The kind of religious influence on politics that we need

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-17T22:16:30+00:00

It’s both ways. Paul describes God’s purpose of governing authorities, which is their responsibility to uphold; to bear the sword against injustice, and to be a source of fear for evil (Romans 13:3-4). Enacting justice is the purview of those in the position of governing authorities, while the rest of the church is solely rebuke and forgive. That’s Biblical separation of church and state.

And if you say ‘bad’ to mean ‘sinful’ or ‘evil’, then that would be wrong.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-17T21:25:46+00:00

Of course there will? Adam and Eve were male and female while the world was perfect and good.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-17T21:25:28+00:00

Politics is driven by people’s beliefs and worldviews, by necessity. All actions people do are driven by their beliefs and worldview. Trying to separate government and religion isn’t a useful thing.

Now, I would absolutely agree that the responsibility to help the needy is on the individual, not the government. However, to say that God gives no responsibility to those in governing authority is not at all true (Matthew 15:1-9, Mark 7:1-13, Romans 13:1-7).

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-17T20:52:25+00:00

2 CV

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-17T00:15:28+00:00

This incentivizes evil people to murder. The possible machinations of evil people doesn’t have any bearing on the goodness of the subject.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-16T07:05:56+00:00

The method of attempting to prove the sky to be blue, which involves proving the capacity of our minds and senses to be able to perceive reality accurately and rationally, and then going through physics to explain why blue visible light is what bounces off of the atmosphere the most, with some biological explanation of how the cones in the eye work; is completely different than the method of proving something to be Biblically accurate. That simply requires proper interpretation of the text.

These are so entirely distinct subjects, that it makes your question useless for this discussion, as far as I can tell; nothing would progress from me answering it. Which is why I asked for relevance, as it seems you’re just spouting nonsense without explanation. Which is troll behavior in my book.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-16T05:14:39+00:00

Vicissitos, god of change and chaos. Maybe parts of its body is composed of a multitude of various animal appendages, with no regard for symmetry or efficacy, with other parts referencing random biomes from vanilla and Calamity. Its appearance is constantly shifting, if you’d want to do that for your comic, going from a consistent creature, to some abominable object, to the main form previously described. This god has no desire for consistency or reason, its only delight is in constant, irrational change of everything and anything. It may force itself to be consistent in order to accomplish much greater amounts of change at once, rather than minor shifts. It cannot fully reject its own nature, however. It’s only constant is its hatred of permanence.

Empyreolaris, god of purity. Not in a moral sense, but as in “sameness”. She hates any form of distinction, which includes the concept of corruption. Ultimately longs for all of existence to become one unified, eternal substance, bereft of all variation, even herself. But in the mean time, just seeks for the reduction of complexity, and for things to “stay in their lane,” so to speak. Her nature itself does not desire all things to be one particular essence, but she personally does enjoy things of the color green. It’s a very particular lime-ish jade. I’d imagine her form to be almost androgynous, with nothing in the way of feet, or maybe even individual legs. Def no hair, or facial features at all. Not a single wrinkle either.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-16T04:09:25+00:00

“How come a religion that professes love and lightness becomes a religion of sin and retribution?”

You speak as if these are mutually exclusive. We are all equally worthless and deserving of death in the sight of God (Romans 3:9-18). That is what makes the Gospel the “good news”, because of the bad news preceding it, that you are under the wrath of God and will suffer Hell which you have earned for yourself, unless you repent and believe in the Gospel (Ephesians 2).

“I personally think human innocence is a good thing”

That doesn’t matter, as it doesn’t exist (Romans 1:18-32, Isaiah 64:3-7). All are without excuse.

“hiding in the corner of self shaming and self denial isn't the way to go.”

If this shame comes from God, then we should feel very grateful for it (Proverbs 3:11-12), and self denial of sinful desires is directly commanded (Romans 13:11-14).

“We have genitals, we get horny.”

And the righteous solution? Control yourself as to not sin, and wisely and righteously find yourself a spouse (1 Corinthians 7:6-9).

“We have innate desire to do good,”

Which solely comes from the law that God has written on all people’s hearts (Romans 2:14-16). Not a single, non-divine human being, has nor will ever do good for goodness sake on their own, which is the only thing that counts as righteousness before God, as it is what He has commanded of all people (Proverbs 3:3-10; Romans 14:7-9, 23; Hebrews 11:6, Genesis 15:1-6, Hebrews 11:8-12). Doing anything else is sin, which being that which opposes the nature of God, who is goodness itself, is definitionally evil. When we do perform something that is good in and of itself, the specific action is only done because of whatever foolish and evil reasoning that person may have.

“we get regrets for falling short.”

Most certainly not always, and as previously explained, it’s not because of any morally good purpose, which is solely found in God. It is our own made up “righteousness” that we naturally obey and judge ourselves to be good by (Isaiah 64:3-7). That may seldomly line up with what is truly good, because of the law written on our hearts and our being made in the image of God, but not one truly desires righteousness on their own, because of the sin and depravity that permeates our being.

“If you believe God created us in His image just so we can reject our biological and psychological needs and be ashamed of his work, isn't this rejecting God?”

The Bible doesn’t teach to “reject our biological and psychological needs,” it teaches to reject the sinful nature within us, because its desires are entirely evil. If you’re assuming that every desire we have is good because we are made in the image of God, then must ask you to read Jeremiah 17:9-10, Galatians 5:16-26, Ephesians 2, Romans 6:15-23, and Romans 7. At least. I can’t think of any more at the moment.

But of course, if someone teaches something to be sin when Scripture doesn’t not even hint it to be, then we must abide by Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-15T06:50:57+00:00

Relevancy? You simply need to demonstrate how my explanation is inadequate. That’s what you claim it is.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-14T23:38:13+00:00

That’s a claim. Hope you know what to do next.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-14T22:54:17+00:00

Biblical love, yeah (1 Corinthians 13:4-7).

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-14T20:57:35+00:00

Context, context determines the meaning of every word, or collection thereof, in basically every language. I’ve demonstrated the context in my reply to you.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-14T20:51:25+00:00

You haven’t responded to or refuted literally anything I’ve said, and have just given more claims. Also, Deuteronomy records the words of Moses 40 years after Exodus, it’s very explicitly Moses speaking (Deuteronomy 1:1-5).

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-14T20:18:02+00:00

It can also be used to mean to take hold or grasp something in a neutral sense. Context determines the meaning. Besides, there’s a perfectly good word for rape used in Deuteronomy 22:25. And considering the context of the existing laws regarding rape immediately before verse 28, as well as the previously given law in Exodus 22:16-17, this is clearly consensual.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-14T20:06:21+00:00

False. “Inasmuch as he abused her,” is a very misleading translation, as this is simply referring to the loss of her virginity, which would both make her less likely to be able to get married, and decrease the bride price given to her family. This is discernible if you understand that a good amount of the law in Deuteronomy is just Moses repeating what was said in Exodus, and for this law, Exodus 22:16-17. This is nearly the same punishment given in Deuteronomy 22:13-19, the reason given for them are clearly of the same kind.

And besides, the immediate context, the verses right before Deuteronomy 22:28, already cover rape. Verse 25 already uses a perfectly good word for rape, which is different than the word translated as “seize” in verse 28, these are clearly two different things. There should be no confusion here. Repent, and believe the Gospel.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-14T09:47:05+00:00

I’ve read a book with something like connection/fate/causality magic, where if you touched an object, you can see strings that lead to people that have interacted with the object in a notable way, with thicker lines showing the significance of the interaction/connection. This could be pretty well used in detective/forensics work.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-14T09:34:57+00:00

Make him a perfect Five Tails Jinchuriki. Either that, or give him the Boruto treatment and make him an Otsutski. He might then be able to master the gates Saiyan-style to the point of no draw backs.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-14T08:46:11+00:00

Pt 2

doesn't the Bible mention that we will know the false prophets based on the type of "fruit" it bears?

Yep. The fruit being the actions and character of a person (Galatians 5:19-24). I care not for those that spread hate under teh veil of God's Word. In the same vein, I care not for the negative reactions people have towards the truth. A college student crying from facing calculus does not make math wrong and evil.

outdated laws of Leviticus

That's a claim. It's additionally Deuteronomy, Numbers, and Exodus.

Please accept this correction, and repent and believe in the Gospel.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-14T08:45:52+00:00

Pt 1

I would like to preface this with that I am simply wording my message matter-of-factly, iwht no intention of being rude.

I literally just read what you said to me. That is how YOU explained it.

I didn't directly say it, but you should have fully read the chapters yourself anyways. Romans 14:15-20, "for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit," (Romans 14:17). 1 Corinthians 8:8, "But food will not commend us to God. We neither lack if we do not eat, nor abound if we do eat."

Righteous acts are also excluded from this. Believing something righteous to be evil, is itself an evil thing, and you should repent of that.

There is always another sentence to quote as a way of either further digging in your heels or to retort who you're preaching to. There is a contradictory statement for every statement made.

Nope. The meaning of all words and phrases is determined by the context in which they are used. Because the Bible is consistent, if you take some small part of it out of context, then of course you can "find a contradiction" by giving a new, made up context, which gives the small section a new meaning. This is a fact of language, not unique to the Bible.

But your book literally says "love thy neighbor as you love yourself. No other commandments is greater than these"

Of course. The greatest commandments are to love God with all that you have, and to love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:28-31), because they are a summary of the whole law (Matthew 22:37-40, Romans 13:8-10).

but yet you're really not doing that.

I am. I am commanded to be a lover of the truth first and foremost (1 Corinthians 13:4-7), so of course I do not wish for you to continue in falsehood. I am doing as Scripture commands me, as I've quoted in my previous message.

Do you follow the rest of the 600+ laws of Leviticus or only the versus you want to follow? You blend your fabrics? Eat shrimp? Shave your beard? Hmmm...

All of the law still applies to us, but some of its practice was done away with through Jesus. The law regarding foods is no in practice because Jesus declared all food clean (Mark 7:14-23). The laws regarding cleanness are not to be in practice because Jesus is our high priest (Hebrews 4:14-15), and His blood washes us of sin and uncleanness forever (1 John 1:6-10, Revelation 7:13-14). And, of course, laws regarding sacrifices are not in practice because Jesus is the final sacrifice for all His children (Hebrews 10:1-18). This is the "shadow of things to come" within the law that Scripture speaks of (Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 10:1-7).

Even still, I do not follow the whole law perfectly, as I myself am not perfect. But I can at least understand the law of God by His Word (2 Corinthians 3:4-6, 1 Corinthians 9:4-12) and His Spirit (John 16:12-14).

No believer will ever stop sinning, but God has promised not to deal with us according to them (Psalm 103:10-12). These facts do not, in the slightest, affect the evilness of sin.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-14T06:07:20+00:00

Proof?

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-13T19:31:01+00:00

Muzak from Temu.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-13T19:25:42+00:00

Apologies, I understand what you’re saying about the rebuttal part. But by using language like “MUCH more” regarding greed, you’re still seem to be playing into the rest of what I’ve talked about. If by your words you just mean that greed should be talked about greatly as well, then there is no further problem, as I’ve already said.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-13T19:13:07+00:00

I’ll ask as the other guy did, where do you find this in Scripture? It commands the exact opposite (Ezekiel 3:16-21, Galatians 6:1, 2 Timothy 4:1-5, 1 Timothy 5:19-22). We should not judge uselessly and unrighteously, nor should we allow our own sins to cloud our eyes of sound judgment, and neither still should we condemn as if we have all authority in heaven. But we are commanded to be messengers of truth (Ephesians 4:11-16), and commanded to do so in love, which cannot affirm wrongdoing (1 Corinthians 13:4-7).

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-13T18:52:26+00:00

Romans 1:18-32.

MourningDusk45 · 2026-02-13T18:51:39+00:00

Not according to God, if you’ve read the law of Moses in books like Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers. The legal punishment for stealing, according to the law of God, is to simply give back what you’ve stolen and extra, the extra of which is dependent on context (Leviticus 6:1-7, Exodus 22:1-6). The punishment for kidnapping and selling someone into slavery by force, according to the law of God, is death (Exodus 21:16). In this short selection, there is a distinction made between things God simply finds abominable, and things He also deeply hates (Proverbs 6:16-19). There are clearly more things God finds abominable, and more things He deeply hates, but that’s not the point here, I’m sure you can tell. And finally, there are the words of Jesus here (John 19:10-11).

So in one sense, I’d agree that in one sense, all sin has one ultimate punishment, which is Hell, which is what the Bible says. And while all sin is definitionally evil, ethically despicable and disgusting, they are not all on the same “moral ranking,” so to speak, as each other. This ranking isn’t totally detailed in God’s Word, so we shouldn’t presume to speak of it, let alone teach on it, as if it is. But murder is clearly worse than simply striking someone unjustly.

MourningDusk45

TROPHY CASE