Oompa Loompa said:

Disgusted ex-Democrats registering Republican after Charlie Kirk murder:’Evil is walking amongst us’

“The vibe overall on the left—and certainly most of my now ex-friends are of the left—is that they are so convinced of their own righteousness that anything is justified.”

nypost.com

We are watching the DNC collapse before our very eyes. I am predicting that the next decade will be dominated by Republicans, to include 2 terms with J.D. Vance. After that, things will level out with an increased in Independent voters to include many liberal Republicans leaving the GOP. Eventually we will have a three party system with the GOP still on top, and Independents fighting with Democrats for second place. Regardless, the GOP will be in power for a very long time.

Your thoughts

Click to expand...

I'm not really a fan of dystopian fiction, so I'll just wait and see what actually happens.

-- A2SG, people switch parties all the time, I fail to see a major issue here....

beginning, as well as the end.

Actually, in eternity there is no . . .

Victorians song

ThatRobGuy said:

I should record Thanksgiving dinner when the mom's side of the family (Southern Baptist) gets together with my dad's side (Irish Catholic) lol.

Click to expand...

Nice! as a Catholic family, I think I’ve only attended one Baptist wedding in my entire life, but then again, I’m in the Midwest

Tropical Wilds said:

Especially if they’ve been on this forum for any length of time.

Click to expand...

But it’s not necessarily about theology here….unless you’re saying you disagree? Regardless, I don’t see much fighting in my neck of the woods.

sleep mode

I would be interested about ideas of people becoming open to Christianity again.

It's true that everywhere there is a trend of hostility to Christianity, especially in the West. Sadly, the book specifically says this is inevitable and seems to be predestined.

But prayers to the UK and everywhere else.

Use My Voice.

Yarddog said:

It's not a grammatical error in Kentucky. LOL

There is nothing that shows this man is a liberal. He is a guy that fell in love with a person in the process of transitioning to a female. That doesn't make him liberal.

Click to expand...

no, just a person enabling another to continue in their mental illness.

I saw this happen with a former friend who, far as i know, hasn't cut their balls off yet. He overdosed twice on mushrooms and lsd. gave himself epilepsy, and started thinking being a woman would solve his "i feel like i'm living a lie" problem that dated back to when he was 12.

but you have to be significantly left of center in order to think that killing kirk would make the world a better place.

Aldebaran said:

One big difference is that normal people (those who accept the sex they are born as) don't claim it as "who they are", and base their arguments and politics around it. When transsexuals engage in mass shootings and assassinations, it is based on "who they are" as transsexuals, or the partner of such people and therefore part of that group. They target those who oppose perverted sexual lifestyles and bodily mutilations of children. That's why their targets have been school children, churches, and conservative speakers. All while claiming they just want to be left alone in the privacy of their own bedroom.
Frankly, I'd be fine with that. But when they come out with their rifles and start murdering innocent people, they shouldn't expect much sympathy.

Click to expand...

AMEN!!!

NxNW said:

He wanted the attacker to be bailed out, and said that whoever bailed him out would be an amazing patriot and hero. The only way that could be true is if the attacker is worthy of praise.

Click to expand...

A hero for proving how inconsistent the justice system is along with proving the point of how rhe left operates. I remember the left encouraging people to bail.out those involved in felony rioting.

Sorry dude if that went over your head.

Oompa Loompa said:

I dont understand if you are suggesting 'they' can throw out the idea he was a far left liberal, or if you meant to say 'they can throw him out for being a far left liberal but you made a grammatical error.

Click to expand...

It's not a grammatical error in Kentucky. LOL

There is nothing that shows this man is a liberal. He is a guy that fell in love with a person in the process of transitioning to a female. That doesn't make him liberal.

Jipsah said:

Not "automatically", just when they're stuck for an answer, and then they'll make stuff up that Scriptureri doesn't say at all. TYpicall it involves "light sources" or "suns" that SCripture doesn't mention in any way. It's patently dishonest, but needs must when you doctrine is in the ditch, right?

I assume that God didn't literally mean anything that doesn't make sense, like evening and mornings without a sun to produce them. And apparently Genesis literalists often agree with me, given the frequency with which they find it necessary to make up stuff from whole cloth to "support" the idea that every word in Genesis must be literally true. The whole "light source" nonsense is the prime example.

That is true. I believe that the testimony of God's Creation itself is the best source of information for Creation itself. Genesis, not so much. Genesis was composed to convey the essence of the Creation to people who had no understanding of the nature of the cosmos at all. They reckoned time in evenings and mornings, moons, and seasons. Twenry four "hour" days? What's an hour? "Oh, it's a 24th of a day." "....oh... OK".

So how long did it take for God to make everything? Oh, six epochs. "What's an epoch. ? 150 zillion years" "what's a year? " "two seasons". "How many seasons in an epoch""? Three hundred zillion. "Is that more than 100? Yeah, by a fair bit. "

OK, lets think of it this way. God made everything in Six days, one evening and one morning eash". Oh, then why didn'tyou say that in the first place!"

That's rhe principle. You have to meet your students where they are, even today. And you don't go looking for the principles of particle physics in a 6th grade science book. And that wasn't what Genesis was about in the first place. It was about "God made the universe", and the details were scarce, to no one's surprise.

That'd the summary of my position.


Bother fashion. Either such data as that is there is there is factual or it it isn't. In short, almost none of it is. THe best you can wring out of it is "God made everything", which is what it says in John 1 in concise form.

Because from a religious/ceremonial standpoint the six day week plus Sabbath is representative of God's Creation. Inaccurate? Sure, but it isn't about empirical data. It's about God and His Creation.

Because a "day" our vernacular is 24 hours, one revolution of the earth. Both of those were concepts unknown and unknowable to those to whom Genesis was recited (recitation being the way stories were shared in those days, after all). So an evening and a morning was a day, because it is. No hours, minutes, seconds, microseconds, nanoseconds, ad infinitum. And if you're dealing with a figurative day, it's an evening and a morning. Even if there's no sun. Or fictitious sun-substitute. (BTW why do you reckon God stuck in a temporary sun on Day 1 instead of just installing the permanent sun right off the bat? That's what I'd have done, but then I never designed a universe.)


Lost me there, mate.

I don't see any evidence that you've done any such thing. Instead you've pencil -whipped and "interpreted" into submission any Scripture that didn't fit your presuppositions Better described as "doctrine interpreting Scripture.)

'Splain to me how SS it is to run in new "suns" into a the Creation account where there is not even even a vague hint of such a thing having happened. "Sola doctrinal necessity " would be more accurate.

Nice try, but you're still pointedly ignoring both Moses' St. Peter's teaching about God's reckoning of time, which renders the entire "Six Solar Day Creation" doctrine utterly ridiculous. And no, "but that doesn't count!" doesn't do you any good. Either the old Prophet and the old Saint just got it wrong, or y'all did. I'm putting my money on them getting it right.

Nice religious jargon there. I'm sure it's translatable to English, but I'm not the man for the job.

My question is how long will yourDid ou lot drive reasonable people away from the Christian Faith by peddling baseless Fundy dogmas as essential confessions of faith? Did any of the disciples go to unbelievers and "preach unto them Genesis"?
Do the Creeds we confess mention belief in a 6 Day Creation? Did the Council of Jerusalem require the Gentile converts to profess belief in the literal truth of Genesis 1? Did our Lord say "he that believeth in Me, and who believes in a literal Six Day Creation, though he were dead, yet shall he live"? No, none of the above.

No, a belief in the literal truth of the Genesis account of the Creation has never been a requirement of the Church. If you folks require to qualify as a member of your sect that is entirely your business. But it is not a requirement of the Church of Christ, and never has been. You're free to believe it, and we're free not to believe it. If you'd rather not consider us Christians on that basis that's entirely your own affair.

Click to expand...

I too reject any view that makes God dishonourable; that’s exactly why I take Him at His written word rather than imputing to Him billions of years of death-filled ‘creation’ before Adam sinned. MacDonald’s warning cuts both ways. I’d also ask, Jipsah: why fire a quote that brands me dishonourable when you know nothing of my life, and the love that compelled me to offer light in the first place? Tossing moral grenades over a text-debate may feel clever, but it only shows the size of the chip on your own shoulder. I bear no malice toward you; please extend the same courtesy—and leave the character-judgements to the One who actually sees the heart. For such an unsupported insult I’ll step back and leave you to wrestle with these things yourself. Time and maturity have a way of softening what argument can’t. Grace, Jipsah. Have a wonderful day/night.

Jipsah said:

Not "automatically", just when they're stuck for an answer, and then they'll make stuff up that Scriptureri doesn't say at all. TYpicall it involves "light sources" or "suns" that SCripture doesn't mention in any way. It's patently dishonest, but needs must when you doctrine is in the ditch, right?

I assume that God didn't literally mean anything that doesn't make sense, like evening and mornings without a sun to produce them. And apparently Genesis literalists often agree with me, given the frequency with which they find it necessary to make up stuff from whole cloth to "support" the idea that every word in Genesis must be literally true. The whole "light source" nonsense is the prime example.

That is true. I believe that the testimony of God's Creation itself is the best source of information for Creation itself. Genesis, not so much. Genesis was composed to convey the essence of the Creation to people who had no understanding of the nature of the cosmos at all. They reckoned time in evenings and mornings, moons, and seasons. Twenry four "hour" days? What's an hour? "Oh, it's a 24th of a day." "....oh... OK".

So how long did it take for God to make everything? Oh, six epochs. "What's an epoch. ? 150 zillion years" "what's a year? " "two seasons". "How many seasons in an epoch""? Three hundred zillion. "Is that more than 100? Yeah, by a fair bit. "

OK, lets think of it this way. God made everything in Six days, one evening and one morning eash". Oh, then why didn'tyou say that in the first place!"

That's rhe principle. You have to meet your students where they are, even today. And you don't go looking for the principles of particle physics in a 6th grade science book. And that wasn't what Genesis was about in the first place. It was about "God made the universe", and the details were scarce, to no one's surprise.

That'd the summary of my position.


Bother fashion. Either such data as that is there is there is factual or it it isn't. In short, almost none of it is. THe best you can wring out of it is "God made everything", which is what it says in John 1 in concise form.

Because from a religious/ceremonial standpoint the six day week plus Sabbath is representative of God's Creation. Inaccurate? Sure, but it isn't about empirical data. It's about God and His Creation.

Because a "day" our vernacular is 24 hours, one revolution of the earth. Both of those were concepts unknown and unknowable to those to whom Genesis was recited (recitation being the way stories were shared in those days, after all). So an evening and a morning was a day, because it is. No hours, minutes, seconds, microseconds, nanoseconds, ad infinitum. And if you're dealing with a figurative day, it's an evening and a morning. Even if there's no sun. Or fictitious sun-substitute. (BTW why do you reckon God stuck in a temporary sun on Day 1 instead of just installing the permanent sun right off the bat? That's what I'd have done, but then I never designed a universe.)


Lost me there, mate.

I don't see any evidence that you've done any such thing. Instead you've pencil -whipped and "interpreted" into submission any Scripture that didn't fit your presuppositions Better described as "doctrine interpreting Scripture.)

'Splain to me how SS it is to run in new "suns" into a the Creation account where there is not even even a vague hint of such a thing having happened. "Sola doctrinal necessity " would be more accurate.

Nice try, but you're still pointedly ignoring both Moses' St. Peter's teaching about God's reckoning of time, which renders the entire "Six Solar Day Creation" doctrine utterly ridiculous. And no, "but that doesn't count!" doesn't do you any good. Either the old Prophet and the old Saint just got it wrong, or y'all did. I'm putting my money on them getting it right.

Nice religious jargon there. I'm sure it's translatable to English, but I'm not the man for the job.

My question is how long will yourDid ou lot drive reasonable people away from the Christian Faith by peddling baseless Fundy dogmas as essential confessions of faith? Did any of the disciples go to unbelievers and "preach unto them Genesis"?
Do the Creeds we confess mention belief in a 6 Day Creation? Did the Council of Jerusalem require the Gentile converts to profess belief in the literal truth of Genesis 1? Did our Lord say "he that believeth in Me, and who believes in a literal Six Day Creation, though he were dead, yet shall he live"? No, none of the above.

No, a belief in the literal truth of the Genesis account of the Creation has never been a requirement of the Church. If you folks require to qualify as a member of your sect that is entirely your business. But it is not a requirement of the Church of Christ, and never has been. You're free to believe it, and we're free not to believe it. If you'd rather not consider us Christians on that basis that's entirely your own affair.

Click to expand...

I too reject any view that makes God dishonourable; that’s exactly why I take Him at His written word rather than imputing to Him billions of years of death-filled ‘creation’ before Adam sinned. MacDonald’s warning cuts both ways. I’d also ask, Jipsah: why fire a quote that brands me dishonourable when you know nothing of my life, and the love that compelled me to offer light in the first place? Tossing moral grenades over a text-debate may feel clever, but it only shows the size of the chip on your own shoulder. I bear no malice toward you; please extend the same courtesy—and leave the character-judgements to the One who actually sees the heart. For such an unsupported insult I’ll step back and leave you to wrestle with these things yourself. Time and maturity have a way of softening what argument can’t. Leave you too it. Grace, Jipsah ' blood drinker' Have a wonderful day/night.

Oompa Loompa said:

Again I say, if they believe someone should be killed because of their opinion, they should not be upset for being fired because of their own opinion.

Click to expand...

As long as it was a violation of the policies and rules of their organization. If there was no such policy then they shouldnt be fired.

Its important to note that rhe left is perfectly fine with firing people who say right wing opinions. And they point out over and over again how free speech restrictions only apply to governement restrictions. They were were fine with firing people who wouldnt follow policy regarding pronouns and rhe argument was always well policy says and free speech only applies to government enforcement.

Well now they are upset over someone celebrating assassination and getting fired while at the same time supporting firing of people who dont want to use preferred pronouns.

Delvianna said:

If Passover wasn't a sin sacrifice, why do the verses I give link Jesus to being the sin sacrifice?

Click to expand...

You state that as a matter of fact. I asked you in my last post if you had read the studies that I have already provided for you.

Let's review.

Delvianna said:

1Pet 1 (NKJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¹⁸ knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers,
¹⁹ but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

Click to expand...

(CLV) 1Pt 1:18
being aware that not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, were you ransomed from your vain behavior, handed down by tradition from the fathers,

(CLV) 1Pt 1:19
but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a flawless and unspotted lamb,

Nothing about a sin sacrifice here. This speaks of a ransom from vain behavior.

Sin sacrifices are not ransoms. Many Christians are very confused about sin sacrifices. They aren't payment for sin. Yah wants us to repent. Repentance was the message that Yah gave us from the beginning. If we repent; Yah will forget our sins, with or without a sacrifice. That is the good news. The Prophets gave us the same message of repentance. That same message was at the root of Yochanan the Immerser's ministry; as well as Yahshua's. The message has been consistent all along.

Delvianna said:

“He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”
— Heb 9:26 (NKJV)

Click to expand...

Did you read this in context?

(CLV) Hb 9:25
Nor yet is it that He may be offering Himself often, even as the chief priest is entering into the holies of holies year by year by the blood of others,

This speaks of Yom Kippur, not Pesach.

(CLV) Hb 9:24
For Christ entered not into holy places made by hands, representations of the true, but into heaven itself, now to be disclosed to the face of God for our sakes.

This speaks of Yahshua as the Kohen Gadol. not the goats.

(CLV) Hb 9:25
Nor yet is it that He may be offering Himself often, even as the chief priest is entering into the holies of holies year by year by the blood of others,

This speaks of Yom Kippur, not Pesach.

(CLV) Hb 9:26
since then He must often be suffering from the disruption of the world, yet now, once, at the conclusion of the eons, for the repudiation of sin through His sacrifice, is He manifest

.
repudiate /rĭ-pyoo͞′dē-āt″/

transitive verb​

1. To reject the validity or authority of.
2. To reject emphatically as unfounded, untrue, or unjust.
   "repudiated the accusation."
3. To refuse to recognize or pay.

Yes Yahshua rejected sin; and he told us to reject it too.

(CLV) Hb 9:27
And, in as much as it is reserved to the men to be dying once, yet after this a judging,

(CLV) Hb 9:28
thus Christ also, being offered once for the bearing of the sins of many, will be seen a second time, by those awaiting Him, apart from sin, for salvation, through faith.

Those apart from sin would be those who are betrothed (a contract, a covenant) to Yahshua


(CLV) 1Jn 3:9
Everyone who is begotten of God is not doing sin, for His seed is remaining in him, and he can not be sinning, for he is begotten of God.

(CLV) 1Jn 3:5
And you are aware that He was manifested that He should be taking away our sins, and in Him is not sin.

(CLV) 1Jn 3:6
Everyone who is remaining in Him is not sinning. Everyone who is sinning sees Him not, neither knows Him.

Faith:

The word faith in Hebrew is not an abstract concept derived for Greek philosophy. It has a concrete meaning that could be translated as faithfulness, or obedience.

(CLV) Ro 12:1
I am entreating you, then, brethren, by the pities of God, to present your bodies a sacrifice, living, holy, well pleasing to God, your logical divine service,

Delvianna said:

“For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.”
— Heb 10:14 (NKJV)

Click to expand...

You might want to review this study again, at least on a superficial level:


Offering (קרבן) (Qorban) and Sacrifice (זבח) (Zebach) are two different words.

Delvianna said:

“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”
— John 1:29 (NKJV)

Click to expand...

That's right! He doesn't just sweep it under the carpet. He takes it out of the house.

(CLV) 1Jn 3:6
Everyone who is remaining in Him is not sinning. Everyone who is sinning sees Him not, neither knows Him.

Delvianna said:

Because God doesn't specifically say "this is a sin sacrifice", then the sacrifice in general is considered still okay to do?

Click to expand...

All of YHW'H's Moedim are eternal; and he gave us very specific instructions on how to honor them.

(CLV) Num 9:13
Yet the man, he who is clean and bis not on the road and forbears to observe the passover, that soul will be cut off from its kinsmen because he has not brought near the approach (Offering (קרבן) (Qorban)) present of Yahweh at its appointed time; that man shall bear his sin.

Here he calls it a qorban. Nowhere have I found a sin sacrifice referred to as a qorban; but a qorban applies perfectly to a threshold covenant.

I might add that the penalty for ignoring this instruction is rather severe.


They were honored according to his word in the past. They will be honored according to his word in the kingdom to come.

(CLV) Isa 56:7
I will bring them also to My holy mountain And make them rejoice in My house of prayer; Their ascent offerings and their sacrifices (זבח) (Zebach) They shall offer up for acceptance on My altar, For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.


I did not see where he said that there will be a time period of lawlessness that he is OK with, nor was such a nonexistent period defined.

(CLV) Mt 5:18
For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring.

(CLV) Mt 5:19
"Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.

Hong Kong Phooey

rjs330 said:

The devil helps encourage men to go deeper and deeper into their wickedness. The more evil.they get the more he can influence them further.

Click to expand...

I don't see that these people required any supernatural help to become more wicked. The website and the people who congregate there are sufficient.

Servus said:

I've known them to take the president's words out of context before. Like they're famous for it by now. That's why I usually want to watch a video that has his full speech at times like this, to get the full context.

Click to expand...

Okay, so make your point. What did Trump say, in context, that changes the meaning behind the quoted words? Did he blame the left for the killing of Kirk or didn't he? Was there some other words that, in context, put forth a more measured take on the event?

Show your work, don't just blame the media as a knee-jerk reaction.

-- A2SG, I guess blaming the media would be the other hammer in Trump's arsenal...not a very extensive toolbox there....

13 people hurt in 2 mass shootings at Minneapolis homeless encampments on the same day​

O'Hara said at least four of the victims had life-threatening gunshot wounds.

O'Hara said detectives are investigating the possibility that the shooting is connected to earlier gunfire at a nearby homeless encampment that left five people injured, including one in life-threatening condition. He said the earlier shooting occurred just after 11 a.m. near the intersection of East Lake Street and Stevens Avenue.

Libertarianism, everybody!

Landon Caeli said:

Not everyone in America believes political violence is wrong anymore, Bradskii.

Click to expand...

I'm not asking everyone in America. I'm only asking those in the forum who happen to click on this thread. It would be great if everyone who did click on it just made a simple statement such as 'Yes, I agree. All political violence is to be condemned'.

You can do that now.

1Tonne said:

But it was not until I broke down about my sin (porn addiction) and I left it that the Holy Spirit entered me, and I changed. The Holy Spirit filled me. And what was in my heart could not stay there. I had to tell everyone about the Good News of Jesus. I was a different person, and people could tell. All I could talk about was the Good News.

Click to expand...

This, I like very much. This is your own, genuine story, your own witness to the power of God.

can't make this stuff up lol