Chris Kimball: [Name redacted] you take what you want from the Bible and turn it into how you want it to work for you,
I read the entire Bible from cover to cover more than once. What I've mentioned above is based on reading the whole Bible in context. I'm not turning it around to say what I want it to say. If you were to read the entire Bible from cover to cover, more than once, you too would see what I'm arguing.
No twisting around, just letting folk know what's actually said and meant in the Bible.
For example, the bit about Barabbas, and wanting him released instead of Jesus. Barabbas is freed and Jesus is turned over to be crucified. Those who haven't read the entire Bible up to that point, or even just the first five books of the Bible, would miss what's going on with this scene.
The Book of Leviticus prescribes the sacrifice that's needed to atone for the sins of a nation. In the Gospel of John, the high priest declares that Jesus would be sacrificed for the nation. In Leviticus, two goats are presented in sacrifice for a group or nation. One is released, with the sins of the nation transformed onto it (scapegoat). The other one is sacrificed.
Barabbas means "Son of God". His first name was Jesus. Which means we have Jesus who identified himself as "Son of God", and another Jesus whose actual last name meant "Son of God". Both symbolize the two goats mentioned in Leviticus when it comes to sacrificing for the nation. Barabbas became the scapegoat and Jesus became the sacrificial lamb.
Bottom line? Reading the whole Bible provides a different understanding of what Christianity is about... Than what one would get just attending church on Sundays.
I'm simply telling it like it is, giving it to you straight based on a simple reading of the Bible.
Chris Kimball: so you can look like your so Holy.
Nowhere did I claim, nor act, like I'm "holy". If anything, by accusing us of being "narrow-minded", you're implying that you're "not narrow-minded", ergo, "made holy of being narrowminded".
Again, based on a reading of the Bible... "To make holy" means to purge what's not desirable. A good example of this is cleaning up with regards to the new coronavirus. There's a meme going around talking about how to thoroughly clean and disinfect. The Bible describes this same process as "to hollow out" or "to make holy".
As used in the Bible, for example, the temple court was "hallowed out" to make room for more sacrificial alters.
Back to your case. You spoke of President Trump as "the antichrist" and spoke of us as "narrowminded". Without advancing proof of this argument, you're implying that you're "not" narrowminded... aka, you are "hallowed out" of "narrowmindedness".
Through your actions, you're the one that's portraying yourself, indirectly, as "being holy".
Chris Kimball: I've seen enough of you fake Christians, so don't preach to me about religion.
First, your actions on this thread are inconsistent with God's laws, as mentioned in the Old Testament. They're also inconsistent with Jesus's teachings, as mentioned in the New Testament. I've explained one way that you've violated God's laws, and Jesus's teachings, above.
You're using your opinion, based on a lack of understanding of scripture, to define what a real Christian is. Whether someone is a true or fake Christian depends on the consistency of their action with scripture. Walking the walk with regards to scripture is what a real Christian does.
Chris Kimball: You have the same mentality as Trump, twist and turn things to defend your actions...
This statement makes it blatantly obvious that you have not read the entire Bible. This also indicates that you don't truly understand the Bible. Contrary to statements about the Bible "not supposed to be read cover to cover", a reading of the entire Bible shows that each book builds on the previous books.
Context is important. If you read bits and pieces of the Bible, without reading the books and verses that precede the selected verses, you'd miss a lot of what that verse is truly talking about.
Second, the reality is that I will not jump into a debate against someone unless two conditions are simultaneously met:
1. I have extensive first hand, or studied/researched, knowledge on the topic...
2. Those that I argue against have little to no understanding of the topic that they're arguing
In this case, references to "declaring oneself as God" and "declaring someone as an antichrist".
I'm not twisting, distorting, or creating verbal "voodoo" to defend my position. The cold hard reality is that I'm advancing a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument against your factually deficient one.
For your part, you're using emotion-based opinion to describe how President Trump and I see and argue things. Like me, President Trump will argue based on the facts.
Chris Kimball: or blatantly deny what has been said!!
I'm not denying the facts. I'm proving your argument wrong. Not accepting your invalid argument does not constitute a "denial" of a "fact" or "reality".
I've been debating against people on the left for over 16 years. I've yet to have one of them advance a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument. Instead, they, including you, have advanced emotion-based arguments. Your arguments are generally devoid of fact but rich in falsehoods and distortions.
Chris Kimball: Give me a BREAK!!!!
I don't give breaks to people who make erroneous assumptions about me and about my arguments.
I recognize your argument for what it is; the successful result of the media's propaganda efforts. One of my MOSs in the Army is Psychological Operations or PSYOP. One of PSYOP's duties, while deployed overseas, is counter-propaganda. The information sources that also advance your argument, along with the leftist (mainstream) media's reporting, are textbook propaganda.
No comments:
Post a Comment