People and christians get attacked all the time
maybe not as obvious as a demon mauling you but when families are broken, there are discussions,
when people do evils things sometimes, when people get psycological problems, is a lot of times attacks.
The problem is the enemy hides and people don't figure out its them.

And i believe usually the enemy doesn't have 'rights' to attack, even is something very good happened, someone a person did something bad to him for the enemy to act.

Micah 4:11-13 But now many nations are massed against you. They say: Let Zion suffer, let us gloat over the Holy Land.
They do not know the Lord’s thoughts or understand His purposes, for He has gathered them like sheaves to the threshing floor.
Arise and thresh, you descendants of Zion; I will make your weapons strong and many peoples will be destroyed. Their land and property is to be consecrated to the Lord of the whole earth.

Micah 5:1 For now; gather behind your walls, seek shelter from the siege.
Israel’s ruler will be struck on the cheek by a rod.
Will Benyamin Netanyahu be wounded and incapacitated? This is a very likely scenario, as he has already survived many attempts of assassination.
A ‘rod’, would be the best description Micah could use for a snipers rifle.

The loss of the Jewish State of Israel’s good leaders, is Prophesied in Isaiah 3:1-5 and the panic that ensues in Isaiah 22:1-5
Iran and all the Islamic haters of Judah , will take advantage of this situation: Isaiah 22:6-9….Elam, Aram and Kir, will prepare to attack and the heart of Judah’s defences are laid open.

Then, the Lord will arise and destroy them all. Ezekiel 7:14. Zechariah 1:14-18, Isaiah 63:1-8, Revelation 6:12-17

Reluctant Theologian said:

Information/facts that are not mentioned in the Bible may not be necessarily untrue. The early church has circulating info and sometimes literature/books with extra-Biblical stories - of course the reliability and authenticity of those are at a very different level than the Biblical texts (and may even be completely fabricated), but there is no reason to dismiss by definition ALL extra-Biblical accounts/stories/books. These were part of early Christian society and its written or oral tradition. We assume all kind of historical events based on extra-Biblical information ..

Click to expand...

I would say that there is no reason either to dismiss or to believe extra-biblical details about people or events mentioned in the bible. Particularly with the biblical account of the Incarnation, we find all sorts of "details" added, and accepted as an essential part of the "Christmas story." The donkey, an innkeeper, the wise men visiting Jesus at the same time as the shepherds, and much more. Some of these things actually contradict what we find in the bible, and others, we just do not know.

To have Christisn fellowship at any time of the day or night and to meet people from around the world. Also you have time to consider what to say and you can choose which topics to engage with and which to avoid.

80's classic that I have somehow only just now become fond of.

Login to view embedded media
@Multifavs , I hope i do not presume too much about your personality when i say this sounds like it might be your kind of love song. Give it a listen!


Side note: Actor Andrew McCarthy was cool. I actually am not familiar with anything he was in past the 80's, though, strangely.

Durian.

A local HVAC company runs a yearly promotion in which they give two new furnaces and a few repair services to veterans of the US armed forces. I won a furnace! Which is good because the one currently in the house gave up the ghost some time ago. We've been heating with electric space heaters when heat is needed. Just got first snow on Monday.

The shutdown was because Republicans don't think people need to .... eat.

ChubbyCherub said:

Thank you very much.

They have not addressed Paul's comments re: Ephesus rather his at Corinth. They stated that Paul is not suggesting that women need to be quiet, submit or not have leadership or ministry roles in church but that it was contextual for the time and place Paul was instructing in Corinth.

Specifically, women in Corinth were leaders/owners of brothels and were used to positions of power within society and at home as they were the financial heads of the families. As a result, they were raucous at church which Paul felt was distracting and didn't allow for people to hear the message that was intended, hence, a set of societal rules laid out to assist a very specific situation.

They stated that Paul's words are misrepresented and misinterpreted because the verses are read out of context instead of read as a whole. I read the bible and didn't see where the information re: woman's job roles, financial status etc came from so was put into a position where I had to instruct the family to just 'trust' what was being taught at church. But, they are very educated and so this was not sufficient for them hence the quest for further information.

Regarding Pauls letter to Timothy re: Ephesus, I have not yet addressed this with my church given that we now see that Paul says the same about Ephesus and there is not an explanation regarding why the women, or exactly how the women, were behaving in whatever way initiated Pauls comments. I might possibly ask them but I have asked them so many things already and, much like this forum, I have to allow people to keep up with all the questions I fire off!

Many thanks!

Click to expand...

The pattern in Paul's letters is that the trigger/reason to write about a certain subject may be a concerning situation in that specific church/fellowship, but the instructions for Christian conduct are universal, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

E.g. in 1 Corinthians 5 Paul discusses a serious case of immorality occurring in that church; how to deal with such a case and how to uphold standards of holiness is universal. In the TNK/OT God gave varying instructions to the Israelites on how to deal with the nations to Joshua, but how to behave once they conquered and inherited the land was universal.

So the reason why Paul addresses head-covering in 1st Corinthians is likely because an issue with that had arisen (possibly women removing their head-covering), yet the instruction on how to pray/prophesy would be expected to be universal. This pattern can be noticed in e.g. 1 Corinthians 14:34–35: the background/trigger is expected to be a local issue at that time, but Paul highlights the alignment of his instruction with Torah (=the Law) as universal guideline.

E.g. when some masters treated their slaves badly this could have been a reason to admonish the masters to the treat their slaves well, but it's nonsensical to suggest the instruction for proper conduct for a master or slave is ONLY for that local church with that issue.

Yet since the 1960's with the rise of Feminism and consequently the push for egalitarian theology (removing remnants of Patriarchy) we see exactly that. Unique exceptional alleged circumstances in the addressed churches are presented to argue that Paul's instructions on marriage, women in churches or even homosexuality are ONLY applicable to the local unique situation; basically neutralising their universal applicability. There are a few problems with this approach:

• Paul's text itself does not give any clues that the instructions for model behaviour are local-only
• it ignores the fact Paul gives general theological arguments that are time/culture independent (this includes the Torah reference, but also creation order, deception order, etc.)
• it doesn't work for 1 Peter as this is not addressed to a particular church - yet its message is identical to Paul's on the issue of marriage/women's role
• the very fact the entire Christian church throughout history had a fairly unanimous view, but all of a sudden under influence of (secular) Feminism since the 1960's the rising pressure for 're-interpretation' to make the Bible compatible with 20-21 st century Western values should be a red flag.

To make practised homosexuality acceptable in churches nowadays a similar argument is applied: in those days there were no committed loving relationships between men, so Paul's prohibitions (fully in line with Torah) of course ONLY would apply to non-committed casual relationships/hook-ups, so Paul certainly would approve of those committed loving homosexual relationships today. This approach conveniently makes an assumption not present in the text itself in a desperate effort to neutralise the principle already present in Torah.

Suffice to say I find these approaches highly speculative and dependent on conjecture - wishful thinking to suit a particular (new) agenda.

You mention 'women in Corinth were leaders/owners of brothels and were used to positions of power within society and at home as they were the financial heads of the families.' ... I would submit that is highly unlikely to be true for that church as a substantial part of the Corinthian church were Jews who practised their religion as such previously (you can find clues for that in the text of 1 Corinthians).

Yes, Yeshua was revolutionary in that He encourages women to follow Him, to listen to His teaching (Mary), to speak privately with a woman (the woman at the well in Samaria) - and Paul presumes women are praying and prophesying - the Holy Spirit is poured out on all; yet it's not a cultural conformist move by Yeshua to ONLY appoint males as the 12 - that's intentional.

E.g. great effort is made by egalitarians to try to argue that in 1 Timothy 2:12 Paul doesn't really mean women shouldn't have 'authority' over men, but only 'should not usurp/seize authority from men'. I.e. so supposedly when a bishop/elder gives that authority to a woman she is completely fine wielding authority over men. But this overlooks the very first part of that verse that also says a woman should not teach a man; and the verse before that were Paul instructs Timothy a woman should learn 'in subjection', and the verse after that (v 13) where a universal creation order argument is used, and the fact Timonthy's task was to set-up/organise several churches and v. 8 clearly has a universal nature ... Egalitarian reading makes a complete mess of this section.

The Bible in both TNK/OT and NT is Patriarchal, but divine love takes the sting and strive out of that - as it does for master/slave relationships or those between parents and children.

Be blessed sister - and welcome to correct me in case you detect an error in my thinking !

Michie said:

Jews are already inherently unique. We don’t need to prove it by naming our kids Cinnamon, Aqua, or Afternoon.​

A clip from the second season of the Netflix series Nobody Wants This recently made the rounds in the parent-verse. In it, interfaith couple Joanne and Noah (Kristen Bell and Adam Brody) attend a baby-naming party and submit to only the most L.A. experience: pretending you didn’t just hear something completely, utterly, and offensively dumb.

Joanne asks the Jewish mom, played by a peppy Leighton Meester, an innocent enough question: “What’s [your daughter’s] name?”

“Afternoon,” replies the mom.

“That’s not a,” starts Joanne, before catching herself mid-snicker. She quickly reverts course: “That is … my favorite time of day.”

I know this routine all too well, the one in which we swallow our tongues, nod, and reflexively exclaim “beautiful!” while simultaneously relishing new fodder for group texts. “You won’t believe the name I just heard” has grown all the more frequent and yet all the more competitive: No longer does Republic, Churchill (for a girl), or even Quinoa raise an eyebrow. I recently overheard Farro (or Pharaoh—unclear!) at the playground, and my group chat pals were unimpressed: “I dunno, I could see a President Farro/Pharaoh.”

It used to be that faddish progeny trends were more prevalent within our gentile neighbors, but not us–we who name after our beloved Bubbes and Zaydes and a long lineage of Jewish leaders, Biblical characters, and that one female Israeli prime minister. I come from a generation in which every other Jewish kid was named Talia, Ilana, or Rachel. Now I see those very same peers opting for Coyote, Striker, and Roxstar.

It’s sometimes hard to square away these peculiar pairings—an unorthodox first name with an often Jewish surname. Gravity Cohen? Aqua Levenstein? Cinnamon Goldberg?

Continued below.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/stop-giving-jewish-kids-dumb-names

Click to expand...

Would be funny if it wasn't so hard on their kids. Save the unusual names for the pets! Now, will Tomorrow come in when I call her, because I've got to take Bingeworthy for his walk?

Maria Billingsley said:

Actually, this may be disappointing, I know I am in God's presence when His Holy Spirit convicts me of sin and I repent from that sin. Pretty powerful when I refuse to go back to that sin. Certainly the will power is not only my doing !
Blessings

Click to expand...

Maria Billingsley, that’s the purest worship moment I can imagine—when the Spirit turns the spotlight inward, the knee bows, and grace says, “You’re forgiven—now walk free.”
No organ swell, no stained glass, just conviction → repentance → peace.
Thanks for the honesty; it reminds me the sanctuary is first the heart, then the building.
May that refusal-to-return strength keep multiplying in you—and in me too.

languages need not clean and be cleaned？

Justice Department says "violent riot" under investigation by FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force in the face of the enormity of three arrests and one injury. UC Berkeley acknowledges "There is no place at UC Berkeley for attempts to use violence or intimidation to prevent lawful expression or chill free speech"

According to a statement from the Berkeley Police Department, two men were arrested on suspicion of fighting in public. One of those individuals was released after officers determined that a 25-year-old man had stolen his chain and he was attempting to get it back.

Two other individuals were arrested by campus police for failing to comply with directions, a university spokesman said.

One 45-year-old man attending the event was hit by a glass bottle and transported to the hospital.

ETA: oh a car backfired, which scared TPUSA attendees.

Deacon Jang, a Christian who worked on the border of China and North Korea, has been released from prison after 11 years.

Jang was kidnapped from China in November 2014 and sentenced to 15 years in a North Korean prison. He had been ministering to North Koreans who crossed the border into China and had seen a number of them come to faith in Christ.

Jang had been working in the town of Changbai, alongside fellow Korean-Chinese pastor, Han Chung-Ryeol. Although it is illegal to cross into China without permission, North Koreans often visit border towns to buy goods, or medicine.

Jang had regularly provided hospitality for those doing so and discipled those who came to faith, teaching them how to share the gospel with loved ones when they returned home. Release International’s partner for Korea said, ‘We believe the reason for his kidnapping was to gather information about the North Korean ministry work we were doing with Pastor Han.’ Fifteen months after Deacon Jang’s kidnapping and arrest, Pastor Han was lured from his home in Changbai and stabbed to death.

Give thanks for Deacon Jang’s release and pray for his well-being. And for him and his family, healing and comfort and provision in the days ahead.

rambot said:

I think the assault on the child was the REAL sadness here.

I guess some people have differing priorities.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Context is important here. Many people read verses 1-2 only and they stop there and they build their own doctrine of salvation. Yet, if we are of genuine biblical faith in Jesus Christ, we have been crucified with Christ in death to sin and raised with Christ to walk in newness of life in him, no longer to live as slaves to sin, but as slaves to God and to his righteousness. It isn’t that Jesus just forgives us our sins and now we can go on sinning and his grace covers it all. Yes, we are forgiven our sins, but we must not keep sinning.

Yes, faith in Jesus Christ does not mean that we will never sin again. And if we do sin we have an advocate with God the Father, who is Jesus Christ, so that we are not condemned if we should sin. But we read in 1 John 1:5-10 that if we claim that we are in fellowship (relationship, partnership) with Jesus Christ/God, but while we keep on sinning, i.e. while sin is still our practice, we are liars who do not practice the truth. But if we walk in truth and righteousness (in the Light), Jesus’ blood cleanses us from all sin.

So, it isn’t that once we put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ that we can keep on sinning while God’s grace covers it all. For God has “drawn a line in the sand,” i.e. he has set a limit which we are not to go beyond, or if we do, we will face the consequences. And that becomes even more clear in this passage of Scripture from 1 John 2:3-6. For it says that if we truly know God/Christ (intimately) that we will keep (obey) his commands (New Covenant). And if we don’t obey him (in practice), we don’t know him.

But it appears to me, from what I have seen so far, that few people seem to be teaching this. Many are teaching a salvation from sin that permits the sinner to keep on their sin without consequence, stating that God’s grace now covers it all. And others will mention that we are to die to sin and walk in obedience to our Lord, and to his commands, but they make it more optional, as something that we should do, but not as required for salvation from sin and for eternal life with God, in the power and wisdom of God.

But Jesus Christ taught that to come to him we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin), and follow (obey) him. For if we hold on to living in sin and for self, we will lose our lives for eternity. But if we deny self, die daily to sin, by the Spirit, and we walk in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in his power, then we have eternal life with God. For not everyone who calls him “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one DOING (obeying) the will of God (see Luke 9:23-26; Matthew 7:21-23).

For by God-gifted faith in Jesus Christ, which is not of our own doing, we are crucified with Christ in death to sin and raised with Christ to walk in newness of life in him, no longer to live as slaves to sin but as slaves to righteousness in walks of obedience to God’s commands. We are no longer to permit sin to reign in our mortal bodies to make us obey its desires. For if sin is what we obey, it results in death. But if obedience to God is what we obey, it results in sanctification, and its end is eternal life with God (see Romans 6:1-23).

Therefore, we cannot just give lip service to our Lord and expect that God is going to let us into his heaven. By God-gifted and God-persuaded faith in Jesus Christ we must die to sin and live to God and to his righteousness in walks of obedience to his commands, in holy living, in the power of God. Sin must no longer be what we practice, but now we are to serve the Lord with our lives. Our lives are to be surrendered to God, in his service, following after him and his ways, by the grace of God, becoming more like Jesus.

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 10:19-39; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22]

As the Deer

By Martin J. Nystrom
Based off Psalm 42:1

As the deer panteth for the water
So my soul longeth after You
You alone are my heart's desire
And I long to worship You

You alone are my strength, my shield
To You alone may my spirit yield
You alone are my heart's desire
And I long to worship You

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

An Advocate with The Father
An Original Work / November 11, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Vambram said:

Campaign for Accountability is very wrong about their accusation that there is no probable cause.

Click to expand...

The fact that the career prosecutor didn't think there was enough evidence to bring a case and Trump had to fire him in order to install a loyalist (Halligan) to bring the case, and the fact no other prosecutor in Halligan's new office was willing to join the indictment of Comey, is already a strong indication there was not probable cause.

There is also the fact that the prosecutor's case, at least from what they have shown, seems to be rather devoid of merit if the information here is correct:

Essentially, the prosecutor's argument is to point to things... that, even if true, don't constitute perjury. Now, maybe they're theoretically sitting on some evidence they haven't mentioned, but if so it's odd that they didn't mention it in a filing that's trying to argue to the judge that there is totally evidence against Comey and that the prosecution shouldn't be dismissed.

BobRyan said:

In other words, today's rhetoric is basically a "Ha ha we fooled you" admission "mea culpa" for those who got snookered into believing "hey this shutdown is the fault of Republicans, it is a Republican shutdown no matter that all Republican Senators vote to open the government".

Lesson for all, try not to be so easily snookered.

Click to expand...

The shut down was just as much Republicans as Democrats. Neither would vote for the other's bill.

Aryeh Jay said:

Time to re open the Benghazi files.

Click to expand...

When it was revealed that the republicans had cut security for embassies, over the objections of Hillary Clinton, the whole conspiracy fell apart.

redraven said:

Thank-you so much St_worm2, very kind of you. I feel pretty comfortable regardless of the forum because at the end of the day, it's just a website and you can log off if it isn't your preference.

Click to expand...

redraven said:

I was up front about the autism and my circumstances because for me it is relevant. At the same time, I know from experience on a different forum how sharing this info. has been used against me. I won't name the forum, but I have experienced relentless online harassment for years simply for sharing certain details.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear that, and I certainly hope that it doesn't happen to you again, especially here at CF!!

redraven said:

Anonymity can sometimes be advantageous. I also believe some people are simply quite disturbed and likely mentally ill when their behaviour is to inflict harm intentionally. I try not to take comments personally when they come from people who in my view are unwell.

Click to expand...

That's a good attitude to have, especially online, because unlike the "old days" when we typically talked in person or, at least, over the phone to each other, acceptable/civil behavior is often replaced by rude behavior on social media platforms. People are mean (for all kinds of reasons .. the Christian faith talks at length about why, just FYI), but back when we were regularly forced to interact with one another "in person" to communicate, it seemed so much easier to treat other people like, well, people

redraven said:

I don't share the experience of autism and the past harassment to sound like a victim either.

The isolation/unemployment is reality, but I do have resources available. I don't mind spending a lot of time online, but I also don't want my life to be spending 10 hours+ per day online and I want more meaningful connections that go beyond online.

Click to expand...

redraven said:

You mention the 'Golden Rule'. Do to others what you would have them do to you. I agree - this is basic common sense. Easy to understand in principle yet not always applied by all people.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's a principle that's been around for centuries and in many different cultures, although it's mostly been a "don't do" kind of principle outside of Christianity, as well one that had "self" in view, at least first & foremost. As one famous rabbi put it (loosely), "Don't do anything bad to other people so that they won't do anything bad to you".

While my preferred translation of The Golden Rule wording isn't the common one ("Do unto others...." is), it still says the same thing, so, here again is the Christian version of this principle from Jesus.


The difficulty with Jesus' version is what He meant by it/how it is to be obeyed, IOW, that we are to always treat others in the way that we, at least, hope that they would choose to treat us, even when they have treated us and/or are treating us horribly (which is what makes always following His version of the principle difficult).

Finally, something that I have found very fascinating and may interest you too is what Jesus sums up for us in the first half of it, specifically, "the Law and the Prophets" (which is one of the ways that Jews refer to the entirety of the Old Testament). IOW, "However you want people to treat you, so treat them" is the whole of the teaching of the Old Testament's commandments, laws, precepts, etc., distilled down for us into half of a sentence (all that is taught to us there about how we are to relate to one another, anyway), which I, at least for one, find amazing!

redraven said:

I don't see any quote from Mark Twain?

Click to expand...

I edited the first version of my post into what you see above now, because it seemed too long to me. That said, here's the missing quote that I edited out (right after I posted it) from Twain.

Just FYI, "patience and kindness", according to the Bible, as the two principal "ingredients" (if you will) in Godly love (you'll find the whole "ingredients" list here: 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a .. a passage that is read at most Christian weddings, in point of fact, as it ends with, "love never fails" (and if you'd care to read the passage in context, here are the first three verses prior to the "list" 1 Corinthians 13:1-8) the whole of which giving us much insight into the Christianity or, at least, what the Christian faith is supposed to look like, anyway).

redraven said:

Here is one I just looked up: "The secret of getting ahead is getting started'.

Click to expand...

That's a very good quote, as most of Twain's quotes are (even the rude ones ).

redraven said:

I am trying to find more meaning in my life. What exactly I should be working on I do not know.
I have been very motivated at various points in my life and maintained a more disciplined routine. These days I am unsure what I should do to find more meaning and purpose, though I have not given up hope.

Click to expand...

I have some ideas about that, because that (finding the true and ultimate meaning and purpose to life, that is) is a big part of what finally led me to the Christian faith 39 years ago (I wasn't always a Christian, just FYI). I'll leave talking about that for a later time however, and only if you want to hear about it then, of course.

--David
p.s. - here's another quote for you (one that is both thought-provoking and nice enough for the forum we are on, too ).