The Religious Right was just presented the opportunity to have everything they ever claimed to want– and yet they rejected it.
As the initial dust begins to settle from the 3rd impeachment in U.S history, the biggest story isn’t that the Religious Right re-embraced Donald Trump… the bigger story why the Religious Right fought hard to reject giving the presidency to Mike Pence.
When decrying the possibility that Donald Trump could be removed from office, they spoke of how it would “overturn the will of the people” as if removing Trump from office would mean replacing him with a liberal Democrat, when it’s the extreme opposite that’s true.
The overlooked angle of the impeachment of Donald Trump is the fact that the Religious Right had total power to swear Mike Pence in as President yesterday— and Mike Pence is everything the Religious Right has always claimed they want in a president.
In addition to all of the usual conservative bonafides, Mike Pence has the extra membership cards that Trump only pretends to have:
Unlike Trump, Mike Pence is a no-kidding legit Evangelical Christian.
Unlike Trump, Mike Pence is a person of deep conviction and devotion to his faith.
For those on the Religious Right, Pence literally has every box checked that a politically and religiously conservative individual would ever want in a president. Even as someone who radically disagrees with the entire administration, including Pence, I have no doubt that Mike Pence is a devoted Christian and person of deep and authentic principle.
Not only did the Right pass up someone who would be a conservative Christian’s dream president, they passed up the opportunity to get him by way of doing their two most favorite things in the world: Professing their own moral superiority and condemning the sins of others.
The Religious Right had the opportunity of a lifetime: They could have stood up and pronounced messages such as, “Character counts, no one is above the law, Trump’s gross immorality is a disqualification from the presidency…” or what would have been the most compelling message of, “Hey look at us– we are the people so devoted to principle that we removed our own president from office.”
(I’ve seen them do this in churches a thousand times.)
Yes, they could have taken a bold stand for principles in a way that would have made them look like they really believed it, and as a reward they could have immediately handed the presidency to a man who fits the bill for every single quality they have ever professed to want.
But they didn’t. (Cue “Didn’t We Almost Have It All”)
The big question is, why?
Well, the answer to that is quite simple: They know that Trump is a man who does not have a real moral anchor and who does not have unwavering devotion to guiding ethics he will not budge from– and they know that Mike Pence is the exact opposite.
It’s like Franklin Graham’s daddy said years ago:
“It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it.” – Billy Graham
And this my friends is why the Religious and Conservative Right just rejected the chance to have a President Mike Pence:
It’s because a person without conviction can be used and manipulated– and for as much as the Religious Right is a manipulated pawn of Donald Trump, Donald Trump is also a manipulated pawn of the Religious Right.
As for a person of authentic conviction and deep devotion to faith and principle?
Well, as Mitt Romney demonstrated yesterday, a person of deep moral principle and devotion to faith is actually far more unpredictable and difficult to manipulate and control than a man who has no devotion to anything other than his own self interest.
Yes, America, if the Religious Right truly believed what they’ve been saying all these years, they almost had it all… feelings of moral superiority, long romantic walks on the beach, candlelit dinners, President Mike Pence…
But instead, they have simply proven Billy Graham’s concern:
The Right has no real interest in anyone they might not be able to control or manipulate— meaning Donald Trump was a far safer bet than Mike Pence.
(And if you don’t believe me, just sit back and watch how they devour Mitt Romney for sticking with his sincere and deeply held religious convictions.)
341 Responses
Just wish to say your article is as surprising The clearness in your post is just cool and i could assume youre an expert on this subject Fine with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to keep updated with forthcoming post Thanks a million and please keep up the enjoyable work 안전놀이터
Your blog is a안전놀이터 constant source of inspiration for me. Your passion for your subject matter shines through in every post, and it’s clear that you genuinely care about making a positive impact on your readers.
Fantastic site A lot of helpful info here Im sending it to some buddies ans additionally sharing in delicious And naturally thanks on your sweat
I loved as much as you will receive carried out right here The sketch is tasteful your authored subject matter stylish nonetheless you command get got an edginess over that you wish be delivering the following unwell unquestionably come further formerly again as exactly the same nearly very often inside case you shield this hike
✔️꽁타✔️ggongta.com,꽁머니 커뮤니티,꽁머니이벤트 꽁토토 Fantastic site Lots of helpful information here I am sending it to some friends ans additionally sharing in delicious And of course thanks for your effort
hiI like your writing so much share we be in contact more approximately your article on AOL I need a specialist in this area to resolve my problem Maybe that is you Looking ahead to see you
child porn
Thank you for the auspicious writeup It in fact was a amusement account it Look advanced to far added agreeable from you However how can we communicate
I do believe all the ideas youve presented for your post They are really convincing and will certainly work Nonetheless the posts are too short for novices May just you please lengthen them a little from subsequent time Thanks for the post
Hi i think that i saw you visited my web site thus i came to Return the favore Im attempting to find things to enhance my siteI suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas
I’m a fresh fan of this primo website serving up choice content. The creative owner clearly has got the magic touch keeping visitors plugged in. I’m jazzed to be aboard and looking forward to more dynamite content!
Nice post. I learn something totally new and challenging on websites
Thank you for the auspicious writeup It in fact was a amusement account it Look advanced to more added agreeable from you By the way how could we communicate
you are in reality a good webmaster The website loading velocity is amazing It sort of feels that youre doing any distinctive trick Also The contents are masterwork you have done a fantastic job in this topic
My brother suggested I might like this blog He was totally right This post actually made my day You can not imagine simply how much time I had spent for this info Thanks
you are in reality a good webmaster The website loading velocity is amazing It sort of feels that youre doing any distinctive trick Also The contents are masterwork you have done a fantastic job in this topic
Simply desire to say your article is as surprising The clearness in your post is simply excellent and i could assume you are an expert on this subject Fine with your permission let me to grab your feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post Thanks a million and please carry on the gratifying work
I appreciate your website, however I think you might check the spelling of a few of your postings. Even though I find it quite difficult to tell the truth because so many of them have spelling errors, I will most certainly return.
I don’t know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was excellent. I have no idea who you are, but you will become a well-known blogger very soon if you aren’t already. Salutations.
My brother recommended I might like this web site He was totally right This post actually made my day You cannt imagine just how much time I had spent for this information Thanks
Hello i think that i saw you visited my weblog so i came to Return the favore Im trying to find things to improve my web siteI suppose its ok to use some of your ideas
obviously like your website but you need to test the spelling on quite a few of your posts Several of them are rife with spelling problems and I to find it very troublesome to inform the reality on the other hand Ill certainly come back again
The amount of effort that you put into it was very impressive to observe. However, despite the fact that the layout is appealing and the wording is elegant, it appears that you are having difficulty with it. It is my opinion that you should make an effort to send the subsequent article. In the event that you do not safeguard this hike, I will most certainly return for more of the same.
Thank you for the auspicious writeup It in fact was a amusement account it Look advanced to more added agreeable from you By the way how could we communicate
I loved even more than you will get done right here. The picture is nice, and your writing is stylish, but you seem to be rushing through it, and I think you should give it again soon. I’ll probably do that again and again if you protect this hike.
Wonderful beat I wish to apprentice while you amend your web site how could i subscribe for a blog web site The account aided me a acceptable deal I had been a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided bright clear idea
It was great seeing how much work you put into it. The picture is nice, and your writing style is stylish, but you seem to be worrying that you should be presenting the next article. I’ll almost certainly be back to read more of your work if you take care of this hike.
What i do not understood is in truth how you are not actually a lot more smartlyliked than you may be now You are very intelligent You realize therefore significantly in the case of this topic produced me individually imagine it from numerous numerous angles Its like men and women dont seem to be fascinated until it is one thing to do with Woman gaga Your own stuffs nice All the time care for it up
I loved even more than you will get done right here. The picture is nice, and your writing is stylish, but you seem to be rushing through it, and I think you should give it again soon. I’ll probably do that again and again if you protect this hike.
I appreciate your fortunate post. It was actually pretty fun. I’m excited to hear from you more. How do we communicate with you?
Magnificent beat I would like to apprentice while you amend your site how can i subscribe for a blog web site The account helped me a acceptable deal I had been a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright clear idea
bahis siteleri
Nice blog here Also your site loads up very fast What host are you using Can I get your affiliate link to your host I wish my site loaded up as quickly as yours lol
I’m often to blogging and i really appreciate your content. The article has actually peaks my interest. I’m going to bookmark your web site and maintain checking for brand spanking new information.
child porn
child porn
http://radio.cancaonova.com/iframe-loader/?t=DatingSingle:NoLongeraMystery-R�dio&ra=&url=https://www.karlmarc.com/2021/05/29/rwfeds/
I really like reading through a post that can make men and women think. Also, thank you for allowing me to comment!
Dad sitting with legs crossed 😂lol nowadays boys are like this and girls are being boys
zK.M6K2U.ME/Y4852g
You missed the best part of this! Under the 22ᴺᴰ Amendment, if a President becomes President without being elected (usually a Vice President ascending to fill a vacancy in the Presidency), and less than two full years remain in the current Presidential term, the < two years do not count as a term served as President! The former Vice President can be elected, not just once, but two more times to four-year terms as President, for a total of up to, not merely eight, but one day shy of ten years!
Since about a year remained in Trump’s presidency at the time of the Senate trial, had he been removed, Pence would’ve been able to serve for a little over a year, and since that was < two full years, it wouldn’t’ve counted as a term, so he would’ve been eligible to run for re-election in 2020 and, if elected, in 2024 as well, and, if elected both times, serve nine years, not just eight!
They could’ve had a bona-fide fundagelical Christian in the White House for nine years! It was almost as if God set this up to happen this way, and yet they didn’t take the opportunity presented to them!
Herm darel • 2 months ago
If you show me where God has claimed the Bible as his word I will learn.
=====================================
“If you show me where God has claimed the Bible as his word I will learn.”
Are you trying to deceive again? God, nowhere in the Scriptures said “the Bible is the word of God”
However, the Bible, the Scriptures, is the word of God. Jesus said:
Luke 24:44-45, “Now He said to them, ‘These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.”
You were schooled by false teachers, unbelievers, and now you spread heresies and false teachings.
Herm darel • 2 months ago
NO, abortion and homosexuality are not morally wrong according to your testimonial Bible or, more refreshingly apropos, the living word of God living with and in my heart, soul, and mind of spirit.
==================================
I’m astonished at your outright contempt for the Scriptures, the Bible, the living word of God.
It is plainly stated in the Scriptures, the Bible, the living word of God, that Homosexuality is morally wrong, a sin against God and against nature, with the punishment of death in the Old Testament, and excluding one from the Kingdom of God in the New Testament. For your correction, Herm:
1. Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
2. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom.”
3. Leviticus 18:22-24 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.”
4. 1 Timothy 1:9-11 “We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”
Herm darel • 2 months ago
Wow, you deny who the Word is:
John 1:1 (NIV2011)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
You deny him as your one Instructor:
===================================
Herm, you are a liar!
Herm, you are brazen liar!
You made ALL of that up. Now, quote me, liar. Provide a quote where I said that the word was not God. Provide a quote where I said that the word was not Jesus.
You are a very dishonest man, Herm.
I guess that I will have to go back and read some of the lying garbage that you have written and call you out.
Lucas darel • 4 hours ago
You cannot refute the property point because the Bible is chock full of people being treated as property, not just unborn babies with no explicit prohibition from God. In fact, God gave specific instructions for the treatment of people as property.
======================
Now, you are calling unborn babies property after denying that several times previously.
Nowhere, nowhere, in the Bible did God say that unborn babies were property.
(5) Show me in the Bible, where God permits a woman to abort, murder her baby, at her discretion.
You have yet to do that. I say you can’t.
to be continued
Lucas darel • 4 days ago • edited
You have acknowledged that thigh probably refers to some aspect of reproduction.
======================
That’s a lie! And you wrote it
You write so much that is wrong, that it will take some time to correct you.
Lucas darel • 5 days ago
The priest gave the pregnant women a beverage that could and did cause the death of the fetus, so clearly sanctity of life was not a concern.
========================
That statement by you reveals your contempt for God.
The adultery test was commanded by God. He creates life and He takes life. The priests did not invent the test. Man was not involved here, unlike wholesale abortion, where man takes a life, and the sanctity of life is not a concern.
You write so much that is wrong, that it will take some time to correct you.
Mr. Corey is arguing that the “religious right” should have urged Republican Senators to remove a sitting President from office because it would result in someone who is a card-carrying member of the religious right gaining the Presidency and also so they can burnish their “we have principles” bona fides.
Think about Mr. Corey’s advice for a minute. This is not how Senators should approach the question of impeachment. The questions should be whether or not the things the President has been accused of are true and do they warrant removal? Whether the Vice President would be a better person to occupy the oval office or whether voting to remove would provide a particular Senator an opportunity to prove his or her character shouldn’t enter into the question. I realize the whole impeachment affair was a highly political gambit from start to finish and there was all sorts of gamesmanship going on, but a Christian should not be giving advice to elected officials based on those motives. Mr. Corey is engaging in worldly thinking.
By the way, can this blog cram any more distracting crap onto the blank spaces around the articles? There are really not enough ads and pop-ups and stuff.
Very well said.
Well said. The President was elected. He does not serve at the whim of the majority in congress. They will live to loathe their political decision to ichmpeah.
We are conflating politics and religion because politics sells.
Well, he does serve at the “whim” of Congress if a majority of the House and a 2/3rds majority of the Senate agree that he’s done something that warrants removal from office. But that’s the question Members of Congress should be asking, not whether removing the President would result in someone more aligned with their views would take over.
Hardly at the whim. Has anybody ever been removed by impeachemnt?
The Justice Department has decided the sentencing guidelines for Roger Stone are too harsh and told the prosecutors to revise them downwards.
Watch all the Liberals and Leftists howl especially after four Prosecutors have just resigned in indignation.
Wait until Trump pardons Stone and we count the heads exploding!
Mitts only regret is his income will be affected. All that’s happening is because the crooks in government have been found out. They gave billions to Iran and more only to get kickbacks. They hate Trump for that reason!
Exactly. Draining a swamp full of alligators is messy as they thrash around.
This is happening all over the globe. Case in point Joe Biden. His son, his brother and himself have slurped up at the trough of corruption. When this is pointed out the Left screams Trump, Trump , Trump.
I believe this is the main reason why Obama failed to endorse Joe: corruption about to be exposed.
And if any of you haters have some type of proof of any investigation, or approval of Joe’s actions let’s see it.
NO money was given to IRAN, in the last 25 years that was not already theirs, none!
Abortion is murder! What don’t you understand about that?! A woman does have the right to choose…..if she doesn’t want children there are ways to prevent pregnancy! Not murder!
I will not strain your overwhelming sense of maternal instinct, necessary for the physical survival of our species, any further than I have to, but abortion is not more murder than sending our healthy adult children into war, for the survival of our way of life. The terrorist drones we employ to remotely kill our enemy is, also, murder. I sympathize with your emotions, especially since I have felt very much the same emotions in mourning the loss of a child, but life is a balance of considerations before we can responsibly choose life or death for ourselves, and ours. If we choose to continue to give up (murdering) our adult children, to protect our way of life at home, then choosing to give up (murdering) our fetus children to protect the mother’s way of life isn’t any different. It is our choice for both, and both should always be tempered in heart and mind with diligent education and counseling.
I do not support abortion as a solution, nor do I war.
I support freedom of choice for all and each of mankind as to how their body (of self and species) is used to support and propagate its own.
I love my body in the image of carnal Man and my body in the image of spirit God. Both are an opportunity I choose not to squander. My body within the body of Man will perish, no matter what I do. My body within the body of God is promised to never die. The measure of good influence, as versus evil influence, from my responsible body of either, is determined by how much, in everything, I choose to do to all others (of Man and God) first, as I would have all others do to me. If my life hinders another, or in sacrifice of furthers another, in their journey to attain an eternal adventurous life of shared love in spirit, then I gladly choose to painfully give it up on the cross I carry. If the child I chose to be born of me chooses to destroy others, even as an adult, I would feel responsible to ending her/his reign of terror, even unto murder. I have three who choose to, in everything, do to others as they would have others do to them. For them I thank God and wish the same for all other parents of Man.
Sorry, I hurt you further, but too often truth hurts! I do, in full empathy, love you!
Did you know that wars are started for financial gain. That’s ending, thanks to Trump
??
I understand the thought behind this post, but I don’t believe the analysis is correct. Yes, Mike Pence could check off all the boxes of being a Christian. And if the religious right wanted a Christian in the White House to begin with, THEY WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR MIKE PENCE. But they didn’t. It’s not like NOBODY KNEW that Trump wasn’t exactly a moral person to begin with. The people who voted for him KNEW THAT HE WAS MORALLY BANKRUPT TO BEGIN WITH, and yet they voted for him anyways. Why? Because Donald Trump promised to actually stand up and fight for the religious right. He promised them that he would not be timid. And unlike the Romneys or the Bushies, who pander to the religious right when running for office, and who, after winning the election, find it too difficult to actually make time for those voters, Trump is actually doing what he said. Indeed, Trump is THE ONLY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT EVER, who was actually able to make the time to attend the annual March for Life. And that speaks volumes to his supporters. And lastly, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that if Trump had been removed from office, the desire of Democrats to impeach would have subsided. It would then just be Mike Pence facing impeachment instead of Donald Trump.
Mike Pence, never once invested in his political career by claiming, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that President Obama was born in Kenya. Mike Pence, never once accused “illegal aliens” seeking asylum of being murdering drug running rapists. Mike Pence, not once, taunted and rallied a mob to chant “lock her up” for no crime, other than what he said was a crime. Mike Pence, never once abused his foundation fund to support himself. Mike Pence, never once tried to con anyone into buying into his legally fraudulent University. Mike Pence, other than quoting Donald Trump, never once intentionally lied or misled over 15 thousand times in the last three years. Mike Pence did not make any attempt to squeeze another sovereign head of state to investigate his potential political rival and to investigate where a company located in Sunnyvale, California hides the DNC server?
No, though I do not agree with Mike Pence’s political beliefs or ability to lead, I can guarantee to you that Mike Pence would not be facing impeachment instead of Donald Trump. Are you a Russian bot? I think I recognize your spirit on Facebook during the 2015 race, even flashing the all mighty dollar as your avatar.
It doesn’t matter that Mike Pence hasn’t actually committed any crimes. Impeachment is a political process. And I’m confident reason would have been found to impeach him if Trump had been removed from office. And to be honest, I really believe that most everyone doesn’t vote in elections based solely upon a morality “checklist” of candidates, but rather vote in a transactional nature. That sometimes, you have to take the good with the bad. In this case, that they may see moral contrasts as black and white, but see voting for a morally compromised figure whose administration pushes back against progressivism as a shade of grey. I also believe it happens across the political spectrum. You vote for the candidate that you best think will accomplish those things that you would like to see done.
Jonathan, the impetus for seeking to remove Donald J Trump from representing the United States of America, was not based on a morality checklist. Donald Trump’s habitual and intentional lying, misrepresenting the truth, bullying, demeaning, intimidating, and manipulating (no where near Mike Pence’s more human penchant for such offenses to a nation, whose Declaration of Independence claims all men (now amended to humans) are created equal with the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) is far more divisive and destructive to our nation, and the world, than a mere difference of morality. The actual legal remedy pursued, impeachment, was founded on a real high crime and misdemeanor that threatens our entire experiment as a Democratic Republic where the good of all is represented.
He did it. He held back funds, without consulting congress which is the law, from an ally at war (time is of the essence) to derive a personal benefit by insanely searching for the DNC server and to get dirt on a potential political opponent. He has shown no transparency so that you even know if he is as independently wealthy as he claims (significant to motive), if he is representing us constructively to the world, if he is plotting with other world autocrats against the wishes of his constituents, if he is doing other crimes against the state, if he is ???, …. Transparency is necessary for the checks and balances for our nation’s survival, by constitutional mandate, so that each co-equal branch have oversight to protect the people and the nation.
Mike Pence is no more a threat to the survival of our nation than was either George Bush. No one even considered impeachment of those Presidents.
We have a President in office who begins by invalidating the entire fourth estate (another check and balance) when they dare to disagree with him. We have a President in office who cleans out all who testify, under oath, to the truth as best they know it, subject to public witness and counter questioning, and will not submit to questioning under oath himself.
Just how much damage can a lying, misrepresenting, concealing the truth, intimidating, manipulating, vindictive, fear mongering, head of state do in 11 more months, without any oversight or remedy?
Just how much potential bad are you willing to trust to this autocratically (only I!) leaning President?
I’m not saying that impeachment was based on morality or a lack thereof. But this article was attempting to analyze why religious conservatives didn’t jump at the opportunity to have Mike Pence as President. The article reaches the conclusion that they passed up on that opportunity because they are hypocrites when it comes to their moral beliefs. When many on the religious right initially voted for Trump, they didn’t do so based on his personal morality. They voted for him based upon more complex factors. The same held true during the impeachment process. Plus there may have been other additional factors that influenced their thinking when it came to impeachment and removal from office. Maybe they don’t think Mike Pence would put up the same fight on issues important to them. Maybe they think Mike Pence would be too timid as a Pesident in this day and age. That maybe turning the other cheek would lead to him resigning or giving up on issues when push came to shove. That maybe they believe it wouldn’t matter which Republican candidate was in office, that whoever it was still would have been impeached. It could be any number of reasons beyond just sheer hypocrisy. It’s like someone who says they oppose racism of any kind, but that same person still supports Governor Ralph Northam. I’m sure there would be some out there on the right, who would criticize those people as being hypocrites when it comes to actually opposing racism. But maybe those Northam supporters thought he was the best candidate to get gun legislation passed, that they liked his commitment to women’s control over their own bodies, and that despite his past, he has done some very good things to improve the lives of minorities in the state…and that’s why they support him remaining in office as opposed to him stepping down and the Lt Governor taking his place. That yeah, him wearing blackface doesn’t align with what they believe about racism being evil, but they are willing to overlook his personal life/past because they judged him best man for the job of Governor right now. Because they felt he will put up a stronger fight, and actually get things done when it comes to issues his supporters hold dear. For them, it’s not hypocrisy….it’s transactional and realist. That’s all I’m trying to say.
Read what you just wrote. On first, second and third read I can’t help but hurt with the knots you appear to have tied yourself in, trying to defend why stacking the courts in favor of anti-abortion, no contraceptives and singularly minded freedom of religion in public arenas, AT ALL COST (even to risking the demise of the nation under God and any semblance of morality), is not hypocritical from a body of religious folks touting the sum of the Law and the Prophets, according to their Lord God, is, IN EVERYTHING, do to others as you would have others do to you.
I don’t agree with Mike Pence but isn’t he more representative of the advertised Evangelical Christian values than Donald J Trump? Would they enlist the services of the bully Satan if they felt he would achieve for their cause better than the sacrificial Jesus Christ? Whatever happened to you can only serve one master?
President Trump is cleaning house: Volker, Vindman 1 and Vindman 2 are out. Good riddance.
… all who are willing to tell the truth to the world under oath and be questioned by both sides, including by Trump’s accusers and those who won’t accept the truth to protect their party over the good of their nation.
It is sad that those protecting the art of the con, led by the master of demeaning vindictive hate driving fear into all public servants, are the clear representatives, to all the rest of mankind, of the United States of America. That’s who win to clean house of the truth tellers.
You doubt what I say? Put Trump under oath for examination, and cross examination, with the nation watching for many hours as were all those cleaned from honest service to our country.
Don’t reply to this, it will only make it even more clear, to those who care to become a more perfect nation for all, honestly, that you either lie or cannot tell the difference between a lie and the truth. You are not the master debater you think you are. You cannot discern the truth enough to convince those who can. That doesn’t even rise to the level of sad for it is tragic to all of mankind. Get behind us Satan!
My posts are not to convince anyone. Rather they are to correct the lies and disinformation spewed out on this site lest others be led astray.
Did Lieutenant Colonel Vindman tell the truth, to the best of his ability under oath, relative to what he heard President Trump say on the phone? Do you believe President Trump has lied, at anytime, relative to what Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified to under oath?
Really? Vindman did not hear the call. He heard from the “whistleblower.” He has no first hand knowledge.
Don’t you even know the scenario you are critizing?
You did not hear his testimony. He testified to what he heard as the Ukrainian expert in the room. You are deceived by the President’s defensive obfuscation.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/08/777514772/read-testimony-of-alexander-vindman-the-white-houses-ukraine-specialist
Read from the transcript of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman’s sworn testimony. If you are too lazy to read the entire transcript I can save you time by pointing out pages 16-20.
When do you accept that you’ve accepted lies over obvious truth?
I read it. Vindman stated he listened to the call with others from NSC and that “As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.” There it is. In his opinion the call was a problem. But it wasn’t because the Senate has voted that it wasn’t.
I read the transcript months ago and the connection to Biden is not as the House has continually stated. The Senate of the United States has also decided that the call did not rise to an impeachable offense. This was known to the House before “woble-woble” succumbed to the Left and issued the Articles without a full House vote. It is over and the Left lost. Now Vindman1 and Vindman2 are removed from the NSC and Volker who paid a million dollars for his Ambassadorship is going to be out.
You lost. We won. Trump will be re-elected with 70 million votes and take back control of the House as well.
You haven’t won dip! If Trump is re-elected that will be the end of the democratic republic. No one wins. Truth is not a win or lose proposition. The truth is that Trump did a high crime injurious to the safety of our nation for personal reasons. The truth is the Senate Republicans did not honor their oath out of fear of Trump’s retribution. The truth is you see that as Trump being strong. You seem to find great pleasure in supporting he who lies and find some joy to be losing honest public servants. You’re so bound in the continual lie that you will not realize the error of your ways until it is too late. For your sake, try to choose your future actions founded on Matthew 7:12, for a change!
Sore losers are still losers.
Tell us what Trump will do if re-elected to end our system of government?
Your candidates are spouting Socialism over Democracy. Are you that dim? Is socialism not the end of our Republic as we know it.
Neither the Republic or the Democracy of the United States of America are threatened with Socialism as patterned by Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada, Great Britain, Germany and others guaranteeing equality of healthcare and education for its citizens. No Democrat candidate is suggesting replacing the Republic or the Democracy as is the United States today. Every candidate is proposing regulating the destructive influence of corporate greed that makes the U.S. more a corporatocracy than a democracy today.
Capitalism is the equal and opposite of Socialism. Neither determine whether, or not, a nation, is a Republic and/or a Democracy. If you read the Constitution, especially as the framers were influenced by the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers, you would understand that there is nothing within that denies benefits to our nation from Socialism, but there is everything that fully opposes autocracies (like Communist/Democracy Russia/Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Nazi Germany, and Turkey), monarchies, and dictatorships.
China and Russia are clear autocracies still supporting today their need for capitalism. The United States of America is supporting today their need for socialism with Social Security, public schools, Medicare, and Interstate Highways.
Trump, obstructing transparency for oversight along with his “only me” attitude of my way or the highway, are driving the United States of America toward an autocracy, no less undemocratic than were the governments of dictatorial autocracies of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, who both cleaned house of the honest public servants who opposed their rule. Trump has already said that his vocal opponents were committing treason and should be hanged! Trump has said that honest reporting of his offenses were treasonous and will be cleaned from his administration. Is that a democracy welcoming freedom of speech, freedom of religion and recognizing that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [and women, by amendment today] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.“
Does not, in everything, do to others as you would have others do to you scream, that as a self governed body (democracy) we do our most to provide access to all of our members a capably discerning education, as much as each can bear, and healthcare (physical, social and spiritual)? Just think, there would then be more resourceful neighbors who could do real constructive good for you. There would be less destructive big pharma self-profit motive influence and hoarding affecting your neighbors to threaten you. There would even be less influence of neighboring capitalistic drug cartels because their US market would be much less.
You aren’t listening nor discerning enough to think for yourself. You are no different than the masses who hailed Adolf Hitler as only he could save them.
You embraced unregulated capitalism and removing all socialism. Freedom of religion to you is only freedom of your form of Christianity. Freedom of speech to you is only freedom for those who agree with you, otherwise you don’t listen and research on the off chance you might be somewhat wrong. Love your neighbor as yourself to you is only for those neighbors who agree with you, otherwise good riddance when your god cleans house.
These are not the same talking points, nor a repeat of what I wrote to others like you. Read and heed for these words are researched and as best as I can do for you and yours.
The above reflects a complete misunderstanding of fundangelical Republican morality, in which “right” and “wrong” are purely a matter of which side you are on, not anything you might do, say or think, or any practical thing you might achieve (that would be “works righteousness”). To be righteous is to support the right team and its appointed leader; the leader’s guilt or innocence, behaviour, morality, religion or personal qualities are irrelevant. They aren’t even particularly relevant in picking a leader either: the faithful will support whoever most looks like advancing the interests of Team Righteous over everyone else and smiting it’s real or imagined enemies rather than based on any other qualities. Any other outcome to this “trial” would have been the surprising thing.
Mitt Romney is the surprising thing. Some people have talked about him suddenly developing a conscience, or something, but I don’t think this can be it. If we assume Romney is still acting in accordance with fundangelical Republican righteousness, then one can see him as the first rat to panic that adherence to Trump is going to sink the Republican Party and / or fundangelicalism, and abandon ship. He’s positioning himself to say “I told you so” if it all goes down.
Not only is it a fundamental misreading of how Donald Trump enthusiasts on the right think, it’s also a fundamental misreading of what the impeachment process is supposed to be.
The Senate acquitted President Trump on both Articles of Impeachment.
The vote was not close and as expected. Only 47/48 Senators voted to convict or 20 less than required. That is a resounding rebuke to the Congress and thier faux impeachment. The impeachment was a monumental mistake by the Democrats and they had been advised/warned not to attempt it. They will now pay the price.
Vice-President Pence cannot accomplish what Trump has and will accomplish. Trump is the rare person who can thumb his nose at the Media, the Democrats and the No-Trumpers and care less. Now the Democrats will try again and waste the rest of their time unti they lose the House in November. 70 million votes coming for Trump.
So, President Trump is Christlike to you!
No. He is our President.
I did not vote for him because I don’t vote for anyone who demeans loving, caring Christians for being Christlike. For that matter, I don’t vote for anyone who demeans any loving, caring people of any religion.
If to be our President means to represent the majority of our democracy at home and abroad, Donald J. Trump is not our President.
Your President shows no fruits of Christianity: charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity (kindness), goodness, longanimity (forbearance), mildness (gentleness), faith, modesty, continency (self-control), and chastity.
Vote how you will.
President Trump is the current President and nothing the democrats have done/can do will change that:
Deep State coup – exposed and failed
Mueller Report exonerated Trump – no collusion , no obstruction.
Impeachment – failed. No Abuse of Power – No Obstruction.
Presidents are not pastors – wake up and enjoy the countyr the has revitalized while exposing the criminal Hillary and Obama.
Bob, there never was a “deep state coup” in any form. These tactics, of your president, are no different than any fear tactic exercised by an autocratic, dictatorial political leader throughout the history of Man. Same tactic used by Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Putin. We are not being run over by illegal aliens, anymore than we are being attacked by home spun white supremacist terrorists.
Bob, though partisan Donald J. Trump will forever be known as one of the three Presidents, by 2020, who WAS impeached. He will, also, go down as all three who were not removed from office.
This country is being torn apart. That is the revitalization you feel. You believe every lie he tells you. Did you know that there were more new jobs during the last year of President Obama’s administration than in the last three years of Trump’s administration? Check it out.
Bob, this is your “revitalized” country (… not to mention that Secretary Hillary was just absolved of all suggestions of criminality by Bill Barr’s partisan Department of Justice).
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/great-affordability-crisis-breaking-america/606046/
When are the bills before the Senate going to be brought to the floor for debate? … one President Trump said he would sign immediately upon hitting his desk … prescription drugs!
Read the Mueller Report, as I have including the latest releases, not just listen to Trump, and you will be unpleasantly surprised to find that Trump was not exonerated from either collusion or obstruction.
Don’t you care to find out the truth for yourself, without the bias of FOX News (if you start there go no further than Chris Wallace).
This is the spirit you dare to exemplify with the religious right’s rallying call, “LOCK HER UP!”.
Matthew 27:22-24
Following the lead of Trump, as your unquestioned high priest (Caiaphas), actually does crucify practicing children of God like Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, the Bidens, and Mitt Romney who do not trespass against Matthew 7:12, 22:37-40. It is your responsibility!
When you stop Lying about the conclusions of the Mueller Report and admit you are wrong we can proceed: It’s in the record as per below:
“The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
As far as obstruction, the Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. Barr’s letter said that “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”
But Barr said that he and Rosenstein “have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
Read it Bob, for yourself!
The same Barr who exonerated Hillary Clinton from any criminality?
It is your responsibility! Your example of relationship with others cannot be separated from your political, economic and religious relationships. You can only serve one master! It is your responsibility! One Lord God!
IF you voted, then you voted for Hillary. Please tell us what is Christlike about Hillary. Hillary would oppose anybody and any legislation that would lesson or prohibit the murder of the unborn.
Please name the Democrat that you will vote for, that is Christlike to you.
It’s not a resounding rebuke when you have power over a majority of a jury and are able to get them to vote to let you off.
A resounding rebuke would be when a truly independent and integrous body unanimously voted to acquit someone.
As that may be, Impeachment is a process that the framers put in place. The process was carried out; one side won and one side lost. The House knew in advance that they had no grounds for impeachment but pushed forward anyway.
As the election is close you can see this exercise was not about impeachment but about politics. It was completely unnecessary.
As an insightful Christian colleague from Indiana once warned this Canadian – “Trump will destroy the United States randomly; Pence will destroy the United States systematically”. No argument with that.
From what I’ve seen the slaughter of Romney began before he finished his speech in the Senate.
Also, Trump represents their real god, MONEY.
… and telling others what to do with their body, when they would not allow others to tell them what to do with their own body … and … legally allowed to proselytize in public schools, while not allowing others to proselytize differently in public schools … and … stacking the courts biased in support of their freedoms while suppressing others’ freedoms of speech, religion, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is the spirit of their god, led by the perfect living example of their opponent of my God who teaches all his disciples to love neighbor, self and enemy. My God wills that I, as their child, carry my cross, willing to die for the good, right and love of my neighbor and my enemy. Their god counter punches to bury any and all who he deems disagreeable to his perfection. okay, thanks, I feel better for that.
Why can’t you say that you support abortion up to the day of birth?
Oh, I could say it but it wouldn’t be true.
Why can’t you say that you support the premature abortion of life when sending our healthy young adults to war to protect the body and right to choose life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that the body of our nation stands for?
Well then, you contradict yourself, because by limiting abortion you would be telling others what to do with their bodies.
WHAT did you say???
I no more choose to legislate what any woman chooses to do to protect her body than I do to legislate to send healthy, educated, potentially child bearing, young adults into combat to protect the body of the United States of America. I don’t tell others what to do with their body, equally as much as I would not have others tell me what to do with my body. I defend the right for all of mankind to choose life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as I would have all others do the same for me and mine.
Defenseless, adorably cute is the instinct of all species of animals necessary for the survival of their infants. This does not mean that those who chose, or did not choose, to bear children should be sacrificed that all infants might survive without them. It is not God’s will that all life survives just to populate the earth.
Quality of love for all of God and Man is summed up with, in everything, do to all others first, as we all would have all others of God and Man do to us. If you would have others legislate that you cannot masterbate, have a wet dream, have a period, or that you must propagate according to other’s standards to produce defenseless, adorably cute infants, under the guise of more pro-life than others, then continue on with your legislative argument against choice for all potential mothers and fathers most often in counsel with proficient and empathetic doctors who understand the situation.
Untried, untrained, inexperienced fetuses are not of greater value to our species than mothers and fathers we know. If you are cold enough to sacrifice the father of a pregnant mother’s fetus to war, just to protect your right to choose, then you could be cold enough to sacrifice a fetus to save the mother’s right to choose.
I asked why you can’t say that you support abortion up to the day of birth, after you said that President Trump tells other what to do with their bodies. You said that you could, but it wouldn’t be true. I then said: you contradict yourself, because by limiting abortion you would be telling others what to do with their bodies.
If you don’t support abortion up to the day of birth, then you would have a restriction on abortion and would be telling people what to do with their bodies just as you said of President Trump. You can’t have it both ways.
darel, you are reading into what I actually said. Where did I say anything about legislatively “limiting abortion”?
I can say anything, it is well within my abilities to speak and write. I will not just say anything, especially that I “support abortion up to the day of birth”, because that would be a destructive lie. I do say that I support, my efforts are pro to, all life tempered by supporting the choice of those most responsible to how their body is used. I don’t support aborting any life prematurely, especially that of a mother or a soldier. I don’t support needlessly aborting fetuses, which includes actively supporting all pregnant women to get licensed medical and psychological counseling before, during and after pregnancy.
I don’t tell other people what to do except when it is people who are irresponsibly telling or legislating others, not of their responsibility, what to do. I accept legislation to stop and/or penalize offenders who take the lives, freedoms, and opportunities to pursue constructive happiness of others, who are not threatening their areas (ownership) of life’s responsibility.
Any legislation “limiting abortion” or “forcing increased propagation of our species” to any degree is not the purview of the state. The responsibility to abort, or not, is, and can only be, owned by the mother (1st), the licensed (qualified by the state) doctor (2nd) and the father (3rd and last). All others of their concerned community can support but not usurp their responsibility. Legislation would penalize, to effectively removing any opportunity to ever practice again, a doctor who aborted the fetus to save the mother. Legislation would publicize and penalize an offending mother beyond the loss of her child, possibly with incarceration.
I don’t want it both ways! I want it one way; loving, empathetic, respectful and supportive for all of Man and God. I don’t tell people what to do with their bodies as do the misnomered “Right to Lifers”. We have an example of misnomered right to lifers in the Roman Catholic church when they decreed all birth control not godly, in favor of the known ineffective rhythm method. That served the church, and its coffers, well, by populating the church, but not the quality of the church because all that was accomplished was increasing the poor herd (flock) in service to the management who were religiously not allowed to propagate the church themselves.
Go for it, but, please, don’t read into what I am saying in reply to you.
You could call it reading into what you said or you could call it deducing a conclusion from what you have said. If, as you say, you don’t support wholesale abortion, then you by definition you would limit a women’s right to control her own body, as you put it, at some point. That would be a contradiction on your part. You don’t get to say you have no say in the matter when you vote for candidates who either allow wholesale abortion, or who would restrict abortion, which by definition put limits on what a woman can do with her own body, as you put it and which you oppose. You can’t have it both ways.
You won’t vote for President Trump, so that leaves you with Democrats who want and support abortion up to the day of birth. Herm, you can’t bamboozle me with doubletalk.
Legislate, Legislate, Legislate …!!! … that is not a solution to solve unhealthy abortion … we’ve had it and clothes hangers became associated with abortion, really.
Oh, bullshit, most Democrats do not want and support abortion up to the day of birth. That is only one of Trump’s many lies mis-characterizing his opponents. Lying is the number one reason I cannot vote for him, that and the fact that he could actually care less about any fetus, child and/or mother.
There is no room left to further bamboozle a Trump supporter.
Then you are ignorant of their positions. Every Democrat running for President opposes any restrictions to abortion. Bernie Sanders, for example:
“Guarantee health care through Medicare for All, repeal the Hyde Amendment and fully fund Planned Parenthood, Title X, and other initiatives that protect women’s health, access to contraception, and the availability of a safe and legal abortion.”
”
Oppose all efforts to undermine or overturn Roe v. Wade, and appoint federal judges who will uphold women’s most fundamental rights.”
https://berniesanders.com/issues/
Furthermore, they all support New York’s abortion law that allows for abortion up to the day of birth. Democrat lawmakers shouted with joy when that barbaric law was passed.
.
Roe v. Wade is a restriction to abortion!!! I told you that I am okay with Roe v. Wade. I oppose your spirit of judgment that, if allowed, would remove all choice from a woman, relative to child birth. As a male, I would suggest that you allow the majority of women, only, to choose what is legislated regarding their choice. I can guarantee that a women’s maternal instinct is much more correct in what is right or wrong relative to children, pre- or post- womb.
As far as respecting what should be a given for women’s rights, I agree with the following as better than what the Republican’s offer for the physical health of our entire nation. Going before the Supreme Court now is a challenge to any health care, other than from profit motive insurance companies, for the entire nation, sponsored by the partisan Department of Justice. Planned Parenthood has already been federally defunded.
Where is your conscience now?
https://berniesanders.com/issues/womens-rights/
Very few on the left agree with murdering babies about to be born.That is a right-wing mischaracterization. I would also say that most on the left do not necessarily need a law. A woman who is almost at term is already committed to giving birth. When a baby is lost that close to term, in the vast majority of cases it was due to a complication that endangered the life of the mother. In addition, we do not actually know when “life” begins which is why most laws use viability outside the womb as a reasonable compromise.
There is almost no Biblical guidance. There is Psalm 139, but that is a poem and it might be referring to God’s omniscience. If we are looking for legal guidance, there is Exodus 21:22-25 which implies that a fetus is the husband’s property, not a person. Otherwise we would expect a penalty for committing murder. Also Numbers 5:11-31 where the priest administers a “purity” test which aborts the fetus if the woman is guilty of adultery and implies the fetus has no right to life and also implies a property right by assuming the husband is not required to be responsible for property that is not actually his.
There is also the point that in a pluralistic society, one religion’s views should not necessarily determine the laws of the land. Isn’t that the Christian’s whole objection to Sharia law? It is inconsistent for a Christian to simply substitute Christianity as the basis for secular law.
Very few on the left agree with murdering babies about to be born.That is a right-wing mischaracterization. I would also say that most on the left do not necessarily need a law. A woman who is almost at term is already committed to giving birth. When a baby is lost that close to term, in the vast majority of cases it was due to a complication that endangered the life of the mother. In addition, we do not actually know when “life” begins which is why most laws use viability outside the womb as a reasonable compromise.
There is almost no Biblical guidance. There is Psalm 139, but that is a poem and it might be referring to God’s omniscience. If we are looking for legal guidance, there is Exodus 21:22-25 which implies that a fetus is the husband’s property, not a person. Otherwise we would expect a penalty for committing murder. Also Numbers 5:11-31 where the priest administers a “purity” test which aborts the fetus if the woman is guilty of adultery and implies the fetus has no right to life and also implies a property right by assuming the husband is not required to be responsible for property that is not actually his.
There is also the point that in a pluralistic society, one religion’s views should not necessarily determine the laws of the land. Isn’t that the Christian’s whole objection to Sharia law? It is inconsistent for a Christian to simply substitute Christianity as the basis for secular law.
The overwhelming majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience. They don’t want any more kids, their husband or boyfriend doesn’t want the kid, they say they can’t afford a kid, They say a kid will interfere with their job, etc. The Guttmacher Institute, a pro -abortion site acknowledges this.
There are several verses where personhood is ascribed to the unborn. Note the word baby in this passage in Luke 1, NASB.
39 Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40 and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Elizabeth was already in the sixth month, within the modern period of viability outside the womb. Fetal movement can be felt starting sometime in the second trimester. Nor does Elizabeth’s experience change Jewish law which apparently considers an unborn baby as the father’s property, not a person that can be murdered. Again we have very little Biblical guidance, and for all our medical and scientific advances, science has been unable to determine person hood..Another viewpoint holds that the Bible shows personhood is conferred when the baby begins breathing on its own citing God’ creation of Adam from the dust of the earth was not a person until God breathed into him.
“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
We should humbly admit that we do not know. Christians generally choose to believe that life start at conception based upon a book written by a very small segment of humanity in a small geographical area. Christians choose to believe the Bible is the Word of God. You could possibly argue that it is better to be safe than sorry when it comes to personhood. It can also be argued that our Constitution forbids imposing religious belief. through legislation. Belief is supposed to be an exercise of free will.
As far as the convenience argument goes, unwanted pregnancies can be prevented with contraceptives. It is amazing that many of the same people who oppose abortion also oppose contraceptives, and oppose
insurance coverage for contraceptives but not viagra. It makes people wonder if the real issue is body autonomy, not morality.
It is a difficult subject. Given all the uncertainty, it should be approached with humility and grace, not judgementalism and condemnation, especially given the high rates of abortion among Christian women. Outlawing abortion will not reduce abortion. It will only increase illegal abortion.
You are rationalizing abortion, the murdering of the unborn.
Scripture is either the word of God, or it isn’t. What say you?
Scripture states that it is the word of God, down to the last jot and tittle.
IF the Bible was from man then you would have a case for abortion, because depraved men have opinions, and they will always come up with excuses and rationales for immoral behavior. However, since the Bible is of God, then you have no case, because we all have a conscience whether we have the Bible or not.
We are talking about public policy. Polling shows that the American public, including most Republicans. 43% of Protestants want abortion to be legal. https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/29/u-s-public-continues-to-favor-legal-abortion-oppose-overturning-roe-v-wade/ Those are the facts you need to address. Apparently, most Americans, and a significant number of protestants either do not believe the Bible is the Word of God, or do not believe it necessarily leads a person to the conclusion it leads you.
“We are talking about public policy.”
You are talking about public policy, that’s more important to you.
” 43% of Protestants want abortion to be legal.”
Christians don’t, that’s more important to me.
“Apparently, most Americans, and a significant number of protestants either do not believe the Bible is the Word of God”
That’s right, no need to go any further. And you are among them. I believe God.
You want legislators to outlaw abortion. Legislation is all about public policy. It doesn’t really matter what you or I think about God or the Bible. You have to persuade legislators to vote for the public policies you support. Legislators have a variety of beliefs and represent constituents with a variety of beliefs. We see that that most Americans, including many Christians, actually oppose outlawing abortion. According to the same poll, 20% of white Evangelicals do not want to outlaw abortion. So we can see it is an uphill struggle. It does no good to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the facts. In order to ignore facts, you need a dictator who sees things the way the minority of Americans do, and is willing to impose the minority’s religious will on the majority by decree. Is that what you want, for America to be dictatorship, just as long as the dictator does what you want him to do? How is that essentially different from Sharia? It is not essentially different if the only difference is whose religion gets imposed. You might say that we should impose our version of Christianity because it is the right religion. Other religions think their religion is the right religion.
If we are honest, it is not that we believe God. We believe the God our particular denomination has taught us to believe. We do not actually know what God’s view of abortion is. We are only making what we hope are educated guesses about a topic on which there is nearly zero Biblical guidance.
Abortion is not about Legislators anymore. The court has made its decision in 1973. The chance to overturn that decision is remote.
But the Left has over-stepped. When Northam and Cuomo paraded their infanticide legislation it opened many eyes. What people in its right mind would allow that or anything like that. So the tide is changing. And the courts are changing. Because of the incompetence of the previous administration 100 Federal judgeships were left open. This provides an opportunity to reign in or bring back the time allowed for an abortion if nothing else. So after the re-election of our great President Trump a case will come before the court and we will see the rampant, Lawless, Left taught a lesson.
I had not looked at the Virginia and New York legislation until you mentioned it, but it sounds like you are getting your information from a partisan source. With a polarizing topic like that it can sometime be difficult to find an impartial source of information. This pro-life source seems to qualify. https://www.americamagazine.org/rha2019
I would never quote Trump about anything. He is too unreliable. It was not the incompetence of the previous administration; it was McConnell’s obstruction. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obstructionism-handed-judicial-vacancies-to-trump/
You are close to implying you approve the appointment of partisan judges who can be counted on to rule the way you want them to over impartial ones. That’s a problem. I want impartial judges as the Bible mandates, not predictable ones whose ruling are pretty much predetermined regardless of the facts of the case.
I heard and saw Northam and Cumo on video. I don’t need any source telling me what they said or meant. Every time I raise this point it raises hackles so I know it hits home.
I don’t have to imply; we have that now with the Federal Courts like the ninth circuit. Judges have decided to legislate from the bench and it’s the Left leaning ones that are causing the problems.
Fair enough. Primary sources are always better than secondary sources. Therefore, you should probably look up and read the actual bills. If you want me to believe that you presented an accurate characterization of Northam and Cuomo’s words, then you ought to give us
the links.
I found this Cuomo video, but he doesn’t say what you claim he said.https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/02/05/cuomo-defends-abortion-rights-law-amid-ongoing-criticism-trump/2778630002/
Do you claim to be a Christian?
That is a deflection and an attempt to create both a rabbit hole and an ad hominem. It is akin to asking “Are you still beating your wife?” because both possible answers, yes or no, will somehow be the wrong answer. I am not taking the bait. Either address the actual points I made or go away.
No Christian would refuse to acknowledge Jesus Christ as his Savior.
You made your standing before God plain with your many rationalizations for favoring the killing of the unborn.
Your refusal to lie about being a Christian, shows me that you are troubled about your standing with God.
You know, and all others who hold a pro-abortion position know, that it’s a baby, that it’s human life. You people fool nobody.
When you asked the question you had already determine that either answer, whether yes or no, would give you pretext to create an ad hominem. So without an answer, you assume an answer and try to create your ad hominem anyway.
Remember this question, “Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?” The Pharisees had already determined that either answer, yes or no, would be the wrong answer.
Again, either address my points or go away. In a pluralistic society, if you want to persuade non-Christians to outlaw abortion, you will be wholly unsuccessful if you think weak arguments from a book they do not consider the Word of God will work. It hasn’t worked in decades, so now you appear to be arguing that you want to use the government to forcibly impose your position. Meanwhile, when they use the government to forcibly impose their position, you cry foul.
Here’s the thing. Our pluralistic society agree that theft, lying and murder, to name a few examples, are wrong. And it was not the Bible that convinced non-Christians.
I oppose abortion, and I also oppose imposing the Christian version of Sharia law. You oppose abortion, well and good. But you also appear to support imposing a kind of Sharia law on your non-Christian neighbors. A non-religious based argument would get you further with them.
You didn’t answer my because you knew that nobody would believe you if you had said that you were a Christian. Christians don’t kill their unborn.
I am a Christian, I’m not ashamed to say it. How silly of you to think my question to you was a trap question. You know, like all liberals, that killing of the unborn for convenience sake is wrong.
I don’t think abortion will ever be overturned simply because there are too many people like you who want no part of God in their lives. However, that is not going to stop me from reminding you that the unborn are life, human life, and that you will have to answer to God for your part in it.
Your Sharia law tactic is just plain stupid. It’s not going to stop me or any Christian from reminding you that killing the unborn is wrong, morally wrong.
If slavery was still in effect you would argue that it is the law and that you have a right to do with your property as you see fit. And how dare me to try and impose my ideas of right and wrong on you.
I still refuse to take the bait, no matter how provocative you try to be.
There is plenty of Biblical justification for the abolition of slavery, nearly all in the New Testament.
Any time you want to use government to impose your religious will upon your neighbors, you are violating the First Amendment. Do you even know what Sharia law is? At least their Sharia law is well-founded on their scriptures. The only two Biblical legal references to abortion consider the unborn fetus to be the property of the father. According to those two references, the death of a fetus is a property offense, the first requiring a monetary fine from the offender, and the second a way of determining property rights. Killing the fetus was acceptable on the grounds that the husband should not be responsible for property that does not actually belong to him. Jewish law apparently did not consider abortion to be murder. The priest gave the pregnant women a beverage that could and did cause the death of the fetus, so clearly sanctity of life was not a concern. In fact, a man’s genitals were of more value than an unborn child (Deut. 25:11-12). Our modern law law does not require a death certificate for the death of a fetus. Also the law mandated the death of a woman found pregnant by adultery. Of course, killing the woman means also killing the fetus.
If you were willing to challenge the points rather than engaging in all kinds of deflections that you hope disqualifies the person making the points (the very definition of ad hominem), you could point out that the pro-slavery apologists also relied on the Old Testament, and that perhaps the New Testament should be the controlling document. That would be a valid rejoinder.
But then you still have the problem that 1) the New Testament gives weak to no guidance, and so 2) yes, you are trying to impose your own idea of right and wrong. It is hypocritical to think you have a right to impose your own ideas while at the same time denying others the same right. It is one reason some Christians object to the modern plurality of the American population.
“The priest gave the pregnant women a beverage that could and did cause the death of the fetus, so clearly sanctity of life was not a concern.”
So, you do know that the unborn is a person, a human life. A fetus is a developing human being, a developing person. Using the word “fetus” proves that you can’t admit that a person, a human being, a baby etc. is the issue here.
You favor the taking of human life in the womb for reasons of convenience for that is the case in the overwhelming majorities of abortions. You oppose all laws to eliminate the wholesale slaughter of the unborn.
BTW, no priest of God in Scripture ever caused the death of an unborn baby. You either made that up or you have believed somebody who is trying to make a fool of you.
You apparently interact with your own imaginary cardboard caricature rather than the real person because you clearly do not actually read the comment. I said in an earlier comment to you, “Also Numbers 5:11-31 where the priest administers a “purity” test which aborts the fetus if the woman is guilty of adultery and implies the fetus has no right to life and also implies a property right by assuming the husband is not required to be responsible for property that is not actually his.” Clearly I neither made it up not did I believe somebody else.
Therefore I chose the word “fetus” because apparently the Law of Moses (presumably the Word of God, right?) considers the fetus to be property, not a person. I have already told you several times I oppose abortion. After peaking 40 years ago, US abortions have been dropping pretty steadily and continue to do so, and are currently at a lower level than when Roe v Wade was first passed. If you successfully obtained a return to pre-Roev Wade laws, you would most likely see an increase in the number of abortions.
You apparently interact with your own imaginary cardboard caricature rather than the real person because you clearly do not actually read the comment. I said in an earlier comment to you, “Also Numbers 5:11-31 where the priest administers a “purity” test which aborts the fetus if the woman is guilty of adultery and implies the fetus has no right to life and also implies a property right by assuming the husband is not required to be responsible for property that is not actually his.” Clearly I neither made it up not did I believe somebody else.
Therefore I chose the word “fetus” because apparently the Law of Moses (presumably the Word of God, right?) considers the fetus to be property, not a person. I have already told you several times I oppose abortion. After peaking 40 years ago, US abortions have been dropping pretty steadily and continue to do so, and are currently at a lower level than when Roe v Wade was first passed. If you successfully obtained a return to pre-Roev Wade laws, you would most likely see an increase in the number of abortions.
You apparently thought that I read all of your comments. If I did I would probably spend countless hours refuting you. You and Herm are both delusional when you think people spend time reading your rants.
A “fetus” is a developing human being, a person. The Bible does not use “fetus,” it’s only you pro-abortionists that do. Here the word baby is used, as it is a baby in the womb – Luke 1:41, “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.” The word is “baby.” It’s a baby in the womb. God made it plain to you, but you reject the word of God, just like all unbelievers, atheists and heathens etc.
Nowhere, in Numbers 5:11-31, is it stated that a priest aborted a “fetus” as you call it.
Since it is highly unlikely that you could find that passage of Scripture, I will provide it for you. Now, read and learn.
Numbers 5:11-31 NASB:
11 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, 14 if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, 15 the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.
16 ‘Then the priest shall bring her near and have her stand before the Lord, 17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel; and he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall then have the woman stand before the Lord and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and place the grain offering of memorial in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy, and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse. 19 The priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, being under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; 20 if you, however, have gone astray, being under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you” 21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh [m]waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your [n]stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh [o]waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”
23 ‘The priest shall then write these curses on a scroll, and he shall wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 Then he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water which brings a curse will go into her [q]and cause bitterness. 25 The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, and he shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering as its memorial offering and offer it up in smoke on the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.
29 ‘This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all this law to her. 31 Moreover, the man will be free from [u]guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt.’”
The Bible does not use the word fetus, true. And the Bible doesn’t use the word Trinity, either. If you prefer the word baby, that’s fine.
Yes, you quoted the relevant passage in full. I hope you read it, too. Jewish law, according to the Word of God, considers unborn babies property of the father. Jewish law does not ascribe the rights of personhood until birth. Your insistence on the word baby strengthens my point and make it an even more poignant point.
There are a couple of reasonable arguments you could make to the Numbers passage, but apparently you do not know enough about it to do so. You could point out the the water was merely a mixture of holy water and dust from the tabernacle floor. This mixture can cause no harm, so if the baby miscarries, it was not because of the water or the priest.
You could have pointed out that “miscarriage” is the word used in the NIV, and although the NIV has become the most popular pew Bible, and many evangelical preachers preach from the NIV, some people prefer the King James, while others believe the NIV’s scholarship is stronger and more understandable because many euphemisms have been replaced.
You might argue that “thigh” is not womb, but you need to determine two things. 1) Is the Hebrew word really thigh, and 2) If so, is it one of those common Hebrew euphemisms, like “know” for copulate. Here are some examples of Biblical euphemisms: http://faculty.washington.edu/snoegel/PDFs/articles/noegel%2063-euphemism-EHLL-2013.pdf.
You said, “The Bible does not use the word fetus, true.”
God uses the word “baby.” That settles it. That settles it for me, but not for you, and other pro-abortion unbelievers. You and they reject God, you reject God when you reject His words.
Luke 1:41, When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Just because “baby” is an emotionally evocative term does not settle anything. According to Jewish explainers of their own OT law, Elizabeth’s baby was Zechariah’s property until birth. The full rights of personhood were ascribed upon birth.
For the umpteenth time, I am against abortion. I am also against using government to forcibly impose religion on others. Belief in the Bible is a choice each person makes for themselves. It has nothing to do with what our laws should be. The reason theft, for example, is illegal is not because of the commandment, but because the general public acknowledges for reasons outside the Bible that stealing needs to be illegal. You need to be able to make your case out side the Bible, perhaps by citing a persuasive public interest. There is near zero Biblical support for abortion as murder. How about lobbying to make adultery and most divorce illegal? There is clear, unambiguous New Testament red letter support for that. In fact, both used to be illegal. There has been no ongoing Christian objection to the decriminalization of either.
“Just because “baby” is an emotionally evocative term does not settle anything.”
Ah, the unGodly reasoning of an unbeliever.
(1) UnGodly, because God says it’s a baby, Luke 1:41- “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.”
(2)UnGodly, because it is “settled.” God say it IS a baby, therefor, it IS a baby. God is right, you are wrong.
(4)UnGodly, because God is the authority, He is sovereign, He rules mankind. God says, it is a baby, and so it is a baby. God is the final authority.
(5)UnGodly, because you, Lucas, still refuse to accept the fact that the Baby in the womb is human life even after I showed you in God’s word, that God said that it IS a baby. Now, you can no longer make the false claim that is not a baby.
(6) UnGodly because you are pro-abortion and go to great lengths to rationalize and justify the murder of the unborn
Continued…
According to Jewish explainers of their own OT law, Elizabeth’s baby was Zechariah’s property until birth. The full rights of personhood were ascribed upon birth.
Obviously, inheritance and first born rights do not apply to those murdered in the womb.
The Jews held life sacred, they did not allow abortion, the murder of their babies.
Most importantly, Jews knew they had no moral or legal right to call a baby in the womb anything other that a baby. They were under God’s laws. The Jews knew that God dealt harshly with those who broke His law, unlike abortionists and pro-abortion unbelievers today who think there will be no consequences for their actions. God said there will be a judgement day for every unbeliever and it will surely come to pass. Those who murder and promote the murder of unborn will be judged by God.
continued….
“For the umpteenth time, I am against abortion.”
You lie! Your many words promoting, rationalizing, justify, and defending abortion here, show that you lie.
continued…
You Lucas, said, “No one is disputing that the purpose of abortion is death of a baby at some point in development. The question is whether that death is legally murder.”
Whoa! Now you admit that it is a baby. I have to pat myself on the back for shaming you into admitting that. But of course, you now are saying that a baby is NOT a person, is not human life, but only property. Reason follows that you would say that a slave is not human life, a person, but just property.
You reason like a nonbeliever, because you you are a non believer.
I have never said that a baby is not a human life. I have only said that according to the very few OT verses that touch on the topic, human life before birth is property.
We are talking about ALL rights, not just inheritance and first-born rights. You really need to do some homework on this issue. If a pregnant woman was convicted of a capital crime, the Jews went ahead and killed her AND the baby unless she was in labor. Also the Talmud refers to a baby in the womb as fetus. “until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being.” From Sanhedrin 72b, “a midwife may insert her hand into the womb and kill the fetus … [the reason is] for as long as the fetus has not emerged into the world, it is not a nefesh [a being with a soul]; one is therefore allowed to kill it and save the mother …” From Mishneh Torah; The sages ruled that when complications arise and a pregnant woman cannot
give birth, it is permitted to abort the fetus in her womb, whether with a knife or drugs, for the fetus is considered a rodef [a murderer in pursuit] of its mother … If the head of the fetus emerges, it should not be touched, because one life should not be sacrificed for another. Although the mother may die, this is the nature of the world.”
The Talmud is NOT the word of God. It was the Pharisees, the
Scribes, and Sadducees who perverted the words of God, and the Mosaic law who received the worse condemnation from Jesus. These were false teachers who hated and plotted against Jesus Christ and had Him crucified. The Jews today who reject Jesus and His offer of salvation from their sins, are just as lost and condemned as yourself. Many Jews are atheists, just like you.
Wow, you have a lot of homework to do. The extra-Biblical law books of the Jews were written because they had a lot of questions about howto apply Mosaic Law in various situations that arose. It issomewhat like our Constitution is the controlling document, but specific laws written in
other documents must conform to the Constitution.
Your claim, which I refuted, was that “Jews knew they had no moral or legalright to call a baby in the womb anything other that a baby.” Clearly, your assertion is untrue. It appears you are the one making things up or believing without question what someone else told you.
WOW! You are clueless. Little wonder you can’t understand the simplest of things about children in the womb. The extra Biblical law books you speak of are not in the cannon of Scripture. They are not inspired of God. How could they be of God when the Jewish nation has rejected Jesus Christ, their Messiah? The Pharisees, and Scribes rejected Jesus Christ and His words. Why should anyone submit or be under their authority?
The Jews under Mosaic law did not practice abortion. They longed to have children and knew that children were from. a blessing. from God.
I have concluded that you are an atheist. It is the only thing that makes sense.
That’s a deflection and a red herring. You asserted that
“Jews knew they had no moral or legal right to call a baby in the womb anything other that a baby.” I showed that Jews did indeed call a baby a fetus even in their legal books.
You are an atheist, an arrogant and ignorant atheist, admit it.
“Jews knew they had no moral or legal right to call a baby in the womb anything other that a baby.” Per the Bible, Lukas, the word of God, Lucas.
It’s a fact that the religious leaders of Israel perverted the Mosaic law. Jesus was constantly at odds with them over this and often condemned them for it. They hated Jesus. They hated the God man, Jesus. They had Jesus crucified, they were enemies of God and sanctimonious frauds.
I know very little about the Talmud or the Mishnah. They have no rule or authority over me. I’m a Christian. If either of those refute the Bible in your opinion, then that is your problem. Maybe that is one of the reasons that you are so hostile to the Bible, the word of God.
I’m convinced that you are an atheist.
I never claimed the Talmud or the Mishnah refute the Bible. The purpose of the Talmud and the Mishnah were to give clear direction where specifics were lacking. The Jews had many questions about how to be in compliance with Mosaic law. The Talmud and the Mishnah provided that direction.
What Jesus objected to was not Jewish law in the Talmud and the Mishnah. He objected to the hypocrisy of the
Jewish leaders who complied with the outward standards of the Mosiac law as directed in the Talmud and the Mishnah, but inwardly their hearts were far from God.
You and your fellow atheists, liberals, pro-abortion people etc. always pervert the word of God. The word of God nowhere sanctions abortion. It’s a baby, God said so, that settles it. God never sanctioned abortion, the willing murder of a baby in the womb by Godless heathens, simply because they do not want their baby. Yes, God gives life, God takes life, it is the prerogative of God. God takes the lives of babies everyday, and He will take my life and your life one day as well.
I noted in one of your comments that you said that the trinity is not in the Bible. That is a classic example of how you atheists and nonbelievers pervert and twist the word of God. God the father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit make up the trinity. You have shown me that you most likely are an atheist. Care to guess how I address you in the future, Luther Lucas?
My guess is that you are homosexual or pro-homosexual at least, and that you deny the existence of the Biblical hell as well.
The Bible nowhere sanctions cigarette smoking either. Lack of sanction is neither permission nor prohibition. That is not how it works. You are correct that it is a baby, and near as we can tell from the very few mentions the topic receives, unborn babies are property.
Here is another strawman of yours. I never said the Trinity is not is the Bible. You will not find a comment of mine that says that anywhere. Go ahead, take some time to look. I”ll wait…
You attributed to me something I never said, and then refuted something you made up. Congratulations on refuting yourself.
If I were really the person you have created in your own imagination, and whether imaginary or not. a person Christ died for, you are doing a terrible job of obeying the Great Commission. Your tactics actually undermine the Great Commission.
I understand that you are frustrated because I don’t rise to any of your bait. I do not take your insinuations personally because obviously I am a different person than the one your are addressing in the creation of your own
imagination.
“The Bible nowhere sanctions cigarette smoking either. ”
Ah, but God commanded a life for a life in the Old Testament, and so murdering the unborn mandated death for those involved.
“and near as we can tell from the very few mentions the topic receives, unborn babies are property.”
Babies being property is your unGodly opinion, you have no facts to support that opinion. Inherent in property rights is the right to destroy your property, but a baby in the womb, is a person, and God gives no right to anyone to destroy His babies. Your “we” being yourself and other atheists, liberals, heathens etc. who want the right to murder the unborn.
” I never said the Trinity is not is the Bible.”
I concede that. Those of your ilk often say the word “trinity” is not in the Bible in an effort to deny the trinity. Calling babies in the womb property is not in the Bible either. But you and your ilk bring it up in an effort to justify the murder of the unborn.
Since you brought the Trinity up, do you agree that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God?
“and whether imaginary or not. a person Christ died for, you are doing a terrible job of obeying the Great Commission. ”
That is almost incoherent. Your words seem to indicate that you don’t believe that Christ died for me. What say you? Concerning the Great Commission, Jesus forbids casting pearls to swine.
“I understand that you are frustrated because I don’t rise to any of your bait”
You call refusal bait, I call it confirmation.
I challenge you to make one brief point, just a sentence or two, and then I will respond and so forth.
God mandated life for a life if the mother was killed. If an unborn baby was killed, a fine was paid to the father. Check the Biblical references. See, property. I gave plenty of facts. My “we” includes you as you can check the Biblical reference for yourself. You can also check the Jewish law books of the time for instructions as to how those references were to be applied.
What I said was the WORD Trinity was not is the Bible. My point was the the presence or absence of a particular word means nothing. The word Rapture is also not in the Bible. A lot of scientific words we use today for observable
natural phenomena described in the Bible. Just because the Bronze Age writers did not use a modern word does not mean the phenomena did not occur. I was making no comment whatsoever on the the doctrine of the Trinity. Your logic is sorely lacking.
Your ilk paragraph contradicts itself. The beginning takes one stand and the end takes the opposite stand.
I said that Christ died for the person you are imagining me to be. The object of that sentence was not you. If I really were that person, you are doing a terrible job of obeying the Great Commission. Your bait confirms nothing since its purpose is to create strawmen, red herrings and ad hominem rather than defend your point.
Your first main point seems to be that the Bible prohibits abortion, but you have not shown that to be true. Unborn babies were treated as property in OT legal passages. Also pregnant women guilty of a capital crime were immediately executed. There was no delaying of the sentence until the baby was born. For example, Judah was within the Law when he ordered Tamar to be burned. He relented when she proved her unborn babies were his (Gen 38:24ff). He did not want to kill his property, but someone else’s property? Meh.
Your second main point seems to be that you think Christians have a right to use the government to forcibly impose a religious belief as law upon all the citizens, whether they consent or not. The reason extortion is against the law in every country is not because the Bible says, “Thou shall not steal,” but because every society recognizes that chaos would ensue if individual property rights were not protected.
Instead of logically defending either of your points, you have resorted to an unending series of red herrings, strawmen and ad hominem. I am againstabortion. There is a valid Biblical argument you could make, but apparently the people who tell you what to think have never presented it to you. I am not going to help you. One reason is your judgemental and disdainful attitude. Another reason is that in America, no one has the right to use the government to impose a religious law. So in order
to outlaw abortion, you need a valid non-religious argument. You have not been able to find that either.
Meanwhile, maybe we should not tamper with the laws we already have because abortion is continuing on the downward trajectory of the last 40 years after it was decriminalized.
“God mandated life for a life if the mother was killed.”
You got one right, congratulations.
“If an unborn baby was killed, a fine was paid to the father. Check the Biblical references.”
You are 100% wrong! Of course you can cite a reference that you think proves that, BUT you can’t provide the actual verses that do prove that. And no Biblical verse says that unborn babies are property. And no Biblical passage says that you can lawfully murder an unborn baby.
It’s all in your head, because some Godless heathen has convinced you to believe something that isn’t true.
What do you think a Biblical reference is? It is the actual verses which I provided long ago. Here are a couple of them again: Exodus 21:22-25. The footnote is the Bible says “born prematurely” can also be translated “miscarries.” The Hebrew word used is “yatsa” which means “to come out.” Genesis 38:24-26 where Judah rescinds the order for pregnant Tamar to be burned, thus killing the unborn children, when he finds out the babies are his.
It is true that no Bible verse literally says “unborn babies are property.” It is also true that no Bible passage literally says “you can lawfully murder an unborn baby.” But that is not how it works. No Bible verse says, “Thou shall not take LSD” either. By your logic Christians may take LSD because no verse in the Bible specifically forbids it.
Even if the Bible were explicit, it wouldn’t matter one way or another. The Bible cannot be used as the rationale for either allowing abortion or disallowing it. If the Bible explicitly allowed abortion, but society opposed it, the American principle of consent of the governed means it would not be likely to become law. How about capital punishment by stoning? That is Biblically well established and yet we do not see any Christians lobbying for that one.
The GOP does not want to ever resolve the abortion issue in the way you would like. They would lose their most reliable way of getting a certain segment of the population to vote for them.
You are trying again to deceive. I said “you can’t provide the actual verses” and you didn’t.
You said “The footnote is the Bible says “born prematurely” can also be translated “miscarries.”
No, your translation, (probably RSV), got it wrong. Here is the NASB:
22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that [u]she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband [v]may demand of him, and he shall pay [w]as the judges decide.
Here is the footnote (u) from above:
u. Exodus 21:22 Or an untimely birth occurs; lit her children come out
You said “The Hebrew word used is “yatsa” which means “to come out.”
Yes, but the word pertains to life not death. That which “comes out” or “comes forth” is a living thing in many passages of Scripture. Example: Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Others: 2 Kings 20:18, 1 Kings 8:19, Genesis 15:4, Genesis 25:25-26, Genesis 1:24, Genesis 8:17
My source said that the word was used over 1,000 times in the Old Testament, and was never translated “miscarriage.” Yes, RSV, but wrongly.
Furthermore, nepel and sakal, were used for miscarriage in the Old Testament. Neither of these two appear in Exodus 21:22-25.
You said: It is true that no Bible verse literally says “unborn babies are property.” But, you say the unborn babies are property, that’s the issue, and that’s just evil. God creates babies, and you have no right or authority to dehumanize them as just property so that you can dispose of them at your whim. You think like an atheist. You reek of contempt for the unborn.
Atheists reject the God of the Bible and rationalize the murder of babies just like you do.
Good grief. “Provide” the verses doesn’t necessarily mean copy and paste. I did provide the verses.
I used NIV, probably the most popular pew Bible in America. I also used Strong’s Concordance. sakal (or shakol, shakal) occurs 23 times and means “bereave.” It was translated “miscarry” only 3 of those 23 times. Nepel (or nephel) occurs 3 times and is sometimes translated “stillborn” or “untimely birth.” Yatsu is a generic term (thus used 1000 times) that implies neither life nor death by itself. If a baby “came out” before term (“untimely birth” in your footnote) in the days before modern medicine and incubators, it either did not survive the birth process or died immediately because it could not breathe on its own. Incubators were invented only about 150 years ago. https://www.history.com/news/baby-incubators-boardwalk-sideshows-medical-marvels Even only as recently as 1953 doctors learned too much oxygen causes blindness in premature babies. You only hope the word was mistranslated.
As your own translation points out, there was a fine because it was not murder. I don’t say that unborn babies are property. The Bible says so in its differential treatment of the death of the baby versus the death of the mother, as well as the unconcern for the life of the unborn when applying the death penalty to a pregnant mother. The Bible does not have to say the exact words “Unborn babies are property” any more than it has to say the exact words “thou shall not take LSD.”
It doesn’t matter one way or another because justification for a law must be able to stand on its own, not depend on the holy book of any religion. Otherwise, it would be just as valid to argue from any religion’s holy book (which the Constitution forbids). In fact, the writers of the Constitution appealed to natural law, not the Bible. There is overlap in the Venn diagrams of natural law, Bible, Koran, Buddhism, Hinduism and others. We should expect overlap if God’s law is truly written in human hearts, but we should also expect some differences because cultures are different.
In any case, making abortion illegal is counterproductive. By all accounts, it would increase the rate of abortion, not decrease it. In the US with the availability of contraceptive, it might mean that the current ongoing 40-year downward trajectory might be slowed or leveled. If you are really concerned, it might be best to just let the rate of abortion continue to decrease, rather than tinker with it and get a result you do not want.
“Good grief.”
You think you are frustrated now, I’m just getting started with you.
You atheist are so oblivious to just how spiritually dead you are. You deny that God created you and all life, so you excuse and rationalize your wickedness of murdering the unborn by dehumanizing them. They are just property to you, and so murdering them is OK in your mind.
The God of the Bible is never vague or ambiguous about murder and the penalty for it. There is no wiggle room for you on murdering babies. It’s all in your head.
There is no better reason for basing our laws on the word of God. God is not going to exonerated you for murdering babies because you say HIS word allows it.
The murder of the unborn was not even passed into law by the American people, it was imposed on America by a made up rational of a right to privacy by just 7 people on the Supreme Court.
1) You are still interacting with your own imagination, not the real person over here.
2) The major problem with your Bible exegesis is you begin with the conclusion. You are supposed to to examine all the relevant passages and then draw a conclusion. I do not say that the unborn are property. The very few Scripture that even touch the topic do not treat the unborn as persons.
You have not been able to address any of my arguments. For example, how do you explain that God commands the stoning of adulteresses without making any provision for their unborn children? Very often it was the pregnancy that gave the adulteress away.
Just 7 people? That is a significant bipartisan majority, and you have just given your opponents the perfect argument if just 5 overturn Roe v Wade. According to you, we need not respect the Supreme Court decision if we disagree with it.
(1) Show me in the Bible, where God permits a woman to abort, murder her baby, at her discretion.
You have yet to do that. I say you can’t.
(2) Show me in the Bible, where God permits a woman to abort, murder her baby, at her discretion.
You have yet to do that. I say you can’t.
to be continued….
I do not have to do that, any more than I have to show you in the Bible where God forbids LSD. That is not how doctrine is developed. In fact, until the later 1800s, abortion was legal in the US until the time of quickening (around the first 4 months which incidentally turned out later to be roughly equivalent to the 20-week viability standard). Your challenge is misplaced for another reason. You are assuming that women had wholly independent agency when it is well known that they did not.
An approach that you might take is to show the the property-person distinction was not a clear dichotomy, and see if you can go from there. For example, slaves were both persons and property, as were women and children, else how could it be lawful to sell your daughter? (Exodus 21). However, denying that what little we have in the Bible indicates the the unborn baby is also treated as
property will not do.
I have told you before that our understanding of what the Bible teaches is not static. It develops over time. Famously, in the time of Galileo, the church was 100% certain that the Bible taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. Their reasoning was all inference and they inferred incorrectly. Same with the lawfulness of owning slaves or buying and selling your children even though the Biblical basis of both was stronger than the Biblical basis for the astronomy inference.
That’s right, you have nothing. You have no Biblical permission to kill the unborn.
(3) Show me in the Bible, where God permits a woman to abort, murder her baby, at her discretion.
You have yet to do that. I say you can’t.
to be continued
Actually, you have nothing.
I could just as easily say Show me in the Bible where God forbids LSD. You can’t. Would you thereby conclude God permits LSD? Of course not. Your logic is the same.
You cannot refute the property point because the Bible is chock full of people being treated as property, not just unborn babies with no explicit prohibition from God. In fact, God gave specific instructions for the treatment of people as property.
That’s right, you have nothing. You have no Biblical permission to kill the unborn.
(4) Show me in the Bible, where God permits a woman to abort, murder her baby, at her discretion.
You have yet to do that. I say you can’t.
to be continued
Repeating the same debunked statement four times in a row only shows that you have conceded defeat. You have been unable to defend your position or refute mine. The only thing you have refuted are your own strawmen.
You lie!
That’s right, you have nothing. You have no Biblical permission to kill the unborn.
(5) Show me in the Bible, where God permits a woman to abort, murder her baby, at her discretion.
You have yet to do that. I say you can’t.
to be continued
You confuse restitution formulas from the government side of the Kingdom of Israel with God’s commandments such as Thou Shalt Not Kill. Since you are having such a hard time understanding Not and Kill you cannot understand the OT.
The United States of America, the greatest country in the history of the world, has a Constitution designed and written by men who valued the bible, believed in God and strived to produce a government that would endure despite challenges and opponents like the Left today who want to destroy our government to introduce their Lawless concepts. May it never be.
Politicians today by and large reflect our society which has drifted far from God. To believe that more Lawlessness is a good thing, like the Left believes, is foolish but long prophesied.
Your snarkiness is not a good look on you. Also denigrating half of America is not a good look either. The left does not want lawlessness.But if you want to go there, during the impeachment, it was Trumpsupporters who showed they favored lawlessness as long as it promotes
their political agenda. Trump supporters would have been first in line to impeach a Democrat who did what Trump did. GOP Senators agreed that Trump was guilty but (except Romney, a Mormon who put Evangelicals to shame) voted to acquit for political reasons, thus winking at lawlessness. Romans 2:1 applies.
I know that in today’s polarized climate, it is hard to believe that anyone is nonpartisan. I would have hoped that facing a crisis that doesn’t care about politics or take sides would teach Americans to forsake polarization, but I guess not. You accuse “the left” of wanting to destroy government, but you guys can’t keep your story straight. On alternate days you accuse the left of always wanting to expand government.Meanwhile, Trump and the GOP destroyed he very government agencies tasked with dealing with a pandemic. The government cannot even figure out how to get masks made.
If you really believed the commandment “Thou shall not kill,” was as all encompassing as you now suggest, then
you would agree with those critics who wonder why God would establish that commandment and then tell the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of Canaan. Oh, but that’s different, right?. Nearly every Evangelical preacher says the commandment forbids murder, not killing in general.
What little we have in the Old Testament indicates that unborn babies were the property of the father. I confused nothing. The reference makes very clear that the death of the unborn baby is not a capital crime, that is, not murder, and thus the penalty for murder does not apply. But the death if the mother was murder.
Railing about the left is a deflection. You would need to refute the points I made, but you do not seem able. You are correct that politicians reflect the society they are part of. That is part of my point. The abortion laws we already have are working as abortion continues its 40-year downward trajectory. The anti-abortion activism is actually
self-defeating. From Guttmacher: https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2001/02/message-president-abortion-can-be-safe-legal-and-still-rare
“For example, abortion is completely illegal throughout Latin America, but abortion rates in Peru, Chile and the Dominican Republic have been estimated to be more than twice the U.S. rate. In Brazil and Colombia, they are substantially higher as well. At the same time, these
countries’ maternal mortality rates, which are highly associated with unsafe abortion, range from six times to more than 20 times the rate in the United States.
By contrast, in virtually every country in which abortion is legal and also widely available from trained clinicians, abortion-related mortality and morbidity is virtually nonexistent. Moreover, in these countries, abortion rates are by no means necessarily high. Indeed, in some countries in which abortion is not only legal but also very easily accessible to women and even free of charge under a national health insurance system, rates of abortion are among the world’s lowest. Countries in this category include the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland and
Italy.”
I oppose abortion, and I also oppose using government to force a religious-based law on people, especially one with so little Biblical support, and especially one that doesn’t actually work. At least there is substantial red-letter support for a law against adultery and most divorce. Christians do not lobby to reinstate those laws since adultery and divorce happen at the same rates among Christians as non-Christians.
Again, You confuse restitution formulas from the government side of the Kingdom of Israel with God’s commandments such as Thou Shalt Not Kill. Since you are having such a hard time understanding Not and Kill you cannot understand the OT. This is a refutation of your OT analysis on the value
of a baby.
You confuse who decides Life and Death – God. Canaan was destroyed for their sins. God can kill anyone he chooses anytime He wants anyway He decides. God doesn’t take orders from the Left.
Your Coronal comments are flawed and wrong. No such agencies were closed – they were combined.
Adultery and divorce are personal sins. Baby killing is murder of another human being. The Left cannot understand this.
40-year downward trajectory – irrational explanation for 61 million abortions.
Your distinction of “restitution formulas from the government side of the Kingdom of Israel” and “God’s commandments” is without merit because the restitution formula for the loss of the unborn baby is part of of God’s commandments. The consequence for murder is not applied. You have not refuted the analysis at all, and instead doubled down on your pointless snark.
You are finally making your way toward a possible Biblically valid argument. If God is really the supreme creator of life, then God has the say on life and death. Murder is wrong precisely because a flawed human is usurping God’s authority. Although the Old Testament specifies consequences for a number of very detailed specific situations, it does not address the death of an unborn baby except tangentially. The verse about the collateral death of an unborn baby resulting in a fine is the only direct reference, and there the penalty is a property penalty, rather than the life-for-life penalty for murder. In the cases of capital punishment for an adulteress, the collateral death of an unborn baby is of no concern at all. There is also the consideration that until 150 years ago with the invention of the incubator, a baby born prematurely could not survive even a moment because of the inability to independently breathe. This lends support to the Biblically suggested conjecture that life begins with independent breath (Gen 2:7).
However, it could be argued that while not explicitly forbidden, the larger principles of the Bible allow the inference that the deliberate killing of an unborn baby in today’s environment of better medical technology is closer to murder than the collateral deaths of the unborn mentioned earlier. We have to wonder why deliberate killing of unborn babies is not directly addressed in the Bible. We know the prophets continually railed against Israel constantly turning away from God and committing all the same sins of their idol-worshipping neighbors. We know that deliberate abortion was practiced in the ancient world. The prophets condemned many many sins by name, yet there is no condemnation of deliberate abortion, lending weight to the concept of the unborn as property of the father until live birth when they were ascribed the full rights of personhood. Wishing it were different does not make it so, and wishing it were different does not refute the analysis.
The argument from God’s authority over life and death holds very little weight to non-Christians whether from the left or the right. Going on about the left, the left, the left is irrelevant. Even Christians acknowledge there is no proof of God’s existence, only belief or faith. So non-Christians, whether left or right, understandably reject the idea that one group claiming God ordered a hit on another group makes mass murder not murder. The Boers come to mind. They fancied themselves “the Israelites,” South Africa their “Promised Land,” the inhabitants “Canaanites,” and thereby justified to themselves murdering the native South Africans as the will of God. During the course of history, any shameful atrocities at the hands of Christians comes across as Christians announcing to the world that they can do whatever they want as long as they claim it is God’s will.
You also show that Christians are just as subject to changing cultural mores as anyone. If you are going to be consistent, then Biblically whether a sin is “personal” is irrelevant. Otherwise, Christians lose integrity if they accept the decriminalization of adultery and divorce as personal (maybe you mean victimless) sins, but rail against other personal, victimless sins.
About the trajectory–It is not an explanation, it is a verifiable fact. Abortions are never going to go down to zero. Outlawing abortion will only increase the number of illegal abortions. You are not going to save lives. Lives are being saved as abortions become fewer and fewer within today’s laws. If the number of abortions had continued on the preRoevWade trajectory, there would have been 72 million abortions. That is just math. What you really want is not the saving of lives, but punishment for those who abort. Then just say so, and while you are at it, think about the other perpetrator of an unwanted pregnancy. It takes two.
Trump may have technically “combined” some agencies, but in so doing, he eliminated several agency missions and their staffs. He also outright eliminated some agencies. He has already admitted this, saying that he didn’t see any reason to keep crisis staff “sitting around” when there is no crisis. He said he could always call them back when needed. He turned out to be wrong.
Sorry. Your long response is mostly personal opinion. Since the Jews are split on abortion (neither group uses a property argument) your argument is totally without merit.
Murder is wrong because it is prohibited conduct not because it supersedes God’s authority.
Any argument that says because it is not specifically stated in the bible is a non-starter.
My responses are not for non-Christians. They are irrelevant to me.
I have called abortion what it is – murder. I have said I don’t expect abortion to be outlawed. I have said that infanticide will not be tolerated by the Judiciary.
No one cares what the Left believes about Corona because they are ignorant of the facts and only pursue it to see if they can hurt Trump. They will never learn.
Yes, the Jews are split on abortion today. You can root around for a Jewish source that uses the word “property,” but there are several that echo this sentiment: https://www.jta.org/2019/05/22/opinion/what-jewish-law-really-says-about-abortion
“Jewish law does not consider the fetus to be a being with a soul until it is born. It does not have personhood. Furthermore, before 40 days, some poskim, or deciders of Jewish law, have a low bar for allowing an abortion.
The Talmud, in Yevamos 69b, cites the view of Rav Hisda that “until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being.”
Anyway, the topic is what does the Bible say about abortion, not what do Jews today think. Murder is prohibited conduct because it usurps God’s authority. That was YOUR argument, and I agreed. I agree that any argument that solely depending on an explicit Biblical prohibition or permission is a non starter, and I did not do that. We can think of a number of modern topics that are not addressed in the Bible. Explicit condemnation was only one of several considerations, and a rather strange oversight in the context of the time.
Non-Christians are relevant if you hope to persuade them to agree to any legislation you support. In fact, the rationale for any law needs to be able to stand alone in society, and not necessarily depend on the holy book of any one religion.
It is fine to believe that abortion is murder if you want. However, the Bible is a weak source for believing so. I have stated that as medical technology improves, the murder argument becomes stronger as the age of viability
decreases. The Biblical Jews did not ascribe personhood to nonviable babies as all untimely births were nonviable. Even now, the majority of abortions take place before the eighth week and 88% of them before the twelfth week, long before viability. I am not saying that I agree it is right. Sometimes society does progress beyond the morality of the Bible. Slavery is a good example. Biblical society did not even question the morality of people as property, much less unborn people. Very likely the modern realization that no person can be the property of another is being extrapolated to unborn babies. However, some Christians undermine their own position by insisting that even contraceptives are wrong.
I have not stated what the left believes about Corona. I have stated verifiable facts. I really do not understand the implication of your Corona comment. Do you think the crisis is all a figment of imagination? Besides it is
simplistic to imagine that all issues are left-right issues, especially a disease which does not discriminate on the basis of politics.
If you bring up Trump, Evangelicals have badly damaged their witness in the world by supporting him, especially after forcefully arguing in the 1990s that character was the essential qualification for the office of President. If Trump were a Democrat, Evangelicals would have been the ones loudly calling for his impeachment for the exact same behaviors. This indisputable observation has also badly damaged the credibility of Evangelicals on any topic.
How many times do you wish to cover the same ground on abortion and the bible?
We don’t need Christians or non-Christians to support legislation. The issue is coming before the Court and they will decide if the lower courts or the states have gone too far.
Corona is a Health issue.
Evangelicals are not relevant to me except as they point out the Lawlessness of the Left. The Left would like to destroy them but they can’t. Attacking them over which President they support seems irrational to me.
Sorry. I was talking about legislation in general. The Court has squandered a good deal of respect. If a Democrat had nominated a guy with Kavanaugh’s character, the GOP would have opposed him, and we would have heard the GOP’s ridiculous defenses from the Democrats. Also there have been way too many 5-4 decisions over the last twenty years that seem split on party lines rather than legal merit. According to the American Bar Association, way too many recent appointees to judgeships across the country are unqualified.
I used to wonder how it was possible for an unqualified person to be a judge. But I learned that in most counties, judgeships are elected positions. Any lawyers can file candidacy papers, and most run unopposed. So the local ambulance chaser becomes a local judge, and now he is on the path and can move up the ranks eventually to the appellate courts and perhaps beyond.
Again the right is equally lawless, and again dividing up the country into left and right,and denigrating half the country is counter-productive. It has only made America a weaker country. Never in America should it be possible that a Senate majority leader could deny confirmation hearings to 100 duly nominated judges including one Supreme Court nominee, and his party be okay with it. If a Democrat had done such a thing, the GOP would rightfully holler, and keep right on hollering for years.
No one attacked Evangelicals. “Attack” is one of those words that has become overused and misused. It is merely an observation that Evangelicals have squandered their witness and integrity by supporting Trump. In fact, non-Christians who used to grudgingly respect them as the moral conscience of America have come out and said they have no more use for anything a Christian says anymore. Christians squandered something very precious. This also is not a right-left issue. There are lawless people of every political stripe, and according to the Bible, some of the lawless are Christians. And some of the so-called “left” are your bothers and sisters in Christ.
The topic is still public policy and whether the government should promulgate laws based on what the Bible says.
No one disputes that it is a baby, but according to the OT Word of God, a baby is property. So God has apparently said that yes it is a baby, and also a baby is property until birth. I am not the one arguing with God here. No one is disputing that the baby is human life. However God
said human life is property until birth.
I am against abortion. I have not rationalized abortion anywhere. I have only said that according to what little there is in Word of God about it, a human life while still in the womb is property, and only receives the rights of personhood upon birth. It is well and good to oppose abortion, but the Bible isn’t very helpful in that regard. You would have far more unambiguous red-letter Biblical rational if you lobbied to make adultery and most divorce illegal again.
If you want to lobby against abortion based on your personal feelings, more power to you. Just don’t attribute your personal feelings to God.
Furthermore, the passage does not teach abortion.
Abortion is a about a mother and her accomplices willingly murdering her baby. That does not happen here. Pro-abortion people might be able to fool simpletons but anybody who can read and reason can see they are wrong.
The passage is an adultery test, not how to perform an abortion. The passage begins with commands from God about how to administer the adultery test to Moses and the priests. It is God who runs the show. The priest follow the orders of God. Abortion, in contrast, is the deliberate disobedience of a would be mother and her accomplices, to murder her baby.
The passage does not specifically say that the woman is even pregnant. The translators of the NIV assume a miscarriage would occur if the woman had committed adultery, but the Hebrew language did not mean miscarriage. All other reputable translation do not use the word miscarriage. If the woman has committed adultery then the potion would render her unable to ever bear children, a curse to a Jewish woman.
No one claims that the passage is about how to perform an abortion, only that abortion (if the woman is pregnant) is the outcome of the adultery test. Actually, if the potion is merely holy water and dust, there is nothing in it that would render a woman barren. If the woman is pregnant, do you believe the passage indicates the successful birth of the child? It is true that the Hebrew word is literally thigh, but “thigh” is also a Hebrew euphemism for reproductive parts. A reputable translation that translates literally will naturally use the word “thigh,” The NIV, which translates thought, says miscarriage. It is similar to the way “man” is now often rendered “humanity.” You have acknowledged that thigh probably refers to some aspect of reproduction.
“Abortion” does not apply here. It is God, who commands the procedure to see if the woman was an adulteress. Abortion is when the woman and/or parties involved in the pregnancy want and do terminate the life of her unborn baby.
The passage in Numbers 5 is about determining whether or not adultery was committed by a man’s wife in secret. Yes, she might be pregnant, but the passage does not say so. It is immaterial because it is God who causes her to have a miscarriage if she is indeed pregnant, and it is God who also determines that she will never bear children. It is God who gives children and it is God who closes the womb. This is said about God several times in Scripture.
Abortionists, liberals, atheist, unbelievers etc. try to twist the meaning of this passage of Scripture to confuse and trick people into thinking that God allowed abortion in the Old Testament. This was your goal as well. You brought it up with that purpose in mind.
Now you are just going around in circles.I brought it up because it is one of the very few passages that even touches on the issue. Taken together, all of the passages in the Old Testament that touch on the issue assume that human life in the womb is property.
Personally, I oppose abortion, and furthermore no man should sleep with a woman if he is not ready to take responsibility for the possible consequences. In fact, I approve the use of contraceptives, but even when using contraceptives, a man should not sleep with a woman if he is not willing to assume responsibility if contraception fails as it does on occasion, precisely because a human life is potentially involved and precisely because I personally do not think a human life is property in any circumstance. However, my view differs somewhat from the view in the Old Testament. In any case, Christians should not impose their own version of Sharia Law (law based solely on one religion’s holy book), and then justify it because it is simply the holy book Christians prefer. The basis of our government is consent of the governed. It sounds like you would like to dramatically modify the Constitution. Maybe that’s where your lobbying efforts should start.
But the Jews who profess to know the OT are split today on abortion; some allow it, some do not. Whether Jewish Law considers unborn babies property for their restitution formulas is not determinative on the issue of taking life. Similarly the passage about fidelity.
I believe that most women, if they had to perform abortions on others, would flee. I believe most men if they had to perform abortions on their wives would recoil at the thought.
So we have to sanitize the conversations with words like “choice” and “advice of their doctor.” None of this is on point.
It is murder clothed in liberal speak.
Some women doctors do perform abortions on women. Before abortion was legal, women did help each other abort babies. Most abortions occur with either the direct support of the father or indirect support when the father denies paternity. I am not sure why you frame your premise with the words “had to.” There is also the problem that some Christians rail against so-called “abortions of convenience,” but fail to offer any help to the unwed mother who does not abort. Either way the church condemns her, while the other responsible party, the father, is largely invisible.
No one is disputing that the purpose of abortion is death of a baby at some point in development. The question is whether that death is legally murder. What little Biblical guidance we have suggests it is not, because you cannot murder property. I oppose abortion. I also oppose using the government to forcibly impose religion on other people.
For example, even though the Bible says very directly, “Thou shall not steal,” no one thinks that governmental laws against theft are an imposition of religion because the general public recognizes extra-Biblical reasons why theft should be illegal. The case for outlawing abortion needs to be extra-Biblical as well. It also seems odd that Christians are not out there lobbying to make adultery and most divorce illegal. The New Testament case against both is very strong and unambiguous. In fact, both used to be illegal, but both have been decriminalized with no ongoing objection from Christians.
Unwed mothers and back alley abortions compared to 50 million murdered babies is meaningless.
Legally? Roe v. Wade 1973 made it legal.
Stealing, divorce, adultery are generally recognized but abortion is not? They are not recognized extra – biblically. The only reason they are known is because of the bible. All our laws came from that source.That is where any ancient pagan reference drew from.
Not quite. The laws of nearly every country overlap extensively as to what is criminal, so yes criminality is recognized extra-biblically. Good examples are the code of Hammurabi (1000 years before the Babylonian captivity), and the laws of Ancient China.
“It is murder clothed in liberal speak.”
Great line! May I borrow that?
It is a great line. Too bad it is inaccurate. You cannot murder property. Jewish explainers of their own OT scripture say that babies were property until they were born.
Children are not just Jewish are they.
The Jews are split on abortion. It is a well known fact.
Of course children are not just Jewish. That is part of my point. Perhaps Jewish OT law should not be used to allow the abortion of non-Jewish children, but that would undermine the Christian article of faith that all Scripture is the word of God. In fact, Paul was talking about the Jewish Old Testament when he said, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
Today, the Jews are split on abortion, but the split involves fewer acceptable reasons versus more acceptable reasons. Jewish law still does not ascribe personhood until birth, defined by them as when the head emerges, or in the case of breach birth, when most of the body emerges.. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/abortion-in-judaism
Ah, a “Jewish explainer,” you say. God is the final authority. God says the unborn are babies. You further show your contempt for God by putting the word of “Jewish expliners” over the word of God.
You are right in one respect, though. When abortions are performed for convenience sake the murder of a baby occurs. Babies are human life, not property. Why can’t you understand that? I know, your hatred for God won’t permit it.
My point is that this is how the Jews explain the Old Testament, the Word of God. Most Christians get their views from Christian explainers. Pastors know that part of their study when preparing a sermon is to look the Hebrew text, not just English, and look also at what Jewish commentaries say in order to understand the Old Testament. Babies are human life and human life was property until birth. If you want to argue that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, have at it. There is some basis for such a view regarding a number of other topics, such as slavery, unclean foods, etc. Even if you were to find unambiguous Biblical rationale for your view, that is still not a reason to use the force of government to impose that view on others. To convince non-Christians, you have to be able to make your case without referring to the Bible. For example, extortion is illegal in China for the same reasons it is illegal in the US. The Bible obviously has nothing to do with those reasons, even though Biblical law overlaps with the law in nearly all countries.
Abortion is the murdering of unborn babies, Your conscience tells you that. The Bible isn’t needed for you to know that. The Bible, the word of God, is a record of God’s character, God’s commandments, God’s will for mankind, God’s love, God’s hate, God’s mercy, God’s justice etc., and what He has in store for those who love Him and and those who hate Him.
Thanks. Of course.
You apparently thought that I read all of your comments. If I did I would probably spend countless hours refuting you. You and Herm are both delusional when you think people spend time reading your rants.
A “fetus” is a developing human being, a person. The Bible does not use “fetus,” it’s only you pro-abortionists that do. Here the word baby is used, as it is a baby in the womb – Luke 1:41, “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.” The word is “baby.” It’s a baby in the womb. God made it plain to you, but you reject the word of God, just like all unbelievers, atheists and heathens etc.
Nowhere, in Numbers 5:11-31, is it stated that a priest aborted a “fetus” as you call it.
Since it is highly unlikely that you could find that passage of Scripture, I will provide it for you. Now, read and learn.
Numbers 5:11-31 NASB:
11 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, 14 if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, 15 the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.
16 ‘Then the priest shall bring her near and have her stand before the Lord, 17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel; and he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall then have the woman stand before the Lord and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and place the grain offering of memorial in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy, and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse. 19 The priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, being under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; 20 if you, however, have gone astray, being under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you” 21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh [m]waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your [n]stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh [o]waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”
23 ‘The priest shall then write these curses on a scroll, and he shall wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 Then he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water which brings a curse will go into her [q]and cause bitterness. 25 The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, and he shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering as its memorial offering and offer it up in smoke on the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.
29 ‘This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all this law to her. 31 Moreover, the man will be free from [u]guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt.’”
“The priest gave the pregnant women a beverage that could and did cause the death of the fetus, so clearly sanctity of life was not a concern.”
So, you do know that the unborn is a person, a human life. A fetus is a developing human being, a developing person. Using the word “fetus” proves that you can’t admit that a person, a human being, a baby etc. is the issue here.
You favor the taking of human life in the womb for reasons of convenience for that is the case in the overwhelming majorities of abortions. You oppose all laws to eliminate the wholesale slaughter of the unborn.
BTW, no priest of God in Scripture ever caused the death of an unborn baby. You either made that up or you have believed somebody who is trying to make a fool of you.
I have seen the Adam argument many times. It is ridiculous in the extreme. Adam was formed and was lifeless. God breathed Life into him and he became a living soul. Many people believe he was formed fully grown.
A baby is a living and breathing soul inside the mother’s womb. Once delivered it starts breathing on its on. It was never lifeless after conception.
Catholics and some Protestants deny abortion.
Some Protestants allow abortion.
All Progressives want abortions on demand because they are Lawless.
While it is true that first trimester abortion was upheld by seven men in a 1973 judicial action that really means nothing in the eyes of God does it?
That is one reasonable response to the Adam argument. It is silly to make generalizations about progressives as if they are inherently evil people. They are not. We really have no idea how God sees it. There is nearly zero Biblical guidance on the subject. Supposedly Jewish law
is God’s law. Jewish law implies the fetus is the father’s property? Do Christians consider the fetus to be the father’s property, or property at all? If not, then we are taking upon ourselves to modify what little guidance we do have.
Shall I assume that because you have not addressed any of the major points I made that you have no problem with those?
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus holds His followers to higher standard than the legal standard of Jewish law, and Jesus implies that His followers will choose freely choose His higher standard for themselves.Would Christians support the legal penalties that apply to murder for
hating someone? Of course not, even though Jesus said hate was tantamount to murder.
Here is something else to consider. A Christian girl who is raped often receives counsel from her mother or others to immediately take the emergency contraceptive pill just in case conception occurred in order to save herself the emotional struggle of a possible pregnancy. This amounts to “kill it before you have a chance to know whether there is actually an it.” Many Christians support abortion in cases of rape or incest. If we are serious about a fetus being a sacred life, then rape or incest cannot be an exception. Or how about mothers who bring crack babies or fetal alcohol syndrome babies to term only to guarantee a miserable existence for a “sacred life?” Until relatively recently, a baby making it to the age of 5 was a
major milestone. There are reasons why some critics accuse Christians of being pro-birth, but not actually pro-life, if quality of life is not a consideration.
I oppose abortion, but I also have an ability to put myself in another person’s shoes, so I do not want to presume to impose my views especially by using the force of government. It seems inconsistent to want limited government influence in our own lives, while at the same time pressing for more government influence over other people’s lives.
Yes they did as if something good happened. Cuomo is a 62 year old liberal fool so typical of dumb democrat men like Gore and Biden; mindless brutes talking nonsense.
They ALL know that it’s a baby, an unborn baby, that they are killing. Nobody is that stupid.
They ALL call it a baby when they decide to not abort.
I strongly believe the reason that so many women are emotional wrecks is due to the guilt they have over their abortions.
Because not many want to say they agree with murdering babies about to be born even though it may seem politically correct to do so.
Their conscience condemns them, so they have to make it sound as harmless as possible. It’s an effort to deceive others to support abortion.
Yes. Isn’t it interesting that progressives throw a fit because they believe children might have to spend some time separated from thier escorts while they support severing the spine of a baby in the womb so they pull out the head and sell it for parts like an auto junkyard.
That is pure pseudo, self-flattering, “look at loving me” bullshit! Real life is a whole lot more complex than the destructive fantasy you project on others. I am pro, in all ways, constructive and productive quality of life for all of mankind, as a whole, a more perfect union. I refuse to remain silent while you potentially sacrifice the whole of mankind purely to support the expanded quantity of life.
No you are not. You support baby killing and have said it many, many times on this blog. Why do you fool yourself. “Worldwide, there have been more than 1.3 billion abortions since 1980” Can you try to grasp that number before you close you mind and write something else to justify abortion?
You truly are deluded and self absorbed. Do you support war? Do you support needless suffering and death of mothers? How many lives are lost to masturbation, wet dreams, periods, and vasectomies? Do you choose to call that baby killing, also?
I mourn the loss of all life! I do not support “baby killing”! I do not support anything that removes the opportunity for another to have unfettered life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! I do not support war! I do not support those who would deny women the right to choose what they do with their body! I do not support those who would deny men the right to do with their body! I do not support those who would deny mutually consenting adults whatever intimacy they are drawn to together.
You say, “Worldwide, there have been more than 1.3 billion abortions since 1980”.
I have one question, since 1980, including all the wars due to over crowding and less food as a result of climate change, has the population of the world increased, or decreased?
If you can justify war, the premature sacrifice of healthy adult children, then I can justify abortion of fetuses. I mourn the loss of each and all I know, including those who died, who I knew in my lifetime, of coat hanger abortions.
No, I can no more grasp 1.3 billion, whether of people, planets, or grains of sand, than you can. Don’t try to claim you can, you’ve lied enough already.
This is an innefective repeat of domments already made that have been denounced by others beside me.
Got anything fresh from the Spirit Hot-Line?
I have one question, since 1980, including all the wars due to over crowding and less food as a result of climate change, has the population of the world increased, or decreased?
I do not support legislated abortion! I support educated choice!
You would legislate to penalize a mother for her responsible choice as to how her body is used. I would never legislate abortion or anti-abortion. I do actively support all life that is constructive and productive to mankind.
I am truly empathetically and influentially pro-life and pro-choice for all of mankind. I’ve actually had a father-to-be die in my arms in Vietnam. Don’t talk to me about my conscience. You don’t know shit about what I feel or what a mother feels who is considering an abortion. You just want to feel good about yourself, no matter how pitifully ignorant or powerless you might be.
You and Bob are dictatorially sticking your nose in where you have no business being. It is not yours to determine who, of others’, surely lives and dies. If it is, it is time to put down your sword of war to pick up your own cross of love ,that others might live by your life’s sacrifice in their place of doom.
By your speaking out judgmentally, seeking anti-abortion legislation, with a clear lack of empathy for all in the picture of life, available as you can possibly bear to perceive, you needlessly harm, sometimes to death, innocent others just to feed your own self-centered, “feel good” cause.
You say you don’t support legislated abortion. Well, it is already legislated, so, would you support overturning abortion laws that already allow wholesale abortion? If you are legally able to vote, and do, you will vote for Democrats who not only support abortion, but oppose any, and all efforts to stop abortion. Why is that not supporting legislated abortion?
You say you support educated choice. You would not have a choice on abortion if abortion was not already allowed by legislation. One does not need an education to oppose the killing of their unborn. God gave every man a conscience about right and wrong, so that they would have not a defense when they stand before Him in judgement.
“God gave every man a conscience about right and wrong, so that they would have not a defense when they stand before Him in judgement.”
There you go, that threat originated with the Roman Catholic Church, not before. Mankind propagates by instinct so that its species would survive the perpetual death of its members. According to the Bible viewed in the reality of 25 million years of mankind, God by grace gave (made in), somewhere within the spectrum of Man’s existence, the animal species of mankind a relational image of God. The Messiah taught very clearly that Man is physically temporal, and God is eternally spirit. To be a child of God, sibling of the Messiah, requires being born again in the Spirit of God. God does not propagate to survive. God does have the influence to abort life prematurely, which was and is employed on the cross (metaphorically) for all the Father’s children.
I don’t support legislated abortion, though Roe v. Wade would be satisfactory to me to impress and make available community support for all women considering any form of abortion, or sexual health. I wholly support community support, without religious bias, for all families considering pregnancy; before, during and after, whenever pregnancy comes to their attention. That is where and when educated choice is most effective, not from any legislation. Today, states have neutered Roe v. Wade in favor of even more religious bias, and within each there is very little to no unbiased, medically/psychologically sound, services available for the health of women, fathers and their fetus.
It intrigues me, and it is telling, that you would say “ God gave every man a conscience”. Why didn’t, in your view, God give every “woman” a conscience? Oh, another way to have said it inclusively, is God gave all of Man a conscience. You see, it offends me empathetically, to hear others make any woman a second-class citizen, or worse, of no higher status than a heifer, a bitch, a mare, or any animal stature considered less than equally and sexually monomorphic.
No, you are wrong, it’s from Romans, chapter 1. I’m not a Catholic but if you say they believe in a conscience, then they got one right.
Where is it from?
I offer this for your edification:
Romans 2:1-16 (NIV2011)
Matthew 7:12 (NIV2011)
Matthew 22:37-40 (NIV2011)
Where does the Bible refer to God’s admonition regarding “to oppose the killing of their unborn?
Herm, anybody can copy and paste Scripture. I’ve noticed that you do it to excess and out of context. For example:
“You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.”
I’m not the one supporting abortion. I speak out against abortion, the killing of the unborn. I’m not the one calling abortion pro choice when what he really means is that he is pro abortion. That’s you Herm. I’m not the one who says that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body when what he really means to say is that a woman has a right to kill her unborn. That’s you Herm. I’m not the one who votes for Democrats who vow to appoint only judges who support the killing of the unborn. That’s you Herm. The Democrat candidates just did that in their last debate.
You come across as a sanctimonious fraud. Somebody needs to tell you that. Furthermore, nobody is reading those long, and rambling, and often incoherent rants of yours.
darel, you truly are self absorbed. It is not true that anybody can copy and paste Scripture. I only do so, for you, because you didn’t read the scripture that you so inappropriately quote to support your implicated threat that God will send all those to hell for “killing of the unborn”. He will not!!!
It must be such a fulfilling cause to speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves, those who have not complained , and most loudly for all those (some of your crying members claim in the billions plus) who will never speak.
You, and yours (Bob), don’t support those born, fed, sheltered, educated, and, all too many dead, children who did speak because they were not nearly as respected. What do you do for the mothers and the soldiers? Are you pro war?
What are you doing for the homeless, malnourished women whose children will suffer? What are you doing for the misuse of drugs that, through childbirth, children will suffer the whims of their parents?
Are you pro suffering and death for some but not for all like you, yours and the unborn? I am not pro suffering and death for anyone, including you, yours and the unborn. I mourn the one miscarriage my wife and I suffered 42 years ago. I mourn for more brothers than you can possibly comprehend the pain of, that I lost in Vietnam 54 years ago.
You don’t impress me, but you do threatened all the potential mothers with false godly claims, and with further legislation, that only confuses more the reality that they have to choose from, by eliminating honest and caring medical and social services just to salve your religious good feelings because you don’t wish to mourn any longer.
Are you pro war? I’m not pro abortion!
Killing babies in the womb is voluntary and done with complete knowledge of the outcome. So if baby killing is proscribed (and it is) those who do it are guilty: women and thier doctors – especially Planned Parenthood.
Conflating war and baby killing and the homeless is absurd and you know it. God said thou shalt not kill. God said the poor will always be with us. War, wars and rumors of wars were prophesied long ago.
Why is it ok for women to decide to have an abortion? Where is that stated by God? How do they get a pass from the commandment not to kill?
Oh, Bob, you stuck your foot in your mouth, again. You won’t even try to understand, from your lynch mob/riot fever mentality, but …
You wrote,
“Why is it ok for women to decide to have an abortion? Where is that stated by God? How do they get a pass from the commandment not to kill?”
Why is it okay for you to decide women can’t have an abortion? It is not stated by God, nor is it stated by God in the Bible that they can’t choose to do with their children what they want.
After all, it is written that God clearly felt Abraham had a perfect right and authority to choose to kill Issac. If a father has the perfect right to choose life or death for his child, what right does a mother have? The Father chose to allow, no twelve legions of angels intervening, the premature killing of his Son.
It is ok for me to point out that abortion is a sin because it is. It is not ok for you to tell women it is there body like a Leftist lemming.
As to Abraham having a right to kill Issac – let me stop laughing before I respond.
It is only a sin if, in everything, you do not do to others as you would have others do to you
… and like that …
you don’t love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and like that, love your neighbor as yourself.
If you cannot understand the Decalogue within that standard you do not understand transgressing against the Law and the Prophets.
It changes nothing for you to say differently You don’t have the authority of Jesus Christ to judge differently.
Give it a rest, your replies are becoming more, and more, incorrectly spelled and offering less, and less, sense.
God didn’t make it clear in Genesis 22 that it was Abraham’s responsibility of choice to kill, or not, Issac? How do you interpret Genesis 22?
That is not the complete standard for determining sin. The ten commandments are the basis are they not? Mispelled or not apparently you are reading them.
Genesis 22 is something you cannot understand because you believe you are hot-wired into the Spirit of God that lets you determine what is sin and what is not.
Genesis 22 was a test of Abraham’s faith to see if he would listen to God’s voice. Where does it say anything differently?
Do you know what the Decalogue is?
“If you cannot understand the Decalogue within that standard you do not understand transgressing against the Law and the Prophets.”
Where does Genesis 22 say any different than what I shared with you?
Where does it say, anywhere in the Bible, that life and death, according to God’s law, of a parent’s child is anyone other than the parent’s choice and responsibility?
By the Father’s example, even God will choose to give up the life of his children for the love of mankind!
Here – “After all, it is written that God clearly felt Abraham had a perfect right and authority to choose to kill Issac.” Perfectly incorrect.
The sixth commandment for starters.
“By the Father’s example, even God will choose to give up the life of his children for the love of mankind!”
What do you believe the metaphor, of carrying “their own cross” signifies relative to the Father’s will?
Galatians 1:3-5 (NIV2011)
When you have the power, like with twelve legions of angels, to stop the killing of your children, and you don’t, does that make you complicit?
Joshua 6:20-21 (NIV2011)
This by God’s example and his command, the Lord I love with all my heart, with all my soul, with all my strength, with all my mind, decreed that every living thing in Jericho be killed by the sword?
Again, for students of Christ, only by the measure of Mathew 7:12 and 22:37-40 can all the Law (1st 5 books of the Old Testament Scripture) and the Prophets (the remainder of the Old Testament Scripture) be known as according to the will of God.
Bob, I don’t believe you are comprehending anything I am sharing with you. I do believe you are incapable of bearing to know the truth today. Maybe, with a little rest and rereading what you missed, it might help you find the truth, led not by me but solely by the Spirit of truth available to you.
Herm, like all liberals, will always try red herrings in an effort to change the subject, when exposed and cornered.
Now watch him try to make himself out as the Godly one and you the lost one. The religious liberals are the most worst at that.
So darel, what makes you Godly?
Herm, I would never try to best you at being the more righteous Pharisee. I don’t read your long, disjointed, often incoherent rants, so I missed your credentials. Did you include tithing in your boasting?
It is apparent that Herm is not coherent and I can’t continue with his thread. When he said that fathers have the right to kill thier children based on Abraham it was a bit too far to be debatable.
He used to be on Patheos. I noted then how weird and incoherent he was, and discerned that he was not a Christian. I don’t know if he even claims to be a Christian. Many come on these sites to attack Christianity, and the word of God in subtle ways. It’s the old “yea hath God said?”
Click and Clack, what makes a Christian? Can one actually be a Christian (Christ like) if they don’t know the Word in them to abide in his authority? By whose authority do you condemn others by usurping the name of God, surely not Jesus Christ’s authority. … by whose???
Neither of you use Scripture as your witness to the testimony of Christ. Both of you testify that you worship your Bible as the most sacred word of God. Both of you make fun of those, and there are more than you know, who are children of God on earth, siblings of Jesus Son of God.
Which would you considered to be better for you; to be a card carrying Christian or a Spirit bearing disciple of only the Messiah, Christ? … oh, if he were alive, of course.
Is the Christian church alive to you and Jesus Christ dead to you? Which form of Christianity are you a member of and hold allegiance to?
Get this straight, I don’t attack Christianity any more than the Son of Man attacked Judaism.
I claim to be no more than a young child born of God, learning from, a disciple of, my one Instructor Jesus; A.K.A.: the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God, Brother.
Jesus Christ was sentenced to be crucified to death by Caiaphas, as a blasphemer for refusing to deny that he is a child of God.
You don’t know your Bible and you don’t know Jesus. You know of Jesus only with what your church officials and traditions has selectively pointed out in the Bible. Our greatest salvation from Jesus’ dying on the cross was then, and only then (1,985 years ago), did the Advocate come to teach each and everyone of mankind the truth of Man and God. Instead you and your traditional religious types keep going back to the human priests, not much unlike Caiaphas and Annas, who enforce Institutional Theology rather than point you, and yours, to an eternal relationship with and in the Spirit of truth, as your only one Teacher.
Sad.
Now it is time for you to say I am worthy of death, to spit in my face and strike me with your holier than thou “christian” fists. Encouraging others to slap me while saying, “Prophesy to us, child of God. Who hit you?” Matthew 26:66-68.
… too weird and incoherent for you? … like the Bible, that you do not open to read for yourself, and a living Spirit of truth, who you do not see to accept?
Joshua 10:30 (NIV2011)
What were you debating relative to the 6th commandment, written in the Decalogue, in what you worship as the innerant word of God?
This is just one of many cities that no survivors were left, with the full support of the Lord God. The dead, put to the sword by God’s chosen, were, young, old, male, female (including those mothers pregnant from conception to full term).
You can’t continue with this thread only because there is no way to use the Bible as a weapon to justify your misogynous breeder mentality.
You’re probably unable to understand this, also, so this too will be assign to my just being once again incoherent. How far down must I speak to you before you can comprehend the fallacies of your ways?
darel, humility begins with honestly considering that you may be the lost one. If I am ignorant of something, I don’t know what I don’t know of that something. I am constantly researching and testing to see what I don’t see, to know what and who I don’t know. I am prepared to do so forever.
I am not ignorant of my relationship with and in the Spirit of truth, but you are ignorant of even the possibility that I am sharing with you the truth, because you don’t see, to know, to accept the Holy Spirit in your midst. You only see with carnal eyes which are blind to spirit (which God is) reality. You won’t even accept my invitation for you to read that which is written to be so in your Bible. The truth is not a red herring.
The dynamic Word of God is in me and I am in him. I wish the same equally for you. The hardness of your heart and mind of spirit (in the image of God) is all that is keeping you from the joy and peace found with and in God as their child.
I know, to you I am incoherent. Your loss, not mine. Strange thing is, without your theologians leading you, the Bible would be incoherent to you. With the Advocate’s guiding the Bible testimony in total becomes clear as each student can bear.
Herm, it is not humility that causes you to reject the bible. It is not understanding that allows you to believe the “spirit of truth” speaks to you.Rather, it is an evil demon that has possessed you and gets you to spew out ungodly ideas. You need an exorcism!
Bob, I really can’t elevate you to the educated and authoritative status of Caiaphas, only to his blind followers who in effect, yelled, “Exorcise him from our lives!”. You truly do not know God, yet you say you speak for God, no further than you’ve been taught to believe in the Bible. You make judgments, as though you’re aware of my Father’s will, without accepting the word of God I’m boldly speaking to you.
Can’t you understand that you maybe wrong, that you may be blind, that the Spirit of truth actually exists, and that he really does live with and in children of God on earth, as it is written, as it is promised by the living and fully authoritative Lord Jesus, just as it was with Christ’s first flock filled with the Holy Spirit, boldly speaking the word of God?
Greetings Herm. Just run across you in my email. Thinking I have a friend. Love you.??
… you, in “all” ways, will have a friend in me, Charles. Thank you, Love you!
Here is some really good Good news.
18 we not looking to the things seen, but to the things not seen; for the things seen [are] temporary, but the things not seen [are] age-during.
2 Corinthians 4.18
Young’s Literal Translation
THIS! Took a big weight off me today.?
I could see that!
I can’t live by what my eyes see, only by he the world can’t see, to know, to accept, can I be led to live in the truth, just as much as I grow in spirit to bear. I see and hear him clearly now with my heart and mind of spirit, the image of God.
Thanks!
Herm darel • 3 days ago • edited
The Bible isn’t the word of God, it is a testimony of mankind’s relationship with God as each author could bear.
=================
You condemned yourself Herm. No matter how much you copy and paste Scripture, the word of God, it won’t warrant claiming to be a Christian. Do you even claim to be a Christian?
… then share with me how, and by whose authority, you know the Bible is the word of God? Do you know that it is inerrant?
Quit sentencing me to your hell and help me out here, like in love your enemy.
No, after having once been a trained, ordained and a ministering Christian church authority in good standing, I can no longer, rest on the credentials that any carnal church would stand behind as their study of God. I am commissioned to teach you the commands of my Lord, that he might fill you with the Spirit of truth for eternity. John 4:21-24; the time came 1,985 years ago and will remain forever.
There you go again telling me how sanctimonious you are. You are such a fraud. I exposed you as pro abortion. You resent it, so you strike out.
Herm, we all suffer, we all have lost loved ones, we all endure hardships. I spent 14 months in Nam. I had a brother in the 101st in Nam, another in the 11th Arm calvary in Nam.
You can run from your pro abortion position by feigning piety, but God gives every man a conscience, so you will never shed your guilt unless you repent.
There is no doubt in my mind that you are against all war, that you are pro abortion, that you reject God’s word on the sin and the judgment of those who practice Homosexuality. And you vote Democrat because you are liberal.
Bernie Sanders would be your ideal candidate because he too thinks like you and he will make abortion free if he gets his way. Atheist, Socialist, Bernie Sanders will not be President of the United States.
SANCTIMONIOUS??? (“making a show of being morally superior to other people”) … when you claim “God gives every man a conscience, so you will never shed your guilt unless you repent” as a clear “sanctimonious” threat without reference?
You don’t abide in Scripture because you defy what is written in John 4:23,24, 14:15-21, 15:26,27,16:12-15, and Acts 4:31. The Bible isn’t the word of God, it is a testimony of mankind’s relationship with God as each author could bear. If you want all truth, as you can bear, then you must be born again in the Spirit as your one guide, then, and only then, can you unsanctimoniously speak the word of God, apropos to today, boldly.
All the Law and the Prophets (all God’s support for the Old Testament Scripture) is summed up, in everything, do to others as you would have others do to you. Apply that admonition from the Messiah to your judgment regarding mutually agreed to intimacy between adults of mankind, in any social, physical or spiritual form, that in no other way affect you and yours. Your judgment is sanctimonious sans any awareness of the living word of God.
I am not pro abortion! I am pro healthcare, education and the most equal opportunity for all in my nation possible, of which I am responsible to through my speech and vote, to avail themselves of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That isn’t going to happen in our present corporatocracy that hasn’t a healthy balance of regulated capitalism and regulated socialism to benefit the majority of our nation’s members equally. The political candidate you seem to support would take this nation even further away from a Democratic Republic into a clear autocracy like (only he, of no transparency, demeaning and cleaning house of all opponents, can lead) Nazi Germany (some capitalism/socialism), Communist Russia (some capitalism/socialism), Communist North Korea (no capitalism), and Communist China (some capitalism/socialism), all without a healthy balance of capitalism and socialism. Jesus Christ is a socialist who is pro a divinely governing benevolent dictatorship regulated by the perfect will of the Father. Children, which compared to God mankind is, playing at governing themselves very rarely have a benevolent dictator available to govern them equitably. The framers of the United States of America’s Constitution presented us the best chance to build a more perfect union, with no mention of capitalism being the predominate influence for our nation’s representation.
Oh, by the way, Bernie is not an atheist, though there would be nothing wrong with it if he were, he is Jewish. His form of socialism in no way threatens our Democracy, Republic or Constitution. His form of socialism threatens our insufficiently regulated influence of capitalism that makes us the United States of America effectively a corporatocracy.
Capitalism is conceptually the hoarding otherwise available resources and products for the profit of a few of mankind.
Capital: wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.
Socialism is conceptually sharing all available resources and products for the good of all organized mankind.
Social: relating to society or its organization.
We know if either goes unregulated individuals will abuse each concept to eventually become managed/governed by an autocrat (only (s)he can rule right for the good of all [the most divine sanctimonious Father figure]).
Watch, he will make, all those willing and trusting to be governed solely by a father figure, fear any regulation of capitalism and no regulation of socialism! He will manipulate and intimidate with fear the uncomfortable, irresponsible, and uneducated voter to accept only him. You have been warned!
Wow! What blasphemy!!! You actually said:
“The Bible isn’t the word of God, it is a testimony of mankind’s relationship with God as each author could bear.”
You are the first liberal I have ever got to so boldly state that blasphemy. Most liberals just find fault with the Bible. You leave no doubt that you are not a believer, a Christian.
Wow, you deny who the Word is:
John 1:1 (NIV2011)
You deny him as your one Instructor:
Matthew 23:8-12 (NIV2011)
Because of your denials you cannot be his student (disciple):
Luke 14:25-27 (NIV2011)
But, thank you, you place me in with the most divine company:
Matthew 26:63-68 (NIV2011)
Thank you, again, but pray tell, by whose theory-ology (the study of God by those who do not know God) do you make your judgment?
Sorry if this is too much Scripture cut and pasted, but in love for you I thought it would be nice to make the effort to share what you clearly have not read. Not only do I suggest you read, and refute if you can, the offerings I make here for your edification, I humbly suggest that you go back and read what I said before that you deny written in Scripture. Don’t take my word for it, take the Word’s word!
Love you!
Herm, the jig is up. You said “the Bible isn’t the word of God.” You have called God a liar. You are clearly a blasphemer. The Bible is a closed book to you. You are spiritually blind. You can call yourself a Christian but nobody will believe you, and no Christians church would have you as a member.
Tell me, who taught you who the word is?
The rest of your rant are pure lies founded on nothing I said, or on Scripture (the open Bible), only the judgment of Caiaphas.
As to your previous reply: “Herm, I would never try to best you at being the more righteous Pharisee. I don’t read your long, disjointed, often incoherent rants, so I missed your credentials. Did you include tithing in your boasting?”
Do you find the Bible, that you say is “closed to me”, “long and disjointed”, also?
John 14:16-17
Have you noticed that you haven’t once offered any Scripture to refute the Scripture I drew, as written, directly from my open Bible, to share with you?
John 16:12-13
Eternity is a long time not to read, listen or hear the Spirit of truth?
Where did you find that I called God, the God you do not know living with and in you, as I do, a liar? … and what was it that I said they lied about?
There are at least three fingers, on the hand of the finger you point at me, that point back at you.
If the “jig is up” then offer real Scripture or, at best, speak boldly the true and living word of God as evidence to support your accusations.
You have blasphemed God by denying that the Bible is the word of God. You are a lost man. You need to be told that. This explains why you ramble and are often incoherent. I don’t read your rants and neither does anybody else. You need to be told that also. I almost always can find something to refute you with within your first sentence or two, or maybe your first paragraph. The word Vietnam did catch my eye in one of your long ramblings and I did comment on that.
You are wasting time and energy with me, because I will respond to you with nothing but your words about denying that the Bible is the word of God.
darel, you wrote, “I almost always can find something to refute you with within your first sentence or two, or maybe your first paragraph.”
… in reply to my summation:
“If the “jig is up” then offer real Scripture or, at best, speak boldly the true and living word of God as evidence to support your accusations.”
Where’s the “real Scripture”?
Where is it written, in your Bible, that your Bible is the word of God? Do you refute the Bible with its own words, too? Who baptized you to be my judge? … those are but a few questions you leave wide open, but, so far, your Bible is not wide open, only mine.
darel, you wrote, “I almost always can find something to refute you with within your first sentence or two, or maybe your first paragraph.”
… in reply to my summation:
“If the “jig is up” then offer real Scripture or, at best, speak boldly the true and living word of God as evidence to support your accusations.”
Where’s the “real Scripture”?
Where is it written, in your Bible, that your Bible is the word of God? Do you refute the Bible with its own words, too? Who baptized you to be my judge? … those are but a few questions you leave wide open, but, so far, your Bible is not wide open, only mine.
darel, in the Spirit reaching out to you, this response just came to me relative to your summation:
“You are wasting time and energy with me, because I will respond to you with nothing but your words about denying that the Bible is the word of God.”
Is the real, live God wasting his time and energy with you, because you will respond to him with nothing but his words about denying that the Bible is the word of God? Interesting, thanks Lord!
?
Are you now adding another blasphemy by claiming to be God? Wasn’t saying the Bible isn’t the word of God a bad enough blasphemy on your part?
You wrote a short reply and yet you still can’t be coherent.
What was Jesus Christ sentenced to be crucified for?
You said, “the Bible isn’t the word of God.”
Although all liberals attack the Bible, the word of God, in some manner, you are the first, and only liberal I have encountered that denies that the Bible is the word of God.
Can you name a known religious liberal who agrees with you?
darel, please read the following, please!
1 John 2:14 (NIV2011)
John 14:19-20 (NIV2011)
Revelation 19:13 (NIV2011)
Does the word of God live in you? Do you know the Father? Why not?
Please answer; What was Jesus Christ sentenced to be crucified for?
1 Corinthians 2:13 (NIV2011)
Are the words you are speaking taught by the Spirit (of truth) or the church calling them selves Christian? Is the Spirit real and available to you, or are you in waiting?
https://www.christiantruthcenter.com/the-bible-is-not-the-word/
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/04/the-bible-is-not-the-word-of-god-1/
https://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html
https://www.modernghana.com/news/937667/the-bible-is-not-the-word-of-god-the-word-of.html
Newsweek is your source?
The bible is the source:
2 Timothy 3:16
2 Peter 3:16
Luke 21:33
Hebrews 4:12
What determines what scripture is? When 2 Timothy 3:16 was written there was only one canon of scriptures, and it did not contain 2 Timothy 3:16. This is Scripture inspired by God.
Pauls epistles, recognized in 2 Peter 3:16, were clearly inspired by his relationship with God, and some became New Testament Scripture in testimony to his relationship of God’s child with and in the Spirit. There is a good legitimate admonition that should make you and darel wary, “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” I could hear you both saying, his epistles are too long and incoherent for you to research and study.
Heaven and earth will pass away, completely, they are carnal. Jesus, the Word of God, will be heard fresh every moment for eternity for those born of God, fill with the Spirit of truth. Luke 21:33
The Word of God is truly alive, well and active for all those you have seen, to know, to accept the Spirit of truth (Hebrews 4:12), but you wouldn’t know that.
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
Revelation 19:13 (NIV2011)
Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.
John 14:19 (NIV2011)
You do not see him, the Word of God.
Which one of those cults or cult leaders do you associate with? Is it some black Muslim cult?
Whoever they are, they are no more Christian than yourself.
The Bible, the word of God, is the only authority of truth for Christians. You deny that the Bible is the word of God, so you are left with seeking truth from some other source apart from God.
darel, you offer no Bible reference to your claims, none. Christians used to be known, but not endeared as “Bible thumpers”. You didn’t read all those “cult leaders” Bible references to even risk realizing that you’ve been misled by religion away from a relation with God the Father, God Jesus Christ, and your greatest loss, God the Holy Spirit. Enough of that.
By your definition, Jesus Christ in me, and I in him, along with both of us, and the heavenly Father, the Spirit of truth living with and in us (as read directly from the Bible), is a cult.
It is not the spirit of Christ you honor by demeaning another religion, who most within know better their Koran.
By what and whose authority do you believe that your religion’s Bible is the word of God? Proof?!?!
Tell us what your little voice has to say about the scriptures below?
2 Timothy 3:16
2 Peter 3:16
Luke 21:33
Hebrews 4:12
These are much better than a subscription to Newsweek.
… and have nothing to do with who or what the Word of God is to God, as I replied earlier to in depth. You are blind and deaf to the living word of God, so you demean those who aren’t.
Herm darel • 3 days ago • edited
The Bible isn’t the word of God, it is a testimony of mankind’s relationship with God as each author could bear.
==========
Will you ever list the names of those religious leaders (note that I didn’t say Christians) who agree with you about the Bible, the Scriptures, not being the word of God?
darel, it seems impossible to reach your hardened heart and mind, made in God’s image, spirit.
I offered you a refined list, not to confuse you with too much, of Internet articles where “religious” leaders explained why the Bible and all its testimonial Scripture is not the word of God.
There is one world renowned high priest, who I agree wholly with and he with me, who I have shared with you. Unfortunately, you’re looking for many theologians (those who do not know God or they would not have to waste their mortal opportunity studying God), who support to justify your blind conscience.
How many children of Man have to study their mother and father to know if their protecting, nurturing and providing family exists and love their children? Infants learn from relationship, solely. If you truly wish to be a child of God, representing God, relationship is the only way you will ever know, first hand, the living Word of God for yourself.
Herm darel • 3 days ago • edited
The Bible isn’t the word of God, it is a testimony of mankind’s relationship with God as each author could bear.
=================
So, you cite Scripture but claim it is not the word of God.
You refuse to give the names of religious (false teachers) who agree with you. Man up Herm.
darel, you idolize the carnal Bible as the word of God, but you won’t believe was is clearly written, nor cite where it is claimed to be the word of God in the Bible.
Instead, you look to other carnal religious leaders to confirm that they are false teachers because they know better than your chosen carnal teachers.
I presented you with and example of “religious” leaders’ writings found out on the net. You could find many more, including declared atheists, if you google “the Bible is not the word of God.
I have only one teacher who know God personally with impeccable credentials. I pointed to where Jesus, the confessed Messiah, is quoted to be telling all his disciples (which means pupil/student) of our one Father , one Teacher, and one Instructor, the Messiah. He concludes with the greatest among you will be your servant.
You shine on any Bible study that does not agree with your carnal teachers. You shine on the Spirit of truth as not solely qualified to lead you in the wilderness and guide you into all truth forever, on earth and in heaven.
The spirit of Satan has hardened your heart and mind to where God is dead to you, while you wait for his return. I hurts to see a brother of Man dying with no hope to become a brother of God.
Herm darel • 3 days ago • edited
The Bible isn’t the word of God, it is a testimony of mankind’s relationship with God as each author could bear.
=================
Still no names of those religious leaders that you say agree with your blasphemy. False teachers seldom so easily make themselves known as false teachers such as you have done.
Get behind me Satan!
Herm darel • 3 days ago • edited
The Bible isn’t the word of God, it is a testimony of mankind’s relationship with God as each author could bear.
=================
Your own words show that it is you who serve Satan.
Give me the names of those religious leaders who gave you that blasphemy that blasphemy of yours.
Let’s make a deal, okay? You give me the name(s) of the religious leader(s) who give you this blasphemy and I’ll give you mine.
Again, you are not coherent. You said that the Bible isn’t the word of God. That is your blasphemy.
Try making sense
No, darel, it is your hardened heart and mind that is not logical and consistent. By whose authority, religious leader (?), do you judge me?
Herm darel • 3 days ago • edited
The Bible isn’t the word of God, it is a testimony of mankind’s relationship with God as each author could bear.
=================
You have condemned yourself. Your blasphemy shouts that you are not a Christian, but a lost man instead. You refuse to name the religious leaders that agree with you. You evidently made it up.
There for all to see is your blasphemy, your condemnation.
So??? Your authority for judging me to hell is your alone, are you Satan or God? … otherwise your words are impotent.
Herm darel • 3 days ago • edited
The Bible isn’t the word of God, it is a testimony of mankind’s relationship with God as each author could bear.
=================
You judged yourself with your blasphemy. I had no part in it.
Your own words judge you, I have nothing to do with it. You have called God a liar and you have openly and clearly stated that the Bible isn’t the word of God:
Herm darel • 3 days ago • edited
The Bible isn’t the word of God, it is a testimony of mankind’s relationship with God as each author could bear.
=================
darel, that is not even close to being rational. I must believe, even if based solely on the Bible that you worship as the word of God, that you are Satan. This would mean that there is no hope for you, as it is written.
Now, if you are not, and simply an obsessed minion of mankind’s traditional religiosity , ravaged by doubt, this is your last reference from me and the only Authority of all truth forever:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2020/02/please-stop-begging-god-to-be-good/#disqus_thread
Herm darel • 3 days ago • edited
The Bible isn’t the word of God, it is a testimony of mankind’s relationship with God as each author could bear.
=================
Your words are your record. No Christian church would have you as a member. You refuse to give names of religious leaders (religious, not Christian) that agree with your statement, It’s obvious that you don’t have any.
I wonder what each author was “bearing.” Seems to me it was a wonderful time. Kind of like writing a book after the fact with the Spirit to assist you.
Also, I did not know that the Spirit had a subscription to Newsweek?
I know you didn’t, and so does he know you didn’t know that the Spirit can get his influence into Newsweek. I don’t have a subscription to what is written in Newsweek, as he doesn’t, but we can read what is in Newsweek. He can even influence, as he did authors of the Bible, what is printed in Newsweek. Just because it is written in Newsweek does not make it not the truth.
You do know what to blaspheme really is, don’t you?
You don’t know the truth and there is no better, or sure, source to be led into all truth than the Spirit. You, instead, make fun of those who seem as invalids to you, because they insist they see, know and relate with he you cannot see. Jesus, the Christ, never does that to anyone, including you. We don’t find your blindness and hardened heart humorous.
Sorry. You are wrong as usual. I’m olny sharing because this is important.
Blasphemy against the Spirit leads to the Second Death. Since you don’t understand the First Death you don’t understand the Second.
I am safe and so are you but for different reasons.
Help me Bob, what is the “First Death”? Please, show me where this is explained in the Bible, any version.
Wish I could help you but you are not teachable in my opinion.
My Lord and Brother disagrees with you.
Until, if ever, you are born again of God, living with the
Spirit of truth in you, you are not capable of making disciples of all nations, filling them with the Spirit of truth in the name of the heavenly Father and the Word of God (Matthew 12:19).
Until the Spirit gives you birth to spirit (John 3:6) you will not see the kingdom of God (John 3:3), so says Jesus, the Messiah, the one Instructor to all his siblings on earth who see the kingdom of God today. Only those in the spirit will know life eternal, no death. All who never are born to spirit will die to all time and be forgotten. That is the promise directly from the mouth of the Word of God living in all children of God on earth, and they in him.
Your lack of humility, gloating in your superior ignorance, only makes it clear, to those who know Christ Jesus in them, and they in him, how limited purely carnal awareness and influence is.
I did not ask you to teach me, I asked you to show me where to find what is the first death, because you said you were only sharing because it is important. I agree, so share, please.
Like casting pearls at swine.
I marvel at how he cites Scripture, that he doesn’t understand, when he claims it isn’t the word of God.
When Herm said fathers can kill their children and used God and Abraham as examples it occurred to me he is just trying to continue the debate not add to it.
He either has mental health issues or he has been involved with some far out satanic cults.
First Death refers to the idea that first our material bodies die. After the resurrection, some people will go on to eternal life with God, and others will suffer the Second Death, eternal life in hell. It is not strictly Biblical; it is an attempt to reconcile the plain meanings of “eternal life” and “perishing” with the contradictory idea of ever-lasting torment in the fires of hell.
Lucas, thanks for the help, but what you don’t understand is that Bob and I have a four year relationship. I do what I can to get him to read the Bible he swears is the word of God. This is a seven times seven relationship.
In plain English, I know God and God won’t waste a moment of constructive love to forever manage a never ending punishment of fire.
Yes. He wrote 12 paragraphs in response to your comments showing his frustration.
But make no mistake Herm does not beileve in the bible. He believes he is hot-wired into the Spirit of God and gets his beliefs directly unlike the rest of us.I suspect he gets his responses from the Satan, the god of this world, and believes they come from God.
Bob, you deny Scripture as written. You are trapped in your allegiance to the modern day Sadducees, Pharisees and Herods.
Mark 3:29 might have something to do with your misrepresentation of “hot-wired into the Spirit of God.” I never even implied that I get my “beliefs” from God in any form. I’ve shared that I am born again of spirit, like many before me. The lessons I am taught are not beliefs, as that appears that is all you have of God. I am taught truth as I can bear.
Why do you consider yourself an authority of God’s will when you acknowledge you don’t know the one who appeared as a dove, remained with Christ, and led him into the wilderness?
You have nothing but belief as a relationship with God. Can’t you see the difference?
If you can get a liberal to talk, he will eventually hang himself with his own words. Herm actually said that the Bible isn’t the word of God. This explains why his rants are so disjointed and incoherent. He thinks he can bamboozle people by citing Scripture while being oblivious to the irrelevance to the subject at hand.
Yes, I have him rattled. You can rattle a liberal by never letting him get off the subject. Just keep repeating his error over and over again to him, and they will eventually lose it.
darel, you wrote, “No, you are wrong, it’s from Romans, chapter 1. I’m not a Catholic but if you say they believe in a conscience, then they got one right.”
You didn’t even open a Bible for this, did you? I can’t seem to find, in my open Bible, where it is found in Romans, chapter 1.
Herm, you got one right. Congratulations!
I mistyped, it’s the next chapter, chapter 2. You will find the conscience in Romans chapter 2 (of God’s word, the Bible, you know, the Bible that you deny is the word of God)
I noticed that you had to look up Romans chapter 1, to see if the conscience is taught in the word of God, the word that you deny being the word of God.
darel, I included, right from the beginning, the reference to “conscience” in chapter 2 …
“They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.”
… but you were too busy refuting the first few lines I wrote, to study in your closed Bible, what I shared out of my open Bible. You were too lazy to read what came directly from the Bible to research, for yourself, what the Bible was saying that might be different than what your church, of many theologies, taught you in their tradition. You do not accept God as real and caring enough to be available to you without the guidance of your church family.
You have no credentials, nor credibility, to refute anything I say, boldly speaking the word of God fresh today, or what the Bible says (testifying to the Spirit of truth from those who knew him, 1,985 years ago). You are only repeating the talking points from the theory-ology (theology- the study of God from those who do not know God) of your particular sect of religious relationship. If your instructors knew God, as the living Messiah Jesus does, then you would be pointed to the Spirit of truth, in your midst, to be guided solely by him into all truth, as you could bear, forever.
My baptism by water, immersed and sprinkled, my certificate of completion from seminary, and my ordination, administered by Christian churches, into the service of God are no longer sufficient credibility or credentials to teach you what only the Advocate (helper) can teach you, and has taught me in the last 25, of my 75, years of carnal life.
I can only point you to where, within the book of testimony (Old and New) that you claim can be found the word of God, it says who and how you can be born of and in God as an eternal living child of God. But you refuse to trust God as being real and available to you today. Though you haven’t said it, I believe, as I once did, that you are waiting for God to come back before you will hear to listen to him. Good luck!
Actually you didn’t, here is what you wrote – I can’t seem to find, in my open Bible, where it is found in Romans, chapter 1.
I noticed where put consciences in bold type, so now you know that abortion and Homosexuality are morally wrong, according to the word of God which you say isn’t the word of God. You have no excuse.
Actually I did, two days ago,
Following the introduction of …
“Where is it from?
I offer this for your edification:”
… within this message:
https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/why-the-religious-right-just-passed-up-the-deal-of-a-lifetime/#comment-4789055638
… of which you replied, in your introduction:
“Herm, anybody can copy and paste Scripture. I’ve noticed that you do it to excess and out of context. For example:”
… obviously you were too pre-judgmental and lazy to read all of the “copy and paste” or, better yet, confirm the Scripture from your open Bible.
NO, abortion and homosexuality are not morally wrong according to your testimonial Bible or, more refreshingly apropos, the living word of God living with and in my heart, soul, and mind of spirit.
Caiaphas sentenced the Word to be crucified. He made his judgment directly from his conscience, without consulting God, corrupted by his sincere trust in traditional Sadducee theology. You do no less from your conscience, corrupted by traditional Christian tradition.
There really is truth available to you, and a guide to lead you, as you are ready.
You said, “the Bible isn’t the word of God.”
Can you name any religious group which would take you as member?
God, as their child born of God of the Spirit.
God is real, if this is so, who do you worship by relying on any of the differing religious groups of mankind for their judgment before God’s judgment?
If you show me where God has claimed the Bible as his word I will learn. If I could trust you to read your Gospels I could show you where the Bible says it is not the word of God by clearly stating who the word of God is. As yet, you are arguing only referring to your corrupted conscience.
Herm darel • 2 months ago
If you show me where God has claimed the Bible as his word I will learn. If I could trust you to read your Gospels I could show you where the Bible says it is not the word of God by clearly stating who the word of God is. As yet, you are arguing only referring to your corrupted conscience.
=====================================
“If you show me where God has claimed the Bible as his word I will learn.”
Are you trying to deceive again? God, nowhere in the Scriptures said “the Bible is the word of God”
However, the Bible, the Scriptures, is the word of God. Jesus said:
Luke 24:44-45, “Now He said to them, ‘These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.”
You were schooled by false teachers, unbelievers, and now you spread heresies and false teachings. No, you will not learn.
Luke 24:44-49 (NIV2011)
John 14:16-18 (NIV2011)
darel, I love ya man, but you’re being what you accuse me of. You agree that, “God, nowhere in the Scriptures said “the Bible is the word of God”“. … but you can’t see that God did not ever write any scriptures, none. No scripture is written in the first person! The best God is implicated as having any influence is related by the writer as “God breathed” (which speaks to Spirit influence, not Spirit dictation).
So, who “schooled” you to be so sure that the Bible is God speaking to mankind? Who is deflecting you away from the Spirit of truth, who is from, with and in God, available to school you directly, forever, sent to you by Jesus as was promised by his Father?
Are you aware that every time Jesus spoke regarding the Law and the Prophets he was speaking of the entire scripture inspired by God, no more and no less?
Matthew 7:12 (NIV2011)
Matthew 22:37-40 (NIV2011)
Who were your teachers? They certainly were not Jesus, the only one in New Testament scripture accused and sentenced to death for “heresies”, and the Spirit of truth, the only promised guide into all truth forever.
Read your Bible. Read it as testimony from people just like you and I. Don’t let any other of Man misdirect you into their biased interpretations. None of Paul’s personal letters were intended as “scripture” by Paul, or by God. If you did read your Bible, with a heart and mind open to God’s direction, you would find your way to accept the only truth from the Spirit of God, who had filled you to be able to boldly speak the word of God to others, as it is written.
Please, don’t make your judgments founded on any church interpretation, theology, dogma or doctrine. If you wish to learn the truth ask God! Jesus’ church has no interpretation, theology, dogma, or doctrine.
… but you can’t see that God did not ever write any scriptures, none. No scripture is written in the first person! The best God is implicated as having any influence is related by the writer as “God breathed” (which speaks to Spirit influence, not Spirit dictation).
========================
Again, you greatly err, Herm.
The Bible, the Scriptures, the word of God never claims that God wrote it himself. That is just another of straw man of yours. I never said that either.
You said, “which speaks to Spirit influence, not Spirit dictation.” You say influence meaning man wrote it and man makes mistakes, right?
No Herm, you greatly err not knowing the Scriptures. Jesus said every word of the Scriptures right down to every jot and tittle would be fulfilled, meaning Jesus was saying that there were no errors, not even a jot or tittle.
You correctly said “God breathed.” Scripture is from the breath of God, NOT man. The Bible, the Scriptures, the word of God says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17
ALL Scripture is profitable for teaching because it is God breathed, NOT man breathed. ALL Scripture is profitable for teaching because it is God breathed, not man breathed. All Scripture is profitable for teaching because it God breathed, not man breathed and so forth. The implication being that Scripture is from the mouth of God, God breathed.
No Scripture was authored by man. God superintended every word down to every jot and tittle. “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God,” 2 Peter 1:20-21.
continued…
The Bible, the Scriptures, the word of God says, “16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Now, YOUR position Herm, has to be that man alone wrote the Scriptures. It came from the mind of man, and and since man is not perfect, he makes mistakes. So, the end result is that it’s just man’s opinion and it has no authority.
Now, please tell me Herm, if I am wrong about your belief, and where or how, I am wrong.
2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV2011)
Acts 4:31 (NIV2011)
“No Herm, you greatly err not knowing the Scriptures.”
Neither 2 Peter nor Acts were scripture when written. They did not become New TESTAMENT scripture until they were gathered together by mankind.
Acts begins with:
Acts 1:1-5 (NIV2011)
Do you remember the conclusion I shared above to “scripture” you shared first, but did not complete?
Luke 24:49 (NIV2011)
The root definition for “baptize” is to be “filled”, “immersed in”, and “whelmed by”; as in, “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly“.
I can show, and have shown, you in the New Testament where Jesus, God, is being quoted to directly contradict Old Testament scripture that the author said he was directly quoting God’s command. It just happens that that Old Testament scripture could not possibly be summed up as, in everything, do to others as you would have others do to you.
You have a “belief” that has been taught you relative to mankind’s relationship with God. I have a “truth” that is being taught to me by God through the Holy Spirit.
If you cannot accept that all truth is available to you, directly and personally, through the Spirit of truth today then you do not understand any of the differently written Gospels testifying to the living authority of Jesus, the prophesied Christ, over all on earth and in heaven then, to now, to forever.
Before any of the New TESTAMENT was written, before the first word of any of the New TESTAMENT was penned, Jesus rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and fills (baptizes) all his sibling disciple apostles, sister and brother student missionaries to all nations, with the Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit, the Advocate … to guide them into all truth, as we can bear, forever.
You are wrong, with no authority of truth beyond your church theology, to so blindly insist that the Bible is the inerrant word of God when it, the Christian Bible, clearly says that our living Christ Jesus through the now available to fill all Holy Spirit is the only source for the “word of God“.
There is nothing physical on earth that is worshiped by any of God as sacred. That is where and how you are wrong.
2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV2011)
Acts 4:31 (NIV2011)
“No Herm, you greatly err not knowing the Scriptures.”
Neither 2 Peter nor Acts were scripture when written. They did not become New TESTAMENT scripture until they were gathered together by mankind.
Acts begins with:
Acts 1:1-5 (NIV2011)
Do you remember the conclusion I shared above to “scripture” you shared first, but did not complete?
Luke 24:49 (NIV2011)
The root definition for “baptize” is to be “filled”, “immersed in”, and “whelmed by”; as in, “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly“.
I can show, and have shown, you in the New Testament where Jesus, God, is being quoted to directly contradict Old Testament scripture that the author said he was directly quoting God’s command. It just happens that that Old Testament scripture could not possibly be summed up as, in everything, do to others as you would have others do to you.
You have a “belief” that has been taught you relative to mankind’s relationship with God. I have a “truth” that is being taught to me by God through the Holy Spirit.
If you cannot accept that all truth is available to you, directly and personally, through the Spirit of truth today then you do not understand any of the differently written Gospels testifying to the living authority of Jesus, the prophesied Christ, over all on earth and in heaven then, to now, to forever.
Before any of the New TESTAMENT was written, before the first word of any of the New TESTAMENT was penned, Jesus rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and fills (baptizes) all his sibling disciple apostles, sister and brother student missionaries to all nations, with the Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit, the Advocate … to guide them into all truth, as we can bear, forever.
You are wrong, with no authority of truth beyond your church theology, to so blindly insist that the Bible is the inerrant word of God when it, the Christian Bible, clearly says that our living Christ Jesus through the now available to fill all Holy Spirit is the only source for the “word of God“.
There is nothing physical on earth that is worshiped by any of God as sacred. That is where and how you are wrong.
Herm, you wrote:
“Neither 2 Peter nor Acts were scripture when written. They did not become New TESTAMENT scripture until they were gathered together by mankind.”
===============================
Astonishing!!!
Your ignorance is truly astonishing, Herm.
Now hear this – 2 Peter, Acts, and ALL the rest of Scripture were Scripture the moment they were penned. “Mankind” did not make the books of the Bible Scripture. Mankind just rightfully recognized the Books of the Bible as from God, the word of God which you deny. You are one committed lost soul Herm.
I’m not going to waste time trying to figure what you are trying to say in all your lengthy wanderings, which are mostly disjointed and incoherent. You need to learn how to simply make a point. I’m convinced your strategy is to wear people down by your long incoherent ramblings.
Simple question Herm – Is there any part of Scripture that you consider the word of God and that you are to obey?
“You are one committed lost soul Herm.”
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
“You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death.
You don’t even waste your time trying to figure out what the Christian Bible is saying.
Simple question Herm – Is there any part of Scripture that you consider the word of God and that you are to obey?
John 4:23-24 (NIV2011)
Simple question Herm – Is there any part of Scripture that you consider the word of God and that you are to obey?
John 4:23-24 (NIV2011)
Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
(2) Simple question Herm – Is there any part of Scripture that you consider the word of God and that you are to obey?
continued….
You cite John 4:23-24, but you deny that it is the word of God. We must worship God in Spirit and the TRUTH. Jesus said that the the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (all of the Old Testament) were Scripture, and that the Scriptures cannot be broken. John 10:35.Jesus also said “thy word is truth” John 17:17 King James Version (KJV)
” Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
You have blasphemed God when you said that the Bible is not the word of God. Jesus is right and you are a blasphemer, Herm.
Herm’s beliefs are strange indeed. The one I see often repeated is “all truth is available to you, directly and personally, through the Spirit.” This of course is self-delusion and from it I come to believe he is in communication with demons which he assumes is the spirit of truth.
The irony is that without the scriptures he would not know anything about the Spirit of Truth that he quotes so often.
Luke 24:49 (NIV2011)
I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
In relationship with god you are naked! You are not clothed with power from on high!
Remember, it was the orthodox high priest, a Sadducee scripture scholar, and the majority of his Jewish disciples who judged that Jesus’ “beliefs are strange indeed.” Enough so that they hung him to death on his cross for his blasphemous “beliefs”. Are you that blind to the Spirit of truth that you would risk being wrong about judging another child of God to hell for his “self-delusion” of being in relationship with the Holy Spirit?
I quote the scriptures no less than did the Messiah on earth. He did not have the New Testament scripture but he did have the one appearing as a dove from the heavens to lead him into the wilderness.
You do not know your scripture and are blind to the Spirit of truth.
This is why I suspect he has a past history of drug abuse. He often cites the word of God while denying that the Bible is the word of God. Who in their right mind does that?
Yes, he thinks he has the “Spirit” but who knows what he even means by that. He certainly has proven that he does not have the Holy Spirit within him. No child of God, those who have the Holy Spirit would ever deny that the Bible is the word of God. God never denies Himself.
Very good analysis.
One wonders without the scriptures how anyone would know about God?
Our atheist friends tell us there is no mention of Jesus in history nor of any biblical figure such as David. If this were true and the scriptures are not the word of God then we would be orphans without knowledge.
There are secular historians around the time of Jesus when he was here on earth who did write about Jesus. Those atheists who say that are just ignorant and repeating what they have heard from other atheists. They are fools who will say anything to get attention. That Bones guy is a good example.
To be fair, he is speaking in a King James way, where “man” means person,as in the the difference between the “old man” and the “new man.”
Wholesale abortion is not allowed, and besides 99% of all abortions happen before viability, defined as the 20th week. One issue voting is impractical. The GOP will never want to give up their reliable get-out-the-vote issue or they would have done so a long time ago. They have had plenty of chances.
You say you support choice.The vast majority of women abort for reasons of convenience. The laws of this land gives them that choice. Choice means abortion. You support choice, you support abortion.
… not yours to judge!
That is a red herring. Many Christians are okay with abortion in cases of rape or incest. This is tantamount to agreeing that ending a life is okay sometimes. If Christians were consistent, then even rape and incest are not exceptions. Another fact is that plenty of Christians get abortions. “Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”.” http://ww1.antiochian.org/node/16950
If abortions are not obtained safely under medical supervision, they will be done illegally. Making abortion illegal only increases the number of illegal abortions. We already know this.
Actually murdering babies about to be born is a non issue. 99% of all abortions take place before the 20th week, and the vast majority of the remaining 1% well before end of term.
https://www.facebook.com/312383761871/videos/2176923945947010/
I think Trump told Republican senators that if they impeached him he would throw Pence under the bus by implicating him and then its President Pelosi
She would need new dentures….wobble, wobble…
See, this is the spirit of the christian “Right (?)”. Listen to yourself and see if you sound like Christ as portrayed in the Gospels.
Pelosi should listen to herself and the vile un-christian garbage she says to the world through her dentures.
Based solely on the legally recognized precedent of “The Spirit of love thy neighbor, sister, brother and enemy” versus “the spirit of vindictive spite of all others than you and yours”, I rest my case after this your public witness.