Love the neighbor as thyself

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Because of the ten commandments, the Jews have always tended to enjoy a lucrative economy. When Jesus the Messiah arrived to minister within that economy, the Jews were fearful that He had come to destroy it and to set up a new one. So, they set about to kill Him.
Paradoxically, rather than the Holy fugitive preach against their religion, Jesus gave it His blessing instead. In fact, Jesus fulfilled the scriptures in that he was judged blameless during His trial, torture and crucifixion.
About half way through His ministry, Jesus made an odd choice. He left the Jewish temple abruptly to walk over to speak (preach) to a prostitute. It is here that Jesus gave the lowly woman a secret. That secret was the New Covenant.
To understand the significance of this action, one must appreciate the efficiency in how Jesus narrowed down the ten commandments to one. With Jesus in their hearts, the slaves would build a better economy.
The prostitute represents the lowest of the slaves here. The lowest of the slaves are those deemed to be so uncomely that they are untouchable and outcaste.
There is a juxtaposition here with the Jews living as the symbolic descendents from the mighty Abraham the father. Compared to the symbolic dark face of the worthless prostitute, one who wasn't even mentioned by name, the Jews were bright and shining. The face represents authority.
Also paradoxically, "Loving they neighbors as theyself" wasn't a message meant for property owners. I once tried this as a philosophy with the property owners living on both sides of me and they ended up hating me. While one neighbor ended up dumping his heavy garbage on my property, which I got a ticket for, the neighbor on the other side quit speaking to me.
The New Covenant was meant for trespassing slaves. These slaves met under over turned fishing vessels most of the time. The neighbor was the slave who sat next to others slaves during worship.
I bring up this history because America is all about the business of happiness. The natural law arrived at by our Founding-Fathers held that it was self-evident in and unalienably a natural right in the human conscience that we are all born equally with a business agenda.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The lowest trespassing whore on the street has a business agenda because she has a soul and every human soul reduces equally to perfection.

[Truth Warrior]

Because of the ten commandments, the Jews have always tended to enjoy a lucrative economy. When Jesus the Messiah arrived to minister within that economy, the Jews were fearful that He had come to destroy it and to set up a new one. So, they set about to kill Him.
Paradoxically, rather than the Holy fugitive preach against their religion, Jesus gave it His blessing instead. In fact, Jesus fulfilled the scriptures in that he was judged blameless during His trial, torture and crucifixion.
About half way through His ministry, Jesus made an odd choice. He left the Jewish temple abruptly to walk over to speak (preach) to a prostitute. It is here that Jesus gave the lowly woman a secret. That secret was the New Covenant.
To understand the significance of this action, one must appreciate the efficiency in how Jesus narrowed down the ten commandments to one. With Jesus in their hearts, the slaves would build a better economy.
The prostitute represents the lowest of the slaves here. The lowest of the slaves are those deemed to be so uncomely that they are untouchable and outcaste.
There is a juxtaposition here with the Jews living as the symbolic descendents from the mighty Abraham the father. Compared to the symbolic dark face of the worthless prostitute, one who wasn't even mentioned by name, the Jews were bright and shining. The face represents authority.
Also paradoxically, "Loving they neighbors as theyself" wasn't a message meant for property owners. I once tried this as a philosophy with the property owners living on both sides of me and they ended up hating me. While one neighbor ended up dumping his heavy garbage on my property, which I got a ticket for, the neighbor on the other side quit speaking to me.
The New Covenant was meant for trespassing slaves. These slaves met under over turned fishing vessels most of the time. The neighbor was the slave who sat next to others slaves during worship.
I bring up this history because America is all about the business of happiness. The natural law arrived at by our Founding-Fathers held that it was self-evident in and unalienably a natural right in the human conscience that we are all born equally with a business agenda.

The lowest trespassing whore on the street has a business agenda because she has a soul and every human soul reduces equally to perfection.

Human Government Is A Rejection Of God (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/israelking.html)

[Theocrat]

Human Government Is A Rejection Of God (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/israelking.html)

You don't even believe in God, so it's useless for you to continue to post articles which "presume to scan God," as you like to put it.

[Truth Warrior]

You don't even believe in God, so it's useless for you to continue to post articles which "presume to scan God," as you like to put it. Following that spurious line of "reasoning" ( so called ) I guess that you cannot legitimately even DISCUSS macroevolution and "The Origin of Species" since you don't even BELIEVE in Darwin. :rolleyes:

I categorically REJECT your lame excuses. Answer YOUR Christian brethren, please. :rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Human Government Is A Rejection Of God (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/israelking.html)

The shepherd submits to the direction taken by the false authority of the leading rams for the reason of being able to stay back in the flock to keep up with the weaker sheep that have fallen behind. At times, the shepherd will intervene to steer the flock in the overall direction that is needed.
In the American system, the direction that the flock travels is mostly an inward journey because our Founding-Fathers have already established the truth and determined it to be self-evident and unalienably a natural right. This was not given to be confused partisanly in our minds, but to be sensed bipartisanly by the collective conscience of our human souls.

[Truth Warrior]

The shepherd submits to the direction taken by the false authority of the leading rams for the reason of being able to stay back in the flock to keep up with the weaker sheep that have fallen behind. At times, the shepherd will intervene to steer the flock in the overall direction that is needed.
In the American system, the direction that the flock travels is mostly an inward journey because our Founding-Fathers have already established the truth and determined it to be self-evident and unalienably as a natural right not to be confused partisanly in our minds but to be sensed bipartisanly by the consciences of our human souls. So you worship D.C.? :rolleyes:

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So you worship D.C.? :rolleyes:

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

Okay, let us imput that in as a natural law.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle.

Nope. Try again.

[Truth Warrior]

Okay, let us imput that in as a natural law.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle.

Nope. Try again.

I'm find myself getting rather fond of your "smoke and mirrors", in spite of myself. :D

http://common-law.net/nap.html (http://common-law.net/nap.html)

[Theocrat]

Following that spurious line of "reasoning" ( so called ) I guess that you cannot legitimately even DISCUSS macroevolution and "The Origin of Species" since you don't even BELIEVE in Darwin. :rolleyes:

I categorically REJECT your lame excuses. Answer YOUR Christian brethren, please. :rolleyes:

No, the issue is you posting an article which seemingly favors a philosophical belief you have concerning the illegitimacy of civil government, from a so-called Christian perspective. Since the author of that article is discussing his views from a Book which you believe "scans God presumptively," it doesn't make sense for you to use that favorably in the context of this thread, especially on the grounds that 1) you do not believe in God, and 2) you do not accept the Bible as absolute truth about God.

As off-topic as this may be, when I discuss macro-evolution and Darwinism, I usually am not speaking favorably about either one. I don't just post a link to an evolution article and then leave it open to anyone for discussion. TW, that is your tactic. For the most part, all you ever do on these forums is post links to other people's works, and when other members ask what your position is on the article, you like to dance around the question in a sophistic manner without explaining the relevancy of it to the thread.

Assuming you posted the "Human Government is a Rejection of God" article in contrast to the OP, why would you do such a thing unless you agreed with the premises of the author? If that's the case, then it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself by agreeing with the information of that article which uses a text that you philosophically disagree with. That is the point I was getting at.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I'm find myself getting rather fond of your "smoke and mirrors", in spite of myself. :D

http://common-law.net/nap.html (http://common-law.net/nap.html)

If there exists nothing bipartisanly common in the souls of Americans, then there really isn't any difference between that of an American and a Mexican. No wonder they herd us together like cattle.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

No, the issue is you posting an article which seemingly favors a philosophical belief you have concerning the illegitimacy of civil government, from a so-called Christian perspective. Since the author of that article is discussing his views from a Book which you believe "scans God presumptively," it doesn't make sense for you to use that favorably in the context of this thread, especially on the grounds that 1) you do not believe in God, and 2) you do not accept the Bible as absolute truth about God.

As off-topic as this may be, when I discuss macro-evolution and Darwinism, I usually am not speaking favorably about either one. I don't just post a link to an evolution article and then leave it open to anyone for discussion. TW, that is your tactic. For the most part, all you ever do on these forums is post links to other people's works, and when other members ask what your position is on the article, you like to dance around the question in a sophistic manner without explaining the relevancy of it to the thread.

Assuming you posted the "Human Government is a Rejection of God" article in contrast to the OP, why would you do such a thing unless you agreed with the premises of the author? If that's the case, then it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself by agreeing with the information of that article which uses a text that you philosophically disagree with. That is the point I was getting at.

Most people will say that they enjoyed an essay not realizing that an essay is a quality thesis statement highlighted by mostly junk information. In other words, it isn't the whole essay that is good but just a small sliver of it that has been substantiated by more informal, less important examples given. I also have a problem with Truth Warrior never isolating to the reader what is that sliver of information. Shame on him!

[Truth Warrior]

No, the issue is you posting an article which seemingly favors a philosophical belief you have concerning the illegitimacy of civil government, from a so-called Christian perspective. Since the author of that article is discussing his views from a Book which you believe "scans God presumptively," it doesn't make sense for you to use that favorably in the context of this thread, especially on the grounds that 1) you do not believe in God, and 2) you do not accept the Bible as absolute truth about God.

As off-topic as this may be, when I discuss macro-evolution and Darwinism, I usually am not speaking favorably about either one. I don't just post a link to an evolution article and then leave it open to anyone for discussion. TW, that is your tactic. For the most part, all you ever do on these forums is post links to other people's works, and when other members ask what your position is on the article, you like to dance around the question in a sophistic manner without explaining the relevancy of it to the thread.

Assuming you posted the "Human Government is a Rejection of God" article in contrast to the OP, why would you do such a thing unless you agreed with the premises of the author? If that's the case, then it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself by agreeing with the information of that article which uses a text that you philosophically disagree with. That is the point I was getting at.

Mouse click challenged, eh? :p Any old sorry lame old excuse will do, so it seems. :( Won't even defend your "HOLY WORD OF GOD", from a "Christian" point of view. :rolleyes:



"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." -- Jesus ( Matthew 15:8 )




"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

[Truth Warrior]

Most people will say that they enjoyed an essay not realizing that an essay is a quality thesis statement highlighted by mostly junk information. In other words, it isn't the whole essay that is good but just a small sliver of it that has been substantiated by more informal, less important examples given. I also have a problem with Truth Warrior never isolating to the reader what is that sliver of information. Shame on him!

I think if the reader can't even bother to figure it out for themself, it's probably just way over their head anyway. ;) Do you really require that all of your reading be pre-analyzed and pre-digested for you?

[Xenophage]

Nothing gets my rocks off like a good debate between UAE and TW.

Its like watching an indecipherable object collide with a casually dismissive force!

[Truth Warrior]

Nothing gets my rocks off like a good debate between UAE and TW.

Its like watching an indecipherable object collide with a casually dismissive force! I can crank it up to irresistible when and if it's required. :D Luckily those instances occur very rarely. ;)

[asimplegirl]

::sigh:: Man, you could not guess how much I missed seeing people argue ove rthe same thing 900 hundred times a day. LOL.

Love thy neighbor as thyself, which leads to knocking another persona's beliefs.. How ironically....Christ- like. :D

[heavenlyboy34]

Nothing gets my rocks off like a good debate between UAE and TW.

Its like watching an indecipherable object collide with a casually dismissive force!

Even better than the TW v. Theo/ TW v. LE debates! :D:cool:

[Truth Warrior]

::sigh:: Man, you could not guess how much I missed seeing people argue ove rthe same thing 900 hundred times a day. LOL.

Love thy neighbor as thyself, which leads to knocking another persona's beliefs.. How ironically....Christ- like. :D If I were a "Christian", I just might take that personally. :D

[asimplegirl]

Okay, just as a warning, I am having to respond to see any page besides the first...so Blah.

Now I can respond as I wish:

[asimplegirl]

ahh! it didn't work! are the demons in my computer prohibiting me from reading!??

Okay, had to reinstall firefox, LOL. I am all good now.. Let the debates rage on!

[Truth Warrior]

Even better than the TW v. Theo/ TW v. LE debates! :D:cool: We've NEVER had a "debate". :p

[Truth Warrior]

ahh! it didn't work! are the demons in my computer prohibiting me from reading!??

Okay, had to reinstall firefox, LOL. I am all good now.. Let the debates rage on! Tag you're it. ;) OK? :)

Human Government Is A Rejection Of God (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/israelking.html)

Satan Is In Control Of Human Governments (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html)

Must Christians Follow The Teachings Of Jesus? (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/commandments.html)

Romans 13, 1 Peter, And The Proper Relationship Between The Christian And The State (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/romans13.html)