BNR32FAN said:

According to this how would you interpret 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, specifically verse 2 in the context of verses 1-3?

“If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭13‬:‭1‬-‭3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The way I interpret what Paul is saying here is that faith doesn’t necessarily produce good works.

Click to expand...

This is true. Love is the true motivator for good works. Faith is involved as it connects us to the Source of that very love. That love, in other words, blossoms in direct proportion to our nearness to Him. To the extent that we turn to Him in faith and then remain in Him, we will produce much good fruit, John 15:5

RDKirk said:

But no. Jesus never portrays the soil as having changed itself. The conditions are simply there. The soil does what it does because of what it already is.

Click to expand...

Perhaps...... yet then , think on this ----- how does the rocky soil ever or sometimes become good soil ? What breaks it up (Scripturally) ?

Neogaia777 said:

@Strong in Him

God is probably going to have to judge some of your sin,

Click to expand...

What sin - the sin of believing what he says in the Bible and through his Son?
Whoever accepts Jesus' words is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Neogaia777 said:

maybe not all of it, but probably some of it, even if you are a believer, or say you are a child of God, or say you have a faith belief in Jesus Christ, etc.

Click to expand...

I AM a believer and child of God. I don't say it; he does.
I don't SAY I have faith in Jesus Christ; I do.

Neogaia777 said:

And whether or not that results in a complete loss of salvation,

Click to expand...

That IS salvation - to believe in Jesus Christ and the One who sent him.

Neogaia777 said:

or maybe just a loss of rewards maybe, none of us knows right now for certain,

Click to expand...

You don't know about my salvation, no.
Sadly, you don't even seem to know about your own.

Neogaia777 said:

but just only Gods, and Gods only, don't you think?

Click to expand...

I'm not basing it on my judgments but on what God has said.
Like I say, I'm sad that you don't believe him.

Say it aint so said:

I can't speak for the poster.

Click to expand...

When you say that "nobody says x", you kinda speak for everybody.

Fervent said:

You do realize most of those southern democrats became republicans under Nixon's southern strategy, do you not? Republicans are no longer the party of the urban interests pushing progressive ideals, they are the party of "individual liberty" and de-centralized authority. At least they were, when they stood by their ideals.

Click to expand...

Actually, the process took longer than that.

The party flip began with Teddy Roosevelt deliberately pulling progressives out of the Republican Party in 1912 to form the Progressive Party ("Bull Moose" Party). That left the Republican party with just its industrial libertarian faction. For some reason a lot of people overlook that happened, even though it's historical fact.

The split parties (Republican and Progressive) consistently lost against the conservative Democratic Party in national elections over the next couple of decades.

By the end of the Great Depression, progressives (notably Teddy's distant cousin Franklin) had infiltrated the Democratic Party in the North. The industrialists in the Republican Party continued with mostly libertarian policies. Because the American public will flip leadership arbitrarily from time to time, they got Eisenhower into office (but it should be noted that Eisenhower's economic platform would be considered solidly liberal today). The nation did its arbitrary flip again putting Kennedy into office (ironically, because the Republicans appeared weak on defense). Eisenhower's administration deserves a lot more study than it gets...some aspects are quite remarkable. Ike was not a party wonk.

Barry Goldwater became the Republican Party leader after Eisenhower, and he was determined to be tougher on defense. Part of that stance was the Republican industrialist pressure to leap all the way into the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower pushed against.

Goldwater himself is another person who deserves a lot more study. Goldwater was firmly libertarian, but he himself was not a segregationist. He had desegregated his own family business. He had voted for both of the 1950s Civil Rights Act. He had been a vigorous leader in de-segregating the federal government in the 50s.

Goldwater was firmly libertarian, so he drew the line against the proposed 1960s Civil Rights Act because it dictated from the federal level how private businesses must operate. He was just as opposed to Southern laws that required segregation, but he wanted more to win the 1964 election.

Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds. Southern Democrat segregationists (the Dixiecrats) also opposed the Civil Rights Act on racist grounds. The Republican's first "Southern Strategy" began with Goldwater as he got into bed with the segregationist southern Democrats.

Now in bed with the Dixiecrats, the Republican Party continued accommodate them. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was just a continuation of what Goldwater started. However--and this is a twist to be noted--the Dixiecrats of that time were only one step removed from the Democrats of the Civil War. Many of them personally knew their grandfathers who were Confederate soldiers. Even though they supported Republican policies at the ballot box, most of them would rather die than actually register into the "Party of Lincoln."

The party flip was completed during the Reagan and Bush Administrations as the old Dixiecrats literally died off and their children registered as Republicans.

Apple Sky said:

Why ?

Click to expand...

Because it would cancel out the first part of the talk/testimony.

If Charles' talk about applying for the space mission, being accepted, having fellow astronauts who died in Apollo 1, getting to and walking on the moon etc is false, a lie, then there is no reason at all to listen to what he says about Jesus. There is no reason to believe that his marriage was in a bad way and his wife was on the brink of suicide. Why bother? The man's already lied and proved he is a crackpot/fairy story teller/liar.
"Goodnight, thanks for nothing, let's go and get a burger."

But if you are a non Christian (and I don't mean you, personally), you listen to, and believe, his account of landing on the moon and THEN hear him talk about Jesus, you will be more inclined to listen.
"What? This respected astronaut who had everything, was unhappy till he met Jesus? Maybe Jesus IS real and can help me."

Apple Sky said:

Once but not now ever since TFE thread.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.
Fact is that you "hand on heart" believed him.

ralliann said:

They ignore the constitution, and the law.

Click to expand...

Proof?

ralliann said:

We have been watching it for years now. They bus in their violent supporters to make a show of every little thing that does not go their way.

Click to expand...

One can always show busses either chartered or simply ferrying people from parking lots. It doesn't prove these are illegitimate protesters.

GoldenBoy89 said:

That’s why you gotta look at more than one poll.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating#

I take it you’re in the 40 something % that still approves of the job he’s doing.

Click to expand...

I mean wow. The lack of curiosity isn't good for one's stand of being confidently wrong. If one looked at Real Clear Politics where they use multiple polls, it bears out The Economist being correct. If anything the suspicion should be with the outliers who have Trump with a higher approval rating. But they are the usual suspects.

Hentenza said:

Mental exercise.

“If” Jesus came back to dwell among us humans again in the form of a man. Would He be able to have communion in your church?

Click to expand...

The purpose of communion is to remember Jesus' sacrifice by partaking in bread and wine, symbolizing his body and blood given for salvation

it's for humans to remember His great sacrifice.... no reason for He himself to take communion, it's for human remembrance of Him.

stevevw said:

Fair enough. I was only making a social observation of how humans make gods themselves of their ideas and morals. That fundementally this is what its all about.

Click to expand...

I'm observing a protest against the undermining of the Constitution. The desire to not want a King is the same desire intent upon preserving the separation of powers and a representative government by the people and for the people.

stevevw said:

Yes they have a right which sort of proves that what they are claiming is not actually happening. They are able to protest and no facist regime is stopping them.

Click to expand...

I don't see anyone at these protests claiming a fascist regime is stopping them from protesting. It would be disingenuous to mischaracterize that these people are claiming a fascist regime is stopping them from protesting and then criticize the legitimacy of their protests based on that mischaracterization.

stevevw said:

And is this the reality. I mean he was only voted in not long ago on these very policies. Sure if people are stepping over the line and abusing power then yes call them out. But what I am seeing fundementally is about ideological differences.

Click to expand...

What if I said the reality of the Trump administration is based on an unreality? Would you understand me?

This is the reality --> There is a deception where people are being told in so many words that some are voting to make America great again and others are voting against making America great again. The actual meaning of what 'GREAT' entails is whatever Trump says it is since it is the Logo he pushes as his credo. It's not ideological.

stevevw said:

People at these protests are saying stuff like Trump and Kirks beliefs are hateful and not not be allowed. When it comes down to it this is not about justice or equality but an ideological conflict.

Click to expand...

The corporate owned media is largely controlled by a handful of billionaires, and it is being used to shape public opinion. I'm pretty sure I can find people expressing sentiments like you are describing, but that doesn't mean it's an accurate depiction of the event.

stevevw said:

No of course not. But Christ called out those who distorted or dennied the truth. If you think that anyones protest is legitimate, or that political action is legitimate then this is not Christ fullstop. So by giving legitimacy to the protestors who are actually wanting a change in power. Then you are also supporting a political ideology.

Click to expand...

"If you think anyone's protest is legitimate, or that political action is legitimate, then this is not Christ". <-- This ends in a contradictory reasoning when compared to this --> "Sure if people are stepping over the line and abusing power then yes call them out".

stevevw said:

Thats why I don;t support either party and think that they both are taking us to hell. But my point is this is no longer about equality, fairness, rights ect but an ideological belief. You can see it in the passion and anger and violence that comes out of this.

Click to expand...

That's not what I see. I see a spiritual war where one must persevere in the faith that there is an incorruptible Love that is Eternal, and one will be persecuted by those who are ruled by deception. Therefore, all lies in the moral/immoral paradigm would serve to usurp from and subsequently undermine Love God with all your heart mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself.

stevevw said:

Yet they were not concerned when they were in power. Both sides do it.

Click to expand...

That's inaccurate.

Citizens United vs FEC was a case brought before the supreme court where a 5 to 4 ruling allowed unlimited amounts of dark money into campaign superPACs in support of the argument that to not do so was inhibiting free speech regardless of the precedent of limits set forth by the FEC. In essence it was a shift towards autocracy wherein both parties would ultimately end up having to compete for rich corporate donors in order to have a viable chance of winning an election.

Please note that the democratic appointed justices all voted against Citizens united and the Republican appointed justices all voted in favor of citizens united.

These were the justices who voted in favor of superPACS and for the move to autocracy:

• Anthony Kennedy (authored the majority opinion)
• John Roberts (Chief Justice)
• Antonin Scalia
• Samuel Alito
• Clarence Thomas

These were the four justices who voted in favor of the FEC and against the move towards autocracy.

• Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the principal dissent, arguing that corporations are not "We the People" and should therefore not have the same free speech rights of individuals. He warned that the ruling risked undermining the integrity of elected institutions by enabling disproportionate corporate influence on elections.
• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the dissent and famously criticized the decision as the Court’s worst under Chief Justice Roberts, emphasizing concerns about money’s outsized role in politics.
• Justice Stephen Breyer also dissented, sharing similar concerns about the decision's implications for political equality and the potential for corruption.
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor

stevevw said:

Its the assumption that Trump is acting like a King.

Click to expand...

It's a fact that Trump is using his power to punish political opposition even corrupting the DOJ which is supposed to be apolitical. He also desires loyalty to him personally rather than to the constitution.

For example, Trump claims that he KNOWS the 2020 election was rigged and stolen by "democratic far left radicals" even though that has been debunked many times over. Nonetheless, if a person doesn't agree with his contention that the 2020 election was stolen from him, then that person cannot serve in his administration.

Donald Trump even signed an executive order specifically aimed at Chris Krebs involving the revocation of his security clearance and initiating an investigation into his official actions. Why? Because Krebs reported that the 2020 election was the most secure election in American history.

We've seen Trump's DOJ send people to a prison in El Salvador without any trial.

Trump fired the commissioner of the bureau of labor statistics because the bureau released a jobs report showing the U.S. economy added 73,000 jobs, which was well below expectations, and which also revised May and June job gains downward by a combined 258,000 jobs.

More recently, Trump fired an AG who refused to bring charges against former head of the FBI James Comey.

For me, as a Christian, I am deeply bothered by the treatment of immigrants being documented by citizens. I keep thinking about Jesus saying when you saw me naked you clothed me and when you saw me hungry you fed me, and that what you do unto the least of my brethren, you do unto me.

Desk trauma said:

Yes they are:

Click to expand...

I can't speak for the poster. I just people wouldn't be so shortsighted thinking Oct 7th was the start of a holy war that has been going on for about a thousand years.

Bradskii said:

My bold statement is that no argument presented to me has convinced me whatsoever that there is a God. Your mileage obviously varies. There is no proof available to anyone either for or against the matter. I'll not waste our time in discussing it further.

Click to expand...

So simply because you have not been convinced, you claim to know with confidence that no such being exists? Sounds like you've accepted the argument from ignorance as having some kind of force. If there is no proof either for or against, what compels you to have an opinion in the first place?

Bradskii said:

I claim that we can. Sufficiently to live a meaningful life.

Click to expand...

Your qualification leaves a wide bearth to the point that it appears vacuous.

Bradskii said:

I hold to them with justifiable confidence until I'm proved wrong. And let's be honest. The level of confidence often rises to such a point where it's not valid to say that you're in any doubt.

Click to expand...

The arrogance of man knows no limits.

Bradskii said:

Please, do not treat me like an idiot. You know exactly what I meant.

Click to expand...

No, I don't know what you meant. You presented either a non-sequitor, in which the relationship between your premise and conclusion is not apparent, or have simply inserted your conclusion about what is moral into your premises to reach the conclusion.

Bradskii said:

All acts are context dependent. If you want to dispute that truism then simply give me an example of an act without any context at all.

Click to expand...

Sure, all acts are context dependent. Which would be a problem if morals were necessarily inherent in the act. But deontological ethics are only one potential moral framework, and not one I find particularly compelling.

Bradskii said:

You're going to force me to donate to charity? How is that going to work?

Click to expand...

I'm not, but if there isn't an intrinsic objective morality then there is still the objective morality that is imposed by whoever is the most powerful and is the most willing to impose their values upon others.

Bradskii said:

You said that we can't determine objective morality. Because gee, it's a swamp out there. What use is it if you tell me it's too difficult to determine, you get different people saying they are using the same source but reaching different conclusions and you can't answer simple moral ptoblems?

Click to expand...

There are no simple moral problems, but the existence of moral complexity has no bearing on whether or not objective morality exists.

Bradskii said:

What is it that you are trying to support. It seems like smoke and mirrors.

Click to expand...

Perhaps if you took the time to try to understand what is being argued, rather than arguing with pre-conceived targets that are easily discounted you would be able to answer this. It's not smoke and mirrors, it just seems that way because you're flattening the discussion and creating a false dilemma.

Bradskii said:

No, you gave a different question (Singer's example) that would have an easy answer. Expound on that basic question and tell me at what point I should save the child somewhere instead of having dinner with my wife?

Click to expand...

Why should the answer change? What is the pertinent difference?

Bradskii said:

I'm sure you'd tell me what you thought of me if I let the kid drown to save damaging my new shoes. So why is my question so hard? What's the objective answer?

Click to expand...

I reserve my judgment for those who share my values, if my values are correct you have your judge you will answer to. There's nothing hard about your question, and I've given you my answer which you seem to recognize through familiarity with Singer's example. What makes you think its a hard question?

Hentenza said:

I would agree with you except that Jesus explains the parable. Each one of the conditions is directly attributable to a person’s choice. You are thinking that the person has no choice on the quality of the soil that the seed lands on but that is not the case.

““Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

[these made the decision to allow the devil to take away the word. It is their choice not the sower’s).

Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and yet these do not have a firm root; they believe for a while, and in a time of temptation they fall away.

[Once again the choice is theirs. For reasons of their own they fall away. The responsibility if creating a firm root is the person as the writer of Hebrews explains in chapter 6]

“And the seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked by worries, riches, and pleasures of this life, and they bring no fruit to maturity.

[This again is a choice and also part of the explanation by the writer of Hebrews in chapter 6]

“But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word with a good and virtuous heart, and hold it firmly, and produce fruit with perseverance.”
‭‭
[This person made the right choices also these could be directed at some of those that are predestined. But again it is a choice.]

Click to expand...

But no. Jesus never portrays the soil as having changed itself. The conditions are simply there. The soil does what it does because of what it already is.

Being a descendant of kings was a necessary earthly qualification for Jesus to be the Messiah, but his spiritual family is open to all who follow God's will.

Spiritual vs. biological family

• Spiritual family:
  Jesus teaches that those who do the will of God are His true spiritual family, including His brother, sister, and mother. This new familial bond is based on faith and obedience, not blood.
  
  
• Biological family:
  Jesus did not disown his earthly family. Instead, he further defined family ... inclusive of all who follow God.
• 
  
  
• • Jesus's Jewish lineage from the tribe of Judah was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, such as those in Genesis and Isaiah.
  • While Jesus was Jewish, his mission was for all people, not just Jews.
    
    
  • He came to fulfill the Old Testament law and to make it possible for both Jews and Gentiles to have a relationship with God through faith in him.
    
    
  • By being a Jew, Jesus provided a way for Gentiles to be "grafted into" God's covenant through faith in him, demonstrating that salvation was not limited to one ethnic group.
  
  

Strong in Him said:

Ok, so you're obviously too scared to say that Charles was lying when he gave his public testimony of how he met Jesus.

Click to expand...

I'm not to scared to say anything.

Strong in Him said:

It's not feasible to say that this part of Charles' testimony is true, but the bit about the moon landing is a lie.

Click to expand...

Why ?

Strong in Him said:

You once believed it was all true.

Click to expand...

Once but not now ever since TFE thread.

stevevw said:

But empirical science is based on an assumption that all causes are naturalistic and reducible back to material explanations. So knowledged gained is by slow and gradual trial and error of imporvement.

There is never room for other causes that may give deeper knowledge such as belief or conscious experience. Not just sense data but experiencial knowledge.

For example science sees the whole God of the Old Testament and the knowledged gained as superstition as a priori. So its discounted. But it may have added to the ancients knowledge of reality. In fact the bible and Christians and Jews for that matter claim it is the source of true knowledge.

I see various forms of the same sort of knowledge from the ancients where they lived within a spiritual world completely different to now and where perhaps there was a deeper knowledge of nature and reality. Not in reductive and naturalistic terms. But just as being one with nature. More experiential where they understood natures secrets better.

Click to expand...

What a woeful piece of ignorant commentary God is unfalsifiable in science, whether God is based on superstition or is real depends on the opinion of the individual.

When the Roman Empire collapsed in Western Europe it's no coincidence the descent into the dark ages was the loss of Greek philosophy with the emphasis on naturalism while the Bible in the form of theology became exclusively the source of 'true' knowledge.

The other 'people of the book' adherents to Islam whom you ignored rediscovered Greek philosophy and along with incorporating Persian and Indian knowledge resulted in an Islamic civilization vastly superior to anything found in Western Europe.
It took the West centuries to catch up and it was no coincidence the reintroduction of naturalism into theology led to a transformation of western civilization.

Stopped_lurking said:

Well I'm not a believer in Nicomacean ethics (I think, I haven't read about them). But now I'm intrigued, what should we do with immoral hammers?

Click to expand...

A hammer that isn't suited to the purpose of being a hammer either needs a new purpose it is suited for, or is only fit for destruction.

Stopped_lurking said:

Any object that can drive nails well is a good hammer.

Click to expand...

If its purpose is to drive nails, but if it was intended for another purpose then its usefulness as a hammer is irrelevant to its good. It s only good for hammers to be useful as hammers, a screwdrivers usefulness as a hammer iis not relevant to its good.

Stopped_lurking said:

Since we are talking about morals? Anyone having a opinion about something being moral or not is expressing their moral feelings from my perspective. Including a Creator.

Click to expand...

That's hardly an argument, just an assertion on your part. And it renders any discussion of morals absolutely pointless, making it a mystery why you would even bother discussing questions of morality.

Stopped_lurking said:

Even it it doesn't exist? So in your view if humans have no telos their actions can't be called morally good or bad? Does this mean, if we don't know that telos we shouldn't express any moral sentiments ourselves?

Click to expand...

Yes, if we have no final cause then there is no point in making moral evaluations. If all we are expressing is personal preferences, then there is no reason to expect such things to matter to anyone but ourselves.

Stopped_lurking said:

I guess that you are arguing from Nicomacean ethics again. Does Aristotle give a explicit argument for the connection between telos and morality, instead of just declaring them connected? Something I can read so that I perhaps understand why they should be connected?

Click to expand...

He does, but I'm too lazy to locate/present it at the moment. As with any moral argument, there is a gap in the explanation but the thrust of the argument is that good and evil are intrinsic to the nature of an object rather than in actions, with actions taking on value depending on their relationship to the intrinsic qualities of the object. If the object is acting in accordance with its nature, then it is acting in accordance with the good. So to determine what is and isn't good requires determining the purpose for that object and how well it serves that purpose. When it comes to human beings, this lends itself to ideas about morality through how well we exhibit particular virtues rather than whether we follow moral precepts. But moral good is not separate from a more general kind of good, because in order for something to be good is nothing over and above it exemplifying its nature.

Always in His Presence said:

Making excuses for atrocities is synonymous with defending them

Click to expand...

One more time. No one is defending Hamas's actions, and btw come defending atrocities, that cuts both ways doesn't it?

Shane R said:

My first Presbyterian service went very well. The bulletin I had been provided to prep was not altogether helpful and there are a couple of things I will prep differently next time. But that's the great thing, they told me I am a good preacher and booked me twice in November.

Click to expand...

Awesome! That’s good to hear!

ralliann said:

Obama did alot of deportations like Trump is also doing

Click to expand...

Oops. My error. I meant Biden.

Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media

Fired Justice Department lawyer says he refused to lie in the Abrego Garcia case


The “Presumption of Regularity” in Trump Administration Litigation

Bolingbrook residents question claims federal agents were attacked while making immigration arrest

@Strong in Him

God is probably going to have to judge some of your sin, maybe not all of it, but probably some of it, even if you are a believer, or say you are a child of God, or say you have a faith belief in Jesus Christ, etc.

And whether or not that results in a complete loss of salvation, or maybe just a loss of rewards maybe, none of us knows right now for certain, and isn't supposed to be up to us and our own judgements anyway, but just only Gods, and Gods only, don't you think?

God Bless.

Apple Sky said:

Why would I post it ?

Click to expand...

Ok, so you're obviously too scared to say that Charles was lying when he gave his public testimony of how he met Jesus. Of how he said, "either Jesus' claim to be the Way, the Truth and the Life is true or it's the biggest con in history".
That's good. I didn't think you'd be able to say he was lying about Jesus being the Way.

It's not feasible to say that this part of Charles' testimony is true, but the bit about the moon landing is a lie.
It's all true, or it's all a lie. You once believed it was all true.

Servus said:

Is it a realistic practical workable model? There is a Healthcare Marketplace. But I don't know how it compares to auto and home insurance along those lines.

Click to expand...

I would prefer commercial insurance be completely optional with everyone on Medicare. Medicare is already a proven model that can be configured for universal coverage.

My employer recently changed insurance coverage, all my providers went out of network with it and less coverage. My option is to accept and adapt to what is now offered now or look for a new employer and hope their coverage offered is better. I shouldn’t need to consider changing jobs because of healthcare coverage. Employer and healthcare coverage should be two unrelated decisions.