Right Divider
Body part
Another vapid response.
The Sound of Freedom
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, one person's "vapid" response is another's excuse for a puerile insult. Swings and roundabouts...
Right Divider
Body part
Thanks so much Mr. Vapid. That really cleared things up!
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Things were pretty clear in my responses anyway but the juvenile is pretty much the essence of these forums nowadays, unfortunately. A sad departure from what it once was.
Right Divider
Body part
The sad part is your posts here. You can prattle along all day and never say anything substantive.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Your posts are cool from an irony perspective.
Yes. He made an exception because of her great faith.
God had a plan.
He was following that plan.
That plan did not involve the Gentiles at that point in time.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
You're trying to trap me into saying God is a racist. It's not going to happen, because God isn't a racist.
The "settled view" refers to the idea that the future is predetermined, that everything that happens was going to happen.
Again, God does not know the future, and thus, Jesus could not know what the woman's response would be.
Also, omnipotent means "all power."
I believe the word you're looking for is "omniscient."
You have been shown using a purely logical argument how God having infallible knowledge of the future necessarily means that the future is settled. You have yet to refute even a single syllable of it.
So no, I'm "not going to get it" because you haven't demonstrated that rational argument being wrong.
Jesus came to save His people, so that they could in turn preach to the world.
The plan was for Israel to take the gospel of Christ to the world through their faith.
That backfired, and so God took the gospel of Christ to the world in SPITE of Israel's unbelief.
Wrong.
Again, God isn't a racist, as you seemingly want to make it seem that that's what I'm trying to say, when it's not.
Says the person who refuses to understand the Bible.
Who said I'm presuming anything?
You've shown by your fruits on TOL that you are not saved, because of your lack of faith and that you have not repented of wrongdoing.
Stupid doesn't make you sin, Arthur. Sin makes you stupid.
And you, sir, are one of the stupidest people I've ever met.
This passage describes you perfectly.
If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Timothy 6:3, 1 Timothy 6:4, 1 Timothy 6:5 - New King James Version
Error and Greed - If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness,
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I'm not trying to trap you into saying God is anything. That you read that from my response should give you pause for thought for how you actually read this account as yours is the rocky position, not mine. You're the one who's argued that Jesus referred to her with a slur commonplace to her race.Yes. He made an exception because of her great faith.
God had a plan.
He was following that plan.
That plan did not involve the Gentiles at that point in time.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
You're trying to trap me into saying God is a racist. It's not going to happen, because God isn't a racist.
The "settled view" refers to the idea that the future is predetermined, that everything that happens was going to happen.
Again, God does not know the future, and thus, Jesus could not know what the woman's response would be.
Also, omnipotent means "all power."
I believe the word you're looking for is "omniscient."
You have been shown using a purely logical argument how God having infallible knowledge of the future necessarily means that the future is settled. You have yet to refute even a single syllable of it.
So no, I'm "not going to get it" because you haven't demonstrated that rational argument being wrong.
Jesus came to save His people, so that they could in turn preach to the world.
The plan was for Israel to take the gospel of Christ to the world through their faith.
That backfired, and so God took the gospel of Christ to the world in SPITE of Israel's unbelief.
Wrong.
Again, God isn't a racist, as you seemingly want to make it seem that that's what I'm trying to say, when it's not.
Says the person who refuses to understand the Bible.
Who said I'm presuming anything?
You've shown by your fruits on TOL that you are not saved, because of your lack of faith and that you have not repented of wrongdoing.
Stupid doesn't make you sin, Arthur. Sin makes you stupid.
And you, sir, are one of the stupidest people I've ever met.
This passage describes you perfectly.
If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Timothy 6:3, 1 Timothy 6:4, 1 Timothy 6:5 - New King James Version
Error and Greed - If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness,www.biblegateway.com
You don't get to decide on what God does and doesn't know in advance, nobody does. Just because you can't understand how foreknowledge doesn't equate to a predetermined future doesn't mean other people can't thankfully so just more of your usual pseudo intellectual blather frankly.
Thank you for your opinion where it comes to the latter and allow me to be equally candid in kind.
Your views on my salvation status and intellectual acumen mean absolutely nothing to me. The fruits that you've shown on here were already long past their sell by date years ago. You, sir, are one of the vilest people I've ever met who has espoused the most sickening and twisted views ever posted on a forum I've been part of. Anyone who advocates that infants could possibly be tried for *capital crimes* and be stabbed to death is - to put it kindly - sick in the head. You've never shown anything resembling compassion, empathy or understanding for people and instead sit on a pompous high horse and label folk such as the homeless as "bums" instead. I won't call you stupid as that would be dishonest, you obviously have intellect, just not a heart to go with it.
Because He did.
I'm the one agreeing with Scripture. You're not.
No, her race is "human."
It was a derogatory term for "Gentile."
Gentile is not a race.
And you do?
The Bible says God does not know the future.
You say He does.
Who's right, you or the Bible?
Straw man.
What I can and cannot understand has nothing to do with it.
It is irrational to argue that anyone, let alone God, can infallibly know the future, and it not be settled.
If you can understand it, then please show logically how it is so, and refute the following:
You won't, because you cannot, because the above argument is rationally sound.
:blahblah:
Put up or shut up.
I have no idea what you're referring to here, because you did not specify what you were responding to.
Of course it doesn't, but it should.
If someone is saying that they don't consider you saved, based on the evidence, then they're giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you are not.
Whatever that means...
Well that's just your subjective opinion!
Says the one who advocates homosexuality and the murder of children...
Where have I ever said that they could be? QUOTE ME. I dare you.
More subjective opinion.
That's because you wouldn't recognize compassion, empathy, or understanding for people, if they danced naked in front of you for hours on end.
Anyone who refuses to work is, by definition, a bum.
If I'm being stupid, then please, tell me, by all means.
But that implies that I'm actually being stupid.
Says the one who advocates the murder of children in the safest place on earth, the womb.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Everyone is human indeed, regardless of creed, skin colour etc which again should give you pause for thought as to why you think Jesus would insult the woman simply for not being Jewish. Obviously more in play going on here and pretty obvious too really. A lesson to the disciples and readers of the account in the present, much the same way as the parable of the good Samaritan taught against prejudice in like manner.
There's plenty in the Bible that indicates that God knows plenty of future events. That you can't understand the difference between having foreknowledge of future events and predetermining them is frankly, nobody else's problem. There's an obvious and logical difference. Do the math or don't, you've been walked through it often enough.
I was replying candidly in kind to your subjective opinions about my intelligence et al and I even prefaced it with "your latter" so it should have been clear enough really. To reiterate - your opinion of my salvation status or intelligence means absolutely nothing to me as in order for me to care about such an opinion then I'd have to have at least a measure of respect for the one giving it. I don't. I don't *advocate* homosexuality, I acknowledge its existence along with acknowledging gay people's rights to live free of persecution from far right religious extremists and homophobes. Nor do I advocate for the murder of children.
To be fair, you haven't actually argued that infants could possibly be tried for capital crimes and executed so I should have worded that differently. Obviously that will never be the case. You most certainly have advocated that kids as young as five should be held as accountable as adults and face execution for *capital crimes* to the point of their being stabbed to death so please don't insult either of us by denying that. There is no support in any way from scientific, moralistic and scriptural to support such an indefensible position. The kindest way to put it was "sick in the head" frankly.
Laughably ironic that you accuse me of being unable to recognize the traits of compassion and empathy when you so asininely and ignorantly conflate homelessness with refusal to work. You've just exemplified how little you understand the traits and underlined how unlikely you are to possess them.
I didn't, nor did I imply that you were stupid so that's moot. There's plenty of highly intelligent people who are a vacuum where it comes to understanding and empathy etc. Your latter already addressed.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Over 100 Survivors Rescued and 160 Arrests Made in North East Ohio Human Trafficking Sting, Including EMTs, Nurses, and Educators (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost announced Monday the sweeping success of a weeklong statewide human trafficking operation, aptly named ‘Operation Buyer’s Remorse.’ The operation aimed to arrest individuals attempting to purchase sex and identify survivors of human trafficking.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Except babies in the womb, apparently...
It's because she wasn't part of the group Jesus was trying to reach at that point. Jesus' first mission was to reach the unbelieving Jews, bring the lost sheep back into the fold. once that was accomplished, He would tell the Jews to go preach to the Gentiles.
Her coming to Him was ahead of schedule.
It's as simple as that.
Yet you refuse to see it.
Why was it that He didn't just heal her daughter right away? Why did He ignore her at first, then tell His disciples (not her, in case you didn't notice) that He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and only when she practically agreed that she was a Gentile dog, hoping for crumbs that fall from the Master's table, He relented?
Do dogs get the same treatment as the children who sit at the table? Or are they below the children, in terms of status?
No disagreement there. The Law told Israel to help your neighbor. The Samaritans were indeed their neighbors.
Open Theism Bible Verses in 33 Categories | Open Theism
In my last post, I seem to have forgotten to add the logical reasoning I meant to provide.
Arthur, you believe that God's knowledge is infallible, correct?
It's not a problem except for those who believe in infallible foreknowledge.
I have never, to my recollection, said that they're the same thing.
What I've been trying to get you to recognize is that one necessitates the other.
This is a logical discussion, Arty, not a maths problem.
And you haven't been able to address it ever. You cannot, because it is a logically sound argument, and arguing against it would be an undermining of logic.
I have no idea what you're referring to, since you respond to my entire post all at once, instead of being a sane person, and responding to each point individually.
My opinion has nothing to do with it.
Fact: You, Arthur Brain, are not saved. You do not profess the name of Christ.
You are, objectively, stupid.
Which is just you saying "I'm plugging my ears because I don't want to recognize that what you're saying is true BLAH BLAH BLAH!"
In other words, it's your subjective opinion about it.
But that doesn't change the fact that you are, objectively, stupid, and that you are, objectively, not saved.
Again, denying reality is not healthy.
To "advocate" something is to "publicly recommend or support" it.
You support homosexuality. Therefore, you by definition advocate it.
I, too, acknowledge that people do homosexual things, and call themselves homosexuals. I acknowledge that those people do in fact exist, who do those things.
But what I don't do is legitimize their behavior, which is a form of advocation.
1) There are no such rights.
2) "Acknowledging," or, rather, attempting to legitimize, their behavior, is promoting, supporting, homosexuality.
Homosexuals (those who perform homosexual acts) do not have the right to live free of persecution, for the same reason murderers do not have the right to live free of persecution, and for the same reason that kidnappers, rapists, and pedophiles do not have the right to live free of persecution: their behavior is criminal, whether the laws of the land recognize it as such or not.
According to you, that's neo-nazis.
Name one neo-Nazi who condemns homosexuality.
There is nothing extreme about condemning criminal behavior. That's a NORMAL thing to do.
What's "extreme" is promoting criminal behavior, such as homosexuality, legitimizing it, making it normal.
If I were "homophobic," then you'd have something against me.
No, a "phobia" is an irrational fear or aversion to something.
There's nothing irrational about my aversion to homosexuality, and I certainly don't fear them, irrationally or rationally.
No, my aversion to homosexuality and those who practice it is not irrational at all, but completely rational, because it is based in a recognition of reality, that it is an abomination, and harmful and destructive.
Last I was aware, you promote and support abortion. Abortion is, by definition, the murder of children. Thus, you are lying when you say "Nor do I advocate for the murder of children."
You support abortion.
Abortion is the murder of children.
Thus, you support the murder of children.
So you retract your accusation against me?
Actually, what I have advocated is that humans, regardless of their age, should be held to the same objective standard of right and wrong, and of justice.
Only IF they commit capital crimes, such as murder, rape, kidnapping, etc...
Arthur, do you hold to the idea that people should treat other people the way they want to be treated? (AKA, the "golden rule")
Science cannot address morality.
Morality is what we're discussing.
Scripture does support it.
That's just your subjective opinion.
There is nothing compassionate about reinforcing bad behavior.
There is no empathy in telling someone to continue doing something that only harms them.
Where have I ever conflated homelessness with refusal to work?
All I've said is that people at the corners of intersections holding up homeless signs are there willingly
That's just your subjective opinion.
If I'm being stupid, I want you to tell me that I'm being stupid, and explain why.
Giving money to people who do nothing but stand on the street corner is harmful to them, and not compassionate or empathetic. It's destructive, and reinforces their unwillingness to do something about their situation.
No idea what you're talking about.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Perhaps it'll be easier for you if I highlight sections as no way am I parsing responses out to the enth degree...Except babies in the womb, apparently...
It's because she wasn't part of the group Jesus was trying to reach at that point. Jesus' first mission was to reach the unbelieving Jews, bring the lost sheep back into the fold. once that was accomplished, He would tell the Jews to go preach to the Gentiles.
Her coming to Him was ahead of schedule.
It's as simple as that.
Yet you refuse to see it.
Why was it that He didn't just heal her daughter right away? Why did He ignore her at first, then tell His disciples (not her, in case you didn't notice) that He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and only when she practically agreed that she was a Gentile dog, hoping for crumbs that fall from the Master's table, He relented?
Do dogs get the same treatment as the children who sit at the table? Or are they below the children, in terms of status?
No disagreement there. The Law told Israel to help your neighbor. The Samaritans were indeed their neighbors.
Open Theism Bible Verses in 33 Categories | Open Theism
opentheism.org
In my last post, I seem to have forgotten to add the logical reasoning I meant to provide.
Arthur, you believe that God's knowledge is infallible, correct?
It's not a problem except for those who believe in infallible foreknowledge.
I have never, to my recollection, said that they're the same thing.
What I've been trying to get you to recognize is that one necessitates the other.
This is a logical discussion, Arty, not a maths problem.
And you haven't been able to address it ever. You cannot, because it is a logically sound argument, and arguing against it would be an undermining of logic.
I have no idea what you're referring to, since you respond to my entire post all at once, instead of being a sane person, and responding to each point individually.
My opinion has nothing to do with it.
Fact: You, Arthur Brain, are not saved. You do not profess the name of Christ.
You are, objectively, stupid.
Which is just you saying "I'm plugging my ears because I don't want to recognize that what you're saying is true BLAH BLAH BLAH!"
In other words, it's your subjective opinion about it.
But that doesn't change the fact that you are, objectively, stupid, and that you are, objectively, not saved.
Again, denying reality is not healthy.
To "advocate" something is to "publicly recommend or support" it.
You support homosexuality. Therefore, you by definition advocate it.
I, too, acknowledge that people do homosexual things, and call themselves homosexuals. I acknowledge that those people do in fact exist, who do those things.
But what I don't do is legitimize their behavior, which is a form of advocation.
1) There are no such rights.
2) "Acknowledging," or, rather, attempting to legitimize, their behavior, is promoting, supporting, homosexuality.
Homosexuals (those who perform homosexual acts) do not have the right to live free of persecution, for the same reason murderers do not have the right to live free of persecution, and for the same reason that kidnappers, rapists, and pedophiles do not have the right to live free of persecution: their behavior is criminal, whether the laws of the land recognize it as such or not.
According to you, that's neo-nazis.
Name one neo-Nazi who condemns homosexuality.
There is nothing extreme about condemning criminal behavior. That's a NORMAL thing to do.
What's "extreme" is promoting criminal behavior, such as homosexuality, legitimizing it, making it normal.
If I were "homophobic," then you'd have something against me.
No, a "phobia" is an irrational fear or aversion to something.
There's nothing irrational about my aversion to homosexuality, and I certainly don't fear them, irrationally or rationally.
No, my aversion to homosexuality and those who practice it is not irrational at all, but completely rational, because it is based in a recognition of reality, that it is an abomination, and harmful and destructive.
Last I was aware, you promote and support abortion. Abortion is, by definition, the murder of children. Thus, you are lying when you say "Nor do I advocate for the murder of children."
You support abortion.
Abortion is the murder of children.
Thus, you support the murder of children.
So you retract your accusation against me?
Actually, what I have advocated is that humans, regardless of their age, should be held to the same objective standard of right and wrong, and of justice.
Only IF they commit capital crimes, such as murder, rape, kidnapping, etc...
Arthur, do you hold to the idea that people should treat other people the way they want to be treated? (AKA, the "golden rule")
Science cannot address morality.
Morality is what we're discussing.
Scripture does support it.
That's just your subjective opinion.
There is nothing compassionate about reinforcing bad behavior.
There is no empathy in telling someone to continue doing something that only harms them.
Where have I ever conflated homelessness with refusal to work?
All I've said is that people at the corners of intersections holding up homeless signs are there willingly
That's just your subjective opinion.
If I'm being stupid, I want you to tell me that I'm being stupid, and explain why.
Giving money to people who do nothing but stand on the street corner is harmful to them, and not compassionate or empathetic. It's destructive, and reinforces their unwillingness to do something about their situation.
No idea what you're talking about.
The Canaanite Woman:
Her coming to him may have been right on "schedule" as not only would the exchange and subsequent actions from Jesus give His disciples and onlookers something to think but also readers of the recorded account. That also answers as to why Jesus didn't just heal her daughter straight away. Samaritans were generally treat with hostility and suspicion and the parable effectively teaches not to judge books by their proverbial colour.
Foreknowledge:
Foreknowledge of future events does not in any way necessitate their being predetermined. It really is as simple as that. You acknowledge that there's a difference between a knowledge of the future and manipulating events coming about, right? There ya go.
Opinion:
There's nothing particularly sane about parsing posts to shreds - including sentences even - and then expecting others to do the same. You're one of the few I know on any forum who actually does that.
You're only underlying how subjective you're being with any opinion be it an estimation of someone's intelligence to salvation etc. When you use sentences such as "I'm plugging my ears because I don't want to recognize that what you're saying is true BLAH BLAH BLAH!" then why on earth would anyone give credence or credit to that kind of antic? About as impressive as an "internet tough guy" and it certainly isn't conducive to reasoned discussion. If I considered you to have the truth on such issues then I'd acknowledge it and as you well know, or at least should do by now, I most assuredly don't. You most certainly aren't the arbiter of intelligence or salvation. Continue as you will if you like, but it's simply unimpressive posturing on your part to do so.
Homosexuality:
Homosexuality exists and no point denying it. That there are those on the far religious right who have such a hang up with it doesn't alter the fact that they rightfully have the same rights as anyone else in society. "Name one neo Nazi who condemns homosexuality?" Are you even familiar with the movement?!
Neo-Nazism - Wikipedia
Abortion:
I'm not an *advocate* for abortion. My positions been pretty clear on the topic so if you've got a specific then bring it.
Children and the death penalty:
Not where it comes to what you advocate as outlined in my latter. So, if age is irrelevant as to when humans should be held accountable for their actions, then via such an argument this would have to apply to babies as well for the sake of consistency. Now, obviously, the reasons why we don't hold babies, infants etc to the same standard as adults where it comes to actions is because they are in no way capable of determining concepts of right and wrong because neurologically they haven't developed to have sufficient understanding. Now, this is science JR. If you're going to deny that then what I will retract is your not being stupid because it is monumentally stupid to argue against objective fact. From a moral perspective and in light of the above then it would be completely immoral to charge a baby/infant with a capital crime when they're completely incapable of understanding concepts that adults comprehend. Scripture does not support your position on this JR. When you've been pressed for specific, scriptural support you've never provided any. What you have given are verses that clearly don't specify or reference young children and nor will you find any. Sure, I've heard of the phrase treat other people the way you want to be treated. How that has anything to do with the notion that it's justifiable to stab a young child to death as execution is anyone's guess...
Anyone with a functioning empathy/compassion center of the brain would find it sick in the head JR.
Homelessness:
This was your initial response:
"Anyone who refuses to work is, by definition, a bum."
It's hardly as though you've been reticent in the past to arrogantly and ignorantly label the homeless as bums either is it? It's a travesty that there's such a thing as homelessness at all in the present age and these people need more help than a bit of change but the last thing they need is pompous and ignorant judgement.
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Who's that? The wife of the actor who played "Sonny" in The Godfather?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
It wasn't.
This article says otherwise:
That's just your subjective opinion.
And should be prohibited.
God, not "the far religious right," calls it an abomination.
That you have a problem with Him calling it such puts you in the wrong.
By "they" I presume you mean "perverts."
They do indeed have the same right that you and I do, that being, the right to a fair and speedy trial.
If they are caught doing homosexual acts, then they should be tried, and if found guilty on the testimony of two or three witnesses, they should be put to death.
"Name one neo Nazi who condemns homosexuality?" Are you even familiar with the movement?!
Neo-Nazism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So you cannot name one person within the movement who condemns homosexuality?
As per my previous, you are, demonstrably, an advocate for abortion.
Unless you have recently become anti-abortion without exceptions...?
Correct.
The reason we don't put babies, infants, on trial like we do the rest of society is that babies and infants are incapable of committing a crime.
Hence, the statement "if a baby commits a crime worthy of the death penalty, he should be put to death" is true, though it is a feat that is imperpetratable (I know, not a real word, but you get the idea) to begin with.
Boy, that sentence (pardon the pun) threw you into a tizzy!
Obviously, a baby will never commit a crime worthy of the death penalty, because babies are incapable of such things.
That you got all worked up about it was hilarious, though.
I did give you verses. A long time ago, to be fair, but I did give you verses.
You rejected them out of hand because you didn't like that they didn't explicitly specify children, when the context necessarily implies all who are capable of committing crime.
Of course, if you redefine who is capable of committing crime, then you can simply hand-wave away any verses you don't like, but it doesn't change the fact that you've moved the goalposts.
The verses state that anyone who does such a thing should be punished, and that no pity should be given to them.
The law is the application of the golden rule, "Treat others how you wish to be treated."
Or, more accurately, "You will be treated the way you treat others."
If you bear false witness, what you sought to have done to your neighbor will be done to you. (This is the Biblical standard for punishing a false witness, unlike moder law books.)
If you take someone's possessions, you will have your possessions taken from you. (Restitution)
If you harm someone, you will be harmed. (Eye for eye, hand for hand, foot for foot, tooth for tooth, etc.)
If you take someone's life, your life will be taken from you. (life for life)
The Bible also states that attempting to commit a crime is to be punished as successful.
Thus, if a child commits a crime, stabbing someone in an attempt to kill them, then they should have their life taken from them, and it only makes sense that what they tried to do to their victim should be done to them, for "you will be treated the way you treat others."
How about empathy, compassion, for the victim of such a crime?
Yup. And I stand by it.
If a homeless person refuses to work, he is, by definition, a bum.
If he's not refusing to work, then he's not a bum.
So what's the problem?
If they aren't refusing to work, then all the more compassion to them.
If they ARE refusing to work, then they deserve no pity, and they should eat their own bread.
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.
Bible Gateway passage: 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 - New King James Version
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that...
I have a homeless friend that became that way because of extreme trauma in his life. He was born into an extremely dysfunctional family. His father molested his own daughtwrs, and abused his mother physically. sexually and emotionally and berat on he and his brothers almost daily. He got married and kids and was raising his family He suffered a head wound that took him years from which to recover and his wife left him and took their kids reporting him as unwilling to support them. As he had no money to fight the divorce she got their kids and disappeared with them. It was too much for him to handle and he hasn't been able to support himself for years. None of his inability to support himself, and thus his homelessness, has come about by his own choice.It wasn't.
This article says otherwise:
That's just your subjective opinion.
And should be prohibited.
God, not "the far religious right," calls it an abomination.
That you have a problem with Him calling it such puts you in the wrong.
By "they" I presume you mean "perverts."
They do indeed have the same right that you and I do, that being, the right to a fair and speedy trial.
If they are caught doing homosexual acts, then they should be tried, and if found guilty on the testimony of two or three witnesses, they should be put to death.
So you cannot name one person within the movement who condemns homosexuality?
As per my previous, you are, demonstrably, an advocate for abortion.
Unless you have recently become anti-abortion without exceptions...?
Correct.
The reason we don't put babies, infants, on trial like we do the rest of society is that babies and infants are incapable of committing a crime.
Hence, the statement "if a baby commits a crime worthy of the death penalty, he should be put to death" is true, though it is a feat that is imperpetratable (I know, not a real word, but you get the idea) to begin with.
Boy, that sentence (pardon the pun) threw you into a tizzy!
Obviously, a baby will never commit a crime worthy of the death penalty, because babies are incapable of such things.
That you got all worked up about it was hilarious, though.
I did give you verses. A long time ago, to be fair, but I did give you verses.
You rejected them out of hand because you didn't like that they didn't explicitly specify children, when the context necessarily implies all who are capable of committing crime.
Of course, if you redefine who is capable of committing crime, then you can simply hand-wave away any verses you don't like, but it doesn't change the fact that you've moved the goalposts.
The verses state that anyone who does such a thing should be punished, and that no pity should be given to them.
The law is the application of the golden rule, "Treat others how you wish to be treated."
Or, more accurately, "You will be treated the way you treat others."
If you bear false witness, what you sought to have done to your neighbor will be done to you. (This is the Biblical standard for punishing a false witness, unlike moder law books.)
If you take someone's possessions, you will have your possessions taken from you. (Restitution)
If you harm someone, you will be harmed. (Eye for eye, hand for hand, foot for foot, tooth for tooth, etc.)
If you take someone's life, your life will be taken from you. (life for life)
The Bible also states that attempting to commit a crime is to be punished as successful.
Thus, if a child commits a crime, stabbing someone in an attempt to kill them, then they should have their life taken from them, and it only makes sense that what they tried to do to their victim should be done to them, for "you will be treated the way you treat others."
How about empathy, compassion, for the victim of such a crime?
Yup. And I stand by it.
If a homeless person refuses to work, he is, by definition, a bum.
If he's not refusing to work, then he's not a bum.
So what's the problem?
If they aren't refusing to work, then all the more compassion to them.
If they ARE refusing to work, then they deserve no pity, and they should eat their own bread.
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.
Bible Gateway passage: 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 - New King James Version
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that...www.biblegateway.com
In a world as sick as ours there must be millions more like him. I know because my family was just as loony as his and I know what it did to me. If God hadn't miraculously intervened in my life I'de be dead, in a mental institution, or homeless myself. and none of it by my own choice. I was completely overwhelmed by my family's cruelty. I got into drugs knowing they would destroy me. It was a deliberate choice because I couldn't handle the emotional pain of life any more by the time I graduated from high school Your callousness is incredible and your understanding of life seems very limited at nest.
How have you helped him recently?
Why is it that people can't read?
What part of "If someone is UNWILLING to work" do you not understand?
Is he willing? I feel pity for him.
If someone is UNABLE to work, then OBVIOUSLY you show pity on them.
But I'm not talking about those who are unable to work.
I repeat.
I AM NOT TALKING about THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE to work.
I (and I quote Paul when I do) am talking about those who are UNWILLING to work.
And your reading comprehension sucks.
Do better, please.