Patricia (Patti) Fox gets baptized, fails post baptism test

Patricia (Patti) Fox went onto Facebook and announced that she had just gotten baptized. She announced that she looked forward to God using her to make Heaven a packed place. 

I jumped on the thread and asked her what she planned to do to help make Heaven a packed place. I posted an image of David versus Goliath, with labels describing Scriptural context of the scene. 

Her response:

"Not my plans, but His. Hence "used by God". What a weird question and image."- Patti Fox

In the Gospels, Jesus clearly spells out how God could use us to "make Heaven a packed place." Both the Old Testament and the New Testament detail how people could "enter the Kingdom." 

One theme that keeps repeating throughout the Bible is the need to learn and do the commandments, and to teach others to learn and do the commandments. The latter being encouraged to also teach others to learn and do the commandments.

My response: 

In Genesis 2, God is described as breathing the breath of life into Man. This is not exhale, as we exhale, as God is spirit. One of the ancient words describing breath is "spiritus." God infused his spirit into humanity. 

Why? 

In the previous chapter, Genesis 1, God is described as doing work. He first creates light, then separates it from darkness. Light, in the beginning, is symbolic of God's definition of what is right, which he separated from darkness (sin, death, doing what is right in our eyes at the expense of what is right in God's). God subsequently works during the day and rests at night... Guided by what is right. 

Towards the end, humanity is created, and then the great commission... Genesis 1:28-30. The command to be fertile, to multiply, and to subdue the earth is not a command to have children and to increase our population. To be fertile is to be productive. To multiply is to be productive to create abundance. To subdue the earth is to render service to humanity via productivity and the abundance it creates. 

God ordered humanity to use our God given talents to be of service to humanity. This is God's intent and use for us. The following two verses describe two common professions at the time Scripture was written... Plant and animal husbandry. 

Since God is in us (his spirit), service to humanity is service to God. This is how God wants to be worshiped. 

In Genesis 2, Adam (humanity) is told which fruits he is to consume (God's law) and which one he is not to consume, the fruit of knowledge, the forbidden fruit (our interpretation of what is right at the expense of God's interpretation of what is right. 

Both these scenes form God's having us take over from what God started, it also establishes God's relationship with humanity, including God's intent for us. 

Now, Adam and Eve (humanity) decided to reinterpret what was right into something that contradicted what God defined as right (consumption of the forbidden fruit). This begins the interaction between God and humanity, where God consistently works to save humanity from sin. 

Herein comes one of the meanings of baptism. One of the meanings of water in Scripture is "God's wisdom." One of the meanings of its use in baptism is cleaning of sin. This is also done, via action, by abiding by God's commandments (wisdom through action). 

This brings us to the image that I brought up. God told Adam (humanity) that from dust he came to dust he shall return. One of the meanings of dust, in scripture, is humbleness, humility. For God to effectively use us, we must return to dust, or, as Jesus puts it, be as a child, also a symbol of humbleness. 

The story of David and Goliath repeats themes that run from the Old Testament and through the New Testament... God bringing us back to walking the path he laid out.  By being baptized, you've taken action to "return to dust." 

As for "how to make heaven more crowded." 

Jesus told the apostles/disciples, that they are to be a light for the world. He was telling them to abide by God's commandments, to embed those commandments in their actions, for all to see and emulate. It is not just good to know these commandments but not do them (hiding candles in the basket) but to walk the walk as an example to others, as Jesus was doing. 

Christians are being called to evangelize not just through educating others, but also through their actions. It is by getting others to turn from the path laid out through their interpretation of what is right back to what God interprets as being right that "heaven could be more crowded."

The last paragraph was the end of my response, to which I attached another biblical themed image.

Patricia (Patti) Fox essentially made a statement, that God would "use her to help make heaven a crowded place," without understanding how this can happen. Simply leaving it to chance, without understanding Scripture, is like trying to navigate without navigational aids or directions. This mindset also opens the person up to being misled regarding putting Scripture into action.

Her action, to block me, revealed lack of sincerity behind her getting baptized, and her lack of commitment to "being used by God to make Heaven a packed place." 

Daniel Frick, member of a church, violates God's commandments regarding treatment of "outsiders"

In response to my question, to Patricia (Patti) Fox, Daniel Frick posted a gif image showing in actors' facial expression that expressed confusion and "WTF." He provided no commentary. 

A real Christian, abiding by God's laws, would have attempted to understand what I was saying, if to even help Patti understand my question. Throughout Scripture, the prophets, later Jesus and the apostles, called on people to extend equal treatment towards others regardless of their favorability, familiarity, etc.

During our lives, Jesus would not show up wearing the most impressive imperial garments, nor would he show up to people wearing the most impressive warrior armaments while leading an army of angels. Revelation paints an image of him doing this, but it is presented metaphorically.

Instead, Jesus would show up via an outsider, via someone in "humble" condition, as an outcast, as an outsider, as a "society reject," someone that is avoided, etc.

For example:

"Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of the least brothers of mine, you did for me." -- Matthew 25:40

To better draw out his intent, I responded to him right after I responded to Patricia Fox.

My response:

My post, statement and meme, were intended to test Patti's, and by extension your, understanding of scripture. Is that the kind of response I would expect from your congregation when asking a question related to God's intent, as well as show an image related to scripture? 

I've read the entire Bible, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, more than once. I like to talk about Scripture and see where members of churches stand with their understanding of Scripture. After all, what use is going to church if there is a disconnect between action and God's word? How can one truly understand what God's intent for them is, for even throughout scripture, people were described as thinking that they were worshiping God, and doing his will, when in fact they were marching to the drumbeat of other deities?

So, I'm interested in your understanding of Scripture. In Luke 19:1-10, we have the story of a tax collector, Zacchaeus, who wanted to see Jesus. He climbed a sycamore tree to see Jesus, as he was short and couldn't see over the others. Jesus calls him down. Zacchaeus comes down, then declares that he would give to the poor, and that he would pay those he extorted 4 times what he took from them. 

What is your interpretation of this passage? 

The question marked the end of my response to him. How he would have responded to me would have demonstrated whether he was just "being a Christian" for social media and photo optics purposes, or if he was truly a Christian.

Patricia (Patti) Fox blocked me right after I responded to Frick and to her. I never saw what kind of response Daniel Frick gave, if he responded. 

When old man lack wisdom

I posted an article on This Ain't Hell/Valor Guardians. The article featured commentary made in the linked article regarding the overestimation of Russian strength. The author argued that we should supply the Ukrainians with what they needed to keep fighting the Russians.

One commenter, aGrim, posted a comment essentially accusing me of beating the war drums or encouraging war. Nowhere in my post, nor in the linked article, was information provided that would lead anybody to conclude that war was being encouraged. The theme of both my article, and the article that I linked to, was the continued support for Ukraine in terms of providing ammunition and other military equipment needed to push the Russian invaders out.

I responded to aGrim, calling him out for impugning me and for accusing me of doing things that a critical thinker would not have done had the read my article based on what I actually said. What most of the community did not understand is that aGrim and I had debated the issue of Russia invading Ukraine, and Ukraine's response, on other threads. This appeared to be a desperate attempt on his part to get me to stop posting about Ukraine related topics.

In response, other commenters jumped in and essentially simped for aGrim. They argued that perhaps it was the way I worded my article, that led people to their erroneous conclusions. They also claimed that I invited comment, then insulted those who did comment. They attempted to shift the blame instead of acknowledging their own shortcomings. 

My responses accurately called them out for what they were doing. This appeared to be the origin of their accusation of my "insulting" those who responded after "inviting them" to respond.  The mere existence of the comments section was my "actively inviting comments." Hypocritically, they ignored the fact that the comment response availability could be used to claim that they were inviting rebuttals, then getting mad at those who provided the rebuttals. 

One of the things that was supposed to have been "insulting":

Either aGrim failed to understand what I was saying, or he deliberately advanced a strawman argument knowing that he was making false accusations. Either way, he did not respond to my counter rebuttal. He did respond to the other posters on the same thread.  This is uncharacteristic of aGrim given the fact that he is one of those posters that do not know that they have lost the argument, and thus has the tendency to keep arguing.

Thus, aGrim's not responding to me indicated that my rebuttal was so on point; he knew better than to persist with his false claims. However, commenters Prior Service, SFC D, timactual, and Hate-me, jumped in and went in simp mode, insisting that it was the way I put the article together vice the failure of reading comprehension on their part.

Incidentally, this is how another commenter, commissar, accused the site of being a "cult." On other threads, commissar accused the entire site of being a "cult." When it came to the individuals addressed on this post, that accusation turned out to be accurate. Their arguments simply contradicted the facts, and like NPCs in a video game, they parroted each other's arguments at the expense of being objective. 

Mark Hutchins demonstrates lack of understanding of military information gathering

Mark Hutchins: Front lines do not get full intelligence, 

We are talking about the war in Ukraine. When it comes to kinetic action, and combat operations, those in the front lines are going to have a more detailed outlook on what is going on in the combat theater than someone who is higher up in rank and sitting back in the rear.

In the case of your "retired naval intelligence officer", he is far removed from what is going on with regards to boots on the ground. He is going to get selected information that is relevant to his duties. Naval intelligence focuses more on naval activities, we are talking about Army related areas. In most instances, an Army intelligence officer would have more privy to what is going on with regards to boots on the ground than the Naval intelligence officer.

Mark Hutchins: man you are out there, 

Sorry, you're the one who is taking, at face value, claims from someone who claimed to be a "retired naval intelligence officer." Do you not realize that there are Russian nationals pretending to be Americans, and adding specific credentials to their persona, to cause people like you to fall hook, line, and sinker for their propaganda? The video that you showed was in no way shape or form something I would expect from any intelligence community in the military.

Unlike you, I have relevant professional experience in this specific topic. I followed the war in Ukraine, religiously, since the Russians attempted a full-scale invasion back in February 2022. I have followed that war long enough to see and detect habits, behaviors, tactics, that the Russians will employ given specific actions. Enough of this information is available via people uploading videos straight from the front lines for you to see that you are being hoodwinked.

It is you that is way out there. You, having no experience with this topic, having apparently not searched for those videos on the Internet that would have told you what was actually going on, have no real credentials in this argument. All you are doing is running off with an opinion that you are emotionally vested in, powered only by your ego to keep pressing the argument.

Mark Hutchins: when on front lines in Iraq were you aware there were no weapons of mass destruction? 

There were Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq; thus you are incorrect regarding WMD in Iraq. Weapons of Mass Destruction consist of biological, chemical, and radiological agents. Sarin, mustard, and blister agents were found in Iraq post invasion, and were used against coalition forces, and against Iraqi security forces, throughout the Iraq War. They are chemical agents; hence, they are WMD. WMD was found in Iraq. A couple of Iraqi security men in my AO got injured by blister laced IEDs right before I went on R&R leave. 

Understand that the way the media handled evidence of WMD in the 2000s is EXACTLY how they treated evidence of election fraud in the aftermath of the 2020 elections. Also, the New York Times, of all places, published an article of when US forces uncovered buried weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Mark Hutchins falls for bio lab conspiracy

Mark Hutchins: Did you know of bio labs ? 

The reports of bio labs in Ukraine, where the US was allegedly creating new bio warfare weapons, are nothing but propaganda. In the aftermath of the disintegration of the USSR, Ukraine had Soviet biological laboratory research centers. The United States entered an agreement with Ukraine to assist the Ukrainians with containing and managing what was in these labs. The United States was not conducting biowarfare research in these labs.

Why would we be doing that? Effective 2014, Ukraine faced the risk of being completely invaded by the Russians. So, even if this nonsense theory was correct, it would not have been the case in the immediate aftermath of Russia taking Crimea in 2014. However, that theory was never correct.

One of the conspiracy whack jobs posted a part of an agreement regarding bio labs between United States and Ukraine. The conspiracy whack job claimed it was an agreement for the United States to engage in biowarfare research, or to support it. However, when I pulled up the document, it described what I just mentioned above. Nothing nefarious, no conspiracy, nothing like what the Russian propagandists have claimed regarding of "evidence."

Mark Hutchins: No you were not privy I'm sorry, 

This is incorrect. A lot of what the conspiracy whack jobs have said about Ukraine is arguably wrong. The two main people that I've seen advance the biological warfare laboratory nonsense are either Russian trolls or Western conspiracy whack jobs. Both groups rely on each other for strength and reach. Enough information exists online to prove these whack jobs incorrect regarding Ukraine bio research labs.

The only thing you should be sorry for is the fact that this information is something that you are privy to, via your access to the Internet. Yet, you choose to believe the nonsense people have fed you.

Mark Hutchins: when they roll out war plans they seek the intelligence not the front line, 

This is incorrect. When you roll out the war plans, you are rolling out something that is already out of date. New information is required and is obtained via multiple methods. Yes, what is going on in the front lines is key. You need what is going on with the front lines, or potential frontlines, before you send combat troops into the area.

Mark Hutchins: you have mistaken the knowledge needed to create planning offensive and defensive, 

Again, you are incorrect. My argument is based on firsthand experiences related to the topic that you and I have argued. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It is painfully obvious that you have absolutely no military experience under your belt. You, not having that experience, are trying to lecture somebody who does have that experience and who is trying to correct you by informing you of what really happens. I told you what kind of knowledge is needed to create planning for offensive and defensive. Without information straight from the front lines, whatever plans you come up with are futile, incomplete, and do a disservice to those who must carry out the operations.

Mark Hutchins: how do seals know what to expect? Intelligence, 

Intelligence straight from the front lines, what you claim is not needed. Your "recently retired naval officer" was more than likely a desk jockey relying on open-source information in addition to Navy related information that he may have been privy to. This is assuming that this individual is who he claims to be, and is not a Russian troll. 

Mark Hutchins: sorry my friend, you are way off base and ilinformed

Again you, having no military experience under your belt, or having a lack of military deployment experience if you did serve, are trying to tell someone who not only has military experience but also has deployment experience where intelligence and carrying out plans are involved, that he is "way off base" and "ill informed."

Your narcissism is such that you do not see what you are doing here. You, having no experience, yet you told someone with experience in the debate topic that he is "incorrect" in response to your being told how things work in the real military.

Mark Hutchins would rather believe an internet stranger than an actual veteran

 

Mark Hutchins: Thank you for your service, what I find I have reviewed by retired recently naval intelligence officer who has had privy to what is generally not out for all

A recently retired naval intelligence officer is no longer going to be privy to sensitive, classified information that the rest of us would not be privy to. Access to classified material is on a need-to-know basis only. Whatever information he obtained that he was privy to, based on his need to know, you and others were not privy to based on a lack of clearance and on a lack of need to know.

Meaning, if this "recently retired naval intelligence officer" is divulging information that nobody else is privy to, due to a lack of classification and to a lack of a need to know, then that "recently retired naval intelligence officer" is violating classified material information handling procedures.

However, given the inconsistency between the video you referenced, and what I have seen for a fact is reality when it comes to the war in Ukraine, I highly doubt that the individual is who you claim he is, or who he wants you to think he is.

Unless that Naval officer is a SEAL, or someone who served on the front lines, you're going to get a desk jockey's interpretation of what is going on. We are talking about boots on the ground infantry maneuvers. I'm more qualified to talk about this than he is as we're dealing with infantry tactics. More than enough information has been uploaded to social media that the information that comes out on the news is old, stale, and sometimes misses the mark.

Mark Hutchins: Remember all signed the Minsk agreement except Ukraine, that's why we are here today, 

We are here today not because of the actions of the Ukrainians, but because of what the Russians did. The Russians sent their own military, under the auspices of being civilians, into the Donetsk and Luhansk areas, and they fabricated a false breakaway movement. The Russians were butthurt over the fact that the Ukrainians wanted to couple with the west rather than be influenced by the Russians. 

The Russians have an imperialistic mindset, and many of their oligarchs have not only consolidated the wealth in Russia, but they are also attempting to rob Ukraine of its wealth... The Russian occupied areas are industrial rich areas.

Mark Hutchins: there's alot that goes deeper

Yes, there is a lot that goes deeper, and unfortunately for both you, and for the "recently retired naval intelligence officer" have no access to "the deeper" aspect of this. What that individual did was cherry pick information, and then created a narrative based on that cherry picked information. He shows images from Ukraine where there are no signs of battle damage, and then follows that up with images from Israel showing battle damage. He draws a conclusion from that.

That is not what one would call an intelligence briefing. That is propaganda. If you want to dig deep, you must go outside Western media sources and see what the actual Russians and Ukrainians are saying. The Russians themselves, who opposed this war, accurately detailed why the Russians invaded. It had nothing to do with NATO, and nothing to do with "NAZIs." It had everything to do with Russian oligarchs wanting to expand their cash inflows.