Post by Robert HarrisPost by BT GeorgePost by michael blancoPost by Robert HarrisFor only pretending!
Robert Harris
Mr McAdams; anti-trump people are anti-fascist people. trump is a neo
fascist. if that makes us deranged; than fighting hitler was deranged too
according to your philosophy. trump wants to pass a deathcare bill that
will destroy 23+million peoples lives! he could care less about that too!
trump cultist's; should wake up from their delusional hibernation; and
think for themselve's. instead of trump thinking for them!
And yet you left wing "right" fighters are perfectly OK with letting far
more millions of unborn children have their lives snuffed out---even
preferring a candidate like Hillary Clinton who supported the infanticide
that is partial-birth abortion.
I have never seen anyone who is so consistently wrong about EVERYTHING!
Then he's failed to look in the mirror folks. As I shall demonstrate
below.
Post by Robert Harrishttp://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/oct/09/ted-cruz/false-ted-cruz-claim-hillary-clinton-backs-unlimit/
Clinton has never supported partial birth abortion, without the
*exception* that the doctor has confirmed that the mother's life is
threatened.
I really do want to say this about Bob as kindly as I can----no joke.
Only an idiot (or someone behaving like one) typically posts a bunch of
stuff he neither reads carefully, nor thinks much about.
From his own link---all emphasis mine:
In 2003, as a senator for New York, Clinton was on the losing end of a
64-33 floor vote to advance the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
later signed into law by President George W. Bush. That change--barring
physicians from knowingly performing intact dilation and extraction on a
living fetus--had no exception to preserve the ***health*** or life of the
woman.
Clinton said: "I have said many times that I can support a ban on
late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the
***health*** and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women
who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of
course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that.
But if your life is at stake, if your ***health*** is at stake, if the
potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a
woman’s choice."
Note dear reader, contra Bob's assertions, Hillary doesn't just support
this *infanticide* only when the Mother's *life* is at stake, but her
*health*---- a very vague term that could mean just about anything
including minor health risks and perceived psychological well-being.
The latter could doubtlessly be invoked anytime necessary by an
abortionist wishing to grant a patient their desired late term procedure.
And indeed, as I understand it, Democrats like Clinton always insist on
leaving this "health" exception in there for this very reason. If they
would agree to a bill that limited these procedures to cases of *life*
only, it would probably get done. But having said that, there is very
little evidence that this is *ever* really the case:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441276/hillary-clinton-partial-birth-abortion-defending-indefensible
Post by Robert HarrisBTW Brock, your god tells you to murder gays, unfaithful women, mouthy
teenage boys and anyone who mows his lawn on Sunday.
What about their right to life, Brock?
You know this is getting to be a very old *game* ---- and an intentionally
dishonest one IMO---being played by many Atheists like Bob. They first
*pretend* that the New Testament doesn't exist, and/or that it teaches
believers to carry out commands that manifestly *DO NOT APPLY TO NEW
TESTAMENT BELIEVERS*. They know full well, that Jesus commanded His
followers to *NOT* stone people for committing sexual sins, and in fact to
love and pray for even their enemies. And it take no "brainchild" to
understand that statements like this mean that Christians are no longer
under the same Covenant as in the Old Testament:
Hebrews 8:6-13:
"6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as
the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the
new covenant is established on better promises.
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place
would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people
and said 8 :
“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12F or I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."
Acts 13:39:
"39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a
justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses."
Rom. 7:4-6:
"4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body
of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from
the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in
the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at
work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what
once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the
new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
John 1:16-17:
"16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For
the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus
Christ."
And there are many, many, more passages that make the above point.
And note too the "violent" and "deadly" way that homosexuals and others
living contrary to God are to be handled by commandments in the New
Testament:
1 Cor. 6:9-11 (Note particularly the implications of vs. 11, where it
becomes clear many of these self-same persons---far from being
stoned---were now part of the community of believers.):
"9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor
the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the
kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you
were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
and by the Spirit of our God."
....Again there are other passages and teachings that make the above truth
*clear*.
But lets give Bob a chance to disprove me. Here is my challenge to him:
Bob Harris, name *ONE* verse or passage---in *context*---in the *NEW
TESTAMENT* that commands, enjoins, or implies that NT believers should
physically harm those who commit sexual sins or who simply disagree with
Christian teaching. ...Just *one* will do.
And while Bob is "effortlessly" scrambling to find that, let me be
unambiguously clear about the Bible-believing Christians and the Old
Testament/Old Covenant. We only accept the Old Testament and its
commandments as being valid for faith and practice today *insofar* as the
*New Testament* either *repeats* them, or by *clear* implication, still
*enjoins* them. Anything else that has either been clearly set aside by
*direct* statements or *clear* implication is considered null, and void.
Indeed, it is considered *sinful* to continue to do those things because
you are thus setting aside the completed atonement work of Jesus on the
cross, and acting as if it never happened, or changed nothing.
It is true---and unfortunate----that some misguided "Christians" have
sought to apply Old Testament legal requirements to the current economy of
grace. But in so doing, they are acting in *direct* disobedience to the
the practices and teaching of Jesus and His earliest followers.
Now I'll take responsibility for their bad thinking and acting, if Bob and
other Atheists who think like he does, will kindly take responsibility for
the far greater deaths, persecutions, and stripping away of rights a
freedom that has occurred under Communism, which has been by far, the most
concrete and widespread political and philosophical expression of Atheist
ideology in modern history.
Post by Robert HarrisWhat about the genocidal slaughter by your god of entire populations who
committed the mortal sin of not worshiping him?
Hmmm. Let's see. Last time I checked, if there is such a God, the only
reason these "victims" and their (misguided) "protectors" exist in order
to complain about his *righteous* judgment, is because He gave them life,
intellect, and a sense---however horribly misguided and nonsensical it is
when applied to God----that genocide is wrong at all!
Now just how granting human beings the dignity of their choice to live on
forever without God (which they clearly want to do since they are refusing
to accept His standards or take Him up on His *free* offer of forgiveness
in pardon in Jesus Chris) is "genocide" I cannot fathom. It is certainly
not God's fault that when He offers them a way to share in all that He is
forever and ever (including His goodness, kindness, and mercy) many still
choose to continue to say "Nah. ...I got this!" "You keep that salvation
plan thingy to yourself---I'll do this thing my way, not yours."
I mean what a tyrant! To actually *grant* people *their* choice to do
things *their* way and not His. Which means that He simply makes sure
they don't have to put up with Him in eternity! Including everything that
only exists within His person and within His sphere of influence---which
includes all that goodness, kindness, happiness, wholeness, and mercy
stuff that makes Heaven, Heaven, and the lack thereof, which will make
Hell, Hell.
Post by Robert HarrisPost by BT GeorgeAnd no. I am *not* a Trump supporter either,
Uh huh, just like mcadams who says the same thing but then rushes to
defend this criminal at even the slightest criticism of him:-)
Quite simply untrue. I challenge *anyone* to read the NG Archives here
and see if I have not both criticized Donald Trump, and said he was unfit
for office. Likewise, my opinions about him are on full record in more
than one place on Facebook. I guess Bob thinks that because he tends to
blindly choose political sides, and to attack Conservatives and Rightists
under any circumstances, and to defend his fellow Leftists come what may,
that everyone else probably operates the same way. But he's simply wrong
about that too. :-)