/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>555804

dunno bout that buddy, check out the dude just after ya

>>555806

> retarded

y'mean like a 'fool', yeah?

>>555810

> a brother - while not necessarily in Spirit of Fellowship with Christ, and so 'adopted' into the Kingdom - most definitely in the flesh of Humanity…

not reading the rest of the sentence is yours

>>555813

>How mad do you think that I am?

i'd say your emotions are somewhat piqued, as evidenced by you calling someone retarded for likening the Racist's dehumanisation of fellow human beings with the Abortionist's dehumanisation of a child in the womb

it's the same warped perspective in each case - a literal perversion of the mind which sees that which God has declared Sacred to be nothing but trash

All these adorable baby pictures.

>>555829

whether one calls a person of different ethnicity from you by a racial epithet, or one calls a baby a disposable commodity; the motivation in each case is the same - a perverted view of that which God has declared Sacred

i think this is most readily summed up as 'dehumanisation' but if you have an alternative i'm ready to hear it

>>555842

no, Abortionists don't kill babies

Abortionists 'murder' babies

and in every case they are breaking the command of God 'do not murder', for they esteem themselves of greater value than those whom they kill - profaning that which God has created to carry His image, and therefore Sacred or 'Set Apart' unto His good purposes

but…

when a Black man murders a White man, is that any less an act of profanity?

hasn't that Black man dehumanised this image-bearer of God, valued him as nothing, and ended a life which God had made for Himself?

… and aren't we all murderers according to Scripture?

Jesus said we are

>>555861

murder is an unrighteous act of killing a human being made in the image of God

but there are righteous killings of men, when in defence of home and country

speaking as a woman i'd expect a man of God to know that, and so be able to exegete scripture instead of playing games

speaking as a man i'd say i wouldn't suffer a woman to teach men on matters theological, but since you're speaking as a child, i'd be quite happy to see your mum school you some more

but first though, i think you've had enough playtime and need to take a nap

>>555947

> neither cast. ye your pearls before swine

i get that you're a bit annoyed by me being holier than thou, but anon; i mentioned the pearls before swine and deliberating with fools in the OP

as for sons of the devil, that's everyone outside the Kingdom - which we all formerly were

aren't you glad that Jesus had mercy on such an enemy as you once were - and shouldn't you extend that mercy to the other poor bastard orphans who need adoption?

the true christian recognises that he is a beggar who has found bread - and he wants to share it with the rest of the wretches

>>555971

> the mercy is already extended to them by God, but if they reject it

so am i right to infer that you didn't reject the mercy extended to you?

what was it that made you capable of making such a wise decision?

>>555983

>by realizing I was a degenerate

so it was all down to you being smart and honest?

>>556677

> There's a difference between a literal retard and a fool. People are literally retarded.

honestly, i agree with you; there are those who are cognitively impaired

… and there are those who are wilfully, and obstinately foolish - suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness*

this is what the Scripture is referring to when it asserts that 'the fool says in his heart that there is no God' - applying this not only to the Atheist, but also to anyone who chooses to sin even though their God-given conscience warns them of The Lord's Judgement

but going back to your point, i don't think our allegedly eastern orthodox friend was suggesting that i am mentally impaired, do you?

no i think the more reasonable inference is that he sees me as deliberately choosing not to look into these matters correctly - maintaining a prideful sinfulness when searching the scriptures, all to push some agenda of my own devising

~

*Rom 1:18

>>556792

>Why are you baby posting?

why aren't you baby poastan?

they're funny

lol XD

>>556792

>Are you a girl who wants to have my babies?

Even as a joke that's pretty disgusting, anon.

>>556805

thanks for being my whyghte knyghte XD

>>556809

>>556810

No, you're both being stupid.

>>556815

> stupid

i'd take offence to that but i'm too dumb to know what you mean

i suppose you could be saying that posting pics of babies is inane

well i would argue that highlighting an argument for the intrinsic worth God places on every human being, with images of babies which our secular world deems surplus to requirements, has some merit

or you may be suggesting that replying to an anon who feels comfortable calling poasters he perceives as female; 'whores' was an act of folly

yet i would point out that i didn't know he felt so free to profane women until he made his second poast and you'll note i'm ignoring him now

if there's some other inference i'm missing though, feel free to inform me - i'm sure it will be most illuminating

>>556823

>i suppose you could be saying that posting pics of babies is inane

I shouldn't have called you stupid, i honestly meant silly, but wanted it to be slightly more harsh because of the other poster, but it ended being too harsh for your joke post.

>>556829

> i honestly meant silly,

in that case, i can only agree with you anon - no hard feelings on my part - i am deliberately searching for, and poastan, the dumbest pics of babby on teh internet every time

>>556830

Babies are pretty cute.

>>556848

kek

This refers to insulting someone out of anger. Otherwise, Jesus has sinned, for he DID say:

Mark 7

>After Jesus had left the crowd and gone into the house, His disciples inquired about the parable.

>“Are you still so dull?” He asked. “Do you not understand? Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, because it does not enter his heart, but it goes into his stomach and then is eliminated.”

You are dull, too.

>>556854

ok mr sharp guy, if you read the OP you'd understand that the main part of the text i'm looking at is the word 'Raca' meaning worthless, disposable, and good for nothing - not 'dull' or 'dullard' which isn't even mentioned in Matt 5:22

if we stuck to Raca we would have to agree that Jesus is the only one with the right to declare anyone as unessential or without value, since He is the very Creator of mankind - and throughout the Scripture which He inspired by The Holy Spirit, we do see men being deemed worthless, most often due to their sins carrying them away, becoming worthless in the pursuit of that which is worthless compared to the knowledge of God

(Jer 2:5)

yet i would argue from Scripture that even such souls as remain in rebellion and worthlessness until their deaths, do serve a purpose in God's economy, since they are the dishonourable vessels of Wrath mentioned in Romans 9:22 - and as such were prepared for destruction from before the foundation of the earth, so that God might be glorified in the display of His infinite hatred for Sin

but who are you, o man, that you would answer back to Christ that you may determine which are such souls - do you have knowledge of God's heart that we aren't privy to, can you declare for certain that a fellow image-bearer is a mere waste-receptacle and not worth extending Grace to, just as it may have been extended to you?

well then surely you are of the people and wisdom will die with you

all that to say; as much as it pains me, i'm not getting sidetracked into an argument over the word 'dull' by someone who hasn't dealt with the body of my initial text - though i might muse aloud on my first thoughts in this poast, that if anyone would be allowed to declare someone dull, it would be Jesus