Mall

Romans 7:2.

"For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. "

Now how does divorce fit into this without conflicting with Jesus?

What's the difference between synthetic and natural?

That's right Jesus never approved of what his father hates .

I can understand how "racism" is better than justice right.

Justice can be proper treatment for all and no person is mistreated.

"Racism" is proper treatment for a select people and none of those mistreated.

As long as you and I are a part of that clique, we still have the protections, privileges, comradery, brotherhood, why give that up?

When it is safeguarded by systemic political regime owning everything including those outside the clique, no . Too many benefits to give up.

We call ourselves, aryan, ku klux, capitalists, fascists, you call us racists, Republicans or "democrats" as suggested by another unknowingly. 

So a privileged royalist system to that clique and you think justice is better.

Give up all my royalty and for everyone to be even steven, what does that profit me?

How's that better for me?

I have to lose so you can gain?

Is that socialist?

Give up some of my stature, power and capital, spread it to the precious poor.

Everybody, your thoughts.

None. Thanks.

I never said anything about the natural ability of what people can do. I said not everything is natural because some things are artificial or synthetic that of course people have a hand in producing.

Last time I checked some foods, SOME FOODS are not artificial while others are. This is why you see things such as ARTIFICIAL flavoring. Those flavors and things didn't occur naturally.

I have happiness without chocolate or eggs. That's separating the truth from fabrication.

Same way with any other holiday, new year and birthday.

Everything at its root is natural. But not everything.

Once something is taken from its source, synthesized, altered in a lab for instance, that's not a natural process, it was a synthetic one.

You're gender neutral but sex specific.

God cannot have a son according to the Quran. In the scriptures God cannot have a son which does not have his spirit , he's none of his. In the scriptures obviously the spirit has never had a son in a physical process like a man. God cannot have "a " son because he actually has "many" that are adopted. God is a spirit according to the scriptures filling heaven and earth, therefore it is moot to walk. Where the scripture mentions walking in the cool of the day has to be rightly divided as the scripture teaches rightly dividing the word of truth. Jesus was perceived as God in the scriptures and was crucified for perceived blasphemy from the jewish leaders. Well being that Jesus was God, the son of man , God cannot be crucified but the body was crucified which resembles flesh and blood that God took on. Applies the same way with the resurrection . 

Basically one book is giving more revelation of all these events. Just like from the old testament to the new and the variation of different angles between the four gospels.

But an interesting subject nonetheless to go in depth.

For instance I believe the scriptures teach Jesus is the word of God. In the Quran it says he is the messenger of allah.

Two different regions that had two wild apart views on the same subject . They're not worlds apart.

"Why would you need to believe in Rabbits and the social occasion labelled as Eater?"

It has nothing to do with "need". The cause of my belief or knowledge of these two elements existing is from a phenomena called reality that has presented to me what it is to process the information of it I have learned via progress of growth where what's declared a creature I can detect, recognize and label a rabbit .

Likewise with easter it works the same way as being recognized as a custom, tradition , festivity. 

"Everything is natural."

What is everything?

Animate and inanimate or is it just animate?

"What you described here is Democratic party ideology, not white supremacy. "

Ok Democratic party supremacy . We can call it that. Democratic party supremacists who practice "racism" 24/7 dominating all the " non white " people of the planet in every area of people activity.

1. Economics

2. Education

3. Entertainment

4. Labor

5. Law

6. "Politics"

7. Religion

8. Sex

9. War

Natural occurrence of teaching it yes.

"Why did healing evangelist John Mellor die of cancer? Or Leon Fontaine the pastor of one of Canadas largest churches?"

Apparently cancer is deadly. Also from the natural side, nobody is immortal. Even the scriptures teach life is like a vapor or mist if I'm not mistaken. It's here and it's gone.

If you follow the pattern closely, any evidence of god is purely subjective. 

No one can ever prove god to another.

The said individual has to have the encounter.

Yup somebody paid the taxes for you. The law can't do anything to you because you've been made justified by another showing you grace and kindness to pay your debt because the wages or payment for a tax penalty would of had to been paid by you but again, that was redeemed.

"Love wouldn't let Jesus die"

What do you by love wouldn't?

Are you saying him dying wasn't an act of love?

"but the distinction is that that don't imply appeasing God's wrath."

Do you believe there can be peace between the adopted sons/daughters and God and yet a co-existing wrath?

The Quran can be reconciled with the biblical scriptures.

Would you believe it?

After all this time, what you thought was who was the same individual.

You'd be correct of "racism" not being natural. But someone here said "We are all racist ".

Now we can agree "racism" is taught but are all of us taught it?

Some of you I asked questions to I can believe you're stuck or stumped. Time to sit back and really analyze the world and the way people are.

Take a look at the supremacists, the nationalists, the racial pride toting folks. 

We weren't born with these ideologies. As early as 4 or 5 years of age, were there signs demonstrated of holding these concepts? 

If we're mirroring the environments we were in well there you go. That's conditioning. Don't mix that up with innate tendencies.

You were told ,TOLD you are or were a member of a "race". If you weren't, when did you make the decision to join and sign up?

What is your response to those that say "blacks" can't be "racist"?

They the blacks have no control or power over anything .

What they call racism is white supremacy the only form of racism on the planet. White supremacy is racism and racism is white supremacy.

The white supremacists are in charge and control who gets what when and where and can affect situations of non whites day to day where they live, work and eat just as the slave master did. So in turn slavery has never ended for blacks and racism is slavery and it is mistreatment with dominating the non whites of the planet.

In other words, specifically layman's.....it's not natural.

I mean let's simplify all this to get an understanding of the bottom line.

There's no question on discrimination. There's discrimination in shoes to wear, clothes to wear, where to live, what to live in, where to go, what's used to get there, where to work, what to eat.

I'm talking about acting or making a social move with somebody influenced by skin color.

Is that natural? In other words for instance, two individuals work in a store. I need help in finding a product. Both have two different shades of color in their skin.

Which would I ask for help from?

Am I going to speak with one over the other because of skin tone or because the assistance I can get perhaps is more closer in proximity than the other, less occupied, more convenient or any other rational factor , etc.?

Maybe one is in training, first day I heard him say . As well as I heard "I don't know where anything is".

If you say skin color has a play in it, where did that come from? Was it taught into you to craft a mindset to make such decisions?

Is it natural? If it is, why don't some individuals operate that way? Were they conditioned to suppress their natural biases?

These are things I'm looking for us to analyze.

Same question to you.

Not every single person gravitates towards another where the color of skin is a part of the equation. 

Maybe you can make an argument for general average cases because on average people do socially segregate into their communities and families.

But there are those outliers. So is "racism" or this type of social arrangement really natural or is it socially conditioned in on average?

Is it socially conditioned out in outliers occasionally?

Even being brought up in a tribe, village, community, small town even, those people can still be open minded and unifying based simply on what they were taught. The information they received, media, programming, etc.

"We have evolved to recognize patterns and stick around the people that look like us"

WhY don't we all do this?

Do you have scripture on Jesus supporting divorce?

What's your point of this in relation to the topic?

What's the point of this in relation to the topic?

Are we naturally tribalistic?

Does tribalism give strength to budding "racism"?

Is there value in maintaining separation of racially classified communities?

Should segregation be a forgotten concept in the next 100 years?

There are individuals today still pushing for nationalist ideologies based on the history of "race" relations. 

Someone that disapproves of a certain sexuality, is that one prejudice, making prejudgment akin to those doing so in regard to skin color or is there an actual valid basis possibly such as something physiologically related?

"he or she doesn't see any persuasive reason or evidence to believe."

This is a weak basis. Furthermore, evidence is not required to believe anything but I understand it's a preference.

"Though, evidence may be a deliberate pack of lies."

That's called evidence in name sake. It's presented as such what it's really not.

Enslaved person can break free. But killing off an enslaved people is akin to killing off a people in advance.

I thought you had bible book chapter and verse. Look it up, you may find something to support your case.

What was your point with this?

Do you have scripture to back all this up for what you're saying?

That's what I thought. Avoiding rebuttals by not responding and blocking folks .

You block someone, you're a flat out coward unless the individual is adversely harassing or belligerent.

I think you agree that the science book has not disproven the existence of God.

You say 100 percent like there is a lesser percentage that can prove God. 

Then you say more scientific proof , but proof of what?

You can have all the "more " there is but nothing has been disproven. You not seeing evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. 

So not a very strong basis there.

But understand you believe what you do as it shifts your interests to what you read.

Let me help you out with this example because maybe you're not on the level of understanding I'm at.

You're just thinking morality period.

Is liquid water being wet objective morality?

I'll just keep saying it for what it's worth.

By the way, I barely understood what you put in text @03.25.2024 07:53PM.

But I don't have to make a post about it.

But bottom line for you and anybody else reading, when you don't understand something, ask questions to get your answers like I do. When I don't understand individuals on this site, it's just questions and answers. Just questions and answers, questions and answers.