Tristen

Kidnapping is unequivocally, unambiguously prohibited under Mosaic Law. Exodus 21:16 He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. 1 Timothy 1:9-11 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. Slavery, in general, is a much larger and more nuanced topic - which would have to be addressed on a specific cultural level - as many different types of historical servitude have been described as "slavery". New World slavery (most people's conception of "slavery") stripped individuals (each created by God, in His image) of their human dignity. These slaves were not only kidnapped, but treated as disposable commodities. Slaves in the Ancient Near East (e.g. Greece, Rome) were a class of society. Slaves could run households, and businesses, and even own their own slaves. The slavery of Hebrews under Mosaic Law was voluntary (except for the prospective masters), and temporary - and served as a type of welfare for Hebrews facing hard times. Joseph was a slave in Egypt, but also the second most powerful person on the planet at the time. A slave around Abraham's time meant you were part of a tribe - whose size contributed to your (and the tribe's) survival. A slave enjoyed the protections and resources associated with being part of a larger family structure - albeit from the bottom of the authority chain. I don't say any of this to be Pollyanna about the plight of historical slaves. Slaves could be mistreated in any context. However, even in a free context, poor and vulnerable people can be mistreated by the powerful. - Which is all to say that the claim "God condemns slavery" is too simplistic to be a useful reflection of God's opinion of "slavery".

Are you talking absolute numbers, or a particular percentage?

I think those who have been Christians for a while have witnessed the surprising acceleration of the apostacy over the past few decades.

It is good to be aware of what is happening. But we should always be mindful that none of this has surprised our King.

God is looking for those with a sincere faith in the Gospel of Christ. The fact that people arrive at that faith via different paths is less important than arriving at the truth. The "without convincing" part is your interpretation. I consider this to be a false interpretation. Children ask questions. They are innocent an uninhibited in their trust. What you are describing is 'blind faith'. Blind faith is not Biblical. The Bible repeatedly admonishes us to seek truth, to seek wisdom, to seek knowledge, to "test all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and to have a "reason" for our hope (1 Peter 3:15). The Bible explicitly tells us that those supposed converts with no "root" will fall away from the faith under tribulation (Mark 4:16-17). Given that the internal evidence from logical self-consistency, and the external evidence from sources such as textual criticism, archaeology and science, overwhelmingly support the Biblical model of reality, I would say "Yes" - the person who "can't be convinced" is operating under a strong confirmation bias. Either they are requiring an impossible (and therefore irrational) standard of evidence for God, or they are not applying the same level of scrutiny and skepticism to anti-God arguments as they are to arguments in favor of God. So yes, a person in this position may think they are being genuine, but their seeking has not been fair-minded. They have set up intellectual filters facilitating a skewed impression of the data - against God. This may have been a result of external indoctrination - but it is still ultimately the responsibility of the individual to correct their own thinking in pursuit of truth. The Bible tells us that God has revealed enough information about Himself to every individual - such that we are all "without excuse" (Romans 1:18-20). The Gospel does not encourage blind faith. That is interesting - as I have had the opposite experience. The more I investigate the supposed "inconsistencies" challenging Christianity, the more my faith is confirmed. That would anecdotally suggest to me that there is a confirmation bias influencing how each of us approaches the evidence. I would respectfully posit that you are more-so looking for reasons to reject, rather than reasons to confirm, Christianity - and therefore tend to, a) give more rational weight to anti-Christian arguments no matter how poorly supported, and b) give less rational weight to pro-Christian arguments no matter how well supported. This bias means you are not genuinely seeking the truth, but rather looking for an outcome skewed against one particular conclusion. Bias is something you can fix.

The Christian God is triune. That means both one and three at the same time. That means Jesus can at once be God, and be with God (see John 1). Christianity is explicitly monotheistic. As a matter of logic, there can only be one eternal God. However, that one eternal God can be more complex than our finite minds can conceive. Your argument assumes that God can not be triune - but can only be one or three. But then your argument excludes the Biblical conception of God from consideration.

No. The removal of one of Adam's "ribs" would not alter (nor mutate) the compliment of genes passed on to Adam's male offspring. Deeper investigation also reveals that "rib" is a questionable translation of the Hebrew phrase used in Genesis to describe what was taken from Adam.

Jesus (a.k.a. Adonai Hb, a.k.a. God incarnate) addresses Yehovah (a.k.a. God) as "Lord". Psalm 110:1 The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”

To me, "falling short of grace" means trying to earn God's favor by our own efforts (legalism). That is. presuming to try and please God by outward adherence to a list of written rules (such as the Law), or even unwritten expectations - by which the observer is presumed to be a more committed, or more obedient, or more mature, or more spiritual, or more righteous, or a more faithful Christian than the non-observer - and therefore (by their errant estimation) more deserving of God's favor because of their own external "righteousness".

I think there is a valid, Bible-based, distinction between those who hold a sincere, enduring faith, and those who are "Christian" in a shallow, nominal sense only. However, I also think that those who presume to know the status of another person's faith have potentially fallen into a trap - having aligned themselves with "the accuser of our brethren" (Revelation 12:10). Frivolous accusations against those ministering in the name of Christ demonstrate a deficiency in the reverent fear of God - presuming to know what God is doing based on our own, limited and potentially flawed, understanding of things - and therefore potentially speaking against a legitimate work of God. There is a place for testing, and judging, and examining fruit - but the state of one's heart is exclusively God's purview. It is my view that we should therefore be much more circumspect about weighing in on such matters - lest we unintentionally curse a fellow citizen of the Kingdom of God. I would therefore be wary of the spiritual maturity of someone inclined to label specific people (including themselves) as either true or not true Christians.

I think there is nothing worthy in me which Christ has not restored by His grace. We each come to Christ in a unique state; with a unique array of weaknesses to overcome. The undertone of the thread's title is that there are some better, more worthy, Christians than others. This potentially adds weight to the legalistic burden of many Christians who already struggle under the persistent misconception that God is disappointed with them. I personally don't care if I rule with Him - so long as I am "with Him".

To receive the salvation of God offered through the true Messiah (Jesus Christ), one must be convinced of (i.e. have faith in) the truth of His Gospel - and respond to that Gospel by sincerely surrendering ownership of your life to the Messiah (as to incarnate God). Declaring the Messiah to be your Lord (i.e. Master/Owner) implies a decision to follow the Messiah and His righteousness.

Consider that God created this natural universe. How many thousands of years do you think it would take before you ran out of wonders to discover about the natural universe? Now imagine a reality that is eternally diverse in character. The answer is 'no', heaven will not get boring - even if our finite minds cannot comprehend its awesomeness.

As a non-US citizen, I don't have a say. From my perspective - if I were a US citizen. I would not have voted for Trump in 2016 (it just felt too gimmicky). I would definitely not have voted democrat. I would probably not have voted (nice to have that option). However, during his time as president, I appreciated how he handled Syria, and Iran, and North Korea, and China, and the Abraham accords, and the UN and Nato, and the WHO, and some aspects of how he handled COVID. I'm not overly familiar with his domestic track record, but based on his international record, I would have voted for him in 2020. He says some silly things on occasion. He pushed the 'robbed election' narrative for a bit too long. Not sure if I agree with him totally on how to handle the Ukraine situation. But I'd be far more comfortable with Trump in charge of the US, than any of the democratic party options. But alas, I have no say. People struggle to associate outcomes with their ideological/political decisions. I am therefore not confident that Trumps victory is a given.

If God has placed that burden on your heart, then fantastic. It should, however, be noted that Jesus can also be found in Mexico and South America (as many have already discovered) - and not only in the USA. Furthermore, from another perspective, mass migration into a western nation could be interpreted as a satanic imperative to dilute Christianity (and its influence) out of a culture.

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

Prayers can take many beautiful forms. I nevertheless suspect God cares more for sincere, heartfelt communication, than He does for a prayer cast in classical English poetic prose. - Which is not to belittle pretty prayers. However, we should be careful to keep prayer within reach of everyone. Prayer is simply talking with our beloved Creator - as a child might speak to their own father. Prayer doesn't have to be pretty or clever.

Yes - God is our loving Father, and we are each His beloved child. The relationship is real. The love is real. This is the basis of our fellowship and communion with our heavenly Father. Therefore prayer is not a chore. Prayer is the joy and privilege of speaking with the Creator - as His beloved child - without hypocrisy or fear - with due respect, but without religious formalities - without trying to impress Him - knowing that He already knows us, and loves us completely.

Given that "scripture" (a.k.a. God's Word) originates in God (i.e. is "God-breathed"), and does not originate in Paul (or any other human author), it is irrelevant whether or not the one who penned the words understood that their writing constituted "scripture". With regards to the New Testament: - The texts must present a revelation of God that is consistent with the revelation of God provided in existing, recognized scriptures. - The texts must be universally recognized by the earliest Christians as having an authoritative (i.e. Apostolic/Prophetic) revelation from God. - The essential doctrines contained in the texts have been preserved by God throughout their history. - There is no counter-claim in the text itself as to its Divine authority. By contrast, there are authoritative internal (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 4:15) and ancillary (e.g. 2 Peter 3:15-16) claims that the texts are authoritative. Taken together, this represents an extremely high standard of textual criticism. It is highly unlikely that a human-derived text would pass these rules. There is, therefore, very good reason to trust the Christian canon (including Paul's own writings) as "God-breathed Scripture".

If I understand this correctly, what you describe seems like a satanic strategy to lure you into ungodly desires. Males are designed by God to be attracted to the "feminine". And so here we have "boys" made to appear "feminine" in a manner designed to broaden your paradigm - away from normal, God-given, sexual attraction - in the direction of same-sex attraction. I would not consider this to mean you are necessarily "gay" (same-sex attracted). The strategy appears to be designed to confuse your natural male attraction towards the "feminine". You were right to subject those ideas to the authority of Christ and "force" them away.

So "Prayer – Means praying" Prayer means talking to God. Prayer is conversation, communication. Don't over-spiritualize it. Be honest with God and you'll do just fine.

This is dishonest Equivocation (logic fallacy). I described the concept that the sky has windows in it through which rain could fall. As you see, your claim that this isn't in most translations is false. Your original statement was to claim that the Bible says, "the sky is a dome over the Earth with windows in it for rain to fall through". In your response here, you are therefore intentionally Equivocating. You are knowingly selecting one aspect of the claim - for the purpose of making false accusations - whilst intentionally ignoring the full nature of the claim I was addressing. That is, you have decided to resort to rank, self-evident dishonesty. Therefore, I have lost interest in wasting any more time in this conversation.

Well allow me to demystify my position for you. If something natural, or something conceptual, is described in architectural terms - this can reasonably be assumed to be a metaphorical description. That is, some literal detail of reality is being described in a symbolic way. This is commonly understood across cultures and languages. However, if something is stated in such a way as to be plainly understood as historical narrative, then we do not permit ourselves the right to dismiss the stated details as though the details have no relation to reality. This is dishonest Equivocation (logic fallacy). Your original claim suggested the Bible says, "the sky is a dome over the Earth with windows in it for rain to fall through". As far as I could tell, none of your provided verses said, "the sky is a dome over the Earth". It is true that many of the provided verses used "windows or flood gates", but that was not the full nature of the claim being addressed. Genesis 1:6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. Seems pretty clear, much more explicit than "mornings" and "evenings" without a sun to have them." While it may come as a surprise to many, modern scholarship has long argued that the Hebrews, along with most other ancient peoples, believed that the heavens (as in ‘the sky’)2 were made of some kind of solid substance, whether it be of bronze, iron, or precious stone. This heavenly vault or dome had hatches in it, so it is argued, that released the waters that were contained above it. According to this view, this was the ancient explanation for where rain comes from. While this modern scholastic view goes well beyond what pious ancient interpreters thought, we can conveniently group together all views that thought of the rāqîaʿ as a solid object the firmament concept. ‘Firmament’ being the well-known King James Version translation of the Hebrew word rāqîaʿ. One may question if such a view is nothing more than a modern scholarly invention. As understandable as that would be, the very etymology and long-term usage of the (English) word firmament testifies that the notion of a cosmic ‘vault,’ or conversely of some kind of crystalline celestial sphere (which concepts, however, are far from identical),3 has long been believed in. Firmament is a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate’s firmamentum, the Vulgate being a 1,600 year old translation. The Vulgate itself was influenced by the Septuagint’s στερέωμα (stereōma), the Septuagint itself being a 2,300 year old translation. Stereōma comes from the word στερεόω (stereoō) – ‘to make or be firm or solid.’ While secular scholarship and conservative belief alike distinguish between the original intent of the Bible and later interpretations of it (no matter how old those interpretations may be), it is nonetheless a remarkable fact that the earliest ever translation of the Hebrew Bible, from circa 250 B.C., interpreted the rāqîaʿ as referring to some kind of hard heavenly object. ... In summary, this ‘dome theory’ or ‘firmament notion’ represents the almost unquestioned consensus view of modern scholarship, while ancient Jewish and Christian interpretation has itself long supported important aspects of this model. Furthermore, while a segment of scholars, almost entirely from the evangelical community, previously opposed this view, particularly in light of the scientific problems it introduces, an increasing number of professing evangelical scholars have now openly embraced the firmament interpretation. The earlier evangelical view is represented by the translation of rāqîaʿ as an expanse, rather than as a firmament or dome: https://hebrewcosmology.com/expanse-firmament-raqia/introduction-to-the-raqia-problem/ So then, the answer to my question ('Was there any mention in your list of verses, of a windowed "dome"?') is an unequivocal 'No'. The exact meaning of 'raqia' (Hb) has been debated by Hebrew scholars throughout Christian history. You found a source that claimed it probably means one thing, but which also showed it has to be dragged via other languages to support that meaning. In every other sense of the use of 'raqia', it refers to something being expanded, or spread out. Many translators therefore translate 'raqia' as an "expanse". By strange coincidence, the word "expanse" is a perfectly apt description of the sky and space. I am therefore well within reason to reject any insistence that 'raqia' necessarily refers to a "dome".

This is pagan mythology masquerading as truth. You are borrowing concepts from the truth (the Christian Bible) and attempting to merge these Biblical concepts with paganistic mythology. This is a common practice of cults. Add some truth to lies to make the lies seem more true. Sorry (not sorry) - no one here is falling for it. You shouldn't fall for it either.

Yes, Lol. For some reason, obvious (self-evident) architectural metaphors must be taken hyper-literally when it suits your position (pillars, foundations, cornerstones, windows, floodgates etc.). So yes, one might metaphorically describe rain as heaven releasing water - i.e. heaven opening up to release water to fall to Earth; as one might open, say, a "window" or "gate". Are you really going to dishonestly resort to pretending you don't understand an obvious metaphor? Do you think the Bible describes Jesus as a literal lamb, or a literal gate/door. or a literal light etc.? Do we always need to play disingenuous games? Do you think you win a prize? Was there any mention in your list of verses of a windowed "dome"?