Trump’s “Christian” supporters do not follow a central message of Jesus (4 Viewers)

[Lees]

You are the one who keeps repeating that strawman. Not me. Why does Exodus 21:22 imply that destruction of the fetus should be punished like destroyed property? Answer the question.

No stawman. (Ex. 21:22-23) says nothing about abortion.

If the woman has a miscarriage due to unintentional cause, such as stepping between two men who are fighting, then, "the woman's husband will lay upon him" the cost and the judges will make the determiniation. (Ex. 21:22)

The very fact that if mischief was involved, and the fetus died, and the guilty party paid with his life, proves that the fetus is alive. (Ex. 21:23) "thou shalt give life for life"

Lees

 

[Phys251]

No stawman. (Ex. 21:22-23) says nothing about abortion.

If the woman has a miscarriage due to unintentional cause, such as stepping between two men who are fighting, then, "the woman's husband will lay upon him" the cost and the judges will make the determiniation. (Ex. 21:22)

The very fact that if mischief was involved, and the fetus died, and the guilty party paid with his life, proves that the fetus is alive. (Ex. 21:23) "thou shalt give life for life"

Lees

You continually and dishonestly peddle your strawman when you know that it's false.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Exodus 21:22 makes the ZEF the woman's property, and thus OK to abort. Unless you can come up with a Bible passage that says you can't throw away your own property? BTW, did you know that your Bible condones slavery?

 

[Lees]

“What you said” is clearly a misinterpretation of Matthew 24 and 25, and you have not offered any proof of it other than exactly that: “what you said”. It is quite clear in reading the passages that Jesus, speaking for “the King”. intended that EVERYONE should take care of “the least of these”, your ridiculous claims notwithstanding. You still have not answered my question: are you saying that Jesus does not expect Trump amd his “Christian” cult to attend to “the least of these”? When exactly did he offer that dispensation? Show the Bible verse.





See above. I am indeed saying that Jesus meant his dictum to be applicable to everyone, and you have not shown otherwise to this point. All that you have done is to offer a claim with zero evidence to back it up.




This is all myth and superstition. No one is coming back. Get over it.



Nope. You have not shown anything at all in the OP to be inaccurate, except in your own mind.

What a silly post. You are claiming I misinterpret because it's all myth and superstition. Yet you are trying to supply an interpretation.

Such non-sense.

Lees

 

[Lees]

You continually and dishonestly peddle your strawman when you know that it's false.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Exodus 21:22 makes the ZEF the woman's property, and thus OK to abort. Unless you can come up with a Bible passage that says you can't throw away your own property? BTW, did you know that your Bible condones slavery?

No. No strawman. Did you catch that? "a life for a life" The fetus is alive.

The Bible not only condones slavery, but God instituted slavery. So, yes, I knew that.

Lees

 

[Phys251]

No. No strawman. Did you catch that? "a life for a life" The fetus is alive.

Keep strutting over that chessboard thinking that you've won with your idiotic strawmen.

The Bible not only condones slavery, but God instituted slavery. So, yes, I knew that.

Lees

Wait, what? Are you suggesting that you, too, condone slavery?

 

[Lees]

Keep strutting over that chessboard thinking that you've won with your idiotic strawmen.



Wait, what? Are you suggesting that you, too, condone slavery?

I'm just showing you what it says, and how wrong your attempt is in trying to make it about abortion. And in the process it shows the feus is alive. "a life for a life" (Ex. 21:23) Sort of backfired on you....didn't it?

I'm saying that God instituted slavery. You asked so I answered. So slavery as instituted by God is right.

Lees

 

[Michael Cole]

No stawman. (Ex. 21:22-23) says nothing about abortion.

If the woman has a miscarriage due to unintentional cause, such as stepping between two men who are fighting, then, "the woman's husband will lay upon him" the cost and the judges will make the determiniation. (Ex. 21:22)

The very fact that if mischief was involved, and the fetus died, and the guilty party paid with his life, proves that the fetus is alive. (Ex. 21:23) "thou shalt give life for life"

Lees

You can't be serious.

23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise

How many teeth you think the 20-week-old preemie has? How many preemies do you think survived in antiquity?

The verse is obviously referring to the woman, not the dead fetus. All premature births ended in death for the fetus in antiquity. Indeed, full term births ended in death at a high rate in the first and second millenniums BCE.

If there is serious injury to the woman. Life for life. Tooth for tooth. The woman. The fetus is property.

 

[Lees]

You can't be serious.

23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise

How many teeth you think the 20-week-old preemie has? How many preemies do you think survived in antiquity?

The verse is obviously referring to the woman, not the dead fetus. All premature births ended in death for the fetus in antiquity. Indeed, full term births ended in death at a high rate in the first and second millenniums BCE.

If there is serious injury to the woman. Life for life. Tooth for tooth. The woman. The fetus is property.

No. The injury is to the fetus. "so that her fruit depart from her". The judgement against the one who caused it is based upon intent. With no mischief or with mischief. And if with intent, the judgement is "a life for a life".

Lees

 

[watsup]

What a silly post. You are claiming I misinterpret because it's all myth and superstition. Yet you are trying to supply an interpretation.

Such non-sense.

Lees

It is you who is posting nonsense by trying to insist that Jesus and “the King” (God the Father) have different standards for different people based alone on the religion that they practice, and you have provided exactly ZERO evidence to support your “interpretation”. I have read the words of Matthew 25 in the OP and it is quite clear that Jesus and God expect EVERYONE to be concerned about “the least of these”. Can you show otherwise? All that you have done thus far is to make a claim without any supporting evidence. As such, that can only be described as a misinterpretation . Show otherwise. You can’t, no matter how much you huff and puff.

 

[Lees]

It is you who is posting nonsense by trying to insist that Jesus and “the King” (God the Father) have different standards for different people based alone on the religion that they practice, and you have provided exactly ZERO evidence to support your “interpretation”. I have read the words of Matthew 25 in the OP and it is quite clear that Jesus and God expect EVERYONE to be concerned about “the least of these”. Can you show otherwise? All that you have done thus far is to make a claim without any supporting evidence. As such, that can only be described as a misinterpretation . Show otherwise. You can’t, no matter how much you huff and puff.

Again, if it's all myth and superstiton, why are you attempting to interpret. You are a walking oxymoron. Emphasis on the second syllable.

Are you familar with the Bible? It consists of Old and New Testament. What does that tell you? Anything? Probably not.

You may have read the words of (Matt. 25:40-46) but you don't have any idea what they mean...as you have proved.

No, I showed you what they mean and gave the Scripture to support. Yet you provide nothing to refute. All you do is bitch.

Lees

 

[watsup]

Again, if it's all myth and superstiton, why are you attempting to interpret. You are a walking oxymoron. Emphasis on the second syllable.

Are you familar with the Bible? It consists of Old and New Testament. What does that tell you? Anything? Probably not.

You may have read the words of (Matt. 25:40-46) but you don't have any idea what they mean...as you have proved.

No, I showed you what they mean and gave the Scripture to support. Yet you provide nothing to refute. All you do is bitch.

Lees

All that you are doing at this point is whining without even attempting to prove any of the ridiculous claims that you made. Nowhere in Matthew 24 or 25 are they mentioned. If you are just making up stuff, why not just admit it instead of spending your time in ad hom and insult towards me. For the third or fourth time, can you actually show that your claims are true, that Jesus and God the Father don’t also expect Christians to take care of “the least of these”.

 

[Lees]

All that you are doing at this point is whining without even attempting to prove any of the ridiculous claims that you made. Nowhere in Matthew 24 or 25 are they mentioned. If you are just making up stuff, why not just admit it instead of spending your time in ad hom and insult towards me. For the third or fourth time, can you actually show that your claims are true, that Jesus and God the Father don’t also expect Christians to take care of “the least of these”.

I did show you. I gave the Scripture to support. You give nothing to refute except your own b.s. If you can refute what I said with Scripture, please do.

Lees

 

[watsup]

I did show you. I gave the Scripture to support. You give nothing to refute except your own b.s. If you can refute what I said with Scripture, please do.

Lees

You gave no Scriptural support. The only “support” that you have given is making a claim without providing any evidence for it other than “I say”. You presented Matthew 24, but nowhere in there did it say what you claim that it does. Sorry, but you simply making a claim still does not make it so.

 

[Lees]

You gave no Scriptural support. The only “support” that you have given is making a claim without providing any evidence for it other than “I say”. You presented Matthew 24, but nowhere in there did it say what you claim that it does. Sorry, but you simply making a claim still does not make it so.

Don't say I gave no Scritptural support, as I did. Show me where I am wrong. Just your b.s. means nothing.

Lees

 

[watsup]

Don't say I gave no Scritptural support, as I did. Show me where I am wrong. Just your b.s. means nothing.

Lees

Again, all that you did was to offer Matthew 24, which does not say what you claim that it does. Get back to me when you can quit blowing smoke and provide some actual evidence for your claims. Until then, my OP stands as written.

 

[Lees]

Again, all that you did was to offer Matthew 24, which does not say what you claim that it does. Get back to me when you can quit blowing smoke and provide some actual evidence for your claims. Until then, my OP stands as written.

No, I showed you that you presented verses pertaining to a different age. I showed you the verses you use pertain to the judgement of the Gentiles as to how they treat the Jews during the Tribulation period. And I showed you that that occurs after Christ returns in the future. (Matt. 25:31-32)

Plus I showed your hypocrisy in telling me that means nothing because you believe it's all a myth. Which shows the b.s. you present when trying to interpret what you believe is a myth. Oxy...moron.

Lees

 

[watsup]

No, I showed you that you presented verses pertaining to a different age.

I showed you the verses you use pertain to the judgement of the Gentiles as to how they treat the Jews during the Tribulation period.

And I showed you that that occurs after Christ returns in the future. (Matt. 25:31-32)

You “showed” none of this. All that you did was to CLAIM that it was so. Sorry, but your claims alone are not evidence, just empty rhetoric. And you might be a little careful about getting very close to the sort of ad hom that might break the forum rules.

 

[Phys251]

I'm just showing you what it says, and how wrong your attempt is in trying to make it about abortion. And in the process it shows the feus is alive. "a life for a life" (Ex. 21:23) Sort of backfired on you....didn't it?

I'm saying that God instituted slavery. You asked so I answered. So slavery as instituted by God is right.

Lees

And there it is. You think slavery is right "because God instituted it." Your moral compass is broken.

 

[Michael Cole]

No. The injury is to the fetus. "so that her fruit depart from her".

No shit. The fetus is dead.

The judgement against the one who caused it is based upon intent. With no mischief or with mischief. And if with intent, the judgement is "a life for a life".

Intent is a figment of your imagination.

The fetus is dead. If no harm comes to the woman, the man owes damages for the loss of property, which is the dead fetus. If harm does come to the woman, then the man owes life for life, TOOTH FOR TOOTH.

Get real.

Lees

 

[Lees]

You “showed” none of this. All that you did was to CLAIM that it was so. Sorry, but your claims alone are not evidence, just empty rhetoric. And you might be a little careful about getting very close to the sort of ad hom that might break the forum rules.

No, Scripture declared it. And you cannot show in Scripture where it says otherwise. You like to present yourself as some 'expositor' of Scripture. But you're not. You're a phony. In more ways than one.

Lees

 

[Lees]

And there it is. You think slavery is right "because God instituted it." Your moral compass is broken.

Pathetic. You have been proved wrong about (Ex. 21:22-23). So you resort to slavery in hopes to demonize me. So typical.

God instituted slavery. You hate slavery, but then you hate God. Big surprise.

My moral compass is with God , not with you and your ilk.

Lees

 

[Phys251]

Pathetic. You have been proved wrong about (Ex. 21:22-23). So you resort to slavery in hopes to demonize me. So typical.

God instituted slavery. You hate slavery, but then you hate God. Big surprise.

My moral compass is with God not you and your ilk.

Lees

Every bit of your post is trash.

If you think that God instituted slavery, there is something wrong with your god. Nothing good comes from slavery.

 

[Lees]

No shit. The fetus is dead.


Intent is a figment of your imagination.

The fetus is dead. If no harm comes to the woman, the man owes damages for the loss of property, which is the dead fetus. If harm does come to the woman, then the man owes life for life, TOOTH FOR TOOTH.

Get real.

That's right, no shit.

No that is what the Scripture says.

Harm to the woman is not the issue, sherlock.

The death of the fetus is the issue. Was it with or without mischief? If the fetus is dead, as you say, then it was alive before.

A life for a life.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Every bit of your post is trash.

If you think that God instituted slavery, there is something wrong with your god. Nothing good comes from slavery.

What does Scripture say about slavery? Apparently you don't know. Strange isn't it how atheists love to preach the Bible against Christians yet they don't know what the Bible says.

Lees

 

[Phys251]

What does Scripture say about slavery? Apparently you don't know. Strange isn't it how atheists love to preach the Bible against Christians yet they don't know what the Bible says.

Lees

You yourself said that God instituted slavery, no? A god like that is not worthy of worship despite your immature insistence.