Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hi mikkel_the_dane. Good morning. Maybe so. However, Deuteronomy 6:25 gives the definition of righteousness which is: "25 And it shall be righteousness unto us, if we observe to do all this commandment before Yahweh our Elohim, as he hath commanded us. " Righteousness is the keeping of the commandments of Yahweh and Yahweh's Law is very good. Psalm 19:7 says "The law of Yahweh is perfect, restoring the soul..." By obeying it, it will produce good fruit in the lives of those who subject themselves to it. As a matter of fact, it is my opinion that all of the world's problems would be solved if the commandments of Yahweh were kept.

I just another definition.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

I don't see anything "righteous" about any of it at all. I believe in self-governance. Government, hovering above me, without my consent is tyranny. No matter how many bubbles, rainbows and kittens others would paint it with, it's still tyranny.

Hi Viker. Good morning. Without government, there would most likely be anarchy. Romans 13:3 says "For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same:" Government has a bad name right now because the governments of the world are often steeped in corruption. That won't be the case in the Kingdom with Yahshua our righteous Judge serving as king over the nations. However, in terms of the self-governance you mentioned, Micah 4:4 says: "But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of Yahweh of hosts hath spoken it." Sounds like the freedom of self-governance to me - everyone will have to judge themselves by the laws of Yahweh - however, laws will need to be enforced by Yahweh's saints in that kingdom of priests (Revelation 5:10).

 

[Messianic Israelite]

And which commandments do you keep, which do you not keep? Sacrifice any animals recently? Do you eat fat? Which ones to obey and not?

I do well enough without following the tenets, precepts or "laws" of another religion.

Good morning Viker. This is quoted from our Statement of Doctrine:

We affirm that as obedient children it is necessary to keep all of the commandments, statutes, and judgments (except the ritual and animal sacrifice Laws) which the Heavenly Father gave to Israel to make them a separate people, Leviticus 20:7-8; Deuteronomy 6:6-9, 25; Deuteronomy 7:6-11; Matthew 5:17-20; Romans 7:12. It is now possible through the Holy Spirit to keep these commandments by faith for our salvation, Ephesians 2:8-10; Jacob 2:17-20. We now keep a spiritual sacrifice rather than animal sacrifices, meal, and drink offerings, Hebrews 13:15-16; 1 Peter 2:5; Romans 12:1; Philippians 4:18

 

[Viker]

everyone will have to judge themselves by the laws of Yahweh - however, laws will need to be enforced by Yahweh's saints in that kingdom of priests (Revelation 5:10).

See. Tyranny, in the holy name of theocracy.

BTW, there's never going to be a world government (dictatorship), holy or otherwise. The world itself won't allow it.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

See. Tyranny, in the holy name of theocracy.

BTW, there's never going to be a world government (dictatorship), holy or otherwise. The world itself won't allow it.

Hi Viker. It won't be a tyranny, though. You know I wish I could convey to people the benefits of keeping Yahweh's Law. It's not a burden, it's not grievous, it's for our good. Deuteronomy 6:24 says: "And Yahweh commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear Yahweh our Elohim, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as at this day." Similar to a parent telling their child to do something for their benefit, and the child, lacking experience and understanding is not conducive to that instruction, so you have to enforce upon that child those rules or instructions for their own good until they realise that they are good instructions and consciously choose to do them things themselves. We have to think of Yahweh as a Father who has our best interests at heart.

Tyranny implies cruelty. The Kingdom won't be a cruel place.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

See. Tyranny, in the holy name of theocracy.

BTW, there's never going to be a world government (dictatorship), holy or otherwise. The world itself won't allow it.

Sorry Viker, I ignored your latter part of your post. When Yahshua comes with his angels to bring the Kingdom of the Heavens to this earth, it will be met with resistance. But the world will come to accept Yahshua the Messiah. He is worthy. He suffered, bled and died to save us. The Jews rejected him historically. However, this time he will come with power and he may well come to this earth before this earth sees it's own annihilation. With the judgments that befall this earth, the people of this world will have no logical alternative than to accept Yahweh's Messiah as their own king.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Others have. You jumped into the conversation.

I actually commented on another RF member's post, and you were the one that commented on mine - which means you jumped into my conversation - but that is beside the point.

In all honesty - I don't understand why you brought up the whole "there are already unwanted children" at all - because it is irrelevant.

If all orphaned children were miraculously adopted at this very moment in the U.S. - would you change your opinion about "abortion" and adoption?

I don't think so - because however many "unwanted children" there are in the U.S. is irrelevant to your point of view - you would still believe that women can murder their children.

I would argue that's completely unrealistic.

It is realistic - but improbable today - considering how selfish and Godless most people are.

My wife and I were both virgins when we were married - it is completely realistic - and remarkably easy to do if I'm being honest.

By the way, you know pregnancy takes two to tango, right?

My wife and I have had five children - we know how it works.

I always find it funny when people think that faithful Christians - the ones having all the children - are those who don't understand how sex works.

But here we are just talking about how women should stop having sex entirely, until they're ready to have children.

Correct - because "the buck" starts and stops with them.

Excluding cases of rape and sexual assault - women are the ones who "allow" sexual activity to occur - not the men.

But to be clear - I don't believe men should be having sex outside of marriage either.

Not to mention the fact that this view means that sex is entirely for reproduction purposes.

I don't believe that viewing sex and marriage only as means of reproduction is inherently wrong - I don't agree with it - but I digress.

I did not say that they should only have sex to procreate - but rather they should only have sex when they are "ready to have children".

No one should have sex until they are ready for the possibility of children - because sex makes children - and birth control doesn't always work - as you point out next..

I agree with that. The problem is that protection doesn't always work. Condoms can fail. Vasectomies can fail.

Condoms are 98% effective and only 0.15% of vasectomies fail - so we all know that the vast majority of not-yet-born children murdered are products of unprotected sex.

It's kind of like starting a fire - even if you are as careful as can be - it can still spread and hurt other people.

If that were to happen - you would need to take responsibility - you can't opt out and say, "I consented to starting the fire - but not to all the loss of life and property it caused."

The only way women can make sure they never get pregnant before they are ready is to practice abstinence before marriage and only get married once they are ready for the possibility of children.

What if that man is a rapist?

You honestly believe that I was advocating that a woman should marry her rapist?

This was a very stupid question, and it shows that you aren't being serious.

Or your father?

I would be shocked if my father got some random woman pregnant because he has been married to my mom for decades and that would kill her.

I still don't think they should murder my not-yet-born half-sibling.

Or an abuser?

We should be teaching women to leave - or never have sex with - abusers - rather than encourage them to murder the innocent not-yet-born child who had nothing to do with the abuse.

If women practiced self-control and abstinence before marriage - they would never find themselves in this situation.

Or someone you don't want to spend your life with?

Why would anyone have sex with someone that they don't want to spend their life with?

I honestly cannot conceive of such a thing.

I agree that people shouldn't murder children. Blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses aren't children.

Yes - they are.

A "child" describes someone's son or daughter of any age - so the stage of development does not matter - because as soon as those gametes combine - an entire new DNA sequence is generated which includes the sex of the child - and someone's son or daughter has come into the world.

If a toddler, teenager, full-grown adult or elderly person can be someone's "child" - then so can a blastocyst/zygote/fetus.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

And now we're back to the old "put them up for adoption" argument. Well, that requires carrying the fetus for nine months first. It may be a good option for some, but not-so-good an option for those who can't afford it, or who have health problems that could be exacerbated by a pregnancy.

And now we're back to the old, "I can murder someone if they are inconvenient to me" argument.

Which brings us back to my point that the world is already filled with hundreds of thousands of unwanted children as it is. Forcing women to have babies isn't going to magically make this problem go away. It's going to exacerbate it.

First off - no one is "forcing" any woman to do anything.

Not allowing people to murder children is not "forcing" anything on anyone.

Also - if you asked any of those "unwanted children" if they would rather be dead than be alive in the system - I think I'd know what their answer would be.

And what is wrong with all of these "unwanted children" anyway? You believe they are less valuable than "wanted children"? You don't think the world is a better place with them in it? You believe they will never amount to anything? Never be happy?

I have met a lot of unproductive and sad people who grew up "wanted" with a mother and father - and they are just as valuable as anyone else - but having parents isn't a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

Having a chance to become "wanted" or be happy is better than no chance at all.

Besides - as I have pointed out already - the list of couples waiting to adopt newborn babies is long - people wait years - so adding newborns wouldn't be adding to the "unwanted children" you believe are "less than" other people.

My position is that there are so many scenarios and situations that can come into play, that it isn't up to me to decide for anyone else what is best for them. That should be left up to the individual.

Why doesn't what is best for the not-yet-born child factor into your scenario?

Just so you know - millions of women give birth in the U.S. every year with no complications - whilst an "abortion" always kills the not-yet-born child.

Well - technically - not all "abortions" are successful - which has led to many cases of after birth "abortions" - so straight up infanticide.

Those couples should adopt some of the thousands and thousands of children that are already in the system.

Hold up - didn't you just say that, "...it isn't up to me to decide for anyone else what is best for them" - yet here you are now deciding what is best for these couples?

I guess you only feel that way about women who are considering murdering their children?

I find that the only consistent thing about more Left-leaning people is that they are inconsistent.

I'm all for promoting birth control, but the problem seems to be that some conservative types think even that should be outlawed. Which makes me question their motives in the first place.

Why aren't you "all for" promoting abstinence, self-control, personal accountability and not murdering babies?

Why only "birth control" - when abstinence and self-control are the most effective forms of "birth control"?

Anyways - I understand that there are religious people that don't want to use contraception - I disagree with them - but I believe their "motive" is to discourage sex outside of marriage.

That children used to be babies? Please tell me you're joking.

If people on the Right cannot make claims about men not being women and such without being a "biologist" - then no one can make any claims at all without being one.

I am joking - of course - but I am also pointing out glaring inconsistencies found in the ideology of the Left.

I'm not.

Yes - you are.

You claimed that women putting their newborns up for adoption would "exacerbate" the "problem" of "unwanted children" being in the world.

Goodness - imagine if I swapped our "unwanted children" with a particular race or class - then you would notice how immoral what you are saying is.

Anyways - there are more couples seeking to adopt newborns than there are newborns - so obviously a woman putting her newborn up for adoption would not be "exacerbating" that "problem".

The way to fix the problem is not to exacerbate it by forcing more unwanted children into the world.

And you just double downed on the claim you said you weren't making.

Imagine if I swapped in "Black" or "poor" in for "unwanted children" - my goodness - you'd be another Margaret Sanger.

If babies are being murdered, those people should be arrested. Blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses aren't babies and don't fit the definition.

Of course they should be arrested and you are right - I should have said "child" rather than "baby" - that's my bad - but it hardly matters - because a human being is still being murdered.

I refer to all my children as "baby" (or "monkey") even though my oldest is nine.

I just hope that my "baby" designation doesn't make him "less than" in your eyes - since you believe that the terms we use to describe our development can affect if we can be murdered or not - and the "less developed" are worth less than the "more developed" - right?

And their life shouldn't trump that of the actual fully grown and developed, fully sentient human being in which they reside.

I don't believe people become more valuable the more developed or older they become.

Contrarily - in most life and death situations - the "less developed" people are often given priority over the "more developed".

We make sure the children are safe first - especially babies - and we don't claim that they are "less than" the adults.

Not only that - if there was only one spot left on a lifeboat - yet there were two women who needed a seat - one of them being obviously pregnant - who do you think the seat would go to?

And everyone - even the other woman - would consider that saving two lives.

Also - no one is asking to exchange the life of the mother for the life of the newborn - that is ridiculous.

And notice how you fuzz the qualifier of "sentience" by saying "fully sentient" - which is what exactly?

Someone hopped up on some pain killers may not be "fully sentient" - are they now disposable?

Actually, I'm not looking for a "cure-all" answer.

Yes - you are.

You just mocked people for suggesting adoption because it won't "solve everything".

Murdering the not-yet-born also doesn't "Solve everything" - so that isn't a good argument.

My answer is to let every individual decide for herself what is best for her, in her situation.

That is a stupid answer if it means she gets the right to murder her child.

You won't let couples wait to adopt a newborn - but you are fine with mother's murdering their children?

So much for letting people decide for themselves what is best for them. No consistency.

Not having some outside parties dictating to her what they think is best for her. The latter seems to be what you want.

Everyone is always bombarded by the opinions of others - that's just living in society.

And why are you so opposed with someone learning all sides of an issue before making a decision?

Only demagogues, propagandists, fearmongers, rabblerousers and fanatical idealogues want to stop people from learning about all their options and receiving all relevant information before making a life-changing decision.

Human beings have sex. That's a fact of life.

Yeah - I am well aware - but being irresponsible and selfish are not "facts of life".

Many people in the world are being responsible and not murdering their children as a result.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

These last two posts of yours, I think, perfectly demonstrate how attitudes like yours infantilize women.

Are you kidding?

Encouraging emotive responses and being willfully ignorant are what infantilize women - all while claiming they should never be held responsible for their actions.

Yeah - I'm the one infantilizing them.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Hi mikkel_the_dane. Good morning. Maybe so. However, Deuteronomy 6:25 gives the definition of righteousness which is: "25 And it shall be righteousness unto us, if we observe to do all this commandment before Yahweh our Elohim, as he hath commanded us. " Righteousness is the keeping of the commandments of Yahweh and Yahweh's Law is very good. Psalm 19:7 says "The law of Yahweh is perfect, restoring the soul..." By obeying it, it will produce good fruit in the lives of those who subject themselves to it. As a matter of fact, it is my opinion that all of the world's problems would be solved if the commandments of Yahweh were kept.

Yahweh couldn’t govern a small garden.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hi mikkel_the_dane. Good morning. Maybe so. However, Deuteronomy 6:25 gives the definition of righteousness which is: "25 And it shall be righteousness unto us, if we observe to do all this commandment before Yahweh our Elohim, as he hath commanded us. " Righteousness is the keeping of the commandments of Yahweh and Yahweh's Law is very good. Psalm 19:7 says "The law of Yahweh is perfect, restoring the soul..." By obeying it, it will produce good fruit in the lives of those who subject themselves to it. As a matter of fact, it is my opinion that all of the world's problems would be solved if the commandments of Yahweh were kept.

Yeah, I have a different opinion. But thanks for your answer.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Yahweh couldn’t govern a small garden.

He had this nice tree, and this naked couple comes and eats his stuff. At least have a scarecrow or something.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

He had this nice tree, and this naked couple comes and eats his stuff. At least have a scarecrow or something.

He’s ruling TWO PEOPLE and everything breaks apart after a few days.

 

[Sand Dancer]

He’s ruling TWO PEOPLE and everything breaks apart after a few days.

He can't parent, so he blames his kids. Nice...

 

[dybmh]

He can't parent, so he blames his kids. Nice...

they were setup to fail, but for a good cause. there needs to be sin so there can be mercy.

 

[Viker]

they were setup to fail, but for a good cause. there needs to be sin so there can be mercy.

Seriously?

That appears preposterous.

 

[dybmh]

Seriously?

That appears preposterous.

Yes seriously

 

[Viker]

Yes seriously

So they were set up to fail so God would show mercy later. Sounds like a terrible movie plot. Why have sin in the first place? Why couldn't God leave well enough alone?

 

[dybmh]

So they were set up to fail so God would show mercy later. Sounds like a terrible movie plot.

I agree. What we need to know is what God promised to the serpent for enticing them.

Why have sin in the first place? Why couldn't God leave well enough alone?

Because then there wouldn't be mercy.

 

[Sheldon]

Hi Viker. Good morning. Have you never read Isaiah 9:6-8?

"For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty El,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Yahweh of hosts
will accomplish this."

What, may I ask, is the problem with having a righteous government ruling over the nations?

Why should I care what the bible says about anything, anymore than what Harry Potter books say about the rules of Quidditch? People who assume a deity exists are always doing this, assuming everyone else must make the same assumption.