The Religion of Blinding Bluster

[Jenkins]

I don't know why they did those things. I suspect there were a lot of reasons, not the least of which was a genetic drive to dominate their fellow humans by the force of violence and viciousness. A genetic drive that exists in some people, even today.

Why is it a mystery? They did it because the Vatican is Satanic Filth. In fact, even to this day the Vatican maintains its Office of Inquisition.

 

[Right Divider]

When you say "Jesus said (in RED words) that He came only to the lost sheep of house of Israel" and "Trying to limit [the Bible] to SOME of the words that He spoke while in the flesh," it's not hard to see the red words don't seem to carry the same weight with you, or maybe even applicable to you.

When Jesus said that He came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel... that means something.

Do they have the same value to you?

When Jesus said that He came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, I take that seriously... as I should.

Apply to you?

Many things that Jesus said apply only to His people, Israel. The Bible says just that and in RED letters.

If they do, then I'm not sure why you're pursuing this. You're not arguing against my initial comment that people rarely read the red letter words, you're arguing about the significance of the red letter words.

Many people fixate on the red letters without understanding the context of Jesus' mission at the time that the red letters were "spoken".

 

[Hoping]

When we see Him then we shall be like Him.

1 John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Yep.
I will be like Him when I see Him...and I will have been like Him since my conversion.

 

[Hoping]

You need to do a study on the Hebrew concept of ga'al. It blows the "in Him" misconception out of the water. We didn't pay for our own sins by being "in Jesus" on the cross. Jesus died a substitutioary death according to the law of kinship expressed in the Hebrew laws concerning the ability of the closest relative of someone who had to sell his children, himself, his land, etc... to pay his debts to ransom them from slavery. The entire gospel is built around this for it is the legal reasoning behind the plan of salvation.

The idea is found throughout both testaments. Jesus' disciples talked about how they believed that Jesus was the one to ransom Isreal in Luke 24:13 as the Greek translated as redeem means to ransom. Paul uses the same terminology as well as all the gospel writers and all of the OT authors who spoke about the messiah to come. In fact the word ga'al is translated as Redeemer 18 times in the OT and every one is in reference to the messiah to come.

You are right about not paying for our own sins, as Jesus came to do that.
But that doesn't negate the truth that the wages of sin is death. (Rom 6:23)
Our death occurs at our "immersion" into Jesus and into His death and burial...from whence we are raised with Christ to walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:3-7)
As Paul wrote in 1 Tim 5:24..."Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after."
My sins were opened beforehand, and the judgement was death.
Thanks be to God for rebirth.

 

[marke]

Yep.
I will be like Him when I see Him...and I will have been like Him since my conversion.

Your flesh is not like Jesus, but if you walk in the Spirit you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh after you are saved.

Galatians 5:16
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

 

[PureX]

Of course I can. God gave us a book.

Belief is not truth.

 

[PureX]

If none of us is "ever going to be righteous", then Jesus suffered and died for nothing.
We could have all just been Jewish Law keepers, falling short over and over again.
Thankfully, though, He provided us a way to "be in Him", thereby making all who are "in Him" righteous.

Jesus didn't come to make us righteous. He came to show us how to transcend our unrighteousness.

 

[PureX]

Sure we can.

Did Christ rise from the dead? If no, then the faith of Christians is vain, vanity.

Only if all they believed in was that he rose from the dead. Which wasn't much of a "faith" to begin with. By the way, Jesus rose from the dead in the story, not "Christ". Christ refers to a state of being, not to the person that achieved it.

But if Christ did rise from the dead, then Christianity is true, and all other religions are false, including yours.

That's a very childish requirement you have, there. And since God transcends all men's understanding, and all of man's religions, it would be foolish to presume any one of them is "true". That's not even what religions are about.

 

[PureX]

If you don't know whether a baby experiences pain during slice and dice abortions then you should not support abortion until you find out.

That's a very good argument, but it's only an argument based on our ignorance. Which does not give it the weight necessary for you to impose your conclusions on everyone else. Also, we have the benefit of anesthesia, now, so the issue of suffering is not pertinent.

 

[PureX]

Why is it a mystery? They did it because the Vatican is Satanic Filth. In fact, even to this day the Vatican maintains its Office of Inquisition.

The inclination to do evil exists in all of us. And in all expressions of politics, commerce, and religiosity. And I think it's important to try and recognize how this occurs.

 

[annabenedetti]

That's a very good argument, but it's only an argument based on our ignorance. Which does not give it the weight necessary for you to impose your conclusions on everyone else. Also, we have the benefit of anesthesia, now, so the issue of suffering is not pertinent.

Am I understanding you correctly? You're saying that we have the benefit of anesthesia for the baby being aborted?

 

[PureX]

It's a baby, PureX. I started feeling my babies move between 4-5 months. I don't ascribe ill intent to you, but calling it a fetus (when no expectant parents said ever "we're having a fetus!") distances one from the idea that a human baby is being aborted. No one should ever lose sight of that.

I agree that 5 months is probably too late. In fact, that has been the cut-off for a legal abortion for many decades (20-22 weeks). But keep in mind that an ability to move in the womb does not necessarily indicate the presence of all the factors needed to define a human being. And that most of us are going to disagree on exactly what those factors are.

All the more reason why no one should be dictating to anyone else how to deal with a pregnancy in those early stages. Also keep in mind that that absolute righteousness crowd is willing to lie, cheat, and steal to force their beliefs on everyone else.

 

[ok doser]

That's a very good argument, but it's only an argument based on our ignorance. Which does not give it the weight necessary for you to impose your conclusions on everyone else. Also, we have the benefit of anesthesia, now, so the issue of suffering is not pertinent.

So you are willing to approve of the ending of a human life as long as there is no suffering? Why not propose anesthetizing and euthanizing the mentally handicapped or the elderly or other human lives that you might find inconvenient?

 

[ok doser]

... factors needed to define a human being.

More semantics in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting that what you're discussing is a human life, and the deliberate ending of that human life.

 

[PureX]

Am I understanding you correctly? You're saying that we have the benefit of anesthesia for the baby being aborted?

Yes. The same way fetuses get "high" when their mothers get "high". Something the anti-abortion crowd never mentions.

 

[ok doser]

Yes. The same way fetuses get "high" when their mothers get "high". Something the anti-abortion crowd never mentions.

That's odd

I've often shared my experience of working with neonates who were born addicted

 

[annabenedetti]

I agree that 5 months is probably too late. In fact, that has been the cut-off for a legal abortion for many decades (20-22 weeks). But keep in mind that an ability to move in the womb does not necessarily indicate the presence of all the factors needed to define a human being. And that most of us are going to disagree on exactly what those factors are.

All the more reason why no one should be dictating to anyone else how to deal with a pregnancy in those early stages. Also keep in mind that that absolute righteousness crowd is willing to lie, cheat, and steal to force their beliefs on everyone else.

How do you define a human being?

 

[marke]

That's a very good argument, but it's only an argument based on our ignorance. Which does not give it the weight necessary for you to impose your conclusions on everyone else. Also, we have the benefit of anesthesia, now, so the issue of suffering is not pertinent.

That's a very good argument, but it's only an argument based on our ignorance. Which does not give it the weight necessary for you to impose your conclusions on everyone else. Also, we have the benefit of anesthesia, now, so the issue of suffering is not pertinent.

There is something disturbingly wrong with the argument that killing babies is OK if you make sure they do not experience pain. Should that also hold true about other family members or hold true if other family members want to kill you in some painless way?

 

[PureX]

How do you define a human being?

I would say that cognizant autonomy is a very important factor. And I don't know when that occurs in humans. Maybe not even until after we're born.

 

[ok doser]

I would say that cognizant autonomy is a very important factor. And I don't know when that occurs in humans. Maybe not even until after we're born.

So you WOULD be comfortable with murdering an inconvenient handicapped person, or an Alzheimer patient.