Latest activity

Jeff Saunders · Jul 22, 2025

Clare73 said:
No one comes to God unless they are enabled by the Holy Spirit (Jn 6:65).
All that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus (Jn 6:37). . .not all come, therefore, not all are given to Jesus.
Jesus shall lose none of all that the Father has given him (Jn 6:39).

The invitation is to those hearers whom God enables.

Sorry you see Ro 9:22-23 as hogwash.

Sez who? . . .not God. . .your're creating God in your own image.

God is not only love, mercy, etc., he is also justice. . .and all, not just some, of his attributes are glorified in creation.

John 13:3 " Father had given all things into his hands- come forth from the Father and was going back to the Father"
This tells us who will come " all that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus" so according to John 13:3 all were given to Jesus and all will return to the Father. Jesus loses none that the Father has given him. Do you believe John 13:3 that explains who are those that are given to Jesus.
As for Rom 9:22 the English word destruction is the Greek word apoleia, which is a derivative of apollumi, which means no longer able to be used for what was intended, not that it no longer exists. Its like in Romans with the lump of clay some used for noble purposes some for common use, not all are part of the ruling kingdom of Jesus many will be the subjects of that kingdom, those who live for self and reject or were ignorant of Jesus will be subjects, they are no longer able to be what they were created for , but will be commom, while those who follow Jesus become co-heirs with Jesus and will rule and reign with him.
Gods mercy and love are far stronger than mans sin and he has a plan to reconcile the world through Jesus to himself.
So maybe its not me who is creating God im my own image but those who think God will torture his beloved creation for all eternity, God does not do abandonment, that's a human thing.

BCP1928 · Jul 22, 2025

Pommer said:
Bail is set to ensure the defendant shows up for court dates, not “pre-punishment”.

Bail is allowed for those awaiting trial if it appears that they will not be a danger to society if allowed out on the street while they wait. It is not unusual in hotspots like Chicago for a person arrested for a shooting crime to be arrested for another one a few days later. I believe the record is three times in a week.

Pommer said:
Every defendant goes to trial?

Every violent offender who doesn't plead guilty to the crime with which he was charged.

RDKirk · Jul 22, 2025

FireDragon76 said:
I think it just reflects the dawning realization that the cultural narrative of personal success has run its course and people are starting to see it as hollow. They haven't quite put their finger on the solution yet, but they are searching.

She wasn't being that deep. She was in the company of a group of working-class women all complaining about their husbands who were spending too many hours working to support a family.

The difference was, her husband had become President of the United States, and their husbands were bus drivers.

One of those women was not like the others.

Pommer · Jul 22, 2025

BCP1928 said:
No bail for violent crimes,

Bail is set to ensure the defendant shows up for court dates, not “pre-punishment”.

BCP1928 said:
no plea deals.

Every defendant goes to trial?

Platte · Jul 22, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
God created the heavens and the earth.

So we agree

JohnEmmett · Jul 22, 2025

trophy33 said:
Not bad. I can imagine having pictures on the wall like that.

Thanks…

JohnEmmett · Jul 22, 2025

Emmett

wing2000 · Jul 22, 2025

loveofourlord said:
Trump thinks Canadians ‘nasty’ for avoiding U.S. travel, banning booze: ambassador

Canadians avoiding travel to the United States and banning American alcohol are among the reasons U.S. President Donald Trump thinks the country is “nasty” to deal with, the U.S. ambassador to Canada said Monday.

www.ctvnews.ca

it is hilarious watching the entitlement of trump and his cabinet and such. They attack us, repeatedly insult, threaten and mock us, but complain because we don't want anything to do with the US. I guess americans were nasty for decades because of Cuba. It's so funny how trump loves to insult and attack everyone else, but they are mean, or nasty if they respond in kind.

An Ambassador relaying the POTUS verbiage...how diplomatic.

Canadians avoiding travel to the United States and banning American alcohol are among the reasons U.S. President Donald Trump thinks the country is “nasty” to deal with, the U.S. ambassador to Canada said Monday.

BCP1928 · Jul 22, 2025

ralliann said:
There are none that are here illegally, that these did not leave behind to become citizens of this country. The Hispanic vote supported Trump. Those which want to have community among illegals do not need to stay here.

Of course, some became citizens of this country when they were born, and at least a few probably can trace their families back to before there was a United States. My roommate at college descended from a man who emigrated from Spain to Santa Fe NM in 1686. People of hispanic ancestry in the US are a remarkably diverse group, with a remarkable variety of backgrounds and political opinions. Who knew?

wing2000 · Jul 22, 2025

ozso said:
Seems to me the whole shebang is a distraction from ICE. Everyone was going on and on about ICE, but now it's Epstein Epstein Epstein.

Take it up with AG Bondi.....she chose when to announce the termination of the Epstein case. I suppose it's possible she was acting under orders from you know who....

Platte · Jul 22, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
Your point pressed misinformation that you couldn't verify, and then further was meaningless because other translations, such as the NABRE are officially approved by the Catholic Church and also have the dependent clause translation.

Making up false information, and then following up by ignoring the fact that many translations use the dependent clause, is not a valid argument.

People wonder why the church distrusts YECs, and this is precisely why. Your position is completely dishonest, whether you're intending to press misinformation or not.

NRSV: Catholic Edition - Catholic Bible Press

The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE) is a Bible translation approved for use by the Catholic Church.

www.catholicbiblepress.com

"The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE) is a Bible translation approved for use by the Catholic Church, receiving the imprimatur of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1991. The NRSV-CE includes all 73 books of the Catholic Bible, including the deuterocanonical books, in the traditional Catholic order.

The NRSV-CE is based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), first published in 1989 by an ecumenical translation committee under the National Council of Churches in Christ U.S.A. whose stated goal was to deliver an English Bible “as literal as possible, as free as necessary” to convey accuracy and clarity from the original ancient languages.

The NRSV is the modern Bible translation with the widest support by academics and church leaders. The translation committee comprises thirty men and women representing top scholarship from Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Jewish faiths."

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV-CI
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The NRSV-CE is approved for personal reading, study, and academic use by Catholics.

In Canada, a version of the NRSV lectionary has been approved for liturgical use (since 2007), after some revisions were made to conform with Vatican translation norms.

In the United States, the NRSV has not been approved for liturgical use, but remains acceptable for private devotion and Catholic scholarship.

And no, the Vatican never issued a statement saying "but a propagandist version, which mirrors the feminist ideology".

To say that the Catholic Church ever suggest such a thing is completely false and is misinformation.

how ironic....you claimed I was YEC....when I'm not.

what occured on day 1- 6?

wing2000 · Jul 22, 2025

ozso said:
I mean lawfare.

What is lawfare?

wing2000 · Jul 22, 2025

Valletta said:
This is the first time that Obama has been directly implicated. I think they should more forward with trials. As to Obama, presidential immunity may come into play.

....say, did you ask yourself why this Obama "finding" wasn't raised from 2016-2020?

wing2000 · Jul 22, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
“There’s not much to do,” one Marine said as he stood guard outside the towering Wilshire Federal Building in Westwood this week.

Such a waste of the US Marine Corp.

d taylor · Jul 22, 2025

iluvatar5150 said:
The concerns here are mostly not about undergraduate lectures. It's largely about graduate/doctoral level programs and the writings produced by those professors.

Also, if you think art classes can't get political.... lol buddy.

-

I never said art classes can not get political, anything can become political, just look at this forum.

But if a teacher is teaching a class on subject, there is no need to interject personal political beliefs into a subject

The Barbarian · Jul 22, 2025

JustaPewFiller said:
This is nothing but my best guess and based on 3 assumptions. Those 3 assumptions are..

1. A list exists.
2. All manner of rich, famous and powerful people may be on it.
3. Almost all politicians on both sides of the aisle are crooked and self serving.

We know Epstein palled around with Trump and Clinton, we know he has been linked to rich, famous and powerful people from both ends of the political spectrum, in entertainment, in business, etc. Any number of those may (or may not ) have done anything wrong.

If a list exists, the big question for any politician would be how to use it to crush my enemies whose names are on the list, while still protecting my friends whose names are also on the list?

I think you have it. Trump seems to have just been a little more careless than most of Epstein's um.. clients. Wouldn't shock me it Bill Clinton was in there with Trump. And yes, jail them all, if they are there.

BCP1928 · Jul 22, 2025

Rach2015 said:
Should We Be Worried About Books Teaching Jesus Was a Socialist?

I'd be more worried about books teaching that Jesus was a capitalist.

Always in His Presence · Jul 22, 2025

Here are the actual documents:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-Evidence-Obama-Subvert-President-Trump-2016-Victory-Election-July2025.pdf

Yarddog · Jul 22, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
DOJ receives Gabbard's criminal referral on bombshell Russia claims | Fox News

Gabbard released unclassified documents that reportedly show "overwhelming evidence" that President Barack Obama and his team laid the groundwork for what would be the yearslong Trump–Russia probe.

www.foxnews.com

The Department of Justice confirmed Monday that it has received Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's criminal referral related to her bombshell claims that Obama-era officials "manufactured and politicized intelligence" to create the narrative that Russia was attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election, Fox News has confirmed.

The Department of Justice declined further comment, but confirmed to Fox News that the department received the referral.

Gabbard released unclassified documents Friday that reportedly show "overwhelming evidence" that then-President Barack Obama and his national security team laid the groundwork for what would be the yearslong Trump-Russia collusion probe after Trump's election win against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016.

It's my understanding that Gabbard didn't release actual evidence to back up her claim. Her tweets were small clips without the full context.

Dan Perez · Jul 22, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
Some of these verses especially with Paul is harder to understand sometimes its the way he speaks and other times its the translation being used. Why we should always reconcile his verses by context and the other Scriptures.

For example

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Many take this as the law ended, but if we look a bit more carefully the word for "end" means

έλος
telos
tel'-os
From a primary word τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit, that is, (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose); specifically an impost or levy (as paid): - + continual, custom, end (-ing), finally, uttermost. Compare G5411.

So the better translation is Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness as our righteousness is through faith. While our righteousness comes through faith, does that mean we should disobey God and His instructions for righteousness Psa 119:172 and depend on our own righteousness? Of course not.

Also the commandment to beleive in Jesus does not mean that's the only commandment as Jesus clearly taught

Mat 19:17 So He said to him, [e]“Why do you call Me good? [f]No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”

Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

And don't deceive oneself that just because the commandments that show us to love God and the greatest commandment to love God with all our heart is not mentioned here, does not mean we do not need to keep. If one of the greatest commandment is mentioned it means both, if one of the Ten Commandments is mentioned it means all James 2:11

Mat 5:19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

If we beleive in Jesus we need to beleive His teaching or be live them as He instructed quoting OT

Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”

As to what Rom 10:4 means !

And you. do have the word END. /. TELOS and means to. End or. Termination and see Vines Dictionaryn. G 5056

and. read Acts 28 : 25-28 and hereby Paul. explained , Why. Israel was set aside along with the Law and Paul

Paul. turn to the Gentiles , as they will HEAR. !
dan p

JohnEmmett · Jul 22, 2025

https://tvart.net

Platte · Jul 22, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
Now you're moving your goalposts.

Here is what I'm seeing in AI:

❌ Misleading or Inaccurate Parts:
The Vatican never “approved” the NRSV for liturgy in 1991.

The 1991 imprimatur applied to study editions, not the lectionary (liturgical readings).

Lectionary approval (for liturgical use) is a separate process and involves both the national bishops' conference and Vatican recognition (called recognitio).

The Vatican didn’t “reverse” a prior approval in 1997.

Rather, in 1994, the Vatican informed the U.S. bishops it would not grant recognitio to the proposed NRSV-based lectionary.

In 2001, the Vatican issued Liturgiam Authenticam, an instruction tightening translation norms — which effectively formalized the stance that translations like the NRSV (as it stood then) were not suitable for new lectionary approvals.

Summary of Timeline:
YearEvent
1991NRSV Catholic Edition published with imprimatur (for study use)
1992–1994U.S. bishops propose a lectionary based on the NRSV
1994Vatican (CDF & CDW) denies recognitio due to inclusive language concerns
1997No reversal — just continued Vatican preference for translations closer to Nova Vulgata
2001Liturgiam Authenticam sets stricter norms for liturgical translations

✅ Bottom Line:
Yes, the NRSV-CE is approved for private and academic use.

No, it was never officially approved for U.S. Catholic liturgical use, and the Vatican did not reverse a prior approval, but withheld approval when requested.

The criticism related to inclusive language was about liturgical clarity and fidelity, not an accusation of doctrinal error in general.

Would you like a comparison between how the NRSV and NABRE differ in key passages where inclusive language becomes a concern?

NRSV-CE is approved for private and academic use.

No, it was never officially approved for U.S. Catholic liturgical use, and the Vatican did not reverse a prior approval, but withheld approval when requested.

The criticism related to inclusive language was about liturgical clarity and fidelity, not an accusation of doctrinal error in general.

--------------------

But again, even further, the NABRE, officially approved for use by the Catholic Church, and half a dozen other translations, say the same thing. So this idea that the Catholic Church has a problem with dependent clause translations is completely imaginary and misinformed.

Well I'd recommend you place a submission to Google for correction...and start a new thread on NRSVue

chunkofcoal · Jul 22, 2025

The Liturgist said:
Its elegant and is the oldest - I like it. If in doubt, one can always cross check against other translations or the original Greek.

Thank you! Great information in your other posts, too.

FaithT · Jul 22, 2025

AI Overview

Different polls have yielded conflicting results regarding how Native Americans perceive the term "redskin"
.
Some polls indicate that a majority of Native Americans are not offended by the term, while other studies suggest that a significant portion finds it offensive.

A 2016 survey published in The Washington Post found that 9 in 10 Native Americans were not bothered by the Washington Redskins name.
However, a 2020 study conducted by UC Berkeley and the University of Michigan found that nearly half of Native American participants considered the name to be offensive.

The divergence in these findings may stem from differences in methodology, such as how questions were posed, and the demographics of the populations surveyed. For example, the UC Berkeley study highlights that individuals with strong ties to Native American culture or tribal affiliations were more likely to find the term offensive.
Many civil rights, educational, athletic, and academic organizations consider the use of Native American names and symbols by non-Native sports teams to be a form of harmful ethnic stereotyping. The Washington Redskins, facing decades of opposition, retired the name in 2020 and are now known as the Washington Commanders.
The term "redskin" is generally considered a racial slur for Native Americans and First Nations individuals in the United States and Canada. Modern dictionaries of American English label it as offensive, disparaging, or insulting. While the term may have had different uses in the past, its contemporary usage is largely seen as problematic.
Ultimately, whether a particular Native American individual is offended by the term "redskin" can depend on their personal experiences, cultural background, and individual perspectives.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page