The Sound of Freedom

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I know fine well what is recorded as being said and anyone who interprets it as Jesus referring to the woman as a dog or "dogette" has entirely missed the point and usually in order to justify their own pathetic little name calling in my experience.

He essentially called them out as He spoke to the woman because they probably would have wagged their heads in agreement when Jesus called the woman a dog.

 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Way to continually miss the point...
The point (and you and I both well know you did not miss it) is that you claimed Jesus did not call the Canaanite woman a dog, and then (as though you imagined it would somehow back up your asinine, false claim) you recommended to us a link you did not even read, that flatly contradicts your asinine, false claim by stating that Jesus did call her a dog.
 
Last edited:

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
The point (and you and I both well know you did not miss it) is that you claimed Jesus did not call the Canaanite woman a dog, and then (as though you imagined it would somehow back up your asinine, false claim) you recommended to us a link you did not even read, that flatly contradicts your asinine, false claim by stating that Jesus did call her a dog.
Oh, it's the one part of the article I disagree with, the allusions to dogs and gentiles is covered but Jesus did not in fact call the woman a dog. Do you think that God denigrates people based on race/creed/ethnicity? Do you have any answer to the broader scope or do you honestly think that Jesus went around insulting women because of their race? I'm suspecting that you won't touch this in any sort of depth whatsoever so be original and surprise me.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Oh, it's the one part of the article I disagree with, the allusions to dogs and gentiles is covered but Jesus did not in fact call the woman a dog.

Denying reality isn't healthy, Arthur.

Do you think that God denigrates people based on race/creed/ethnicity?

Once again, no.

Do you have any answer to the broader scope or do you honestly think that Jesus went around insulting women because of their race?

He didn't.

As stated before:

Jesus insulted her because He was trying to get her to go away, because as He stated quite clearly:

"It is not good to take the children's bread and feed it to the little dogs."

Again:

The children refers to Israel.
The little dogs are gentiles (see the excerpt from kgov.com/nice I posted in a previous post if you need scriptural evidence that supports that claim).
Jesus was speaking to the gentile woman when He said the above.
She then acknowledged His words as true, "Yes, Lord."

And then she continued the analogy, even referring to herself as a little dog, saying that even the little dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the table.

The bread refers to the miracles that Jesus was doing.

She was asking for a miracle. He was refusing to give her one, because she was a Gentile, and He was not sent EXCEPT to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Again: SHE WAS A GENTILE, and His mission to Israel did not include her. She asked for Him to perform a miracle, a miracle that was meant only for Israel.

Do you get it yet?

She was asking for the bread crumbs from the Master's table, where the children of Israel sat, recognizing her position as a Gentile "doggette."

If it was not for her faith, then Jesus would not have healed her daughter.

I'm suspecting that you won't touch this in any sort of depth whatsoever so be original and surprise me.

The problem with going into any sort of depth with you is that you don't even believe the Bible anyways, so why should we bother?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Denying reality isn't healthy, Arthur.



Once again, no.



He didn't.

As stated before:

Jesus insulted her because He was trying to get her to go away, because as He stated quite clearly:

"It is not good to take the children's bread and feed it to the little dogs."

Again:

The children refers to Israel.
The little dogs are gentiles (see the excerpt from kgov.com/nice I posted in a previous post if you need scriptural evidence that supports that claim).
Jesus was speaking to the gentile woman when He said the above.
She then acknowledged His words as true, "Yes, Lord."

And then she continued the analogy, even referring to herself as a little dog, saying that even the little dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the table.

The bread refers to the miracles that Jesus was doing.

She was asking for a miracle. He was refusing to give her one, because she was a Gentile, and He was not sent EXCEPT to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Again: SHE WAS A GENTILE, and His mission to Israel did not include her. She asked for Him to perform a miracle, a miracle that was meant only for Israel.

Do you get it yet?

She was asking for the bread crumbs from the Master's table, where the children of Israel sat, recognizing her position as a Gentile "doggette."

If it was not for her faith, then Jesus would not have healed her daughter.



The problem with going into any sort of depth with you is that you don't even believe the Bible anyways, so why should we bother?
So, you don't believe that God insults people based on their race/creed/ethnicity but you believe that Jesus insulted this woman as she was a gentile and He just wanted her to go away? Way to contradict yourself there JR.

Does it even remotely occur to you that Jesus was not only aware that the woman was going to be persistent and that she had faith? That He could possibly teach His disciples a lesson and anyone else within earshot? He does after all have the power to heal at a moments notice as He did with the woman's daughter, right?

I don't expect you to go into any sort of depth so no worries there JR and you sure ain't in a position to lecture anything about the Bible given how little understanding and depth you have with this one event alone.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So, you don't believe that God insults people based on their race/creed/ethnicity but you believe that Jesus insulted this woman as she was a gentile and He just wanted her to go away? Way to contradict yourself there JR.

So Jesus was lying when He said, "I am not come except for the lost sheep of the house of Israel?

Does it even remotely occur to you that Jesus was not only aware that the woman was going to be persistent and that she had faith.

The settled view strikes again.

Sorry, but I'm an open theist.

I don't believe God knows the future. Thus, He couldn't have known whether she was going to be persistent in her faith, especially since, as Philippians says that Jesus emptied Himself to come as a man.

That He could possibly teach His disciples a lesson and anyone else within earshot?

I don't think he was planning to teach a lesson at that point, no.

He does after all have the power to heal at a moments notice as He did with the woman's daughter, right?

Again, Jesus' mission was to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

She was a Gentile, and therefore fell outside of the scope of His mission.

I point to the first miracle Jesus did, turning water into wine, as an example of how focused Jesus was on His mission, where He thought His own mother was speaking about His coming death in three years time, but she was actually just asking for more wine for the party.

He was perfectly focused on His mission to save His people.

I don't expect you to go into any sort of depth so no worries there JR and you sure ain't in a position to lecture anything about the Bible given how little understanding and depth you have with this one event alone.

That's rich.. the non-Christian thinks he can lecture the Christian on how much he actually understands the Bible.

The reason you, Arthur, cannot understand the Bible, and thus think I'm wrong, is because you do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within you, and the things I teach from Scripture are of the Spirit.

These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

You want to understand the Bible, you must first repent of your sins and ask God to forgive you. Once you do that, I would be more than happy to teach you.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
"The one part of the article" @Arthur Brain disagrees with says "Jesus called the woman a dog."
Oh, it's the one part of the article I disagree with,
VS
anyone who interprets it as Jesus referring to the woman as a dog or "dogette" has entirely missed the point
So, you agree with almost everything written in an article by an author who has, according to you, "entirely missed the point". Got it.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
Last edited:

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Says the guy who's lied about me being a "child molesting queer". Gotta laugh. Still, seems to be what passes for "edifying Christian behaviour" around here nowadays...childish falsehoods are all okay apparently...
You're obviously a homosexual
You mind being called "queer" by someone who disagrees with you, but you don't mind calling someone "homosexual" with whom you disagree. Why your double standard, hypocrite?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
That is such hypocrisy since wrong is wrong no matter which group one is in.
Alas, love is waxing colder and colder in the world and it's becoming harder to find places that treat people with love and kindness.
But don't give up hope.
Bear in mind that @Arthur Brain has no scruples against calling someone with whom he disagrees, "homosexual":
You're obviously a homosexual
Had I said the latter on here I'd be rightfully booted off this forum for it.
As can be seen in your (@Arthur Brain's) quotation from @Nick M's original post, "the latter" was the word, "queer":
Nice misdirection attempt, you child molesting, queer.
What's the dif between calling someone "queer" and calling them "homosexual"? So, were you booted off this forum for calling that forum member "homosexual" (since, according to you, you would "be rightfully booted off this forum" for having done so)?
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
My wife and I went and watched this movie when it came to our small town. We hadn't watched a movie in forty some years. Not since we were dating had we gone to one. We went and watched Foxfire.

This was a very impressive story. I'd attended movies before we got married and there was always some noise going on. This theater was dead silent. Even after the movie people didn't get up and leave immediately and when we all finally left the talking was hushed with no laughing and joking. I have to say it's the most powerful movie I've ever watched, by far.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Elsewhere, he’s parroted falsehoods about Pizzagate
.https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/secret-epidemics-friday-september?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

Late last month, NBC News ran a rather shocking story headlined, “Former ABC investigative journalist pleads guilty to child pornography charges.”

image 4.png

ABC’s senior, Washington DC-based investigative reporter, James Gordon Meek, 53, used to cover national security issues for the network until he resigned last year after his arrest. Meeks notably won an Emmy for his 2017 reporting on the Pulse gay nightclub shooting. Late last month, he pleaded guilty to illegal possession and transportation of child pornography.

Most ironically, and most relevant for the bigger story, Mr. Meek was the reporter who captained the charge to “debunk” the so-called Pizzagate ‘conspiracy theory,’ which arose out of leaked emails from Clinton-advisor John Pederast, I mean Podesta, and claimed that high-ranking democrat officials, including members of Hillary Clinton's campaign, were involved in a child sex trafficking ring operating out of a highly-sketchy pizzeria called Comet Ping Pong located in Washington, D.C.

In Washington, D.C. — coincidentally right where debunking reporter and chronic pedophile Meeks lived.

I made a horrible mistake by pulling up Meek’s case in PACER (the federal court system database), in order to read the arresting FBI agent’s original affidavit. I won’t subject you to the pure, unadulterated evil described in that appalling document, except to say I pray for the FBI agent who had to review the evidence and draft it.

But to give you a general sense of what we’re talking about, among many other awful things, Mr. Meek’s personal iPhone contained a video of the forcible sodomy of a screaming and crying infant girl, along with the reporter’s unbelievable descriptions of his extreme sexual arousal and grotesque, infuriating rape fantasies of repeating the same act himself.

It also included screenshots of reporter Meek’s chats on kids’ social media platforms, where he was coercing children into sending him naked photos. And that’s probably enough to brief you in.

Significantly, FBI agents found child sexual abuse images and videos going back to at least 2014 — well before Meeks “debunked” the Comet Ping Pong story. In other words, he was doing exactly what he debunked at the time he was debunking it.

(On an aside, in his upcoming sentencing, Meeks faces less prison time than does President Trump.)

I was on the fence about whether to include this story at all, when I did a routine cross-reference search for “ABC child charges.”

I found an epidemic.

Here are just a few of this week’s headlines that one single search returned:

image 6.png

There were more. Maybe a lot more. I don’t even know how many more, I had to stop scrolling due to running out of time.

In a sense, in hindsight, the Comet Ping Pong conspiracy hypothesis was undoubtedly right. Setting aside the fact it was only “debunked” by people like Meeks with obvious motives to bury the story, in a broader perspective, there clearly is a BIG problem. Is this epidemic of pedophilia the temptation created by (apparently) easily-available CSAM (child sexual abuse material) online? Is it naked trans men at the White House? Is it the legalization and acceptance of atypical sexual practices?

Or is it something else? Is the Nation possessed?

Finally — kudos, once again, to the FBI field agents who carefully planned and executed reporter Meeks’ investigation. FBI leadership has taken a lot of well-earned criticism lately, but there are plenty of good agents still working in the agency. Thank you.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
So Jesus was lying when He said, "I am not come except for the lost sheep of the house of Israel?



The settled view strikes again.

Sorry, but I'm an open theist.

I don't believe God knows the future. Thus, He couldn't have known whether she was going to be persistent in her faith, especially since, as Philippians says that Jesus emptied Himself to come as a man.



I don't think he was planning to teach a lesson at that point, no.



Again, Jesus' mission was to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

She was a Gentile, and therefore fell outside of the scope of His mission.

I point to the first miracle Jesus did, turning water into wine, as an example of how focused Jesus was on His mission, where He thought His own mother was speaking about His coming death in three years time, but she was actually just asking for more wine for the party.

He was perfectly focused on His mission to save His people.



That's rich.. the non-Christian thinks he can lecture the Christian on how much he actually understands the Bible.

The reason you, Arthur, cannot understand the Bible, and thus think I'm wrong, is because you do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within you, and the things I teach from Scripture are of the Spirit.

These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

You want to understand the Bible, you must first repent of your sins and ask God to forgive you. Once you do that, I would be more than happy to teach you.
Well, He sure made an exception for her didn't He? Otherwise why grant her such a favour? Haven't you already conceded that God doesn't discriminate against people based on colour or creed etc? Therein lies the point.

'Settled view'? No such thing going on here. As has been explained numerous times before, it's entirely possible for an omnipotent God to know what's going to happen without settling it or influencing anything. If you don't get that still then meh...

Did God only come to save "His people"? Not a saviour of the world then? Again, bit of a disconnect if God doesn't discriminate based on race etc...

People can label themselves all they like, it's the fruits that matter overall and you're in no position to accuse anyone of misunderstanding the Bible frankly, nor are you in the position to arrogantly presume that those who disagree with you don't have any faith or repented of wrongdoing etc.

With that being said, a hard pass on your latter. A real hard pass...
 

Right Divider

Body part
Well, He sure made an exception for her didn't He?
Yes, He did. Why does this bother you so much?

Paul concurs with Christ on His mission:
Rom 15:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:8) Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises [made] unto the fathers:

Why does this bother you so much?
Otherwise why grant her such a favour? Haven't you already conceded that God doesn't discriminate against people based on colour or creed etc? Therein lies the point.
It depends on what you mean by "discriminate". God separated Israel from the rest of the world.

Lev 20:22-26 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:22) ¶ Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. (20:23) And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. (20:24) But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I [am] the LORD your God, which have separated you from [other] people. (20:25) Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. (20:26) And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD [am] holy, and have severed you from [other] people, that ye should be mine.

Why does this bother you so much?
Did God only come to save "His people"? Not a saviour of the world then?
The fact that He was the "savior of the world" (as in "neither Jew nor Greek") was not made known prior to God revealing it to Paul.
Again, bit of a disconnect if God doesn't discriminate based on race etc...
Again, not in every way.

Again, why does this bother you so much?

I don't expect you to understand any of this.
 
Last edited:

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Yes, He did. Why does this bother you so much?

Paul concurs with Christ on His mission:
Rom 15:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:8) Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises [made] unto the fathers:

Why does this bother you so much?

It depends on what you mean by "discriminates". God separated Israel from the rest of the world.

Lev 20:22-26 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:22) ¶ Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. (20:23) And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. (20:24) But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I [am] the LORD your God, which have separated you from [other] people. (20:25) Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. (20:26) And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD [am] holy, and have severed you from [other] people, that ye should be mine.

Why does this bother you so much?

The fact that He was the "savior of the world" (as in "neither Jew nor Greek") was not made known prior to God revealing it to Paul.

Again, not in every way.

Again, why does this bother you so much?

I don't expect you to understand any of this.
IMG_20230912_212712.jpg
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Yes, He did. Why does this bother you so much?

Paul concurs with Christ on His mission:
Rom 15:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:8) Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises [made] unto the fathers:

Why does this bother you so much?

It depends on what you mean by "discriminate". God separated Israel from the rest of the world.

Lev 20:22-26 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:22) ¶ Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. (20:23) And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. (20:24) But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I [am] the LORD your God, which have separated you from [other] people. (20:25) Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. (20:26) And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD [am] holy, and have severed you from [other] people, that ye should be mine.

Why does this bother you so much?

The fact that He was the "savior of the world" (as in "neither Jew nor Greek") was not made known prior to God revealing it to Paul.

Again, not in every way.

Again, why does this bother you so much?

I don't expect you to understand any of this.
It doesn't bother me in any way. Then again, I'm not bound by pompous legalism and the like so hey ho!
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Yeah, prob should have put up some dumb meme or pic or pretended to be a co-ed or something instead really. Well, hey ho again!
 
Top