Bride of Christ. (Gospels, priests, sin, Kingdom)

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by YorktownGal

Of course! I would call the police before breaking the window.

And, I would call the police before breaking the window if I saw a doggie in the car too!

even if the child or animal showed signs of extreme distress? waiting for help might be wasting valuable time.

Breaking a car window with a baby/dog inside is a low liability issue. The worse is I have to buy a new car window.

It's not about you

Breaking into a drug company and stealing a medication is not the same.

It's breaking and entering and stealing with cameras and security. It's a high liability issue with local and federal charges.

Crime and punishment

Your argument is once you steal the drug, everything is fine. Well, in real life, it's not so simple.

It is not. The question was very simple. Should the husband have stolen the drug?

There is no drug that you take once and you are cured. How many treatments she will need? Will her doctor work with her - knowing you stole her medicine?

This is a thought experiment. In this experiment the doctors have stated this will save her life. This is assumed to be true for purposes of this experiment. In real life do all your own research you feel is necessary.

You are leaving the wishes of the wife out of your argument. If she is really that sick, she may choose differently. It's like people who decide they've had enough of chemo and stop.

Again. This drug will save her.

[O'Darby]

I absolutely don't understand this thread. In Christian theology, the Incarnation-Crucifixion-Resurrection-Atonement was God's plan from before the creation. God knew no humans would exercise their free will with the moral perfection His perfect holiness and justice requires. All humans would become estranged from Him for this reason. Those who came to understand their own sinfulness and to appreciate the distinction between it and God's holiness, and who choose to seek forgiveness in Christ, become part of the body of Christ and eligible to participate in God's eternal kingdom. Those who do not make this choice remain in their sin and do not become part of the body of Christ. By this plan of salvation, God glorified Himself and His Son. He had no moral obligation to create anyone and has no moral obligation to save anyone. The OP reflects fundamental confusion to such an extent that I don't quite even understand the point being made.

In the Heinz dilemma, any husband worth his salt is obviously going to steal the medication and face whatever legal consequences there may be. The druggist is acting lawfully but not morally. The husband is acting morally but not lawfully. And so what? In any such circumstance, I would take the moral course of action and deal with the legal consequences. Child or dog in the hot car? I break the window. I don't call the police and wait to make it lawful. Lawful and moral are often two entirely different things. This seems to me like Jesus 101.

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by O'Darby

I absolutely don't understand this thread. In Christian theology, the Incarnation-Crucifixion-Resurrection-Atonement was God's plan from before the creation. God knew no humans would exercise their free will with the moral perfection His perfect holiness and justice requires. All humans would become estranged from Him for this reason. Those who came to understand their own sinfulness and to appreciate the distinction between it and God's holiness, and who choose to seek forgiveness in Christ, become part of the body of Christ and eligible to participate in God's eternal kingdom. Those who do not make this choice remain in their sin and do not become part of the body of Christ. By this plan of salvation, God glorified Himself and His Son. He had no moral obligation to create anyone and has no moral obligation to save anyone. The OP reflects fundamental confusion to such an extent that I don't quite even understand the point being made.

In the Heinz dilemma, any husband worth his salt is obviously going to steal the medication and face whatever legal consequences there may be. The druggist is acting lawfully but not morally. The husband is acting morally but not lawfully. And so what? In any such circumstance, I would take the moral course of action and deal with the legal consequences. Child or dog in the hot car? I break the window. I don't call the police and wait to make it lawful. Lawful and moral are often two entirely different things. This seems to me like Jesus 101.

agreed

[L8Gr8Apost8]

I was going off the original sin assumption taught by my sect and argued into oblivion here.

[L8Gr8Apost8]

One question though O'Darby. You used the word "would". Is that accurate or is "could" more apt? The more I think about what you said the more I think a truly empathetic being would find the suffering of other sentient beings intolerable and would be compelled.

[O'Darby]

Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8

One question though O'Darby. You used the word "would". Is that accurate or is "could" more apt? The more I think about what you said the more I think a truly empathetic being would find the suffering of other sentient beings intolerable and would be compelled.

Which "would" in my post are you taliking about?

Well, you didn't answer and I have to log off.

I think I do have an inner compulsion to help other suffering sentient beings - to the extent of making a fool of myself in an effort to rescue insects and now having a yard almost overrun with feral cats. But on the other hand, if I were truly compelled, I'd be broke and homeless myself. So I think there is always an equation: What can I reasonably do under the circumstances to help in this situation? In a situation like a child in a 110-degree car, I'm going to break the window even if I'm charged with a misdemeanor and have to pay a $500 fine. No big deal. In the Heinz case, I'm going to get the medication for my wife even if I go to prison for five years. Big deal, but a price I would be wiling to pay under the circumstances. In religious terms, the bigger sin would be doing nothing even if stealing the medication was illegal and technically a sin. This seemed to me Jesus' point in a number of situations - do what is morally right even if it is technically wrong.

If you're talking about God and His empathy or apparent lack thereof, that's a complex question. One view, as Paul suggested, is that God had no obligation to create at all, has given us all the gift of life and an opportunity to be saved, and can do what He damn well wants with those who don't avail themselves of the opportunity. Those who see Him as less-than-emphathetic typically view the creation in human terms and cannot fathom how any God could tolerate the level of suffering - human and animal - we see and experience every day. I have no easy answer except to say that, as a Christian, I have to trust it will all make sense in eternity.

[Hannibal Flavius]

Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8

I was overthinking the Heinz Dilemma and I came to the conclusion that the husband was morally required to do whatever he had to do to protect his wife's life up to and including sacrificing himself. In the Heinz dilemma it was breaking a law and stealing. I can't think of another relationship where a sacrifice would be morally required. Most parents would lay down their life for their child but I can't say that it would be a moral must. People sacrifice themselves for others all the time but we praise them because we know that really is above and beyond, definitely not a requirement.

So if Christians are the Bride of Christ does it follow that Jesus was morally required to sacrifice Himself for Christians only or all of humanity?

Jesus died as an example because nobody knew how to build a temple.

Being a legally betrothed virgin to Christ does not mean that one will be present when the virgins are called to prepare for the coming of the bridegroom. First a virgin must have found an extra vessel in order to purchase oil to light their lamps in order to light their way to the door.

Matthew
And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. 11Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 12But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. 13Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.


A betrothed bride is saved and they have a child under Paul or whoever begins teaching them the milk of the word until they can mature in the meat of the word.

So a Christian studies the bible, goes to church every week understanding the milk of the word in just reading it so much that they remember all the stories, and let's say they even understand the difference between Israel and Judah after years of study, that is just the milk of the word and the person is assuredly saved, but salvation isn't the issue.

The issue is whether a Christian can build a temple, a house, a tent.

Jesus was the example like an instruction pamphlet how to build a house when nobody had ever built one before.

Jesus had to he born of a virgin, so do you, and you are the virgin appointed as keeper over God's house to give his children of God meat in do season.

If you are a betrothed bride of Christ being Paul's little baby, Christ can never be formed in you until you have matured, and Paul seriously doubted that many of his people would ever mature enough for Christ to be formed in them after maturity and Paul actually taught his people the two seasons and 3 harvests which are the meat of maturity.

Jesus born of a virgin was just the first of many brethren to follow into a new kingdom, and each one of the brethren have to go through the same things Christ went through in his own harvests instructing us all about how to harvest the barley so so long that we come to the conclusion day of Passover.

The day we race to.
Pentecost closes out Passover st the wheat harvest where the tare is taken and the brethren taken to heaven and stored in God's barn.

We race for 42 months in our first season exactly like Jesus walked in his own 42 months leading to death.

We race to our own death in the wheat harvest that kills the first born.

Without the example of Christ, no man would ever have a chance of entering the the marriage chamber.


It is only by example that we can walk the same path being a virgin just like Christ. Christ was the only true virgin and when the veil was rent in two, we saw a consummation between God and Jesus.

Jesus as a seed was then planted in the earth and the earth became pregnant for the first time in history, 3 days later she beat a sin.

The Earth gave forth a full grown man as her first child, and who had ever heard of such a thing?

Will a woman truly give birth to a full grown man?

Isaiah
Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

Yes Isaiah, women will bear full grown mature children, and only full grown mature children.


If Christ wasn't born as an example, none of us could ever follow the same path or build anything, it was only by his example that we have a chance for the great prize of bearing a son.

Being a bride is nice, but marriage has never ever been the point, the point of marriage is to produce a son, but not just any son, we have to bear a full grown mature son like Jesus.

The works of all men will be tested by fire when their house is tested by fire, if the house they build can stand in flames and not be touched by flames, they EARNED the reward which is NO GIFT.

The house is the son of the bride and the bridegroom, and when that house is built, it is caught up to heaven as you remain here.

Years go by, you die, and now we see whether you built a mature house to withstand flames.

All who are tested are saved already, but I speak of reward, not the gift of salvation, but the reward we are supposed to be racing to.

What happens if the bride never matures her baby and her son never matures to be caught up to heaven?

Revelation 2

that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

THAT work is the house you are building beginning with a baby, and if that baby isn't matured, it gets killed.

Jesus is not going to kill actual children, he kills the immature seed, but he still saves.

Even if God kills your child, you are saved, and you are way more blessed than before.

[Hannibal Flavius]

Years ago I read a poll asking women what they would do if they had to choose between a child and a husband and the overwhelming majority said.they would choose the husband and have another child.

The majority of men say opposite.

[YorktownGal]

Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius

Years ago I read a poll asking women what they would do if they had to choose between a child and a husband and the overwhelming majority said.they would choose the husband and have another child.

The majority of men say opposite.

I remember the survey. I had this discussion with my friends - at the time, we were all mothers of toddlers. We all agreed we would save our children. We carried our babies inside of us so cutting the cord is harder. It's an interesting idea. Now that my kids are adults, I'm not sure how I would answer.

The Parable of the Ten Virgins has always been one of my favorites. It's great you quoted it.

Matthew 25 “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4 The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.

6 “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ 7 “Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’ 9 “‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’ 10 “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. 11 “Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’ 12 “But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’ 13 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

It's a good point:

So a Christian studies the bible, goes to church every week understanding the milk of the word in just reading it so much that they remember all the stories, and let's say they even understand the difference between Israel and Judah after years of study, that is just the milk of the word and the person is assuredly saved.

To correct, everyone's assumptions, I would call the police before breaking the window to notifying them of the situation. I wouldn't wait for the police to arrive to break the window.

[chief scum]

Originally Posted by O'Darby

I absolutely don't understand this thread. In Christian theology, the Incarnation-Crucifixion-Resurrection-Atonement was God's plan from before the creation. God knew no humans would exercise their free will with the moral perfection His perfect holiness and justice requires. All humans would become estranged from Him for this reason. Those who came to understand their own sinfulness and to appreciate the distinction between it and God's holiness, and who choose to seek forgiveness in Christ, become part of the body of Christ and eligible to participate in God's eternal kingdom. Those who do not make this choice remain in their sin and do not become part of the body of Christ. By this plan of salvation, God glorified Himself and His Son. He had no moral obligation to create anyone and has no moral obligation to save anyone. The OP reflects fundamental confusion to such an extent that I don't quite even understand the point being made.

In the Heinz dilemma, any husband worth his salt is obviously going to steal the medication and face whatever legal consequences there may be. The druggist is acting lawfully but not morally. The husband is acting morally but not lawfully. And so what? In any such circumstance, I would take the moral course of action and deal with the legal consequences. Child or dog in the hot car? I break the window. I don't call the police and wait to make it lawful. Lawful and moral are often two entirely different things. This seems to me like Jesus 101.

Concerning the bolded sentence. To claim that would be saying that God set us up for failure and nullifying His first spoken as it says; God saw the light and saw that it was good. God did not make a fool of His creation setting us up for failure. I know that I don't enquire and seek the heart of those who would make a fool of me and set me up for failure and that being the first inclination that is claimed.

The scripture says; The Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world. And from God's first spoken, the person and position of firstborn and heir of all God's creation is revealed and upon who the Holy Sabbath is established, the Lord of the Sabbath is present in God's first spoken. Those eternal ones who chose to rebel took aim as eternal enemies when the position was revealed at first light. And God said a tiny little seed would redeem us from those fallen eternal Angels and all the corrupt influence they try to exert.