Kamala’s Response to “Jesus is Lord

[childeye 2]

Since you used verses pertaining to false Christ and Christians it seemed that was the direction you were going in.

No. The verses I used were only meant to show that Corinthians 12:3 is about confessing Christ as Lord through the conviction that comes by the Holy Spirit.

Meaning what? That Grant Beth and Luke Polaske were using the name of Jesus in vain? Maybe if you were less cryptic I wouldn't have to guess at what you're saying/implying.

I mean exactly what I said, that Harris doesn't strike me as a person who would use God's name in vain (out of vainglory). If I were to describe a subtext, I would say it's more about how the spirit of cynicism could find a way to accuse Harris whether she declared Jesus as Lord or she didn't, and the same could be done to Mr. Beth and Mr. Beasley.

Looks like you're adding stuff on after I've read and replied. So I'll wait a while before replying from now on.

Sorry about that. I don't know why I post and then suddenly think of something I should have said.

 

[Servus]

No. The verses I used were only meant to show that Corinthians 12:3 is about confessing Christ as Lord through the conviction that comes by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, and I was saying by way of 1 Corinthians 12:3 that I think the two students were speaking through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, rather than using the name of Jesus in vain.

I mean exactly what I said, that Harris doesn't strike me as a person who would use God's name in vain (out of vainglory). If I were to describe a subtext, I would say it's more about how the spirit of cynicism could find a way to accuse Harris whether she declared Jesus as Lord or she didn't, and the same could be done to Mr. Beth and Mr. Beasley.

How about we just sick to what Harris actually did say?

Sorry about that. I don't know why I post and then suddenly think of something I should have said.

I do that all the time. That's why I said I should wait before replying. But I probably won't because I'm impatient.

 

[childeye 2]

Luke Polaske said "abortion is a sacrament of Satan".

He also conveyed it was his deeply held belief as a Christian. However, "Sacrament" means the sign of something that is sacred. I believe his sentiments would be better articulated by saying it's his belief that abortion is sacrilege.

But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” Mark 8:33

Was Jesus being unloving towards Peter?

I believe Jesus was the embodiment of the incorruptible Love. He was always loving. Obviously, Peter did not see the big picture like Christ did. Jesus was speaking God's will and Peter was saying God forbid. I'm sure Jesus knew that Peter was only expressing his own uninformed objection to Christ being crucified.

The worldly concept of Jesus is that he only said warm fuzzy stuff. And therefore Christains rebuking sin is unloving, goes against Matt 22:39 and so on.

I would say the worldly concept is that Jesus was a fool. I can see how rebuking sin falls in line with loving others as oneself. However, we must first remove the log from our own eye before we can see clearly enough to see how to remove the speck from our brother's eye.

If one is not serving Christ, they are by default serving Satan. Does abortion serve Christ.

I would say no because perfect love casts out all fear.

 

[Servus]

He also conveyed it was his deeply held belief as a Christian. However, "Sacrament" means the sign of something that is sacred. I believe his sentiments would be better articulated by saying it's his belief that abortion is sacrilege.

Abortion seems pretty sacred to Harris and her camp.

I believe Jesus was the embodiment of the incorruptible Love. He was always loving. Obviously, Peter did not see the big picture like Christ did. Jesus was speaking God's will and Peter was saying God forbid. I'm sure Jesus knew that Peter was only expressing his own uninformed objection to Christ being crucified.

The point is harsh rebuke doesn't equate to lack of Christain love.

I would say the worldly concept is that Jesus was a fool. I can see how rebuking sin falls in line with loving others as oneself. However, we must first remove the log from our own eye before we can see clearly enough to see how to remove the speck from our brother's eye.

People use Matthew 7:1-3 all the time as an argument aginst calling out and rebuking sin.

I would say no because perfect love casts out all fear.

How does 1 John 4:18 pertain to my question?

 

[childeye 2]

Yes, and I was saying by way of 1 Corinthians 12:3 that I think the two students were speaking through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, rather than using the name of Jesus in vain.

I understood that. But again, 1 Corinthians 12:3 doesn't support the contention that these students were speaking with the conviction of the Holy Spirit. I actually think their words could make them look more like religious nuts.

How about we just sick to what Harris actually did say?

That's what I'm trying to do. That's why I said that her words do not support any conjecture suggesting she would use God's name in vain.

 

[Servus]

I understood that. But again, 1 Corinthians 12:3 doesn't support the contention that these students were speaking with the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

You've heard them speak, do they sound insincere?

I actually think their words could make them look more like religious nuts.

I have no doubt about that, but I'd say they appear to be religious nuts to the sort of people I'd expect to call me a religious nut.

That's what I'm trying to do. That's why I said that her words do not support any conjecture suggesting she would use God's name in vain.

Who here has conjectured that?

 

[childeye 2]

Abortion seems pretty sacred to Harris and her camp.

I am in her so called "camp", and I don't see her conveying that terminating an unwanted pregnancy is a sacred rite. I see her saying that she agrees with the degree of protections granted under Roe vs Wade. Apart from that and speaking as a male, I do think it's possible/probable that she would hold to the right of a woman over her own body as a God given right.

The point is harsh rebuke doesn't equate to lack of Christain love.

I understand your point as this statement shows ---> "I can see how rebuking sin falls in line with loving others as oneself".

I don't think Matthew 16:22,23 conveys a Christian Love that rebukes sin. It conveys to me that Satan was behind Peter's sentiments.

People use Matthew 7:1-3 all the time as an argument aginst calling out and rebuking sin.

When people are proposing that government should punish sinfulness, they come across sounding as if they're condemning people for sin rather than condemning sinful flesh, because they talk as if they have no sin. So, when I see people are being taken that way, I use Romans 2:1 to remind them that we all do the same things in God's eyes.

How does 1 John 4:18 pertain to my question?

Your question is, "Does abortion serve Christ?"
My response was, "I would say no because perfect love casts out all fear".

To elaborate, apart from the occasion where it is deemed as a medical necessity, I believe the desire to obtain an abortion is based on a type of belief that manifests some form of fear. Therefore, I'm saying that I think it's typical to find that whatever the person is believing is misguiding their love.

 

[Servus]

I am in her so called "camp", and I don't see her conveying that terminating an unwanted pregnancy is a sacred right. I see her saying that she agrees with the degree of protections granted under Roe vs Wade. Apart from that and speaking as a male, I do think it's possible/probable that she would hold to the right of a woman over her own body as a God given right.

She and the bulk of her supporters are blatantly pro-abortion. Lack of restriction on abortion is one of the pillars of her campaign.

I understand your point as this statement shows ---> "I can see how rebuking sin falls in line with loving others as oneself".

I don't think Matthew 16:22,23 conveys a Christian Love that rebukes sin. It conveys to me that Satan was behind Peter's sentiments.

When people are proposing that government should punish sinfulness, they come across sounding as if they're condemning people for sin rather than condemning sinful flesh, because they talk as if they have no sin. So, when I see people are being taken that way, I use Romans 2:1 to remind them that we all do the same things in God's eyes.

What? The government has always punished sin. Go kill or steal and see what the government does with you.

Your question is, "Does abortion serve Christ?"
My response was, "I would say no because perfect love casts out all fear".

To elaborate, apart from the occasion where it is deemed as a medical necessity, I believe the desire to obtain an abortion is based on a type of belief that manifests some form of fear. Therefore, I'm saying that I think it's typical to find that whatever the person is believing is misguiding their love.

No one talking about abortion along these lines is talking about the rare percentage of it which falls under that category.

 

[Postvieww]

You're being silly. How would she know they were at the wrong rally merely by saying Jesus is Lord? If all they said was Jesus is Lord then she had to be against the idea of it.

No surprise that the party favoring the murder of babies would be less than pleased with someone shouting Jesus is Lord.

 

[childeye 2]

You've heard them speak, do they sound insincere?

Yes, I think they sound sincere. And I'd be a liar to think or say that, as a young Christian, I have not done or said something similar to what these young gentlemen did.

So, while I'm confident they are sincere in believing what they are saying, that doesn't necessarily mean that what they are saying and doing shows God's grace and wisdom and is void of any carnal vanity. I'm saying there are degrees of ignorance and knowledge and that I can see myself in them declaring Jesus as Lord, but it's more like a battle cry not dissimilar to the sentiment that Islamic terrorists are depicted as showing when they say, "God is great" before blowing themselves up.

That's in stark contrast from the humility that comes through hearing and coming to understand the Gospel, where I first became convicted by the Holy Spirit that I was a sinner condemned to death under the law and was without hope apart from the grace found in Christ. To rephrase, to me they don't sound like they're contritely confessing themselves and all others as sinners in need of Christ as a Savior when they declare Jesus as Lord.

I have no doubt about that, but I'd say they appear to be religious nuts to the sort of people I'd expect to call me a religious nut.

I get that. Still, actually being a nutjob is relative to one's level of disconnect with reality.

Who here has conjectured that?

I think it's inadvertently happening on both sides in this thread, which is why I said this --->

childeye 2 said:
I mean exactly what I said, that Harris doesn't strike me as a person who would use God's name in vain (out of vainglory). If I were to describe a subtext, I would say it's more about how the spirit of cynicism could find a way to accuse Harris whether she declared Jesus as Lord or she didn't, and the same could be done to Mr. Beth and Mr. Beasley.

 

[Hammster]

No. She's saying that it's the wrong rally to heckle about abortion.

-CryptoLutheran

No such thing.

 

[Servus]

Yes, I think they sound sincere. And I'd be a liar to think or say that, as a young Christian, I have not done or said something similar to what these young gentlemen did.

So, while I'm confident they are sincere in believing what they are saying, that doesn't necessarily mean that what they are saying and doing shows God's grace and wisdom and is void of any carnal vanity. I'm saying there are degrees of ignorance and knowledge and that I can see myself in them declaring Jesus as Lord, but it's more like a battle cry not dissimilar to the sentiment that Islamic terrorists are depicted as showing when they say, "God is great" before blowing themselves up.

That's in stark contrast from the humility that comes through hearing and coming to understand the Gospel, where I first became convicted by the Holy Spirit that I was a sinner condemned to death under the law and was without hope apart from the grace found in Christ. To rephrase, to me they don't sound like they're contritely confessing themselves and all others as sinners in need of Christ as a Savior when they declare Jesus as Lord.

They called out and rebuked sin. That's what Christians are supposed to do, no matter how much the world says they're not supposed to.

I get that. Still, actually being a nutjob is relative to one's level of disconnect with reality.

In this case it's based on how firm their convictions regarding sin are. The world wants complacent carnal Christians who are just like them.

I think it's inadvertently happening on both sides in this thread, which is why I said this --->

childeye 2 said:
I mean exactly what I said, that Harris doesn't strike me as a person who would use God's name in vain (out of vainglory). If I were to describe a subtext, I would say it's more about how the spirit of cynicism could find a way to accuse Harris whether she declared Jesus as Lord or she didn't, and the same could be done to Mr. Beth

You think but apparently you don't have any actual examples. Making something up to argue against it is called a straw man fallacy.

and Mr. Beasley.

Polaske.

 

[childeye 2]

She and the bulk of her supporters are blatantly pro-abortion. Lack of restriction on abortion is one of the pillars of her campaign.

I always take the subjective terminology that one side uses to describe their opposition, with a grain of salt. Objectively speaking, I know of no one who is pro-abortion on either side. Harris is supporting the restrictions laid out by the Supreme court after Roe vs Wade.

The Supreme court just moved the power to craft public policy back from the federal level to the state level when Roe vs Wade was reversed. Subsequently that position is still supporting pro-choice policies that conservative states like Kansas and Florida support.

You need to realize that as a male, I'm pro-life because I believe that if the woman carries her child to term, she will eventually be glad she didn't get an abortion. Just because Trump says he's for everyone following their heart doesn't make his position any less pro-choice than Kamala Harris.

What? The government has always punished sin. Go kill or steal and see what the government does with you.

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that laws crafted by government cannot cure sinfulness. I'm saying there's a reason why Paul teaches that no flesh will be justified by the works of the law.

No one talking about abortion along these lines is talking about the rare percentage of it which falls under that category.

I don't think you understand what I said. I said most all abortions are sought after out of a fear.

 

[Servus]

I always take the subjective terminology that one side uses to describe their opposition, with a grain of salt. Objectively speaking, I know of no one who is pro-abortion on either side. Harris is supporting the restrictions laid out by the Supreme court after Roe vs Wade.

The Supreme court just moved the power to craft public policy back from the federal level to the state level when Roe vs Wade was reversed. Subsequently that position is still supporting pro-choice policies that conservative states like Kansas and Florida support.

You need to realize that as a male, I'm pro-life because I believe that if the woman carries her child to term, she will eventually be glad she didn't get an abortion. Just because Trump says he's for everyone following their heart doesn't make his position any less pro-choice than Kamala Harris.

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that laws crafted by government cannot cure sinfulness. I'm saying there's a reason why Paul teaches that no flesh will be justified by the works of the law.

I don't think you understand what I said. I said most all abortions are sought after out of a fear.

I think you're being so abstractly philosophical I can't figure out what you're talking about. Philosophers are cool, but it's next to impossible to have an ordinary down to earth conversation with them.

 

[childeye 2]

They called out and rebuked sin. That's what Christians are supposed to do, no matter how much the world says they're not supposed to.

Well, Paul indicated it was not his business to judge those outside the church, and that makes sense since he also expressed that the carnal mind cannot be expected to serve God.

Just as elsewhere he reminds us that we were all once servants of sin fulfilling the desires of our flesh prompted by our vain imaginations. Therefore, we are told that God in His wisdom was using this situation to reveal His righteousness to the lowly and abased so as to have us acknowledge Him as our wisdom, and so that His righteousness could come by grace through faith and rebuke all carnal vainglory.

And this also matches with what Christ was teaching when he said that only the Truth that comes when receiving the Holy Spirit is what can set a person free from the slavery of sin.

So, I think it's important to take all of this into account before we rebuke others of sin. Our words should reflect our realization that if righteousness came through the works of the law, then Christ died in vain.

This is also why I believe we are judged according to what measure we use to judge others, because Christians were transformed from the carnal mind only through the grace that is in the Spirit of Christ and not of ourselves.

In this case it's based on how firm their convictions regarding sin are.

The Holy Spirit convicts me of sin, and I have no recollection of Him ever directing me to point out to someone their sin without also expressing grace, mercy, and understanding.

The world wants complacent carnal Christians who are just like them.

Well, as Jesus taught, we will be judged by what measure we use to judge others.

You think but apparently you don't have any actual examples. Making something up to argue against it is called a straw man fallacy.

I'm not making up anything concerning the cynicism I'm describing. The thread itself is titled Kamala's response to Jesus is Lord.

 

[childeye 2]

I think you're being so abstractly philosophical I can't figure out what you're talking about. Philosophers are cool, but it's next to impossible to have an ordinary down to earth conversation with them.

Can you understand that the majority of women that seek abortions are motivated out of fear?

 

[Servus]

Can you understand that the majority of women that seek abortions are motivated out of fear?

What's your point?

 

[Servus]

Well, Paul indicated it was not his business to judge those outside the church, and that makes sense since he also expressed that the carnal mind cannot be expected to serve God.

Just as elsewhere he reminds us that we were all once servants of sin fulfilling the desires of our flesh prompted by our vain imaginations. Therefore, we are told that God in His wisdom was using this situation to reveal His righteousness to the lowly and abased so as to have us acknowledge Him as our wisdom, and so that His righteousness could come by grace through faith and rebuke all carnal vainglory.

And this also matches with what Christ was teaching when he said that only the Truth that comes when receiving the Holy Spirit is what can set a person free from the slavery of sin.

So, I think it's important to take all of this into account before we rebuke others of sin. Our words should reflect our realization that if righteousness came through the works of the law, then Christ died in vain.

This is also why I believe we are judged according to what measure we use to judge others, because Christians were transformed from the carnal mind only through the grace that is in the Spirit of Christ and not of ourselves.

The Holy Spirit convicts me of sin, and I have no recollection of Him ever directing me to point out to someone their sin without also expressing grace, mercy, and understanding.

Well, as Jesus taught, we will be judged by what measure we use to judge others.

I'm not making up anything concerning the cynicism I'm describing. The thread itself is titled Kamala's response to Jesus is Lord.

Is the message here that we should be sympathetic towards sin?

 

[childeye 2]

What's your point?

That the majority of women who seek abortions do so out of fear.

 

[Servus]

That the majority of women who seek abortions do so out of fear.

Meaning what? What's the conclusion to that?