Arizona Court of Appeals rules in favor of SS couple, based on SC Masterpiece ruling

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
There is (Revelation 21:8).

But note that it is not lying to say that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27), and that Biblical Christians must not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11).
that wasn't in your post
It has nothing to do with what i responded to.
You obviously know this
so you just lied
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
SilverBear said in post #762:

that's how it reads

Note that Exodus 22:29 does not say or require that there should be any killing of the sons. And other passages explain what it means (e.g. Numbers 18:15-16, Numbers 3:50-51).

*******

SilverBear said in post #763:

that wasn't in your post

Note that it didn't have to be to be true.

SilverBear said in post #763:

It has nothing to do with what i responded to.

It does, because it shows that even if sins are genetic, they're still sins. And they still can't be supported by Biblical Christians.
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Well, not knowingly, and by name.

Jesus said if you aren't with Him, you are against Him. He also said that if anyone harms one of the little ones, it would be better for that man if he hadn't been born.
Under Jewish belief a "little one" was a born child not a foetus which was not fully human until after first breath.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,088
1,643
Passing Through
✟450,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Under Jewish belief a "little one" was a born child not a foetus which was not fully human until after first breath.

A child is consistently called a child in scripture, not a fetus.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...Jeremiah 1:5

"Rebekah his wife conceived [and] the children [Jacob and Esau] struggled together within her." Genesis 25:22

"Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son [Samson]. Now drink no wine or similar drink… for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb…" –Judges 13:7

The death of or damage to a child in utero results in punishment for the perpetrator:

"If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she give birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is further injury, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." –Exodus 21:22-25.
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
A child is consistently called a child in scripture, not a fetus.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...Jeremiah 1:5

"Rebekah his wife conceived [and] the children [Jacob and Esau] struggled together within her." Genesis 25:22

"Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son [Samson]. Now drink no wine or similar drink… for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb…" –Judges 13:7

The death of or damage to a child in utero results in punishment for the perpetrator:

"If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she give birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is further injury, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." –Exodus 21:22-25.

You are taking scripture out of context. As for the Exodus 21 scripture, the harm referred to is to the woman not to the foetus for whom a fine is levied.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
kiwimac said in post #767:

Under Jewish belief a "little one" was a born child not a foetus which was not fully human until after first breath.

So it's okay to kill a child right before its first breath?

No, for the Bible shows that even unborn children have consciousness (Luke 1:41), and can be filled with God's Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15).

How dare anyone murder such a one as these, and for mere convenience!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: creslaw
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,088
1,643
Passing Through
✟450,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You are taking scripture out of context. As for the Exodus 21 scripture, the harm referred to is to the woman not to the foetus for whom a fine is levied.
You are incorrect. The harm is any that follows to either, the child or the woman. A child born prematurely is protected the same as the mother. Some pro-choice advocates attempt to argue that a child "going forth" must mean miscarriage so that the harm can be only to the woman, the child can be a nonentity, but the original language translation does not bear this out.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
Not remotely relevant to this discussion. Race is inapplicable here. No, there is no correlation, despite the desperation to reach one.
It's easy to claim that but just because you say it doesn't make it so.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
The questions you need to ask are whether the NT (which is the new covenant for Christians) agrees with the OT about (1) eating shrimp and (2) homosexuality.

And the answers are: (1) no (2) yes

A more interesting question is "why".
"Why" is an interesting question because despite what Paul claims, Jesus says that nothing in the law will be changed until heaven and earth pass away and all of the law is fulfilled. Matthew 5:18
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,088
1,643
Passing Through
✟450,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's easy to claim that but just because you say it doesn't make it so.
Likewise. The insistence that a behavior is exactly like an immutable characteristic of skin color doesn't make it so.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
The letter of its Mosaic law is no longer in effect (Hebrews 7:18).
Not according to Jesus in Matthew 5:18

Indeed, so we should not want anyone to be separated from the NT law.
Women as second-class citizens subordinate to males is not justice.
*******
... Repeated copy and paste snipped.

*******
Not under the New Covenant/New Testament (Romans 7:6).
Not according to Jesus in Matthew 5:18

Note that it doesn't say or require that.
But it doesn't say or require that it is a mountain not here on earth You're adding that to explain away the problem. The Bible has proscriptions against that sort of thing. Proverbs 30:5-6

It was. For the heavenly city has no temple (Revelation 21:22).
And yet the mountain is not? Why add to the plain reading of the text?

Why would they have to?
Umm, because it happened.?

In Luke 18:35 the original Greek word (G1519) translated as "unto" can mean as Jesus came near "by" (Acts 27:2) a blind man next to Jericho, yet still on Jesus' way out of Jericho (Mark 10:46).
What reference source are you using for that claim? According to Strong's it means "εἰς, a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among."

I don't see anything there about it meaning "by".

Note that no account says or requires that Jesus did not touch their eyes.
More adding to the Bible. You really have a problem with the plain reading of the text.

Did you ever think that by having to add so much to the Bible might mean something is off about your interpretation of it?

You do know that Mark and Luke were not at Jericho with Jesus right? That they got their accounts from other witnesses?

That's right. And just as minors are allowed to consent to marriage, so in the future they could be allowed to consent to pedophilia.
Minors are not allowed to consent to marriage.

Indeed, homosexuals will eventually realize that they have to support pedophilia. For otherwise, pedophilia completely undermines all of their arguments regarding "love" and "sexual orientation".
Ridiculous. Orientation is not the same as paraphillia.

So what? He still miraculously heals people (Matthew 9:35).
But not in any way that can be empirically proven, such as healing an amputee. Why do you think that is?

Why can't they have been?
Maybe they were but sometimes it seems that God is peculiarly selective in his healing.

No, but forcing Biblical Christians to deny the "free exercise" of their religion is prohibited by the First Amendment.
Do you feel the same about practitioners of Santeria?

No, even if all students at a graduation wanted to say a voluntary prayer out loud at the start, they cannot.
Because they have a captive audience and that violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.

For, since 1962, the government has illegally denied prayer at school events.

This must be overturned.
And when a Wiccan teacher leads their class in a prayer to Diana or a Muslim wants to hand out copies of the Quran, will you support that?

No, it isn't. Non-religious people in the audience can simply play with their smartphones during the prayer.
Did you bother to read the article, written by an evangelical Christian that I posted? Here it is again in case you missed it:

Why I'm Against Pre-game Prayers

Note that God allowed the Israelites to do that in Canaan.
So that meant it was OK when we did it to the Native Americans?

Most of the U.S. populace was rightly against that. What do you think the Civil War was supposed to be about?
"Most" of the population was NOT against it. Why do you think that half the states at the time seceded from the Union in order to preserve slavery?

Regarding gender, it is not immoral to discriminate. For in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, for example, the restrictions on women are the commandments of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:36-37). And they are applicable in all congregations (1 Timothy 2:11-12). For they are based on the general principles of Eve being formed after Adam (1 Timothy 2:13), and Eve being deceived, and Adam not being deceived (1 Timothy 2:14).

While the Lord forbids women to speak anything from their own minds in church meetings, such as asking questions (1 Corinthians 14:34-37), or teaching (1 Timothy 2:11-14), nothing requires that He forbids them to operate in the Spiritual gifts which involve speaking by the miraculous inspiration of God's Holy Spirit, such as prophesying, or speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:8-11). So women, like men, should be allowed to speak out loud in tongues in church meetings, one at a time, when a tongues-interpreter is present (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). And those women who are prophetesses (Acts 21:9; cf. Luke 2:36, Judges 4:4) should be allowed, like male prophets, to prophesy in church meetings (1 Corinthians 14:29).

Paul's writings are scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). And so they are infallible (2 Timothy 3:16). That some Christians might choose to ignore parts of them does not change this fact, just as some Christians choosing to ignore parts of what Jesus Christ taught in the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 5:39, Mark 10:11-12) does not change the fact that His teachings are infallible (2 Timothy 3:16).
We aren't talking about church, we're talking about rights as an American citizen.

No one is promoting force.
When you have a captive audience and pray to them, they are forced to listen.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
Not if it is a sin. Murder is a choice.

Because it is not a sin.
Basing laws under the Constitution on whether something is a sin is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

To preach the Gospel to everyone (Mark 16:15).
So a Hindu student can post verses from the Bhagavad Gita on a Christian student's locker and you'd be OK with it?

If they aren't or don't, they can do something else during the prayer.
Sorry, no. You don't get to change the scenario. You said

But they can't pray out loud at school activities, even if everyone in the school is Christian and wants to pray.
Answer the question; how do they know?

Denying prayer at school events is denying the free exercise of religion.
No, it is not. It is upholding the Establishment Clause.

Any prayer should be up to the students, not the teacher.
Which is exactly what we have now. Students can decide what prayers they want to pray on their on time.

No, it is discriminating against a sinful activity, which discrimination is required for Biblical Christians (Ephesians 5:11).
Nope, making a cake for one couple but refusing to make an identical cake for another couple based on sexual orientation is discrimination against a person.
*******
That does not justify the illegal denial of the free exercise of religion at school events.
No, but it does justify the legal upholding of the establishment clause at school events.

It is Christians who are now the outcasts because they do not serve the current schools' religion of "political correctness".
wrong.

But Christians are never to treat any non-Christians as outcasts (Mark 2:16).
And yet they do it all the time.

Note that there is no need for any force or outcasting.
That is exactly what is happening. If I have to be at a location for something and someone starts reciting a Islamic Call to Prayer, I'm forced to listen to it.

Voluntary school prayer is not establishment.
It isn't voluntary when you have no choice but to be there and listen to it.

Any prayers should be up to the students.
As I said above, this is exactly what we have now. Students can decide what prayers they want to pray on their on time. Not at school sponsored events and especially not at events where attendance is mandatory.
*******
Indeed, why can't homosexuals just leave Biblical Christians alone?
Because those "Biblical" Christians decided to open a business to the public but refuse to treat all American citizens the same.
*******
Note that Webster's doesn't say "pre-pubertal" in its definition for pedophilia, which can refer to children generally, as in minors.
From Websters

Pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object; specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child.

Pre-pubertal and prepubescent mean the same thing.

He is, in the sense of statutory rape of a minor, or possessing minor inappropriate contentography, which is illegal.
No, that is not what makes someone a pedophile. See above definition from Webster's

By whose definition? Someone who wants to prey on post-pubertal minors, who can be as young as 12 or 13?
By Webster's, as shown above.

Not under the New Testament/New Covenant.
According to Jesus there is no such thing. Matthew 5:18
*******
Because it is against nature, and can lead to horrible diseases.
1. There are multiple documented cases of homosexuality in animals.
2. There is not one single disease that homosexuals get that heterosexuals do not also get.

Homosexuality is "against nature" (Romans 1:26-27) in the sense of how God created nature to work:
Maybe, but that does not mean that we can outlaw something just because the Bible says so. That is a huge violation of the First Amendment.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

God never intended for males to become sexually joined or married to other males, just as God never intended for females to become sexually joined or married to other females.
For the umpteenth time, just because something is proscribed in the Bible does not mean that the US can make it illegal just because the Bible proscribes against it. There must be a secular reason for the law. Ever heard of the Lemon Test?

Of course it is (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4).
Not in the United States under our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is amazing how many Fundamentalists/Evangelicals wave the Constitution around when it suits their purposes but seem to always forget about the prohibition against the government establishing a religion. In spite of the fact that it is right there in the same First Amendment that they beat people over the head with. And in fact comes before the free exercise clause.

Also remember that at the time that the Bible was written, thousands of years ago, slavery was not at all based on race. For back then there were many more white slaves than black. And no doubt some of the white slaves had black masters. The Bible is not racist (Acts 17:26, Revelation 5:9).
You're arguing against a straw man here. I'm arguing that the Bible condoned of chattel slavery. I made no mention of race.

Also, the Old Testament forbade the cruel treatment of slaves (Leviticus 25:43, Exodus 21:26-27), of whatever race
Really? Exodus 21:20-21

Also, Exodus 21:4-6

and forbade the return of escaped slaves to their masters (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). Similarly, the New Testament commands the right treatment of slaves (Colossians 4:1), and says that slaves should obtain freedom from mortal masters if they are able to (1 Corinthians 7:21). But Christians are to remain the voluntary slaves/servants of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:1, Romans 6:22, Revelation 1:1), who has freed them from slavery to sin (John 8:34-36), and offers them eternal life (Romans 6:22-23).

Also, the world today takes pride in its outlawing of slavery. Yet the world overlooks the billions of "wage slaves" today who are not paid a living wage, while their corporate masters grow rich off of their labor. So slaves today are cared for less by their masters than slaves in Bible times were to be cared for (Colossians 4:1, Exodus 21:5).
Now that's funny. And that's coming from a liberal.
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
You are incorrect. The harm is any that follows to either, the child or the woman. A child born prematurely is protected the same as the mother. Some pro-choice advocates attempt to argue that a child "going forth" must mean miscarriage so that the harm can be only to the woman, the child can be a nonentity, but the original language translation does not bear this out.

Unfortunately you are wrong. Allow me
" . . .The Torah does not address the issue directly. The principal biblical source for Jewish law on abortion is a passage in Exodus (Exodus 21:22-23) concerning a case in which two men are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry. The verse states that if no other harm is done, the person who caused the damage must pay compensatory damages, but if there is further harm, then he should pay with his life. The common rabbinic interpretation is that if the only harm that comes to the woman is the loss of the fetus, it is treated as a case of property damage — not murder.

The later rabbinic sources address the issue more directly, beginning with the Mishnah referenced above. Elsewhere, the Mishnah says that if a pregnant woman is sentenced to death, the execution can go forward provided she has not yet gone into labor, a further indication that Jewish law does not accord the fetus full human rights prior to birth. . ."

Source
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Queller said in post #774:

. . . despite what Paul claims, Jesus says that nothing in the law will be changed until heaven and earth pass away and all of the law is fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

Matthew 5:18 did not mean that heaven and earth had to pass away before the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments could be abolished, but that Jesus Christ had to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah's/the Christ's first coming (Luke 24:44-46; e.g. Acts 3:22-26, Isaiah 53) before He could abolish the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (for both Jews and Gentiles, of all times) on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19).

Also, do you reject the apostle Paul, and so reject the books of the Bible written by him? If so, that is a serious mistake. For the basis for Paul's theology is direct revelation to him from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). That is why his theology is in accord with what the Old Testament foretold (Acts 26:22-23), with what the New Testament Gospels describe (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and with what the other writings in the New Testament say (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The basis for Paul's authority, his being an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1), is his being an eyewitness of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1), and receiving his ministry directly from Jesus (Acts 26:16-18, Acts 9:10-22). When the other apostles saw how greatly Jesus worked through Paul, they accepted him as a fellow apostle (Galatians 2:9, Acts 14:14). Peter even expressly wrote to Christians confirming that all of Paul's epistles are from God, are scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). There is no reason to reject Paul's apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 14:36-37). His faithful work on behalf of Jesus proves that he is not a false apostle (Matthew 7:16-18). And Paul fulfilled many of the signs spoken of by Jesus regarding true Christians (Mark 16:17-18, Acts 19:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:18, Acts 28:3-5, Acts 28:8).

Also, because of the wonderful example of Saul the persecutor becoming Paul the apostle (1 Timothy 1:12-17; Acts 7:58 to Acts 13:9), Christians should never give up on any non-Christians, no matter how hostile they are to Christians and the Christian faith. Instead, Christians should keep praying for them that God would miraculously save their souls (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8, Colossians 1:21-23). And because of the example of Saul becoming Paul, those who have persecuted Christians, and reviled the Christian faith in the past, but now feel God's gifts of repentance and faith (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8) moving within them, should not think that what they have done against Christians and the Christian faith (whether in word or in deed) in the past disqualifies them now from being able to repent, and to ask God's forgiveness, and to receive His salvation through their faith in Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:21-22).

*******

Queller said in post #776:

We aren't talking about behavior, we're talking about orientation.

Orientation is defined by behavior. Also, homosexual behavior is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), and Biblical Christians cannot support sinful activity (Ephesians 5:11).

*******

Queller said in post #777:

Women as second-class citizens subordinate to males is not justice.

No one has said that women are second-class citizens. For:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But just as this cannot mean that there are no Christians who are Jews or Gentiles in any sense, for Christians remain either genetic Jews (Acts 22:3) or genetic Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), so Galatians 3:28 does not mean that there are no Christians who are males or females, for we are still males or females with regard to our genitals, and with regard to other matters (1 Timothy 2:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:34-37; 1 Corinthians 11:4-16; 1 Peter 3:7a).

So Galatians 3:28 can only mean that there is no distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians, or between male and female Christians, with regard to them being "one in Christ" (Galatians 3:28b), in the sense of them being one body in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:4-6), without distinction with regard to their salvation (Romans 10:12; 1 Corinthians 12:13; 1 Peter 3:7b).

Queller said in post #777:

[Re: Matthew 4:8]

But it doesn't say or require that it is a mountain not here on earth

It does, for only from a mountain in heaven could all of the kingdoms of the earth be viewed.

Queller said in post #777:

You're adding that to explain away the problem. The Bible has proscriptions against that sort of thing. Proverbs 30:5-6

No, for there is no problem. Also, Proverbs 30:5 includes the purity of God's teaching in Romans 1:26-27, for example.

Queller said in post #777:

[Re: Matthew 4:5 was on earth]

And yet the mountain is not?

Right.

Queller said in post #777:

Why add to the plain reading of the text?

The plain reading of Matthew 4:8 does not say or require that the mountain is on the earth.

Queller said in post #777:

[Re: Why would Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35-43 have to mention the second blind man that was healed in Matthew 20:29-34?]

Umm, because it happened.?

Why would they have to mention everything that happened?

Compare what John 20:30 says.

Queller said in post #777:

[Re: In Luke 18:35 the original Greek word (G1519) translated as "unto" can mean as Jesus came near "by" (Acts 27:2) a blind man next to Jericho, yet still on Jesus' way out of Jericho (Mark 10:46)]

What reference source are you using for that claim? According to Strong's it means "[Greek], a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among."

I don't see anything there about it meaning "by".

My Strong's entry for #G1519 reads:

a primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases: -- (abundant-)ly, against, among, as, at, (back-)ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for (intent, purpose), fore, + forth, in (among, at, unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-)on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore(-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-)until(-to), ...ward, (where-)fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literally or figuratively).

--

[And "by" is the meaning of G1519 in Acts 27:2.]

Queller said in post #777:

[Re: Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35-43 do not say or require that Jesus did not touch the blind eyes, as in Matthew 20:29-34]

More adding to the Bible. You really have a problem with the plain reading of the text.

Did you ever think that by having to add so much to the Bible might mean something is off about your interpretation of it?

No. Instead, it would be adding to the Bible to claim that Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35-43 say that Jesus did not touch the blind eyes.

Queller said in post #777:

You do know that Mark and Luke were not at Jericho with Jesus right? That they got their accounts from other witnesses?

So what? There is nothing inaccurate about their accounts.

Queller said in post #777:

Minors are not allowed to consent to marriage.

Yes, they are, in many states.

Queller said in post #777:

Orientation is not the same as paraphillia.

Pedophilia is by definition a sexual orientation toward minors.

Queller said in post #777:

[Re: Jesus miraculously heals people (Matthew 9:35)]

But not in any way that can be empirically proven, such as healing an amputee. Why do you think that is?

How was His healing of the blind, for example, not empirically proven?

Queller said in post #777:

[Re: Why can't people in the here and now have been healed by God?]

Maybe they were but sometimes it seems that God is peculiarly selective in his healing.

That's right.

For example, see 2 Corinthians 12:7-10.

Queller said in post #777:

[Re: Forcing Biblical Christians to deny the "free exercise" of their religion is prohibited by the First Amendment]

Do you feel the same about practitioners of Santeria?

The First Amendment does.

Queller said in post #777:

[Re: Even if all students at a graduation wanted to say a voluntary prayer out loud at the start, they cannot]

Because they have a captive audience and that violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.

No, it doesn't. For the unbelievers in the audience can play with their smartphones during the prayer.

Queller said in post #777:

And when a Wiccan teacher leads their class in a prayer to Diana or a Muslim wants to hand out copies of the Quran, will you support that?

Any prayer in the classroom should be up to the students. And they should be able to hand out Bibles to their fellows as part of Mark 16:15 and the "free exercise" part of the First Amendment, which would also protect any students handing out Korans.

In the latter case, if the students take the Korans home to Christian parents, it would serve as an opportunity for the parents to explain to the students that because Islam falsely claims that the anti-gospel Koran came through the angel Gabriel, it is one fulfillment of Galatians 1:8-9 (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14).

Islam is an anti-gospel religion because, even though it affirms that Jesus is the Christ (Koran 4:157, Koran 5:17,75), it denies that Jesus is the human/divine Son of God (Koran 9:30, Koran 4:171, Koran 5:72). And it denies that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins (Koran 4:157) and rose physically from the dead on the third day. In order to be saved from hell, people have to believe the Gospel that Jesus is both the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (John 3:16,36; 1 John 2:23), and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins and rose physically from the dead on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:39,46-47, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 26:28).

The reason why it is necessary to believe these things to be saved from hell is because it was only as the human/divine Son of God that Jesus Christ's suffering during His Passion could satisfy God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:46).

Jesus Christ's suffering during His Passion was sufficient to forgive the sins of everyone (1 John 2:2), because Jesus is not only a human, but also God (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28). His soul is infinite, and so the suffering of His soul (Isaiah 53:11, KJV) was infinite in amount, even though it was not infinite in duration. And so His suffering could satisfy God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11, KJV; 1 Peter 3:18), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:46). Because humans who are not God have finite souls, in order for them to suffer an infinite amount for their sins they must suffer over an infinite duration of time (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:10-11, Mark 9:46).

Every human has sinned (Romans 3:23), except Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:15b; 2 Corinthians 5:21). But because Jesus suffered for sins (1 Peter 3:18, Isaiah 53:11, KJV) an infinite amount, when elect people repent from their sins and believe in Jesus' human/divine sacrifice, they can have their past sins forgiven (Romans 3:25-26, Matthew 26:28), while God the Father's justice remains fully satisfied by Jesus' suffering for their sins (Isaiah 53:11, KJV; 1 Peter 3:18).

One way to help Muslims understand how Jesus Christ can be God, from everlasting, is to question them about their understanding of the Muslim belief regarding the Koran. For Islam says that there was no time when the Koran did not exist in a spiritual form in heaven, that it has always coexisted with Allah as his word. So Christians can show Muslims that the Bible says that before Jesus' incarnation, there was no time when He did not exist in a spiritual form in heaven. He has always coexisted with God the Father as God the Word (John 1:1,14).

This is not to suggest that the Muslim claim regarding the Koran is true, or that the book itself is true. Indeed, again, because Islam falsely claims that the anti-gospel Koran came through the angel Gabriel, it is one fulfillment of Galatians 1:8-9 (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0