Christian Theocracy

September 4, 2008

Jukia,

I'm sure that if your wife were pregnant, would you not make sure your wifes pregnancy went smoothly and nothing of harm came upon her or the "baby" she was carrying? Even if you knew she was only 5 weeks pregnant, I'm sure you wouldn't like to see someone rough handle her or see her fall. Why? Because she is carrying your child....your "child"....that is acknowledging the baby's "human worth".

September 4, 2008

Liberals prefer terms like embryo, and fetus because it dehumanizes the baby. It's fetus until its born. It's called selective morality. Like the nazis, people like you want to define who is and is not human and who does and does not have the right to live based on what is convenient for the living.
Actually I think the terms embryo and fetus were and are pretty much used in medical and scientific circles. Use of the term baby is something new and, in my opinion, simply inaccurate.

But people like you hijack those terms to suit your hitleristic agenda.

embryo and fetus are simply terms used to denote stages of development within a species. It is does not denote the identity of the species. A person is just as much a person and just as human in the womb as without.

Fetus is no different than using terms like New born, adolescent, adult, and elderly. If a fetus is less human than a new born, then an adolescent is less human than an full grown adult.

September 4, 2008

Fetus is no different than using terms like New born, adolescent, adult, and elderly. If a fetus is less human than a new born, then an adolescent is less human than an full grown adult.

Spot on!

September 4, 2008

But people like you hijack those terms to suit your hitleristic agenda.embryo and fetus are simply terms used to denote stages of development within a species. It is does not denote the identity of the species. A person is just as much a person and just as human in the womb as without.

Fetus is no different than using terms like New born, adolescent, adult, and elderly. If a fetus is less human than a new born, then an adolescent is less human than an full grown adult.

"hilteristic agenda" Oh my.
Try again. Or is it just soooo much easier to call people names than attempt to try to understand

Excuse me?

Where was the name calling?

If comparisons of mindsets are namecalling - then we are ALL guilty of it....

September 4, 2008

But people like you hijack those terms to suit your hitleristic agenda.embryo and fetus are simply terms used to denote stages of development within a species. It is does not denote the identity of the species. A person is just as much a person and just as human in the womb as without.

Fetus is no different than using terms like New born, adolescent, adult, and elderly. If a fetus is less human than a new born, then an adolescent is less human than an full grown adult.

"hilteristic agenda" Oh my.
Try again. Or is it just soooo much easier to call people names than attempt to try to understand

Abortion is hitleristic. It is offensive because it forces you to look at it for what it is. I didn't call you a name, but I have correctly identified what abortion is. In fact, abortion was first championed by the woman who started Planned Parenthood was also a supporter of Hitler.

One of the first things Hitler did when coming to power was to legalize abortion. By 1935, 500,000 abortions a year took place in Germany.

By 1942, Hitler used abortion as a means of exterminating non Aryans in countries under nazi control.

The founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist who said that black people were weeds that need to be exterminated.

Here some other things she said and did:

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race

(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Planned Parenthood's racist founder, Margaret Sanger, spoke for a KKK meeting

"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

LadyRaven · September 5, 2008

Is the fertilized egg a "baby"?

Well, it's certainly not an onion or a turtle, now is it?

LadyRaven · September 5, 2008

Liberals prefer terms like embryo, and fetus because it dehumanizes the baby. It's fetus until its born. It's called selective morality. Like the nazis, people like you want to define who is and is not human and who does and does not have the right to live based on what is convenient for the living.
Actually I think the terms embryo and fetus were and are pretty much used in medical and scientific circles. Use of the term baby is something new and, in my opinion, simply inaccurate.

The use of the term baby for the unborn child is way older than the use of the scientific names. People do have reasons to use the scientific names on occasion. It does adequately describe the physiological changes which take place as the unborn baby grows. It's not as threatening as some pro life people tend to think, there is nothing wrong about saying that the unborn baby was just a zygote or just an embryo when it died. It is only because the prolife movement has allowed the anti life people hijack the medical terms and misuse them without argument that we even have this discussion.

The issue is not is it an embryo or a baby. It is a baby, which is at times an embryo, at times a zygote and at times is other things. the issue is, is this baby a living human being fully endowed with the same rights as a born human being? The problem with saying that they do not or attempting to use the scientific names to determine at what stage these rights might be allocated is that to do so also means that rights are not inalienable as we believe them to be. They can be taken away by science or politics. This is a lie right from the pit of hell.

What you have then is a human being who is not legally a person. Which is exactly what allows slavery, genocide, eugenics and other horrid practices. Every human being must be a person with all the same rights as every other person does. And these rights are not given by anyone, they are inalienable, bestowed upon the person at conception by the mere fact that they exist and for no other reason at all.

LadyRaven · September 5, 2008

But people like you hijack those terms to suit your hitleristic agenda.embryo and fetus are simply terms used to denote stages of development within a species. It is does not denote the identity of the species. A person is just as much a person and just as human in the womb as without.

Fetus is no different than using terms like New born, adolescent, adult, and elderly. If a fetus is less human than a new born, then an adolescent is less human than an full grown adult.

"hilteristic agenda" Oh my.
Try again. Or is it just soooo much easier to call people names than attempt to try to understand

I dont know if it is an agenda, but it is the same philosophy. Everyone knows that a fetus, an embryo, a zygote is a human being. What they do not always agree upon is their 'personhood.' Persons have legal rights, rights that cannot be taken away.

When these rights are withheld, you have a human who is not a person. Like the Jews in Nazi Germany. Or those victims of genocide everywhere else. It is justified because they are not actually people, they have no worth, no value, no rights and no reason for being. There is no difference between the Nazi gas chambers and the abortionist table other than the victims in the death camps were sometimes used as slave labour before they were killed.

September 5, 2008

Here some other things she said and did:

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race
(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Sorry Margie, try telling that to my family of 9 siblings........

being molded · September 26, 2008

I haven't read all 17 pages of the replies to this, so I hope this hasn't been said before:

"the beast from the sea" refers to kingdoms/empires rising out of the (Gentile) nations ("the sea") (Dan.7: 2-3, Rev.13: 1 and 17: 3).

Nebuchadnezzar was the ruler of the beast of Babylon, and he built an image of himself and commanded that "all people, nations and languages" bow down and worship the image of the beast (Dan.2: 32, 38; 3: 1-6).

Whoever would not bow down and worship "the image of the beast" was thrown into the burning, fiery furnace (compare Rev.13: 15).

The New Testament contrasts "the image of God" (Christ) with "the image of the beast" in a number of ways, for example:

On one hand, Christ is the image of God, and His government in the world is the government of God in the world.

On the other hand, the ruler of the kingdom or empire is "the image of the beast", and his government in the world is the government of Satan in the world (Rev.13: 2).

One one hand, Christ died on behalf of many; on the other hand, the antichrist will be responsible for the death of many (Rev.11: 7; 13: 7, 15).

On one hand, the worship of Christ, the image of God, results in forgiveness for sins and eternal life; on the other hand, the worship of antichrist, the image of the beast results in judgement for sins and eternal condemnation (Rev.14: 7, 9-12).

So Christ , and Christ only, is God's government in the world - there's the only true Theocracy. The history of all other so-called "Christian" Theocracies are sordid ones. Antichrist means "instead of Christ" - an impostor who places himself up instead of Christ and establishes a "Christian" Theocracy in Christ's stead.

"And I saw one of its heads as having been slain to death, and its deadly wound was healed. And all the earth marveled after the beast. And they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast, saying, Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with it?" (Rev.13: 3-4).

"The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to ascend out of the abyss and go into perdition. And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is." (Rev.17: 8).

The Strong's Greek Dictionary shows that the Greek New Testament uses two words for "temple": hieron, and naos. The word hieron is used throughout the N.T with reference to the temple building in Jerusalem and its outer courts. The word naos is used with reference to (a) the holy place and most holy place of the temple in Jerusalem; and (b) the body of Christ; and © our bodies as the temple of God; and (d) the assembly of the saints or "church" as the temple of God.

The last time that the Greek New Testament uses the word naos with reference to the temple in Jerusalem, is at the time of the crucifixion of Christ (Mat.27: 5, 51). From then on, the word hieron is used with reference to the temple in Jerusalem, and the word naos is used only in reference to our bodies as the temple of God and the church as the temple of God - the only exception being Act.6: 13 and 21: 28, where the Greek words hagios (sacred) and topos (location) translate the words of Paul's Jewish accusers when they referred to the Jerusalem temple as the "holy place").

But the word naos is used only in reference to our bodies and the "church" as the temple of God from the time of the crucifixion of Christ onwards:

"Do you not know that you are a temple (Greek: naos) of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" (1Co 3:16)

"And what agreement does a temple (Greek: naos) of God have with idols? For you are the temple of the living God, as God has said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (2Co 6:16).

And here comes the big one:

"... who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple (Greek: naos) of God, setting himself forth, that he is God." (2Th. 2:4)

So we should be very careful not to accept any "Christian" government aside from the future millennial government Adon Yeshua haMaschiach Himself as a "Christian" Theocracy.

being moulded