Do #NonChristianLivesMatter ?

Jrr777 provides the following from the bible

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,"

To me, it sounds as if the jews felt that this was as important
But not a murder

And based upon the above, i cannot see there would be a social or religious objection to a willing abortion

 

Quantum fields contain sub-atomic particles (mass) and energy. So try again.

Next time find a someone you agree with besides a Neo-Communist atheist that works for Obama.

Lawrence Krauss:

Krauss mostly works in theoretical physics and has published research on a great variety of topics within that field. His primary contribution is to cosmology as one of the first physicists to suggest that most of the mass and energy of the universe resides in empty space, an idea now widely known as "dark energy". Furthermore, Krauss has formulated a model in which the universe could have potentially come from "nothing," as outlined in his 2012 book A Universe from Nothing. He explains that certain arrangements of relativistic quantum fields might explain the existence of the universe as we know it while disclaiming that he "has no idea if the notion [of taking quantum mechanics for granted] can be usefully dispensed with".[18] As his model appears to agree with experimental observations of the universe (such as of its shape and energy density), it is referred to as a "plausible hypothesis".[19][20]

Initially, Krauss was skeptical of the Higgs mechanism. However, after the existence of the Higgs boson was confirmed by CERN, he has been researching the implications of the Higgs field on the nature of dark energy.[21]

Atheist activism[edit]

Krauss is an atheist activist and describes himself as an antitheist.[22] Krauss featured in a full-length documentary entitled The Unbelievers, in which he and Richard Dawkins travel across the globe speaking publicly about the importance of science and reason as opposed to religion and superstition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

So how about another theory about the creation of the universe that begins without matter or energy???

 

Krauses views on religion are irrelevant
Likewise the fact that his views on science have changed over time

Fact is that our best guess is that there was a big bang event
And that everything we consider to be space, time and matter did not exist before this event

The religious explanation of the above is GOD
and the "Proof" offered is that there is no other explanation

Krause has provided a plausible alternate explanation
Which never the less requires that some form of energy pre existed
And i guess you could call that god if you want
Although the composition of such a god is even further outside our comprehension
And you might equally well call it string theory, or any thing else
There is simply no proof

But krause has provided a plausible explanation for the big bang that does not require god

As far as quantum fields and particles
There is quite a lot we still do not know
Especially about gravity and dark energy

Krauses reference to "nothing" is a reference to anything our current consciousness would consider something. And for most people, if there is no space and no time.... That is nothing... Except that it is not

 

I am not in a womb. So one can't do an abortion on me.
If I was in the womb and one did an abortion on me, I'd never know.
I am not for abortion, but I am for choice. I, you, or anyone else, don't have every detail of every person's life to know circumstances.

 

I really like that clause highlighted above.

 

I bet you do.

 

That would be a safe bet on your part.

 

I'm not exampling you as the fetus, I'm exampling you as the mother. If you were pregnant and someone forcible aborted your child, you would consider that murder, yes or no?

 

prove it

 

I honestly don't know. I'm leaning to no, but I can't say no with 100% certainty. The law would treat it as such as the choice was made to carry the pregnancy to term. Even if the mother hasn't made a definitive choice.
Was it done to deliberately kill the fetus? If so, I'd probably lean yes especially if I wanted the fetus to be born. If done on accident, I go no.

 

My point being that you can't morally have it both ways. Personally, I see no difference between a mother who aborts and a mother who puts a new born in a dumpster.

 

I get your point. Your point or my point not the issue. The person whose life is affected has to determine. Better to abort than want to throw the newborn into the dumpster, IMO.

 

So called accidental abortions can potentially lead to convictions of involuntary homicide, wrongful death, and even malpractice lawsuits which have been occasioned in the courts.
http://archive.airforcetimes.com/ar...60369/Accidental-abortion-alleged-AF-hospital

 

Of course non-Christian lives matter, Jesus died on the cross to save them. It is Islam whose God doesn't love 'infidels'.

 

Alright. Watch this video. Keep in mind, I do not expect you to believe this video or any evidence I present in front of you. I fully expect you to downplay this video and claim it has not being evidence. I 100% expect for you to probably laugh and tell me there's no evidence at all for what I'm claiming. However, I'm presenting it to you so you can look back at this time and realize how wrong you were.

[video=youtube;-gXUc7wRhuU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gXUc7wRhuU[/video]

 

Lets review what the bible says about it.

We have Adam having children, From one of his children comes the genealogy that will have Noah as one of his descendants.

Notice that Noah counted "seven days" after "seven days" to send the birds and check if the waters have receded. This counting of days plus the description of Noah as "a just man and perfect in his generation" and that Noah "walked with God", is an indication that he was already a Shabbat keeper and a man obeying God.

From here, we have Abraham, who also is described as obeying the "voice" of God and kept the commandments, the statutes and the laws given by God. (Genesis 26). This part is telling us that it was a priesthood already in existence in those times. And this is confirmed when Abraham gave his tithes to a priest of the order of Melchizedek.

If there were commandments, statutes and laws of God and a priest of a certain order, then it was a priesthood in existence since the very beginning of the appearance of man on earth. The biblical men before the exodus showed to be followers of these doctrines of God.

About the rest of men, we see that many became pagans and forgot to follow the doctrines of God which were told by the first humans. This is a very common scenario where even language change when people moves from one place to another.

We see the children of Israel forgot those commandments, statutes and laws after being more than 200 years in Egypt. When they became so many, it was needed to write the same commandments, statutes and laws of God in paper, in order to be read to the masses. The Children of Israel had the opportunity to know again what their original religion was about.

Even so, we read that later the prophets denounced that while in the desert, many Israelites still were worshiping pagan deities. In every occasion where the leaders were absent, the people immediately turned into idolatry. No better luck is found in the rest of humans who were totally out of contact with the doctrines of God.

Finally, after hundreds of years, the messiah came. The messiah came for returning back to the original doctrine, the one that Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob followed. This means, the Levitical priesthood was ready to meet its final days.

The high priest clothes, had in the area surrounded the neck a reinforcement, in order to last for many generations. These garments weren't allowed to have imperfections and less of having ruptures.

It happens that when the messiah was took to the Sanhedrin, the high priest ordered him to swear and say the truth. The messiah did it and the high priest full of angry broke himself his sacerdotal garment, and this caused the end of the Levitical priesthood.

For this reason, the bible mentions that the messiah has been nominated high priest of the order of Melchizedek by God himself.

So, there is no a "Christian order" in charge, but the messiah is a priest of the order of Melchizedek. in other words, the only valid one is the restituted ancient order of Melchizedek.

Then, in order to answer your question, you might need to change it, because being or not being a Christian is not a big issue for God. You can follow the order of Melchizedek and be in the right path while being a Christian is an unknown status.

Even when the nomination as Christians to the first followers is mentioned in the bible, this was a name given by people other than the followers themselves, and was not given by God.

What it has been given by God is the restitution of the order of Melchizedek, and you must be aware of this, because you are pointing the wrong "denomination" in your question.

Now well, if you don't honor the order of Melchizedek as the valid one, then you are not honoring the messiah. And when this happens, you are in trouble.

Just or unjust, if God choses the keepers and followers of the order of Melchizedek, and the rest won't make it, what my opinion can do about it?

If he says so, well, so be it.

 

That is an awesome post cameron. It brings to light a mention of the passage of scripture that is quite frequently overlooked in "Christian" churches and when it is mentioned in those churches, it is not detailed like you have demonstrated in your post. Even though Paul also mentions that "we have the mind of Christ", that mind of Christ would be the mind of the high priest of the order of Melchizedek. I do believe that you have given an inspired message. Thank you for the notice.

 

Even though it is the same God. Go figure. But you don't know that for sure. You are basing your opinion on propaganda.

- - - Updated - - -

Instead of providing 'proof' no one will believe. What don't you opt for something credible then? That is how you sway people to your view. Not some far out make believe delusion.

 

sorry bro, Youtube videos aren't evidence.

furthermore, if black Americans were the ancient Israelites, they would have genes from the Levant.

and they don't.

meanwhile, many Lemba, Igbo, and Ethiopian Jews do.

 

You are flawed from the very beginning.
You state noah and next generations came from 1 of Adams son's. Adam had supposedly many children. So every other human on the planet not from noah never heard of this particular God.
Now after the flood, everyone on earth heard of this God, for God wiped all other humans from the face of the earth.

Another flaw in your argument. Outside the bible, those people in Egypt never existed. And you call em children of Israel. There was no Israel ever established at that point in time in the bible.

 

"We have Adam having children, From one of his children comes the genealogy that will have Noah as one of his descendants"

Seems that you are at it again. Making false claims. He never said anything about one of Adams sons. Keep the record straight.

 

The unborn baby's life isn't affected?

 

No it isn't. See http://billygraham.org/decision-mag...-christians-and-muslims-worship-the-same-god/

But you do?

 

What I stated comes from the bible. Adam had children, boys and girls. From one of his children, Seth, the genealogy continued up to Noah. There were other genealogies, but the biblical narration only points "what is important" for the message.

For example, you make several projects, but one of them is dedicated to cure cancer, the other projects are for maintain healthy weight, cure for acne, etc. You write a book about fighting with cancer, and you don't include anything but what is in reference to cancer. Then, readers are aware that you have barely mentioned your other works just a reference of your background, but the main message is about curing cancer.

The same as well, the biblical narration concentrates the attention to the genealogy of the people who followed God, while the rest of people forgot about God and followed their own path.

Then, Noah, thanks to his ancestors, knew about the commandments, the statutes and laws of God. When the flood happened, Noah and his family survived and spread out the doctrine to their children. After the flood as well, new generations split and -as the generations before the flood- they forgot about God and followed their own path..

Still, one branch, the genealogy of Shem, kept the doctrine which was inherited since Adam.

Notice that after the other genealogies are mentioned as a reference, the biblical narration concentrates again in one of the genealogies: the genealogy of Shem.

From here, the biblical narration concentrates later in the genealogy of Abraham. Abraham had many wives after Sarah was dead. But the biblical narration is now interested solely in the genealogy of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. After Jacob the biblical narration will concentrate in the genealogy of his male children, which were twelve.

At one point, when the descendants were so many and came out of a land from which acquired paganism, it was in need to let this generation to get extinct (40 years in the desert) and start anew with the new generations in the promised land. Still, as soon leaders were absent, people turned to their own path, as stated in the book of Judges.

And finally the biblical narration will concentrate in the genealogy of Judah, from which the messiah will come to be.

From Adam to the messiah, the characters mentioned have been keepers of the original doctrine.

Of course, it is assumed that new laws appeared according to the new developments, but no one can affirm or confirm this assumption.

The other genealogies are not important for the main message, for this reason, they are mentioned several times in the bible, but mostly as references and as people in contact with the selected genealogy which is the keeper of the original doctrine.

At the end, the order of Melchizedek is restituted and is the priesthood that will rule the world. According to the biblical narration, the leaders will be priests. The current religious denominations are to prepare the coming of the messiah. And again, from millions and millions, only a selected group is the one which will find and keep the original doctrine. Lots will be called, lots will be worshiping God, but only a selected group of people will be the new priests.

There is nothing wrong with this action, we ourselves do the same with students. Only the ones with higher grades can reach university studies. Then, this is not about racism but about who is willing to keep the original doctrine "regardless of what", this is to say, with sincere faith.

The message, (the original doctrine) however, is for all the descendants form all the genealogies, as it was from the very beginning.



________________________________________________________________________________________________

About Egypt. The people of Mizraim mentioned in the bible is Egypt.The Greeks called them Aigyptos, but aborigines of this land called themselves as Misr, The ending "im" is how plural is writing in Hebrew. Then, the transliteration in Hebrew of the name of Misr has became Mitzrayim, meaning "the people (the family) of Misr". I think in Arabic it is pronounced Musr.

http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.5743/cairo/9789774245251.003.0011

Who knows how people called themselves here in our land, but we are called "Americans" because a cartographer named Amerigo Vespucci signed his name in his maps, and people got that familiar with that name that finally such was the name given to our continent.

You can notice that a same land can be called with different names in accord of whom is the writer, or his nationality or place of origin.

The Bible called it Mitzrayim. A very close transliteration of how the aborigines called themselves in that land.

Of course, it is a big mistake from our part, to keep using the Greek "Egypt", because in reality the name of this country is not Egypt. But, the authorities of that country have accepted to be recognized with that name Egypt when is mentioned in other languages.

Same as well, the Greek name "Iesous" has no meaning in Hebrew.

Hebrew biblical names have "all of them" a proper meaning.

In Hebrew the name of the messiah means "Salvation of Yah", or "Yah saves". The Greek Iesous means nothing, and in Hebrew Iesous means nothing as well. This is a contradiction to what the bible claims, that the name of the messiah when is pronounced is of a great value in heaven.

In Greek, "savior" is "soter", and has nothing to do with Iesous, neither as a name which must be decipher letter by letter to find a meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soter

I don't care if you accept what I write, I'm not here to convince you of anything, but I feel obligated to clarify your errors when you criticize negatively my message.

 

What? Silly question.