Mercy Shown said:

Making sure that I take care of my family the best that I can and not unduly burden the church with my temporal neccesities

The Lord’s words in Matthew 16:25–26 are not teaching that eternal life is earned by our own obedience to commandments and statutes, but that true faith in Him produces a transformed life. Jesus is contrasting the one who clings to self and worldly gain with the one who trusts Him even unto death. Salvation is never conditioned on human works, for Scripture says plainly, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9). The call to “lose one’s life” is the call of faith—to lay aside self-reliance and worldly trust and to embrace Christ as Lord and Savior. Good fruits will indeed follow, but they are the evidence of salvation, not the grounds of it: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (Ephesians 2:10). Therefore, Jesus’ warning about gaining the world and losing the soul is not a command to secure eternal life by our own law-keeping, but an invitation to forsake empty self-sufficiency and receive His righteousness by faith.


Through faith in Christ, His perfect righteousness is imputed to believers, not earned by our works but freely given as a gift of grace. Paul writes, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). Just as Adam’s sin was imputed to all mankind, bringing condemnation, so Christ’s obedience is imputed to all who believe, bringing justification. This righteousness is not our own but is credited to us: “And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Philippians 3:9). In this way, God declares the believer righteous, clothing us with Christ’s obedience so that we stand faultless before Him.

Click to expand...

Now Paul said in (Rom. 3:23-25) (v.23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (v.24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (v.25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.

So the bible tells you to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2 :36-38). And by doing so you come up under his precious blood and then you are saved from your sins that are past, not present or future sins but for sins that are past. We were all locked under death by Adam’s sin, even the second death, which is the lake of fire. But when Jesus became (he was God in the beginning) man and died for the sins of the world, he gave us access back to the tree of life (himself) which Adam had caused us to lose. That’s what grace is, our free gift our access back to the tree of life but that’s another lesson for another time.

So by coming under the blood of Jesus being baptize, you are saved from your past sins. And if you are saved now, it is on a day to day basis. Because for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 23:3), and if you continue to live you will sin again.

When the bible speaks of laws we no longer have to keep, it is speaking of the sacrificial laws and Priesthood laws. These animal sacrificial laws were a school master pointing us to the fact that Jesus would be sacrificed for our sins. Since Jesus died we are no longer under a school master, (required to offer up bulls and goats for our sins). Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. This animal sacrificial law was only a schoolmaster.(Gal 3:24)

Now we must believe (have faith) Jesus died for us (Hebrews 10:4,9-10) 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 9 then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This doesn't mean we don't have to obey God's moral laws of conduct. That would be like a man getting paroled from prison and then ignoring the same laws that sent him to prison in the first place. Jesus only died once, so if we willingly break God's law, after accepting Jesus, our reward will be eternal damnation

It is the willful sinning that you need to put in check. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. (Hebrew 10: 26, 27)

Bradskii said:

It's like love. An evolutionary development ...

Click to expand...

Nothin but. Explaining away, rather than explaining.

Love involves self-transcendence, creativity, sacrifice, and meaning that seem to exceed mere reproductive fitness.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

.Trump learned his lesson last term, he is not being "nice" again.

Click to expand...

Trump didnt think he'd win rhe first time so he didn't have time or the possibility of setting himself up in the same way that he could in rhe last 4 years.

He was never nice.

And that's why you like him.

Chrystal-J said:

That show was one of the few who really got me laughing. She kind of reminded me of my mom too.

Click to expand...

It's BOQUET!

yum!

Fried Catfish?

Hentenza said:

God can save everyone if He wishes

Click to expand...

He is omnipotent.

Semper-Fi said:

John 3:6 (KJV)​

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Click to expand...

And John 3:5 he that is BORN of WATER and. the Spirit. , and how does that. happen. !!

dan p

SabbathBlessings said:

Paul came after Christ ratified His covenant. God's laws went from external written on stone to enteral written on the heart 2Cor3:3 Heb8:10 not breaking His promise not to alter His covenant Psa 89:34 Mat5:18 so Paul does not have any authority to dismiss one of God's written and spoken commandments and is part of God's Testimony that's sits under God's mercy seat in Heaven Rev15:5 Rev11:19

Click to expand...

So, you think Paul was not an apostle? Paul was an apostle and spoke authoritatively when he indicated that the Covenant of Law had its requirements "nailed to the tree."

Now, we get our righteousness from Christ, and not from obeying the requirements of the Law of Moses. We don't have to keep Sabbath Law, or Festival laws, or cleansing laws, or atonement laws.

We have a new priesthood, temple, and sacrifice by which we obtain our righteousness. And it is in Christ--not by what we do under the Law of Moses, which was only for Israel in the era before Christ's death.

The New Covenant, as under the Old Covenant, required observance *from the heart.* I don't know why you think that only the New Covenant requires this? Perhaps it is because the prophecy of the New Covenant, being applied to Israel in the future, indicates that Israel must have their heart changed in order to satisfy the New Covenant?

As I told you, *all* of God's covenants require obedience from the heart. The only reason the prophecy specifies the need for Israel's heart to be changed, in order to receive the New Covenant, is because in the current age Israel's heart is hardened and needs to be changed in order for the nation to be saved.

SabbathBlessings said:

Many misunderstand Paul and in doing so by not reconciling Paul's writings to Jesus, came with a salvation warning 2Peter3:16 when taken out of context. Jesus warned us not to break or teach others to break the least of these commandments Mat5:19 Paul is not undermining Jesus who is God. As if man can reverse God's blessing and God's sanctification.

Click to expand...

You are undermining what Matt 5 teaches us about the Law. Jesus said this, in context, to *Israel* and he said it in a time *before the cross!* You are completely ignoring that!

If you want to learn from what Jesus was saying here, understand that what Jesus taught while under the Law can inform us under the New Covenant as long as we understand the change from OT to NT. Under the NT we have to uphold the perfection of Christ, just as Israel, under the Law, had to uphold every requirement of the Law.

This isn't a matter of our perfection, but of our need to acknowledge Christ's perfection, who is our standard of righteousness. If we live by Christ we are in fact living by God's perfect standard.

SabbathBlessings said:

Many confuse the annual feasts days that some were annual sabbaths that have to do with food and drink offerings the context of this passage with one of God's Ten Commandments. I personally would not want to remove something God's covers with His mercy Exo20:6 but God gives us free will.

Click to expand...

Yes, you have free will to ignore Paul.

2PhiloVoid said:

If it's Voltaire and on, then that would mostly be 'Modern Philosophy' then, like I was say'n. (i.e. 17th to the early 20th century).

Click to expand...

I had to look up his date of birth so I had someone to start with. He just sneaks in.

Colo Millz said:

Why is torturing babies wrong?

"Reason says, because of evolutionary grease".

Well I guess that's a view.

Click to expand...

That's not how evolution works. And hey, I thought you were a fan of Kant. He used reason to determine morality. Now it's a bad idea?

Are you empathetic? Yeah, me too. Comes in handy, doesn't it. You a parent? Yeah, me too. That emotional bond, eh? Now those are evolved concepts. They are evolutionary beneficial. Rather obviously. So if you see a child being harmed you can imagine their pain. And you can envisage your child feeling that pain. And you most definitely don't want that to happen. It's entirely natural. So harming children is a bad idea on those two levels at least. And if you actually feel that it's a bad idea, rather than sitting down with a pen and some paper and sketching a logic diagram to work out the possible outcomes of allowing it then you'll reject it automatically.

Those people who did that, those people who felt that it was somehow wrong, rather than have to reason it out, well their kids outlived those of people who were a bit slow on the uptake.

It's like love. An evolutionary development that allows pair bonding to survive. What? It's just part of our genetic make up? No way! Well, yes. That's exactly what it is. But knowing what it is doesn't make it feel any less than it does. Doesn't make it feel any less real. So feeling that it's wrong to harm children is likewise an evolutionary development. But it still feels entirely natural.

It's like Feynman (say hi to my avatar) when he said that knowing the molecular and biological structure of a rose and knowing how the light reflect off the petals at a certain wavelength and how the molecules trigger sense organs in the nose and transmit that to certain parts of the brain...all of that adds to the wonder of a rose. How it looks and smells. It doesn't detract from it.

Same with evolution.

JosephZ said:

Dearborn has a long history of "Christians" harassing the Muslim population. Frequent Qur'an burnings, terrorist attacks and threats, and even "Christian" missionaries showing up with a pig's head on a stake and calling Muslim children wicked, heathens, and dirtbags, among other things, during an Arab festival. So, while it was wrong for the mayor to tell someone they were not welcome in the city, it's understandable how that could happen when someone starts talking about a member of the community supporting terrorism. If you watch the video of the exchange, you will notice that it was a Christian member of the city council, Robert Abraham, that first interrupted Mr. Barham and told him that Osama Siblani didn't support violence and that they were not going to allow attacks on people in the community during the meeting.

Osama Siblani isn't a known terrorist, and the street in question wasn't renamed. There were honorary signs erected at a couple of street corners; that’s it. It was also Wayne County, and not the city of Dearborn, that approved the signs. Wayne County has less than a 20% Muslim population.



Here's the response from the man who was told to leave the city:

Dearborn resident told he wasn't welcome hopes to see something positive come out of exchange

Addressing the mayor's remarks that he was unwelcome in the city, Barham called Dearborn the 'most hospitable, kind city' he's ever been in, drawing from his experiences living in the diverse, majority-Arab American community and his global travels, including a year in Lebanon and visits to Israel and Palestinian territories.

He also disagreed that Christian people are at risk of facing oppression in the U.S., pushing back against narratives amplified by some conservative commentators who framed the incident as evidence of anti-Christian sentiment in Dearborn...

He said the mayor has 'done a terrific job in many ways', specifically praising Hammoud’s leadership on community initiatives like funding playgrounds, despite their disagreement. Barham added that he wants to encourage love for Muslim people, consistent with his missionary work...

He expressed no intention of leaving Dearborn, stating he hoped the controversy would lead to positive outcomes, such as greater religious freedom and understanding between Christians and Muslims.

Click to expand...

Well I did watch the exchange and found it to be utterly incomprehensible. Like I said, if a white mayor had done that to a Muslim, I cant imagine the backlash he would have received for it.

Christians in Muslim countries have suffered FAR worse than any Muslim.in Dearborn has. Can you imagine what would have happened to one if they had burned a Quaran in some Muslim countries?

Now I certainly don't agree with anyone doing that, or threatening them or anything of rhe sort. Its wrong for anyone to do it.

I.just thi k it was wrong for the Mayor to treat that man in that way in his own town and country. I also give kudos to the man for not responding in kind.

Hentenza said:

God’s “will” will always prevail.

Click to expand...

1 Timothy 3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

SabbathBlessings said:

I personally would not want to remove something God's covers with His mercy Exo20:6 but God gives us free will.

Click to expand...

(Adding to your point)

1. Both the Old and New Testaments tell us not to add to or take away from the commandments.


2. Both the Old and New Testaments prophesy the adding to or taking away from the commandments.

3. The commandments are the truth.

4. Breaking the commandments is untruth.
Conclusion: The commandments stand as eternal truth.

essentialsaltes said:

Kilmar Abrego Garcia back in US to face charges of helping traffic 'thousands' of migrants​

A two-count indictment, which was filed under seal in federal court in Tennessee last month and unsealed Friday, alleges Abrego Garcia, 29, participated in a yearslong conspiracy to haul undocumented migrants from Texas to the interior of the country.

Abrego-Garcia is the only member of the alleged conspiracy charged in the new indictment. A conspiracy of one, eh?

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

Slate Opinion

The Criminal Case Against Kilmar Abrego Garcia Is Highly Suspect​

The charges against him may be valid. They may be exaggerated. Or they may be fabricated.

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

During the hearing Friday, one DHS agent revealed that he was only asked to look into Abrego Garcia’s case on April 28 of this year, according to Tennessee Lookout’s Anita Wadhwani.

That was also a full week after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed, seemingly out of nowhere and without providing any evidence, that Abrego Garcia had “engaged in human trafficking.”

Click to expand...

Judge Says DOJ May Be Vindictively Punishing Abrego Garcia for Challenging Removal to El Salvador​

A federal judge in Nashville ruled that the Department of Justice’s criminal case against Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia may be a form of punishment against him for legally challenging his abrupt removal to an El Salvador megaprison earlier this year.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw found that comments from senior Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, raised a “realistic likelihood” that the department sought immigrant smuggling charges against Abrego Garcia for vindictive reasons.

The judge said Abrego Garcia was entitled to discovery against the Trump administration and a hearing in which he can present evidence on why his case should be tossed for vindictive and selective prosecution.

“Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights to bring suit against the Executive Official Defendants, rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct,” Crenshaw said.

Crenshaw said several comments from Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other executive branch officials the day of Abrego Garcia’s return were also concerning.

pasifika said:

All commandments are fulfilled by this single commandment "love your neighbor as yourself".

Click to expand...

Yes, but the subset of this single comand includes many commandments, such as "don't covet," "don't murder," "don't steal," and don't dishonor God in any way. Those commandments were part of both covenants and does not distinguish between them.

So, the summary of all the commandments doesn't specific the number of commandments involved in the New Covenant, nor does it specify the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

I was just pointing out that regardless of what covenant is in play, God requires that those who covenant with Him "do" their part in the agreement. This was *not* a difference between the two covenants.

childeye 2 said:

No, Jesus is saying it's more righteous to not even get angry because someone messed up dinner, than murdering them because they messed up dinner.

Click to expand...

Jesus didn't say this, you did.

childeye 2 said:

I'm not sure why you came to the conclusion you arrived at.

Click to expand...

Because you said, "God's righteousness is not subject to the law," which doesn't make any sense when righteousness is literally following the law. That's the definition.

childeye 2 said:

There is no law against GOD"S LOVE. Those who walk in His Love do not need the law to be righteous

Click to expand...

You're conflating two concepts, the fruit of the spirit which grows with love, and the requirement by God that says we are supposed to act righteously which is following his moral law. Again, righteousness is following the law.

Definition: RIGHTEOUS, a. ri'chus.

1. Just; accordant to the divine law. Applied to persons, it denotes one who is holy in heart, and observant of the divine commands in practice; as a righteous man. Applied to things, it denotes consonant to the divine will or to justice; as a righteous act. It is used chiefly in theology, and applied to God, to his testimonies and to his saints.

The righteous, in Scripture, denote the servants of God, the saints.

2. Just; equitable; merited.

childeye 2 said:

I can tell from your posts that you are misconstruing what I mean. As I said, I don't think the devil wants us to communicate.

Click to expand...

I literally keep asking what you mean because you don't explain yourself very well and based off of what you say, is how I respond.

childeye 2 said:

You've misconstrued what I say. All of scripture testifies to the righteousness that came apart from the law, including the law.

Romans 3
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Click to expand...

You literally just highlighted my point in bold "being witnessed by the law". Put the concept of that verse together. You're singling out 1 part of the verse by pointing to the word righteousness and highlighting "without the law" while you aren't understanding the point of the verse and then ignoring other parts of scripture. You can't single out verses like this because there are points and concepts that group verses together to get the big picture which include these verses:

James 2:21-24 "Was our father Abraham not justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected... You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

James 2:26 "For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

Matthew 25:31-46 (Parable of the Sheep and Goats) “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you... for I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat...’”

Romans 2:6-7 "Who will repay each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life."

Aldebaran said:

You seem to be forgetting the posts after that.
Help the conversation by referring to the most recent posts you've made.

Click to expand...

Whatever I've posted that you want to talk about just quote it and state your problem with it.

rambot said:

Seems far more dysfunctional now.

Click to expand...

I agree. But a lot has to do with the fact that one side is statistically more likely to cause dysfunction and chaos when things are not going their way.

SabbathBlessings said:

Are you really serious? Why was she released from the law, because her husband died and it wouldn't be adultery. Because keeping God's commandments is what matters 1Cor7:19

Click to expand...

Again, the scripture is simple. You are not addressing it. Here it is again.

“But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭7‬:‭6‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

I know you know how to read do what does the scripture say? Do you deny scripture?

SabbathBlessings said:

Yet Jesus says depart from Me, ye those who practice lawlessness. (without law) Mat7:23

Click to expand...

Yes talking about false prophets.

““Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7‬:‭15‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

You need to read verses in context.

SabbathBlessings said:

Is this what Paul is teaching to lead people to their destruction 2Peter3:16

Click to expand...

Yes, Paul does destroy your argument. You keep posting this verse to draw away from Paul’s argument but the reality is that you quote this verse because you can’t debunk Paul’s argument. As I stated before Paul’s teachings are hard for you because his teachings destroys your arguments. The Christians are not under the law.

SabbathBlessings said:

I would show the context, but I know it wouldn't make a difference. You do not want to keep God's laws, that's fine, that's your choice. I am going to stick with what jesus said If you love Me, keep My commandments John14:15 I love Jesus.

Click to expand...

Douggg said:

keras, back in the days of bows and arrows, archers could wrap their arrow tips with and set them on fire and shot the arrows into wooden structures to catch them on fire... i.e. deadly shafts tipped with fire.

Click to expand...

There were all sorts of clever and very nasty means of warfare developed quite early, including forms of chemical and biological warfare.

river rat

Doris Day

yum

collard greens?