You expected different from him? I know Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes right?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A Picture worth a thousand words
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
You expected different from him? I know Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes right?
And this thread shows once again liberals prefer do do their giving with other peoples money.
Certainly not a biblical message.
Certainly not a biblical message.
Straight up true!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You show your charitable nature toward ever human by your rabid support of the slaughter of the innocent children in their mothers womb. And don't lie and insist you are against the continuation of this slaughter. If you were you would not be such a rabid supporter of the party of death and use every excuse to damn the only party that has done anything to restrict this practice.
I thought you uber religious leftist thought HE was supporting abortion when HE said:Suffer little children to come unto me you took this to mean "kill them in their mother's womb so they can come to me quickly".
You correctly state
I have been making the point for years that it is immoral for you to support the party of death and abortion.
Your problem is that you assume everyone who opposes the slaughter of the unborn is also stingy like the leftist when it comes to helping those in need. It is a fact that Republicans and Conservatives give much more to help those in need than do leftists and democrats like good old Joe Biden.
I am not the one who brags about how righteous I am it is you:
So your idea of helping children is to send them to God as quick as possible. Very noble of you Mr.
Last edited by a moderator:
You continue to spout your lie.
You are very liberal in your interpretation. There is no way that verse can be said to be about abortion in any way. You are most irrational and liberal here.
And your support of the party of death for the living is as, if not more, immoral. Jesus gave commands on how we are to treat and help each other. You refuse to mention Christ. Christ never mentioned abortion. He preached helping others and you ignore his teachings.
A red herring. You never support programs for the living. You are immoral in your stance.
Oh but your self-righteous, puffed up chest comes through loudly in your rantings.
Another extremely stupid remark. You need to sit back, take a deep breath and do a bit of logical thinking.
As I have repeatedly said, I am against abortion and am also in favor of helping children in need, in educating children, in giving them healthcare. I support the living as well as the unborn. You do not. You simply, self-righteously scream about abortion. Your stance required nothing of you except verbal screaming. If you supported the living children as well it might require some work on your part, some of your money. You do not want to support anything that actually required you to do something or to use money to help them.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Is it not true that you support the-most-pro-slaughter-of-the-unborn-child ever to occupy the White House? Is it not true that you support the party-of-death which celebrated the continued slaughter-of-the-unborn-child at the 2012 national convention that nominated for a second term he-most-pro-slaughter-of-the-unborn-child for a second time.
For someone who spent his career doing library work you are unable to understand what the text says. Please note that I was presenting the possible pro-abortion justification for their support of the American Holocaust, the slaughter of 56 million unborn children.
Just because you mention Jesus Christ means nothing. I have quoted to you numerous times the Word of God regarding the innocent:
Proverbs 6:16-19
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
You are guilty of all of these mister.
You have no idea what I support mister. I don’t support the party of death. I also support the words of God when HE instructs the following to be written:
2 Thessalonians 3:10-12
10. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
1 Timothy 5:8. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
GOD instructs us to help those who are unable to help themselves, not to create a “plantation mentality” among the people. But you reject that because you are a Marxist mister!
You have never seen me post anything like the above.
You are pro-abortion mister and you try to hide that truth by bragging about how much you care for the poor and down trodden. There is no evidence that you really care about these people except your braggadocio.
There is abundant evidence that Republicans and Conservatives give far more to charity than do the leftist democrats like you. You are the typical socialist and want to take money from those who work and give to those who will not work.
You say you are against abortion yet you give the lie to that statement by your rabid support of the party of death, the democrat party. That party celebrated the continued slaughter of the unborn at its last national convention. That cannot be denied.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
How do you know how much he gives to the poor ?
Answer; you don't.
Rejection of democrat BS does not equate to rejecting Jesus.
Thousand Hills
Active Member
Not really sure I like the picture in the original post. You can't legislate morality, and our current "state of the union" isn't necessarily directly due to gutless politicians on either side of the aisle, as much as the reality that the church in America has by in large failed and left its first love.
J.L. Dagg said "“It has been remarked, that when discipline leaves a church, Christ goes with it.” This picture could just as easily be the same scene at many of our local churches. We've been at ease in zion, we've resorted to pragmatism to entertain goats and keep the money rolling in, and only now are folks waking up to the realities of compromise and misplaced priorities.
J.L. Dagg said "“It has been remarked, that when discipline leaves a church, Christ goes with it.” This picture could just as easily be the same scene at many of our local churches. We've been at ease in zion, we've resorted to pragmatism to entertain goats and keep the money rolling in, and only now are folks waking up to the realities of compromise and misplaced priorities.
Thousand Hills
Active Member
Yep, sad but true.
Who are these churches and exactly what behavior are they engaging in that would lead one to believe this?
The phrase I've boldfaced is frequently used, but I consider it to be overly general, as many/most of out laws are (or should be) intended to produce what society considers to be moral conduct, and punish what is considered immoral. (Not that society is doing very well in judging which is which.) If asked, I might revise the phrase to say, "You can't legislate one's personal moral ethos." Just a fancy way of stating that one's own moral view depends on one's relationship (if any) with God, not what the lawbook says.
I don't understand this "you can't legislate morality" thing. Where in the world did that ever come from. All laws and all legislation is based on morality. The question is who's morality?
Thousand Hills
Active Member
And I don't understand the picture in your OP. Can someone please explain to me exactly what is going on, and when did this event occur. The thread title is "A Picture worth a thousand words" I don't need that many words but please just explain the context of what is happening. Thanks .:wavey:
"What then is the relation of law to morality? Law cannot prescribe morality, it can prescribe only external actions and therefore it should prescribe only those actions whose mere fulfillment, from whatever motive, the state adjudges to be conducive to welfare. What actions are these? Obviously such actions as promote the physical and social conditions requisite for the expression and development of free—or moral—personality.... Law does not and cannot cover all the ground of morality. To turn all moral obligations into legal obligations would be to destroy morality. Happily it is impossible. No code of law can envisage the myriad changing situations that determine moral obligations. Moreover, there must be one legal code for all, but moral codes vary as much as the individual characters of which they are the expression. To legislate against the moral codes of one’s fellows is a very grave act, requiring for its justification the most indubitable and universally admitted of social gains, for it is to steal their moral codes, to suppress their characters."
ATTRIBUTION: R.M. MacIver (1882–1970), Scottish sociologist, educator. The Modern State, ch. 5, Oxford University Press (1926).