one time, but had already stopped by the time Pope Pius X wrote Tra le Solecetudini, a plea for his church to return to its traditional musical forms which unfortunately went unheeded by subsequent generations; they canonized him a saint and they allowed the use of electric guitars in the Mass, which are not consistent actions.

Click to expand...

You’ve brought up some historical examples, and I don’t dispute that early Christians gathered in houses that sometimes became more formalised spaces, or that singing was part of worship from the beginning. My main point, though, is that the growth of the early church was not dependent on architecture, icons, ambience, or even music; it was the proclamation of the Gospel and the power of the Spirit that drew people to Christ (Acts 2:41; Acts 4:31; Acts 8:4). Growth by itself is not proof of faithfulness, since many groups, including some megachurches, grow rapidly without faithfully preaching Christ. Instead of measuring by numbers, it would be better to follow what Jesus commanded, since He knows the true power of God and how people are to be brought into His kingdom. Then, if the church grows fast, great. If the church grows slowly, great. At least you know that the people coming to the church are coming for the right reasons. They have been to the foot of the cross.

The Liturgist said:

This is all true. Indeed, boldly speaking the Gospel is why I am posting in this thread, because I feel that a nominal presentation of the Gospel by laity not actively engaged in the continuous love of God through love of their neighbor as themselves is counterproductive. I am calling for more Christians to share the Gospel by serving others in their community - boldly displaying their Christianity while doing so and boldly declaring the Gospel imperative as the reason why they are helping others. A good example to follow would be the Roman Catholic charities connected with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, or many others (indeed the Catholics have such good charitable operations as to be the envy of all Christendom).

Click to expand...

Fully agree. We should do good deeds as well as proclaim.

The Liturgist said:

However you seem to be projecting your fear of rejection onto me; I have no fear of speaking the Gospel to anyone, but God will hold me accountable if I alienate someone from the Church (especially given my current clerical status).

Click to expand...

I am not projecting my fear onto you. I already do not let the fear I feel control me. All I am doing is making people think, "Am I speaking the Gospel or am I too afraid to?"

The Liturgist said:

Two common forms of living martyrdom that go widely ignored are Holy Matrimony, where each spouse will sacrifice their own desires for the benefit of the other and their children, and the monastic life, which is a particularly bold way to proclaim the Gospel

Click to expand...

Proclamation means to speak something out. We cannot say the Gospel without speaking. Actions are not the Gospel.

The Liturgist said:

That’s true, since one might be attending a heterodox church that makes use of the cross and someone might be a hypocrite. However challenging people who appear to be Christian as to the status of their faith by demanding to know “Are you saved?” is deeply offensive and is not compatible with the Golden Rule. It is also not a question that an individual believer who is faithful can necessarily answer. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware nonetheless did charitably indulge the strange woman who was accosting him on a train about his soteriological status with this lovely answer “Using the present tense, but using the continuous form of the present tense, I trust that I am being saved.”

Click to expand...

I would disagree that asking someone if they are saved is “deeply offensive” or against the Golden Rule. If I were in danger, I would want someone to warn me, even if it risked making me uncomfortable. The Golden Rule applies here, since I would want someone to look out for my eternal well-being, I should also do the same for others. To stay silent out of fear of offending seems less like love and more like neglect. It is not obeying the Golden Rule.
Of course, how we ask matters; if done harshly, it can come across wrong. “Are you saved?” may not always be the best wording, but the principle behind it, caring for someone’s soul, is necessary. Scripture calls us to this: Paul urges believers to “examine yourselves” (2 Corinthians 13:5), and Hebrews 3:13 tells us to exhort one another daily, lest we be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. That means accountability among believers isn’t optional; it’s an expression of genuine care.
Another thing you can do, if they say that they are believers, is ask them to rate their Christian walk out of 10. 10 being really good (they read their bible and pray daily), while 1 is really bad. Most will say that they are about 5 or 6. If they say 5 or 6, then say to them: -
"Imagine that you and I are going skydiving together, and you were to ask me how tight my parachute is. You ask me to rate how tight it is out of 10. 10 being really tight and 1 being very loose. If I were to say my parachute is only a 5 or 6 out of 10, you would say to me, "Don't Jump! Tighten your straps". And so, I am now saying to you to tighten up your straps. Start putting God first, as you do not know when you will have to jump into eternity."

I appreciate Metropolitan Ware’s thoughtful response, but it doesn’t change the fact that we are called to be clear about where we stand with Christ, and to help others be clear as well. Evangelism and accountability are not violations of the Golden Rule; they are its fulfilment, because they put eternal realities above momentary comfort.

J_B_ said:

That anecdote may be your first insight into the trouble with statistics.

Click to expand...

Not at all. In fact, I already dealt with that in my last post. Anecdotes are never evidence BECAUSE all rules have their exceptions, and any anecdote may simply be the exception to the rule.

J_B_ said:

A determination to keep giving becomes one of accepting that only 10-20% of what you give will find its way to help someone. The rest is waste.

Click to expand...

All it means is to be more careful which charities you give to. For example, about 85 cents out of every dollar given to the Salvation Army goes to actually helping someone. Catholic Charities is about the same, although the Galveston-Houston branch gets a whopping 97 cents out of every dollar to those in need.) The Jewish Family Foundation here in Orange County similarly gets 97% to those in need.

On the subject of the OP:



Source of the “scumbag” quote (15:25):

Hans Blaster said:

Ever think of posting a summary when you make a new thread?

Click to expand...

Nope. Did you get through school by reading CliffsNotes?

Hans Blaster said:

The only sentence I see mentions the number of contacts TP USA received.

Click to expand...

In order to read the article, you have to click on the hyperlink which appears in blue letters. Do I need to explain what a link is? Do I need to explain how the internetz works?

Fisherking said:

You say that, but then do not back it up, by pointing out how Dan. 8:9 can be anything other than what I stated, instead you skip it. We can never win a debate by dodging points made sister in Christ.

So, no I did not jump to any conclusion, I added up the various ways and directions he conquers in, and it adds up to him conquering from the Northwest corridor of the four generals in these Syrian Wars.


Well, not Continual as per a true timeline, but a CONTINUAL BATTLE ABSENT the Church Age. The 70th week battle only comes after the Agreement/Covenant and thus the Church is taken to heaven to marry the Lamb. So, yes it is only continual when we understand it is WORLD TIME minus the Church Age Period. The King of the North is always the STRONGEST king to the north in the inter-kingdom battle. He conquers TOWRDS the east, their is NO EAST for Turkey/Seleucid to conquer TOWARDS its only about the Four Kingdom Region. Not Russia, nor China etc. Seleucid has to conquer in the Four General Region ONLY, Ptolemy has to conquer in the Four General Region ONLY, thee are Syrian Wars an INTER-KINGDOM BATTLE you seem to not grasp this sister. So, Seleucid CAN NOT Conquer East and Ptolemy CAN NOT Conquer to the South. The Syria Wars were not about conquering other nations per se. but about the inter Greek Kingdoms struggle for the dominance of Alexander the Greats kingdom. The 7th Syrian War,. as seem in Dan. 11:40-43 is and can only be about Ptolemy, Seleucid and Cassander. And ONLY Cassander or Greece can conquer towards the East and South in the Four General Battle. Assyria was no Syria. It was Norther Iraq and Southern Turkey. You mix up Syria with Assyria and try to say the Syrian Army was what wiped out Israel for the Romans, and that has nothing to do with the prophesy, the Fourth Beast was and is Rome. The LAST BEAST (a Man) must be born in Greece amongst the 10 (E.U.) or in Greece which is in the E.U.


We jump 2000 years because the Church is now gone and Israel is back in the land.


Those people have nothing to do with end time prophsey sister.


There is no Assyria, he can not be from Assyria, Assyria was Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey. He is merely of Old Assyrian BLOOD LINE, born in Greece, which is in the E.U.


No, its mostly Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey. It can ONLY BE about the Assyrian Bloodline, because Dan. 8:9 and Dan. 7:7-8 ALSO has to fit the same man. God did this on purpose, he gave us a man with ties to MULTIPLE BEAST LINES on purpose !! Greece by birth, Rome by birth and Kingdom area and Assyria by bloodline. Why? Because Jesus destroys the WHOLE STATUE.

Click to expand...

Hi Fisherking,

I did answer you regarding Dan. 8: 9 and the 4 Generals of Alexandar. It has to do with Dan. 11: 29 at God`s appointed time, which will be in the trib.

Do you understand what is happening in the EU?

The Death Of Liberté: France's Islamic Future And The Coming Collapse Of Europe

France, once a cradle of Western ideals, is being remade before our eyes. The nation of Charlemagne, Joan of Arc, and de Gaulle is crumbling into something unrecognizable. The steeples of cathedrals no longer define the skyline; minarets rise in their place. Bells grow silent, while the call to prayer echoes through neighborhoods once known for their Christian roots. This is not just demographic drift. It is a civilizational transformation--and it is accelerating.

Already, Muslims comprise about 10% of France's population. By 2050, that figure is expected to reach nearly 17%. That percentage may sound small, but in politics, it is enough to dominate elections and shape national policy. In Paris, Marseille, and Lyon, entire districts have been overtaken by Islamist influence. Police hesitate to enter. French law is mocked. Local councils are controlled by Muslim blocs that prioritize their own religious and political agendas. The France of liberté, égalité, fraternité is becoming a relic, a memory, a Wikipedia entry.

The transformation is most visible in the nation's places of worship. France now has more than 2,500 mosques, with hundreds more being built. Just decades ago, churches stood as the cornerstone of every French village. Today, those same churches are abandoned, sold off, or converted into libraries, restaurants, or apartment blocks. In rural France, some parishes report fewer than ten worshipers on a Sunday morning.

Meanwhile, mosques overflow with tens of thousands of faithful, spilling into the streets for Friday prayers. In some cities, local governments even block roads to accommodate the crowds, granting special privileges never extended to Christians. The message is clear: Islam is not simply present in France; it is ascendant.

And as Islam rises, Jewish life shrinks into the shadows. Antisemitic incidents have exploded, multiplying several times over in just a few short years. Jewish schools have become fortresses, guarded by soldiers with automatic rifles. Holocaust memorials are defaced with pro-Palestinian slogans. Families live behind locked doors, fearful of neighbors who once nodded politely but now spit threats. France's Jewish population--the largest in Europe--is fleeing in droves, seeking refuge in Israel or America. They know what France refuses to admit: the nation is no longer safe for them.

Yet President Emmanuel Macron responds not with courage, but with cowardice. This September, he will take the stage at the United Nations and announce France's recognition of a Palestinian state. He calls it a "principled stand." But it is nothing more than appeasement. Macron bows to a growing Muslim electorate, trading away France's moral spine for short-term political survival. While synagogues sit under guard and Jews pack their bags, France chooses to humiliate Israel--the one democratic ally in the Middle East--and reward its enemies.

This is not just political miscalculation; it is moral rebellion. Scripture warns in Joel 4:2: "I will enter into judgment... because they have scattered My people and divided My land." By turning against Israel, Macron is not protecting France from Islamist rage. He is inviting judgment on a nation already crumbling. Every mosque that rises in place of a church, every concession to radical demands, every betrayal of Israel--these are steps toward France's demise.

Look at the streets of Paris. Children are taught radical Islamist ideas in schools where parents dare not challenge them. Public pools schedule "women-only" swim times to accommodate Islamic modesty codes. In some suburbs, Christmas markets have been replaced by "winter festivals," stripped of Christian symbols for fear of offense. This is not coexistence. It is surrender.

And the world is watching. Europe's future is written in France's present. Berlin, Brussels, London--all stand on the same precipice. If France falls, they will follow. A continent that once carried the light of the Gospel now risks being extinguished under the weight of its own cowardice.

The hour is late, but not yet past saving. France must awaken, reclaim its Christian heritage, defend its Jewish citizens, and stand once more with Israel. Appeasement is not peace--it is suicide. And if France continues down this path, history will remember it not as the champion of liberty, but as the first great nation of the West to fall to Islam.



(by PNW Prophecy News Watch.)

Foiled again liberals!

SavedByGrace3 said:

What does it mean for a Christian to judge?
Example: fornication.
This poll regards the interpretation of Rom 2:1

Romans 2:1 KJV
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Many students of the scripture think this pertains to the Jews. ALL the Jews.
Reading the verse by itself, it seems to be speaking to everyone who might judge another. I disagree. The first word of the verse is "Therefore" which would mean "in light of what was previously discussed." This refers to the previous chapter, where Paul articulates a long list of behaviours by sinners. The final verse says:

Romans 1:32 KJV
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Romans 2:1 speaks to these people. They were rank sinners whose sins were so bad that they deserved death. Paul would seem to be saying that these sinners should not judge others who do the same things they were doing.

Romans
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Click to expand...

There are two situations the Bible points out regarding judging.

1)While still carnal we cannot judge another because we do the same thing

2) While in the Spirit, we can judge and no one can judge us.

Romans 2:1 KJV
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Notice in the above scripture, Apostle Paul says, “O man.” This let’s us know he is speaking to those who are carnal.

The above verse is speaking to the carnality of man where all have sinned. No carnal man, who is not walking in the Spirit, have the right to judge another, because the carnal nature is enmity to God, and is just as bad as the person they are judging.

This is the character of the carnal nature:
1 Corinthians 3:3 KJV
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? Notice he says “walk as men.” A believer who is not carnal does not walk as men - they walk as spiritual. Walk according to the Spirit,
Galatians 5:16 KJV
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

So as long as we are still walking carnal, (as men according to the flesh)in the old man, we cannot judge another, because we do the same.

However Apostle Paul tells us to put off the old man [carnal nature/fleshly man] and walk in newness of life.

Ephesians 4:22-24 KJV
22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Only those in the Spirit, walking in the new man can judge another because the new man is righteous and holy. The righteous have a right to judge, and cannot be judge by another.

1 Corinthians 2:15 KJv
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Hvizsgyak said:

As I stated on another thread, these website need to have labels warning viewers that the website is toxic hate. The music, tv and movie industry have put labels letting viewers know what type of content the particular media contains, why not websites?

And I've already gone down the road with the other thread, they claim it would be censuring. When people come together in a bipartisan effort to say, "hey this is offensive in nature" this shows what toxic is. And I'm not talking about debatable topics such as abortion, taxes, whether there's a God, LGBTQ issues, climate change dealings. I'm talking about wanting people dead topics.

I truly believe that on both sides of the political spectrum, people can't see bad stuff coming from their own side. They pooh pooh it away like, it was an honest mistake. With these bipartisan people coming together and labeling these websites, they are saying to others, "this is what we find very bad and toxic.

As a caveat though, this does not apply to God but it does apply to those who twist God's words to commit and speak evil.

Click to expand...

TV, movies, and such do not have a “toxic hate” warning, just content advisories and generally flexible age restrictions. With websites, especially social media, the type of content that could be on the site and the steps to moderate that all exist in the terms of service. Besides which, websites clearly fall under what’s called “inherent risk.”