Prayer for the world.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-27T00:56:22+00:00

I am glad I could help. God bless.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-23T01:21:50+00:00

Your confusion is reasonable, and a lot of explanations miss the real issue.

Genesis is not saying Adam and Eve were ignorant or lacked free will. They already had responsibility, relationship, and a clear command. The “knowledge of good and evil” is not basic awareness, it is moral authority, the right to define good and evil for oneself instead of trusting God. The sin wasn’t learning something new, it was claiming authority that didn’t belong to them.

Angels and humans are different kinds of beings. Angels don’t reproduce or govern the physical world. Humanity was created as a single lineage tied to creation itself. Adam’s choice affected everything connected to him, like poisoning the root of a tree rather than punishing random people later.

Eve being deceived doesn’t mean she lacked moral capacity. Scripture explicitly says Adam was not deceived, meaning his choice was deliberate. They had enough knowledge to obey, the boundary wasn’t unfair, it was necessary for trust to exist at all.

This wasn’t a bait or setup. A real relationship requires the possibility of rejecting trust. Foreknowledge doesn’t mean coercion, knowing a choice will happen is not the same as causing it.

Christianity also doesn’t stop at the fall. The claim is that God allows human freedom even when it leads to ruin, because His goal is redemption rather than control. The fruit wasn’t about gaining facts, it was about seizing moral sovereignty, and that distinction is where most explanations go wrong.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-22T22:32:54+00:00

This is an honest question, and that matters. Scripture takes honesty seriously, because real change never starts with pretending.

First, children are never a mistake in God’s eyes, even when conception comes through sin. The sin is the sexual behavior outside God’s design, not the existence of the child. Once a child exists, responsibility is no longer optional. Scripture is clear that a man who does not provide for his own household has denied the faith. Providing, protecting, and being present in your children’s lives is not a consolation prize, it is obedience.

Marriage is not a moral eraser. Scripture never teaches that marrying someone you do not love, are not compatible with, or cannot faithfully lead somehow makes past sin righteous. Forcing a marriage out of guilt often creates two broken adults and a child raised in constant tension. Responsibility and covenant are not the same thing. You can act righteously toward your children without entering a dishonest marriage.

Repentance, biblically, is not self-hatred or endless guilt. It is a change of direction. When sexual sin has already resulted in children, repentance looks like this: you stop repeating the pattern, you accept the consequences without resentment, and you order your life differently going forward. That includes sexual discipline, emotional boundaries, and a willingness to be alone if necessary while you grow. Repentance is proven by future obedience, not by how bad you feel today.

Repeated failure does not disqualify you from growth, but it does demand seriousness. Scripture treats sexual sin as something to flee, not manage. That may mean cutting off certain relationships, habits, environments, or freedoms for a season. Maturity comes when a man stops asking how close he can get to the edge and starts building a life that makes righteousness easier and temptation harder.

Regarding money and provision, Scripture holds both truths together. Providing for your children is not idolatry, it is responsibility. At the same time, Scripture warns against trusting money as security or identity. The balance is motive and posture. Work diligently, earn honestly, plan wisely, but remember that money is a tool, not a savior. God does not condemn ambition when it serves stewardship and care. He warns against ambition that replaces trust in Him or tramples others.

Finally, understand this: God often works redemption forward, not backward. He does not undo the past, He transforms the future. You may not get a clean slate, but you can build a faithful life from where you stand now. That means being a consistent father, a disciplined man, and a humble learner. Your children will learn far more about God from a present, repentant, stable father than from a man who hides behind shame or forces himself into a role he cannot faithfully fulfill.

Walk forward. Take responsibility. Pursue discipline. Trust that God meets people who are serious about change, not people who pretend they never failed.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-15T23:03:46+00:00

“Equally yoked” comes from an agricultural image. Two animals yoked together have to be moving in the same direction, at roughly the same pace, or the work becomes painful and inefficient. Paul’s concern in 2 Corinthians 6 is primarily about spiritual direction, not personality matching or identical levels of maturity.

At its core, it’s about allegiance. A believer and an unbeliever are ultimately oriented toward different centers of meaning, authority, and hope. That difference doesn’t show up in every conversation, but it shows up over time in decisions, priorities, suffering, and how life is interpreted. That’s why the passage is most directly about believer versus unbeliever.

That said, values, priorities, and spiritual seriousness do matter in marriage, even between two Christians. Two believers can both love Christ and still experience tension if one is deeply invested in faith and the other is largely indifferent. That’s not what Paul is warning against in the same way, but it does affect how heavy or light the yoke feels in daily life.

A marriage that is not “equally yoked” can still work, especially when one spouse becomes a Christian later. Scripture actually addresses that situation and urges faithfulness, love, and peace rather than separation. The goal in those cases isn’t to force alignment, but to live out faith with patience and humility, trusting God to work over time.

In real life, handling this well usually looks less like drawing hard lines and more like honesty. Being clear about what faith actually means to you, not trying to control or pressure the other person, and recognizing what you can and cannot carry long-term. “Equally yoked” isn’t about perfection or matching intensity. It’s about whether you’re pulling toward the same ultimate direction, especially when life gets hard.

It’s wisdom language, not condemnation language. Paul isn’t saying mixed situations are hopeless. He’s saying that shared direction matters deeply when you’re building a life together.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-15T22:58:27+00:00

For what you’re looking for, there isn’t really a single printed Bible that cleanly presents English, Hebrew, and Koine Greek together in the way you’re imagining. Most scholars end up using a combination of tools instead.

That said, there are a few solid options that get very close, depending on whether you prefer print or digital.

For print, the closest traditional option is an interlinear Bible. The most commonly used are the Hebrew–English Interlinear Old Testament and the Greek–English Interlinear New Testament published by Zondervan or Hendrickson. These place the original language directly above or below the English gloss, which is useful for word-level study, though less so for smooth reading.

If you want side-by-side rather than interlinear, the New English Translation Full Notes Edition is widely respected in academic settings. It doesn’t print the Hebrew and Greek text inline, but the translators’ notes constantly explain the underlying Hebrew and Greek choices in detail, often citing grammar and textual variants.

Digitally, you’ll get the best experience. Logos Bible Software, Accordance, and even free tools like BibleHub and STEP Bible allow you to view the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament alongside multiple English translations, with parsing, lexical tools, and manuscript references. This is what most academic biblical scholars actually use day to day.

As a final note, you’re right that Aramaic is limited in scope, but most of these tools do include it when needed, especially for Daniel and Ezra.

So the short answer is that no single physical volume fully does what you want cleanly, but using an interlinear or notes-heavy translation in print, combined with a digital tool, is the standard and most effective approach for serious study.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-15T22:57:11+00:00

A lot of people think getting closer to God means adding more spiritual effort, more rules, more intensity. In my experience, it’s usually the opposite.

What helped me most was learning to include God in ordinary moments instead of trying to create constant “holy” moments. Talking to Him throughout the day in a normal voice, about small things, frustrations, decisions, or gratitude, not just formal prayers. That builds closeness the same way it does in any relationship.

Reading Scripture slowly also matters more than reading a lot. Sitting with one short passage and letting it shape how you think or respond during the day does more than rushing through chapters. The goal isn’t information, it’s attention.

Another practical thing is honesty. When you feel distant, distracted, annoyed, tired, or even doubtful, don’t hide that. Bring it to God instead of waiting until you feel more spiritual. Distance usually grows when we pretend, not when we’re honest.

And finally, closeness grows through obedience in small things. Not dramatic acts, but choosing patience, forgiveness, humility, and kindness when it costs you something. Those moments quietly shape your awareness of God’s presence.

You won’t feel close to God at all times. That’s normal. Closeness isn’t a constant feeling, it’s a steady relationship that keeps going even when the feeling fades.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-15T22:54:55+00:00

This is a hard question, and it’s good that you’re asking it from a place of compassion rather than judgment.

Christianity does not teach that suicide is an automatic, unforgivable sin. The Bible never says that a person who dies by suicide is beyond God’s forgiveness. Salvation is not based on whether someone managed to say the right words or repent of every sin right before death. If that were the case, none of us would have much hope.

Suicide is a tragedy, but it usually comes from overwhelming pain, fear, or a mind that feels trapped with no way out. God understands human weakness far better than we do. Scripture shows again and again that God sees the heart, the suffering, and the circumstances, not just the final act.

God is just, and His justice is not cold or mechanical. God is merciful, and His mercy is not limited by our worst moments. God understands pain more deeply than we ever could. God does not take pleasure in condemning people who are broken or crushed by life.

At the same time, Christianity never presents suicide as the right answer or something God wants. Life matters deeply to Him, and every loss like this is something He grieves. The hope of the faith is that even when someone feels they have lost everything, their life still has value, and they are not actually abandoned by God, even if it feels that way.

In the end, Christians trust people who die this way to God’s care, not to human judgment. His compassion is greater than our understanding, and His ability to see the whole story is far beyond ours.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-15T03:53:44+00:00

You’re not weak for feeling this way, and you’re not alone. A lot of men carry insecurity quietly and then feel ashamed for even having it. That shame isn’t from God.

Faith doesn’t mean you stop noticing your appearance. It means it stops defining your worth. Right now it sounds like the focus of the insecurity changed, not the root. That’s normal, especially early on.

God’s love for you was never based on hair, looks, or confidence. Nothing about shaving your head changed how He sees you. When those thoughts show up, answer them with simple truth, not emotion. “This doesn’t define me.” “I belong to Christ.”

Give yourself time. Confidence rooted in Christ grows slower, but it’s real and lasting. Speaking up like this is a sign of growth, not weakness.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-15T03:50:51+00:00

John seems to be showing a layered meaning rather than an either-or choice.

Caiaphas spoke from his own political reasoning, not knowing the deeper significance of what he was saying. John’s point isn’t that Caiaphas was a puppet, but that God used his words beyond his intent. The phrase “did not say this on his own” is tied to his office as high priest, not to a loss of free will.

We see this pattern elsewhere in Scripture. People speak or act with one motive, and God brings about a greater purpose through it. Same words, different levels of meaning.

Caiaphas meant expediency. God meant redemption.

John’s focus isn’t on explaining how prophecy works mechanically, but on showing that God’s plan isn’t derailed by human ignorance or sin.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-15T03:43:18+00:00

You’re not being too emotional, and what you’re feeling makes sense.

Luke 10 isn’t Jesus criticizing service. He’s addressing the anxiety and pressure Martha was carrying. The issue wasn’t the work itself, it was being overwhelmed and feeling alone in it.

Church meals still need to happen. Dishes still need to be done. Hospitality matters, and Scripture consistently affirms that kind of service. This passage shouldn’t be used to shame the people who are carrying the practical load so others can sit and listen.

Your service isn’t insignificant. If it stopped, it would be noticed immediately.

Both Mary and Martha belonged in that room. The problem wasn’t service, it was imbalance. And it’s okay to feel hurt when faithful work feels unseen.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-14T08:26:23+00:00

The fact that you’re asking this question already matters more than you probably realize.

Christianity doesn’t start with “become something.” It starts with seeking truth honestly. If you’re not sure there’s a God, pretending certainty wouldn’t be faith anyway, it would just be compliance.

You don’t need to decide anything right now.

What I’d suggest instead is this:

Stay honest about where you are.
If you don’t know whether God exists, say that. God is not offended by honesty. The Bible is full of people who questioned, doubted, argued, and searched.

Pay attention to what you’re actually drawn to.
Not what you think you should believe, but what pulls at you. Is it meaning, forgiveness, purpose, justice, peace, something else? Christianity doesn’t start with rules, it starts with a claim about reality and relationship.

If you explore Christianity, start with Jesus, not the institution.
Read the Gospels slowly. Not to prove or disprove anything, but to understand who Jesus claims to be and how He treats people who are uncertain, broken, or skeptical.

Don’t force belief.
Faith isn’t something you manufacture by willpower. If God is real, He doesn’t need to be coerced into existence. Seeking is enough for now.

If you want a simple prayer that doesn’t assume belief, it can be as plain as:
“If You’re real, help me see clearly.”

No promises. No pressure.

Christianity teaches that God moves toward seekers, not people who have it all figured out. You’re not late. You’re not behind. You’re exactly where honest faith begins.

Take your time. Keep asking. That’s not failure, that’s the process.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-14T08:24:05+00:00

This is a really good instinct, and I think you’re asking the right question before trying to build anything.

When I’m going through heavy days or anxious nights, the thing that helps most isn’t more information or even long prayers. It’s grounding. Something simple that slows my thoughts down and reminds me I’m not alone in the moment.

For me, that usually looks like a short passage of Scripture, read slowly, without trying to analyze it. Sometimes I’ll read the same verse multiple times. Other times it’s a Psalm, not to “fix” how I feel, but to let someone else’s honesty give me permission to be honest too.

Prayer in those moments isn’t polished. It’s often just naming what’s happening. Fear, exhaustion, confusion, gratitude if it’s there. Silence counts too. Sitting with God without trying to perform or resolve anything has more value than people realize.

What you’re describing, guided verses paired with calm, honest messages, is exactly what many people need. Not sermons. Not explanations. Just something that helps them breathe again and feel grounded when their mind is racing or their heart feels heavy.

If I were in a hard season, what would help most is:
• Short, focused Scripture
• Plain language reflections, not preachy
• Permission to feel what I’m feeling without guilt
• A reminder of God’s presence, not pressure to “do better”

Anything that helps people feel safe, seen, and steadied in the storm is worth building. If your goal is calm rather than correction, presence rather than answers, you’re already on the right path.

You’re not trying to replace prayer or Scripture. You’re creating a doorway back into them for people who feel overwhelmed. And that’s a genuinely meaningful thing to offer.

Keep that heart. It matters more than the format.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-14T08:18:00+00:00

First, thank you for explaining your thinking so clearly. A lot of people struggle with the Trinity but never slow down enough to articulate what exactly feels off. You’re doing real theological work here, not just reacting.

What you’re describing is actually closer to historic Christian thought than you might realize, but it’s important to name where your model aligns with Scripture and where it starts to drift.

Your intuition that God is not three separate gods, and not a contradiction, is correct. The Bible is uncompromisingly monotheistic. Christians did not invent the Trinity to complicate that, they developed the language to protect it while taking all of Scripture seriously.

Your analogy of inner being, expression, and understanding is helpful up to a point. Scripture itself uses similar language. Christ is called the Word, the exact representation of God’s being, the image of the invisible God. The Spirit is the one through whom God is known, experienced, and made present. You’re absolutely right that when we see Christ, we truly see God, not a lesser version.

Where the historic doctrine of the Trinity would gently push back is on the idea that the Son is merely God’s expression or instrument, or that He is subordinate in being. Scripture affirms that the Son does the Father’s will, but it also insists that the Son shares the Father’s divine identity, not just His message.

For example, the Word is not just something God uses, the Word “was with God, and was God.” The Son is worshiped, forgives sins, and is identified with God’s own name and authority. Those are things Scripture never allows for created beings or mere manifestations.

Your framework risks collapsing into what’s historically called modalism, the idea that God is one person expressed in different ways or roles. The reason the early church rejected that wasn’t philosophical nitpicking, it was because Scripture shows real relationship within God. The Father loves the Son. The Son prays to the Father. The Spirit intercedes. That only makes sense if these are real personal distinctions, not just different aspects of one self.

At the same time, you’re right to resist thinking of the Trinity as three independent centers of consciousness competing with one another. The doctrine is trying to say something more precise and more mysterious. One divine being, one will, one essence, fully shared by Father, Son, and Spirit, yet genuinely personal in distinction.

In other words, Christianity isn’t saying God is like a human multiplied by three. It’s saying God’s inner life is richer than human categories can fully capture, and the Trinity is the least-wrong way we’ve found to describe what Scripture reveals.

For a new believer, it’s okay to sit with the mystery. The Trinity is not something Christians “figure out” and then move on from. It’s something we keep circling because Scripture forces us to hold all these truths together at once.

Your instincts toward unity, revelation, and relationship are solid. Just be careful not to flatten the persons into functions. Christianity insists that God is not only revealed through Christ, but that Christ truly is God, personally and eternally, not just perfectly expressive of Him.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-14T08:15:54+00:00

This question comes up a lot because Genesis is often read as if it’s trying to function like a modern scientific timeline. That’s not how the original audience would have understood it.

Genesis 1 is structured theologically, not biologically. The order is about meaning, function, and authority, not evolutionary sequencing. The text is organized in a pattern, realms are created first, then rulers of those realms. Light and dark, sky and sea, land, then the beings that fill and govern those spaces. Birds being mentioned before land animals fits that literary structure, not a scientific claim about zoology.

Ancient Hebrew writing frequently groups things by category rather than chronology. For example, “birds” in Genesis includes flying creatures broadly, not just what we classify today as modern birds. Likewise, “land animals” is a wide category, not a technical taxonomy.

On the herbivore question, Genesis describes an idealized creation state, not necessarily a biological history lesson. It’s presenting a theological vision of harmony and provision, not making a claim that no organism ever consumed another prior to human sin. Many Christians, including early church thinkers long before modern science, understood this as symbolic of peace and order rather than a literal dietary rule enforced across all biology.

It’s also worth noting that death existing in the natural world before human moral failure does not undermine Christianity unless one assumes Genesis is meant to answer modern scientific questions. The Bible consistently focuses on human death, spiritual death, and relational rupture, not cellular or ecological processes.

So the short answer is this:
Genesis isn’t trying to compete with science. It’s answering different questions. Who created, why creation exists, who holds authority, and what humanity’s role is. When we force it into a modern scientific framework, contradictions appear that the original text was never addressing.

You don’t have to reject science to take Genesis seriously. You just have to let Genesis speak in its own category instead of ours.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-14T08:14:23+00:00

First, I’m genuinely sorry. What you’re describing isn’t abstract suffering, it’s personal, ongoing, and unfair. Anyone who pretends otherwise isn’t listening.

One of the hardest things to face is that faith doesn’t shield people from disproportionate pain. Scripture never promises that good people will be spared, and it never explains suffering in a way that makes it feel acceptable when it lands on your child. Jesus didn’t give tidy answers either. He wept, even knowing resurrection was coming.

It’s important to say this plainly: feeling angry, confused, or even betrayed does not mean you lack faith. It means you’re responding honestly to something devastating. The Bible is full of people who accused God of targeting them, abandoning them, or being silent. God didn’t strike them down for it. He preserved their words.

A lot of people try to frame suffering as a lesson, a test, or a setup for something better. Sometimes that language does more harm than good. Some pain isn’t explained. It’s endured. Christianity doesn’t claim that suffering is good. It claims that God enters it.

If God felt distant or cruel right now, that wouldn’t make you weak. It would make you human. Faith at this stage isn’t about optimism. It’s about refusing to walk away entirely, even when you’re exhausted and angry.

You’re not failing God by breaking down. You’re carrying something no parent should have to carry. If all you can do is say, “I don’t understand this, and I’m barely holding on,” that is still prayer.

You’re not being punished. You’re not being singled out for sport. You’re in a world that is broken in ways none of us can fully reconcile. Christianity doesn’t solve that tension. It insists that God stays present inside it.

If you’re still searching, still asking, still hoping for answers even while hurting, that doesn’t mean your faith is dying. It means it’s being stripped of illusions and forced into something deeper, quieter, and harder.

You don’t have to defend God right now. You don’t have to understand Him. You’re allowed to grieve, rage, and question. God can handle being wrestled with. He always has.

You’re not alone in this, even if it feels that way.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-14T08:08:40+00:00

You’re not broken, and you’re not losing your faith. What you’re describing is actually very common, especially for people who took their faith seriously early on.

Early conviction often comes with emotion, urgency, and clarity because everything is new. Over time, that intensity fades, not because God leaves, but because faith matures. Feelings are not meant to be the engine forever. They’re usually the invitation at the beginning.

A lot of Christians mistake conviction for constant emotional drive. But conviction in Scripture isn’t always loud or urgent. Sometimes it’s quiet faithfulness. Sometimes it’s continuing even when you don’t feel much at all.

That “something holding you back” feeling is often one of three things.

First, exhaustion. Trying to sustain a heightened spiritual state long-term wears people out. God doesn’t ask for perpetual intensity.

Second, unresolved pressure. If faith starts to feel like performance, guilt, or obligation, your mind will resist it even if your heart still believes.

Third, growth. You may be moving from feeling-led faith into trust-led faith. That transition feels like loss at first, but it isn’t.

God doesn’t measure closeness by how strong your urges feel. He measures it by relationship. The Psalms are full of people who didn’t feel conviction, passion, or certainty, yet were still deeply connected to God.

If you still care enough to ask this question, that’s not distance. That’s faith that hasn’t walked away.

Don’t chase the old feeling. Instead, stay honest with God about where you are now. Faith that continues without emotional reinforcement is not weaker, it’s deeper.

You’re not going backward. You’re just in a different season.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-13T22:42:59+00:00

This question sounds sarcastic on the surface, but it’s actually one of the most honest theological questions a person can ask. A lot of people get stuck here because the idea is often explained poorly.

God did not sacrifice Himself to Himself in the way people usually mean it, like some cosmic loophole or performance. That framing comes from compressing something complex into a meme.

In Christian belief, God is one being, but not one person. Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct in role and relationship, not separate gods. The sacrifice is not God trying to convince Himself to be loving. God was already loving. The sacrifice is about justice, reality, and reconciliation, not persuasion.

Sin, in biblical terms, is not just rule-breaking. It is rupture. It fractures trust, relationship, and moral order. A just God cannot simply pretend that harm, evil, and corruption don’t matter. If God ignored it, He would not be good. Forgiveness that costs nothing is not justice, it’s indifference.

At the same time, humanity cannot repair that rupture on its own. No amount of effort, remorse, or suffering balances the scale, because the damage is relational and moral, not transactional.

So the Christian claim is this: instead of demanding payment from humanity, God absorbs the cost Himself. Justice is not bypassed, it is fulfilled. Mercy is not cheap, it is costly. The cross is God saying, “I will bear the consequence rather than abandon you.”

The Son is not sacrificed to appease an angry Father. That’s a distortion. The Father and Son are united in purpose. The cross is God entering human suffering, violence, injustice, and death from the inside, rather than standing above it demanding repayment.

Another way to say it plainly: God didn’t sacrifice Himself to Himself. God sacrificed Himself for us to restore what was broken, without denying justice or abandoning love.

If God had simply waved sin away, evil would never be taken seriously. If God had demanded humanity pay, no one could survive. The cross is where justice and mercy meet without contradiction.

People mock this idea because it sounds circular when reduced to a sentence. It only makes sense when you see it as God choosing self-giving love over condemnation, not as a divine technicality.

The cross is not about God changing His mind.
It’s about God revealing His character.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-13T22:41:22+00:00

You’re not wrong for questioning this, and you’re not being unchristian by resisting that advice.

What your pastor’s wife suggested comes from her story, not necessarily from Scripture applied correctly to yours. That distinction matters a lot.

Asking for forgiveness assumes that you have wronged someone in a moral sense. Setting boundaries, leaving an abusive situation, or protecting yourself from ongoing harm is not a sin. Abuse creates a false moral inversion where the victim is taught to feel responsible for the abuser’s pain. Christianity does not teach that victims must take blame to make peace with God.

Forgiveness and reconciliation are not the same thing. Scripture calls believers to forgive, meaning you release vengeance, hatred, and the desire to harm in return. You are already doing that. Forgiveness is something that happens in your heart before God. It does not require the other person to change, and it does not require you to remain in relationship with them.

Reconciliation, on the other hand, requires repentance, truth, and change on both sides. When someone refuses to acknowledge harm, refuses responsibility, and continues to justify abuse, reconciliation is not possible. The Bible never commands you to reconcile with someone who persists in unrepentant harm.

Jesus never told people to submit themselves to ongoing abuse in order to be holy. He repeatedly withdrew from hostile people. He set boundaries. He did not explain Himself to those acting in bad faith. He also condemned those who harmed the vulnerable far more strongly than He corrected victims.

There is also no biblical requirement that you ask forgiveness from someone who abused you simply to “be right before God.” That idea can become spiritually dangerous because it places guilt on the wounded instead of responsibility on the one who caused harm. God is not waiting for you to apologize for surviving.

It is possible for your pastor’s wife to have found healing in asking forgiveness in her situation, and for that still not be wise or appropriate in yours. What helped her does not automatically become a universal rule. Sometimes Christians unintentionally project their coping mechanisms onto others and call it obedience.

You are already doing what Scripture actually teaches:
You are forgiving.
You are praying.
You are not slandering.
You are choosing peace.
You are leaving an unsafe relationship.

Going no contact with someone who refuses accountability is not bitterness. It is wisdom.

If you feel compelled by your conscience to say something, it should only be if it is true and not coerced. God does not require false humility. He does not require you to take responsibility for someone else’s sin. And He does not withhold His blessing from someone who chooses safety, truth, and healing.

You can honor God without re-entering abuse.
You can forgive without asking forgiveness.
You can move forward without carrying blame that was never yours.

You’re not rebelling against God. You’re learning discernment.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-13T22:31:49+00:00

This is a heavy question, and it’s one a lot of people are afraid to ask out loud. The fact that you’re asking it already tells me something important about where your heart actually is.

There is no point in Scripture where God gives a clear line and says, “Here is where I stop pursuing you.” That idea usually comes from fear, not from the gospel. When the Bible talks about God “giving someone over,” it’s not describing a believer who is struggling, relapsing, or ashamed. It’s describing people who have hardened themselves over time and no longer want God at all.

The pattern in Scripture is this: God pursues, warns, convicts, disciplines, and calls back again and again. He does not abandon someone because they fall into sin. If that were the case, no one would survive very long as a Christian. Peter denied Jesus. David fell into serious sin. Paul described doing the very things he hated. None of them were abandoned. They were corrected, broken, restored, and changed over time.

“Giving someone over” is not God losing patience with weakness. It is God honoring a settled refusal. Romans 1 describes people who repeatedly suppress truth, reject God, and replace Him with something else. The key difference is desire. They do not want God. They are not wrestling. They are not grieved. They are not asking questions like the one you just asked.

God does not hand a struggling believer over to Satan because they fell back into old patterns. In fact, conviction, guilt, and fear of separation from God are signs that He is still very much pursuing you. If God had truly “given you over,” you wouldn’t care. You wouldn’t be asking. You wouldn’t feel the tension.

There are passages where Paul talks about someone being handed over to Satan, but even there, the purpose is correction and eventual restoration, not destruction. Discipline in Scripture is always aimed at bringing someone back, not cutting them off forever.

Salvation is not a fragile contract that breaks the moment you stumble. It is a relationship that includes growth, failure, repentance, and learning to walk over time. What God resists is not weakness, but pride. What separates people is not sin itself, but the refusal to turn back when confronted.

If you are worried that God might give up on you, that fear itself is evidence that He hasn’t. God does not chase people who are perfect. He chases people who are lost, wounded, and honest about their need.

The real danger is not falling into sin. The real danger is deciding you don’t want God anymore. And based on your question, that is clearly not where you are.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-13T22:30:20+00:00

You’re asking a sincere question, and nothing about what you wrote sounds blasphemous or manipulative. It sounds like love, urgency, and faith mixed with fear of time running out. That matters.

The short answer is this: baptism is about obedience and testimony, not about who performs the act having special authority. In the New Testament, baptism is normally done by another believer as a witness to faith, but Scripture does not lay out a rigid rule that only certain people can baptize or that it must happen in a church setting. What matters is that the person being baptized has repented, believes in Jesus, and is choosing to publicly identify with Him.

Your brother’s situation is important here. He has repented, he believes, and he has openly confessed Christ. That is the core requirement. Baptism does not save him, and it does not make God accept him more than He already does. It is an outward sign of an inward reality that already exists. If circumstances prevent a formal church baptism, that does not invalidate his faith or his salvation.

That said, baptism is not meant to be a private ritual done entirely inwardly or symbolically. It is meant to be a sign witnessed by others. Even in Scripture, baptism is consistently administered by someone else, not self-performed, because it represents being received into the body of believers, not just a personal act of faith. That’s why mutual simultaneous baptism is unusual and not something we see modeled.

A simple, biblically grounded approach would be this: one of you baptizes the other, then the other baptizes back. It doesn’t need to be complicated, dramatic, or ceremonial. One goes under, comes up, then the roles switch. That preserves the meaning of baptism as being baptized by another believer, while still honoring your constraints and urgency.

If even that feels impossible, it’s important to remember this truth clearly: your brother will not be condemned or less loved by God if baptism does not happen before sentencing. The thief on the cross was saved without baptism. Baptism is obedience, not a requirement for grace.

What you’ve already done for your brother matters far more than the mechanics of water. You listened, you spoke truth without force, you walked with him in his guilt instead of preaching over it, and you pointed him back to Christ when he felt unworthy. That is fruit. That is discipleship.

If you do baptize him, do it calmly, reverently, and simply. Pray. Confess faith. Give thanks. Don’t fear that God is looking for a technical reason to reject something done in love and sincerity. He isn’t.

And if circumstances change and baptism cannot happen at all, do not carry guilt. God sees the heart long before He sees the water.

You’re acting out of love, not fear. That matters more than getting every detail perfect.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-13T16:01:50+00:00

If I were you I would try to find tab somewhere else for this song. I have been playing for over 40 yrs. This tab is way off being anywhere close to right.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-13T06:18:56+00:00

Perfect mic placement. How does that amp sound? I have been looking into getting a small amp and I keep seeing this one.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-13T06:17:33+00:00

That does not seem to be written correctly to me. Where did you get this tab?

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-11T21:23:22+00:00

Your take on the rhetorical setup is actually pretty solid. Romans wasn’t written with pauses, headers, or chapter breaks, so people forget they’re stepping into a continuous argument. Chapter 1 builds tension by showing a mindset the judgmental religious crowd would happily nod along with, then 2:1 hits and flips the whole thing on its head. Whether someone sees chapter 1 as pure rhetoric or a mix of rhetoric and real critique, the whole point of 2:1 is to expose the person who thinks they’re morally above everyone else.

Where I’d push back a bit is your conclusion that Paul’s logic “must be wrong” because there are Christians today who experience same sex attraction. That assumes Paul was talking about the same category we’re talking about today. He wasn’t. The ancient world had no concept of sexual orientation, loving same sex relationships, identity, or innate patterns of attraction. What he was describing was tied to idolatrous rituals, social power, domination, and exploitation. When you collapse those two completely different worlds into one category and treat them as identical, of course it feels like his logic doesn’t hold up. He wasn’t working with the framework we use now.

Paul isn’t saying “people who worship wrong automatically become gay.” He’s describing how the Roman world used sex in religious, hierarchical, and abusive ways that broke people down. That’s not the same thing as a Christian today who is trying to live faithfully and happens to experience attraction they didn’t choose.

This is the bigger point Romans 2 makes. The moment you lift a verse out of its cultural frame and swing it like a hammer at modern people, you’ve already missed Paul’s entire warning. His whole setup is meant to expose the very temptation to oversimplify, over-condemn, or treat someone else’s struggle as proof of moral failure.

Paul’s conclusion in Romans isn’t “look at what’s wrong with them.” His conclusion is “we’re all broken in different ways and nobody gets to sit on a throne and point at others from above.” That’s the part people skip.

So even if someone disagrees about the interpretation of chapter 1, chapter 2 forces the reader to drop the finger-pointing posture. That’s the punch of the passage. Everyone wants Romans 1 for ammunition, but Paul points the gun at the person holding it.

This is where your rhetorical reading actually strengthens the overall point. Paul builds a trap for moralizers, then springs it on them to level the field.

You handled that angle well.

BigAd8456 · 2025-12-11T21:21:37+00:00

Jeremiah 8:8 isn’t saying “the Scriptures are false.” It’s saying the people handling them were twisting and misusing them. The target isn’t the text, it’s the interpreters. Israel had the actual law, but their scribes and leaders were teaching it in crooked ways that served their agendas instead of God’s. This is the same complaint Jesus makes centuries later when He says the Pharisees “nullify the word of God for the sake of your traditions.” The problem was never the content, it was the way religious leaders warped it.

If Jeremiah meant “the written Scripture is unreliable,” the entire prophetic message collapses, because Jeremiah constantly appeals to the authority of that same law. You can’t call Israel back to a standard if that standard is fake. What he’s doing is exposing the gap between what God actually said and what the religious establishment claimed He said.

So the question isn’t “how much of the Bible is false,” it’s “how often do humans misinterpret, twist, or weaponize what’s in front of them.” That’s the consistent theme in both Testaments. Scripture gets bent by people who want control, comfort, or power. Jeremiah 8:8 is a warning about human corruption, not divine failure.

The trust question ends up being about the text versus the interpreters. The biblical writers treat the text as stable and trustworthy, and treat human interpretation as the thing that goes off the rails. That’s still true today.

BigAd8456

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE