• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

I hold a view similar to the Open View of God.

What type of God is more of a failure, one who "actively plans", "by His will", to damn mankind because of His wrath? Or one who tried to redeem man, but man fails to respond, contrary to His desire?

Eze 33:11 Say to them: 'As I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?'
Starting, as you seem to think you did, with the fact that a god who fails to complete what he set out to do is not God, it is not a logical result that God must try, but fail, to redeem mankind. That notion denies his omnipotence and omniscience, his aseity, and many other things attributable to God. God did not plan to save all mankind, and fail to do so. He did not even try to save all mankind. It is not logical to exalt man's capabilities to God's level, as you do in matters of mental agility, moral ability, sentient stance, and so on. We are not able to choose in the same way he is.

Second, and as I have said before, it IS logical to see, from several different directions of thought, that we are not able to be entirely free to choose without being caused/compelled to do so. Cause-and-effect is completely pervasive, and ties all fact together precisely as things pan out. We do choose, and that choice is real, and many of my ilk even say we are free to choose within constraints, though I don't say that. But if one's choices are made from a corrupt spirit, that choice is corrupt, no matter what choice is made. For example, if one chooses to "accept Christ", from a corrupt spirit, that choice is corrupt, and is not valid to produce the proposed outcome. Our fickle choices should have shown us that by now.

Third, it is logical to see, also from several different directions of thought, that God did not intend to save all, because there can be no more first causes—God is the only one. Yet you propose free will, where, like Gods, we are free to produce entirely spontaneous choices on our own, apart from prior cause.

Fourth, as I have often shown, SINCE God is First Cause, all things come from him, logically descend from his causing, however you want to put it. All other things besides HIM, are result. So, if God knew precisely, yet caused, then all things were intended precisely as they fall out.
Upvote 0

Sabbatarianism

Thank you. When we read the Gospels we read in context of how they practiced and considered the days and the counts.

But ralliann,

Who are the "They"?

The first Church of God under HIS New Prophesied High Priest, The Lord's Christ Jesus, counted according to the Instructions given by God to Moses, and as a result were gathered together on God's Holy Feast, "Pentecost", and the resulting obedience resulted in the Spirit of God, (Holy Spirit) being given to them, as is His Practice to give His Spirit to those who obey Him. They were not "Judaizers", rather, they were "Children of Obedience", "Servants of God's Righteousness", who had "Yielded themselves" to God, and their bodies as instruments of Righteousness to God.

Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, the Wise men, David, Ezekiel, these men were also members of God's Church, but under the Old Priesthood Covenant. They also counted correctly in their honor and respect for God, and understood the importance of the Feasts of the Lord.

This is why I asked what your definition of "Judaism" was, because in this world's religious system, most of the "Many", who come in Christ's Name, teach that the Pharisees were trying to earn salvation by obeying God's Laws. This insidious lie has led a lot of people astray, and has corrupted Paul's Gospel message in chapters like Romans 3 and Romans 11.
Civil calendar day of the month (begins at night), verses Liturgical days (morn and even sacrifices "daily") , and feasts days (evening to evening spanning parts of two calendar days.). This includes the judaic "inlusive counting"
The rest of your problems with Catholicism has nothing to do with what I am getting at.

I don't know where you found this teach8ing, but it wasn't from the Word of God the Jesus "of the Bible" said to Live by. And you keep referring to "Judaism/Judaic" when you should be interested in what God actually teaches, in my view.

In the world God placed me in, there is also a massive religious system that calls Jesus Lord, Lord. The "Mother" of this religious system is the RCC, and her children are the Protestant religions in all their various sects and businesses.

We are all born into religions of this world that profess to know God, just as Noah, Abraham, Caleb, David, Zacharias, Peter, and Jesus Himself were also placed into the same world. Just as Adam and Eve were placed into a world where "other voices" who professed to know god, and even quoted "some" of His Words, exist.

These are undeniable Biblical Truths, and is the reason, in my view, for Paul's teaching in Rom. 11, that you referenced, and other places as well.
Upvote 0

Who then can be saved?

I don't mean to sound like a wise guy, but you have got this verse completely wrong as well. If we consider the context and to whom Peters letter was address to, we quickly come to the realization that he is writing to believers (the elect of God).

His letter is encouraging them to be patient, it's a reminder that God is patiently waiting until the last elect person comes to faith, before He brings this world to an end.

The text states that God is not willing that any of (His elect) should perish. If He wanted to save the whole of mankind, He would have but He obviously didn't choose to and we have no business asking "why not". But the question we should be asking is, why didn't He chose to cast all of mankind into hell, because that's what we all deserve.
I don't mean to sound like a wise guy either, but your's is self-serving speculation here, not realization. There's no reason for interpreting the verse other than how it reads. The question we should be asking is, why would a good God create anyone to be tormented eternally, who have no choice but to sin? It's like tormenting a dog eternally for biting, for doing what dog's do.

The question we should be asking is, why does God need to reveal anything, to inform to instruct, to encourage, unless choice is involved? If He’s just going to end up doing it all for us anyway now, why not just prevent Adam from sinning to begin with, or stock heaven with whomever He wants and stock hell with the rest, at the beginning? Why put humanity through all the evil, sin, victimization, the suffering that this world entails if it all has no ultimate purpose, unless choice is involved in our coming to know and shun and hate the evil, the sin, the victimization and choose the good instead even as grace is an essential component of that choice? There’s a reason we’re here, and it’s not just so God can say, “Hey, I’ve chosen you and you and you to be saved and you and you and you for damnation. His judgment will come later; for now we’re working out…our choices, with Him who works in us.
Upvote 0

DOJ Deletes Study Showing Domestic Terrorists Are Most Often Right Wing

Moorish Sovereign Citizen movement?
Huh....
Heinz, all kinds.....
Yep

Upvote 0

False Preachers/Teachers

The quality of men and women has dramatically diminished overall and the majority choose their companion with little to no parental input or wise counsel. As for remaining at home, you’ll minimize a lot of temptations and problems that arise when you live at home not to mention the money.

Any parent worth their salt will protect their investment. The wretched ones are always preying on the naive and virtuous. Placing a barrier in their way is smart. And given the economy and its increasing hardships. You have to be 50 shades of shrewd to avoid a problem. Because a lot of people are pretending.

I saw a poll yesterday directed to me and they asked if it was more important for her to be a virgin or debt free. And the overwhelming response concerning virginity was no. It wasn’t a factor for them. But the majority agreed that having a partner who’s debt free would be nice. Although they’re aware it’s unlikely to occur. That’s a reflection of what’s happening in society and the financial strain many are experiencing.

I agree with him and I’ve witnessed the wisdom of that perspective with my daughter. We put a plan in place with the future in mind. She isn’t meeting someone and making a decision based on emotions or hormones. There’s too much at stake. You can’t choose a life partner until you know who you are and where you’re heading. And I think it’s important to be honest about the life you want and specific. Then you’ll have an idea of what it takes to get there and who you require beside you to do so.

That’s our approach. Some people prefer to leave things to chance or figure them out as they go.

~bella
I agree but I think hes taking it too far to say it's a requirement. God never forces us, and I don't think parents should force their adult children either. To say the father has absolute authority IS a recipie for disaster and also saying the father picks out the spouse implies no input from the daughter. This is the case in one instance where I read her father "forbid" her from going to college. Influence is good, but preaching dictatorship is not.
Upvote 0

CAN A BELIEVER BE ACCURSED ?

And I aways take the word , seriously and maybe it will help those who never have heard what the HOLY SPIRIT has written

dan p
Where is the warrant to spiritualize a mere question? The guy was messing with you, man! Why do you have to convert it to a spiritual issue? It was not scripture. Have you no sense of humor?
Upvote 0

The Trump DOJ goes "woke" and will target free speech.

For example, if a political science professor tell her students, "Trump is a monster and I think every student who supports such a man should fail," should she keep her job knowing that now every conservative student will now be afraid of sharing their ideas truthfully?
con·ser·va·tism
[kənˈsərvədizəm]
noun
  1. commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation:
    "proponents of theological conservatism"
  2. the holding of political views that favor free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas:
    "a party that espoused conservatism"
    • the doctrines of the Conservative Party of Great Britain or a similar party elsewhere:
      "the thrust of post-war Conservatism"

lib·er·al·ism
[ˈlib(ə)rəˌlizəm]
noun
  1. willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas:
    "one of the basic tenets of liberalism is tolerance"
    • the holding of political views that are socially progressive and promote social welfare:
      "the borough prides itself on being a great bastion of liberalism and diversity"


Any reasoning based on a falsehood ends in a contradiction. It's not slander, to point out slander. It's slander to call someone a slanderer for pointing out a slanderer.

Your hypothetical above conveys Trump represents conservatism, when in reality Trump is recognized as a monster because instead of showing remorse for deceiving thousands into attacking the Capitol building based on slander, he doubles down with more slander against those pointing out the slander. The hypothetical therefore presents a contradiction of reasoning. Why? Because conservatism implies advocating socially traditional ideas, NOT slandering others.
Upvote 0

CAN A BELIEVER BE ACCURSED ?

AND just asking if you have. a verse for THOSE CHOSEN BY God ??

dan p
Not sure what you are asking. A verse to show those who are chosen by God? A verse showing that some are chosen by God? A verse showing that God chooses? A verse using the term, "chosen by God"? Anyhow, see @Clare73 in post #67.
Upvote 0

I hold a view similar to the Open View of God.

Luke 12:47-48 And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

To each of us are committed certain facts; God has given us the ability to reason, if we use our reason to keep on sinning, we will be punished. If we use our reason to make right choices, we will deliver our soul.

Over time, we form a nature. One that either accepts or pushes away God. God is long-suffering, giving us many chances to reform our nature. But ultimately, it is by our deeds that we will be judged.

Rom 2:4-11 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.
I don't know how that is an answer to what I said. That we have a will is not in question, nor even that we do make choices. I would deny the use of the word, "chances", above, and change it to "opportunities", but, whatever...
You said that God is not subject to mere chance, but it is not mere chance, not like rolling a die, it is more complex than that. Realistically, God is not subject to anything He has made. Do you think He can not constrain man's choices in such a way that He maintains His power.
You ask: "You said that God is not subject to mere chance, but it is not mere chance, not like rolling a die, it is more complex than that. Realistically, God is not subject to anything He has made. Do you think He can not constrain man's choices in such a way that He maintains His power."

Without the question mark at the end of that, it is questionable whether you intended that as a question or as a rhetorical question—a comment.

I suppose you think it a logical countering to what I do say or believe. You would be wrong in that. I don't say he does not constrain man's choices—I don't say that man has not choice, nor that God doesn't, as you put it, constrain them. The implication you don't come out and say—that those choices would be otherwise entirely free of constraint—is a self-contradictory notion. The law of cause-and-effect applies regardless; God knew those choices, and created anyway: Therefore, it is obvious that he intentionally caused them.
Upvote 0

Actor Robert Redford dead at 89

Really? I didn’t know that.

The episode is called "Nothing in the dark". It aired in 1962 and it was about an old woman who was afraid of dying and kept her door shut so Death wouldn't enter. Robert Redford played Death and he conned her into opening the door, pretending he was a wounded policeman.
The story ends with Death holding the old woman's hand and showing her that death wasn't as bad as she had thought.
Upvote 0

DOJ Quietly Deletes Study After Charlie Kirk's Death That Says Right-Wing Extremists Engage in 'Far More' Political Violence

I mean exactly how many liberal radicals militias are out there in the woods playing army in preparation of a revolution?​
Seriously. The only reason our side was finally able to get a shooter with decent aim is because he flipped after growing up conservative.
Upvote 0

Israel-Hamas Thread II

Since 7 Oct 2023, one accusation has been echoing ever louder on Western streets, in social media, political debates, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and now the UN inquiry commission: Israel is committing ‘genocide’ in Gaza. But the inflationary use of this term is not only false, it jeopardises historical truth, relativises genuine genocides and promotes modern anti-Semitism.

We all know where the terror comes from. Hamas wants to destroy Israel and is therefore ‘a legitimate target’ for Israel.

Let me make this very clear: There is no clear intent to commit genocide in Gaza.

Hardly any other term has such moral explosive power as ‘genocide’. It stands for the ultimate crime against humanity, for Auschwitz, Rwanda, Srebrenica. Anyone who utters it is making the most serious accusation imaginable and at the same time elevating their own words to the status of prosecutor before an imaginary world court. This is precisely where the abuse lies: activists, politicians and even parts of the media have been using the term inflationarily since the Hamas massacre of 7 Oct 2023 in order to demonise Israel.

The commission's chairpersons, guardians of "human rights", are well-known enemies of Israel. From the outset, the aim has been to condemn Israel unilaterally.

Israel has entered the Gaza Strip to fight the radical Islamic Hamas, which has been firing rockets at Israel's civilian population for 18 years and attacked the south of the country on 7 Oct 2023. Hamas has declared its goal to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. This can be understood as a plan for genocide, but the Israeli army's counterattack is not.

1758128258363.jpeg


The United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948 clearly states that genocide is the ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group’. This intent must be verifiable, through documents, orders, systematic killings. Victim numbers alone are not sufficient, however cruel they may be.

The German International Criminal Code also adopts this definition almost word for word. Anyone accusing Israel of genocide would therefore have to prove that the Israeli leadership is systematically pursuing the destruction of the "Palestinians" as a group. No such evidence exists. On the contrary, Israel continues to supply the Gaza Strip with electricity, water and aid supplies, while at the same time fighting a terrorist organisation that has declared its intention to destroy Israel.

Yes, the war in Gaza is claiming civilian victims, including many children. That is tragic, it is shocking and it must be acknowledged. But the causes lie not in a plan by Israel to destroy Gaza, but in the cynical strategy of Hamas. It entrenches itself in densely populated areas, built tunnels under residential buildings, and used schools and hospitals as weapons depots. Those who nevertheless accuse Israel of ‘genocide’ are deliberately shifting responsibility from the perpetrator to the defender, a classic case of perpetrator-victim reversal.

By hastily labelling every military conflict as ‘genocide’, the term loses its sharpness. The Shoah, the industrialised mass murder of European Jews, is relativised. Comparing Israel's war against a terrorist organisation to Auschwitz is not only intellectually negligent, but also insults the victims of real genocides. The fact that such comparisons are being shouted on German streets today is a slap in the face to the culture of remembrance.

In Berlin, London and Paris, cries of ‘Stop the genocide!’ have echoed across the squares in recent months. Banners display images of destroyed houses, accompanied by slogans such as “apartheid” and ‘extermination’. The terror perpetrated by Hamas on 7 Oct is hardly mentioned in these appeals. The kidnapped hostages, the massacred festival-goers, the raped women, they disappear behind the propaganda of an alleged ‘genocide’.

Particularly perfidious is the appropriation of solidarity slogans. The demand ‘Bring Them Home,’ which actually refers to the hostages held by Hamas, is reinterpreted to mean "Palestinian" prisoners. This equates prison sentences under the rule of law with the hostage-taking of a terrorist organisation, a further step in the delegitimisation of Israel.

It is alarming that it is not only radical groups that are making this accusation. Intellectuals, artists and politicians are also using the rhetoric of ‘genocide’. Sahra Wagenknecht, publicist and former member of the European Parliament, recently spoke of Israel's ‘campaign of extermination’. Roger Waters, once a world-renowned musician, has been portraying Israel as a Nazi state for years. Such statements shift the discourse: what was once only heard in extremist circles now reaches a mass audience, and provides ideological ammunition for anti-Semitic violence.

It is no coincidence that accusations of ‘genocide’ are often levelled in places where Islamist networks are strong, in Qatar, in Turkey, in European circles with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. States and movements that themselves support terrorists portray Israel as a ‘genocidal murderer’. The UN commission includes dictatorships such as Afghanistan, Russia and Qatar, enemies of Israel. This is not only hypocritical, but also strategic propaganda: those who declare Israel to be the ultimate perpetrator can shirk their own responsibility and relativise the violence of Hamas.

The inflationary use of the term ‘genocide’ is not without consequences. It undermines trust in international institutions. It divides Western societies because it makes anti-Semitism socially acceptable. And it hinders any honest debate about the Middle East conflict. If everything is ‘genocide,’ then in the end nothing is genocide anymore and the memory of Rwanda, Darfur or the Shoah is devalued.

Israel deserves criticism, like any democracy. It does that to itself too. No government decision is made without criticism within the country. The fact that Israel argues democratically can be seen from the fact that there have been repeated new elections there in recent years. But this criticism must be based on facts, not on the misuse of language. Those who cry ‘genocide’ without meeting the criteria are not promoting human rights, but propaganda. The term must not be allowed to degenerate into a battle cry against the Jewish state.

Instead, clear language is needed: Israel is waging a tough, costly war against a terrorist organisation that hides behind civilians. The suffering of the "Palestinian" people is real, but it is not the result of a plan of extermination. Anyone who claims otherwise is not only distorting the truth, they are also harming the victims of real genocides.

1758128407317.jpeg


Today, whenever politicians comment on the situation in the Middle East, they should always start by explicitly calling on Hamas to release all hostages immediately and unconditionally and to lay down their arms. The war would end immediately. Instead of parroting the fairy tale of “genocide” spread by Hamas, the UN Commission should have demanded the release of all hostages and the laying down of arms by Hamas so that the war could be ended.
Upvote 0

DOJ Deletes Study Showing Domestic Terrorists Are Most Often Right Wing

I can't get to the Wayback machine at the moment to read it (I'll have to try later)

But if memory serves, some of the main contentions with the previous published report were

1) the selective applications of terms which led to a statistical gerrymandering of sorts (packing and cracking)... packing everything associated with right-leaning voting patterns with "right wing", but then everything associated with left-leaning voting patterns gets cracked out into separate groups so that no one of those groups is ever going to be bigger than the "right wing"

2) categorization bias, when looking at types of killings, certain types get omitted from the equation despite having some major similarities. Roughly 2/3 of gangs are racially exclusive The National Gang Intelligence Center notes that “race and ethnicity remain primary factors in gang composition”. If a Latino-only gang kills a Black person (or vice versa), it get labelled "gang violence", however, if a White-only gang kills a a person of color, it gets chalked up as an extremist Hate Crime.

3) there's an association bias of sorts, I'm sure we all remember the 2020 debates. Biden asks Trump to condemn Proud Boys, when Trump asks Biden to do the same for Antifa, the response was along the lines of "Antifa's not a group, it's just an idea".


So it's a double-standard of sorts where any person who's right-leaning who does it, it's attributed to "right-wing violence", however, for the other side of the fence, unless the person is a member of an "officially recognized group", they're about to disavow and distance from it.
1) That doesn't seem to be the case with the PIRUS dataset. You can see the sub-categories directly.
2) How would that change it do you mean? Racial ideological violence would still be right-wing, regardless if it's latino or black gangs doing it. How many of the white racially segregated gangs aren't racist?
3) Antifa isn't a single organisation like Proud Boys, which had a central leader and was more organised.
  • Like
Reactions: iluvatar5150
Upvote 0

DOJ Deletes Study Showing Domestic Terrorists Are Most Often Right Wing

One category I don't see is "Trans Rights Activist / Extremist". I'm not surprised by most of the violence being White-supremacist, but I also wonder how much recent violence (especially Columbine-style shootings) have been either carried out or planned by people who feel they're fighting for Transgender rights / survival.
They would be classified under the single-issue category.
Upvote 0

Here’s the No. 1 fallacy on eternal security

Really? Actually, knowing God saves, and our faith and hope are in Him anyway, to begin with.
Neither in the OT (Ge 15:6) nor the NT (Jn 3:16, 18) does belieiving in God save, only belief in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:6), which is counted as faith in Christ, saves.

Jews believe in God but do not believe in Jesus Christ, and are not saved (Jn 3:16, 18, Ro 11:19-20).
"Through Him (Jesus Christ) you believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and glorified Him, and so your faith and hope are in God." 1 Pet 1:21

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3
Since the ministry of Jesus, there is no salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ (Jn 3:16, 18),
and prior to him, there was no salvation apart from faith in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16).
Upvote 0

Have you understood this?

Which will not and cannot happen before the Great White Throne Judgment, AFTER the Millennium.
The timing of Pauls Prophecy in 1 Corinthians 15:50-56, is for after the Millennium.
Proved by how it will be then that Death is no more. Revelation 21:4 Only in the new heavens and earth.
You are mistaken about that. You have to take other scripture into account. I showed you Matthew 18:18 where Jesus said the same thing He said in Matthew 16:19 and He applied it to all of the disciples. Also, you need to consider Ephesians 2:19-22 where it talks about the church having the foundation of all the apostles and prophets and not just Peter. With Jesus Christ as the cornerstone. You need to take all of scripture into consideration whenever trying to interpret any given verse or passage.
And I read Matt 16:18 many time and it says PETER. and you say out does NOT , and that. means that one of our bibles was printed wrong.
dan p
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,876,882
Messages
65,390,401
Members
276,308
Latest member
anthea222