Pastor goes off on trinity doubters

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What a neat, yet typical, leftist antinomian appeal to the emotions.

When Paul identifies capital crimes in Romans chapter 1 and then concludes by saying "those who do such things are worthy of death", he declares that Aquila and everyone who thinks like him are wrong.

Worthy means "deserving". It means that those who commit such things DESERVE the death penalty. If you DESERVE something, that means you OUGHT to receive it. If a person DESERVES to be praised, then it is WRONG not to praise them. If a person DESERVES to be executed by the state, then it is wrong, an act of injustice, for the state to fail to execute them. The only exception to this rule is in the case of PARDON. It is perfectly right for government (whether man's, or God's) to PARDON the condemned criminal upon certain conditions. In the case of God's Kingdom government, those conditions include not only the Atonement of Christ but the repentance of the condemned.

Those who argue against this truth, like you try to do, reveal the legalistic religion they actually believe in. They do not actually believe anyone DESERVES death for their crimes against God. Rather, they actually feel that God OWES salvation and forgiveness and mercy to them. They view sin as a sickness or a sad circumstance rather than as what it really is - WILLFUL CRIME. As such, when this topic is brought up, they invariably, predictably, and necessarily argue against the DESERT of punishment.

Paul very clearly, in Romans 13, stated that the enforcement power of the state is designed by God to punish evil, and that the enforcers bear the sword for that very reason. Swords are designed to kill. Paul in Romans 13 taught explicitly that the state's executioners are Divinely appointed to punish evil. Furthermore, that anyone who resists that authority (like yourself, here arguing that various classes of criminals are NOT actually deserving of death and should NOT be punished) is actually resisting God.

There are certain crimes that God has judged worthy of death, sentence to be carried out by society. Paul in Romans 1 affirms the righteous judgments of God concerning these offenders. Jesus did likewise:

John 8:3-11 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, (4) They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. (5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? (6) This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. (7) So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (8) And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. (9) And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. (10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? (11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

What everyone likes to miss in this account is the fact that Jesus did in fact concur with the sentence of God against adulterers. He insisted that the woman be put to death. But He insisted it be done according to the law of God. Which required the witnesses to be first to execute sentence once sentence had been handed down. The problem was the woman had been "caught in the act" but the man she was caught in the act with was mysteriously nowhere to be found. The witnesses therefore were in violation of the law, and thus were guilty of sin. Thus, Jesus said "whoever is without sin let him cast the first stone". They knew, and anyone else present could plainly see, they were NOT without sin. And if they condemned the woman they condemned themselves as well. Not because "putting adulterers to death is bad" but because it wasn't being done according to the righteous judgment of God.

And therefore, He said He did not condemn the woman. Why? Because He's sweet and liberal and votes for Bernie Sanders? No. It is because there were no witnesses against her that could stand in court. It would be SIN to condemn her under those circumstances.

Nobody is thirsting for people to die. God Himself says He prefers the sinner repent rather than die (Ezekiel 33:11). But this by no means that judgment is suspended, no punishment of evil should ever take place, and the laws and judgments of God have been abrogated. That is sheer anarchy.

Imagine a man, convicted of a crime, sentenced to die, then given a pardon. Rather than using his newfound second chance to go and tell others to get straight and avoid the fate he almost suffered, instead he now goes about and argues against the punishment of criminals. He rants how anyone who upholds the law against crime is just evil-minded and mean-spirited. Only fellow criminals would agree with such a person. Everyone else would conclude the guy was never reformed, and that the pardon was wasted on him.

Esaias, have you ever committed any of these sins that are worthy of death?

If so, please be the first to stone yourself. lol

My point is they are worthy of death. Frankly, the entire human race is worthy of death. None of us are righteous, no, not one. Not even you.

Esaias, based on many of your previous posts your version of Christianity is just a genocidal fascism dressed up for church. You'd actually advocate executing homosexuals, adulterers, and pagans. Esaias, that's going beyond mere abusive religion. That's mental illness. There are saints of God pastoring churches today, leading women's groups, and serving the Kingdom that would have been executed under your theoretical regime long before being saved. Let me guess, you'd grandfather them in, right? LOL Only sinners deserving death after the birthdate of your blessed "Christian Reich" would face execution. Am I correct?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason B

This IS jibberish. He's not doing one essentially theology any favors here. This is sloppy.

Hmm for some reason my phone autocorrected oneness to one essentially. Sorry for the confusion.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Esaias, have you ever committed any of these sins that are worthy of death?

If so, please be the first to stone yourself. lol

My point is they are worthy of death. Frankly, the entire human race is worthy of death. None of us are righteous, no, not one. Not even you.

Esaias, based on many of your previous posts your version of Christianity is just a genocidal fascism dressed up for church. You'd actually advocate executing homosexuals, adulterers, and pagans. Esaias, that's going beyond mere abusive religion. That's mental illness. There are saints of God pastoring churches today, leading women's groups, and serving the Kingdom that would have been executed under your theoretical regime long before being saved. Let me guess, you'd grandfather them in, right? LOL Only sinners deserving death after the birthdate of your blessed "Christian Reich" would face execution. Am I correct?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Oh, I get the point.

My point is we're all worthy of death.

And Esaias' position is a powerless gospel who relies on the coercion of the "Christian state" to theoretically "force" people to be righteous.

He's so desperate to control others, he's sold the entire Gospel of the Kingdom in exchange for this religio-fascist dream that makes him as much of a power mad, blood shedding, statist as any other secular government.

Since we're all worthy of death... perhaps Esaias should demonstrate the justice he believes in... and execute himself. Fair? I think so.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Oh, I get the point.

My point is we're all worthy of death.

And Esaias' position is a powerless gospel who relies on the coercion of the "Christian state" to theoretically "force" people to be righteous.

He's so desperate to control others, he's sold the entire Gospel of the Kingdom in exchange for this religio-fascist dream that makes him as much of a power mad, blood shedding, statist as any other secular government.

As usual, you result to lying, because you have no argument.

"Powerless gospel"? Using the state to "coerce people to be righteous"? Good grief, what a tool you are.

Does anyone else read my posts and get the idea I believe the state is to "use coercion to force people to be righteous"? That I am "desperate to control others"?

Which is funny, because Aquila and his gang of leftist fellow travellers are, of all people, the most totalitarian and controlling there is.

So keep on blathering, you're whistling Dixie past the graveyard of your own future which you have personally extinguished. Like I said, 20 years.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeBukaroo

I disagree with one thing you said. There were witnesses to her sin and had Jesus nit been there, thet would have killed her. She wasn't spared because of the lack of witnesses. She was spared because Christ exposed the hypocrisy of her accusers who may not have committed adultery but had committed other sins.

She was spared because of the lack of witnesses. This doesn't mean nor did I imply that had Jesus not been there she wouldn't have been stoned to death. I am certainly not claiming the Jews were always maintaining the righteous standard of the law at all times. But the entire incident came about as a means by which they could try and trap Jesus and expose Him for being anti-law. Which of course failed.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Oh, I get the point.

Obviously not, but whatever.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

Obviously not, but whatever.

What's funny is he has no problem with the state coercing people not to rob his house, or coercing people to pay for someone else's medical expenses.

Apparently he just doesn't want the state to interfere with sexual perverts and devil worshippers and adulterers?
Hmmm...

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What's funny is he has no problem with the state coercing people not to rob his house, or coercing people to pay for someone else's medical expenses.

Apparently he just doesn't want the state to interfere with sexual perverts and devil worshippers and adulterers?
Hmmm...

Very telling.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What's funny is he has no problem with the state coercing people not to rob his house, or coercing people to pay for someone else's medical expenses.

Lies. All lies, Esaias.

- Right now the state is forcing employers to provide health insurance. I disagree with that.

- Right now the uninsured are driving up costs for the rest of us by going to the ER and not paying their bills. That loss is passed down to us, so we end up paying for them anyway.

- Those who do have insurance aren't seen frequently enough for checkups that by the time they are seen over some terrible symptom, they cost of that treatment is far greater than 10 years of checkups combined. Again, driving up costs for the rest of us.

- Right now the private health insurance industry is gouging the American people as we shoulder the cost of our care, the unpaying uninsured, by leveling upon us multiple administrative fees and enough to maintain their profit margins.

So, if you think you're not paying for anyone else, if you think the loss of no pays and slow pays among the uninsured aren't being passed to you in higher costs, you're an idiot. You're just wanting to pay for the uninsured in the most expensive manner possible.

If we're going to pay for everyone, it makes sense to do it collectively and knock off the 30% or so of administrative costs at the top. And given the governments power to negotiate costs, we can drive down the cost of care even more, especially in the area of prescription drugs.

It's not rocket science.

As long as anyone can walk into an ER and be treated, and not pay their bills, we're running healthcare like a social service, are we not??? Therefore, it must be funded like a social service. Else, the loss of the uninsured will find its way back down to us, the consumer. Along with all the fees and processing costs that assure private insurance companies make a profit margin.

Can you name a single industry in a free market economy wherein someone can just waltz into the business, receive goods or services, walk away, and be billed by the business... and they be slow pays or no pays... without driving up costs to make up for the loss?