₦airaland Forum

michelin89:
Can you also prove your assertion from science?

What? Next thing you'll be asking for a ban on condoms, day after pills, birth control pills because they kill potentials human beings? Are we serious?

We can as well stop having intimacy for pleasure and every sexual encounter must be for procreation. We sure don't want to deny POTENTIAL human beings of their right to live.

I already did.

That would be ideal. When we have stronger family lives we have better society, this is just something sociologists know.

But then again we don't care to think that way do we? We must all become rabbits that hump everything in sight.

Chrisbenogor:
If I am seeing stuff like this I must be smoking something . . .or wait was that what you really typed


;DHow body na?
I see you are tackling some new guys with fresh blood here, me I don big pass quote and reply for here, this matter is simple, at what point is something a human being? But wait I thought there was something like chemical abortions no?

I think either way you're smoking.

New guys with fresh blood?

I've been gone for over a year. So I don't know what's going on with people here.

Body dey o, just have much to do.
How are you?

@lady
it's okay now let me answer what you ve already written

Be sure to read everything first. and please apply logic.

Oh also a quick question o. Why did the Jews want to crucify Jesus?

So you see my dear whoever told you that Jesus never claimed to be God and never spoke of the Trinity lied to you.

Not just that but he did say "Baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" Direct reference to Trinity.

It is very easy to deceive people by Isolating scriptural passages, this is how many people are deceived into heretical beliefs. They pick that one passage that seems to support their view, but when viewed in light of the other passages really does not, and when viewed in the historical context (language, time, and culture the book of the Bible was written in) does not support their view either.

But they will never tell you that. Why? Because they know they are wrong, and have tremendous fear of you finding that out.

by the way all above is attributed to www.scripturecatholic.com, so no plagiarising here.

[size=14pt]II. The Holy Spirit is a Person[/size]


Luke 12:12 - the Holy Spirit will teach you in that hour what you ought to say. He (the Holy Spirit) teaches the faithful.

John 14:17 - the world neither sees Him or knows Him ("Him" is referring to the Holy Spirit). You know Him for He dwells with you.

John 14:26 - the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all I have said to you.

John 15:26 - the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness to me. He = the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a person, not a thing.

John 16:7 - if I do not go, the Counselor will not come to you. But if I go, I (Jesus) will send Him to you.

John 16:7 - this verse also proves the filioque (that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son). The Father isn’t just loving the Son; the Son is loving the Father in return, in the same Spirit of love. Therefore, the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

John 16: 8 - when He (the Holy Spirit) comes, He will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.

John 16:13-14 - when the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you into all truth. He will speak, He will declare and He will glorify.

Acts 8:29; 10:19-20; 11:12;13:2; Rev. 22:17 - the Holy Spirit speaks to us like a human person.

Acts 15:25,28 - it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. The Holy Spirit, as a divine person, thinks and makes judgments.

Rom. 8:26 - the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words. It is the Spirit Himself, not itself.

Rom. 8:16 - it is the Spirit Himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God. The Spirit is a person.

Rom. 15:30 - I appeal to you by the Lord Jesus and the love of the Spirit. Only persons, rational beings, can love.

1 Cor. 12:11 - the Holy Spirit apportions His gifts to each one individually as He wills. He is the third person of the Godhead.

2 Cor. 13:14 - the Holy Spirit can have fellowship with the faithful like a human person.

Eph. 4:30 - the Holy Spirit can be grieved, just as human persons can be grieved.

[size=14pt]I. The Holy Spirit is God[/size]

Job 33:4 - "The Spirit of God made me and the breath of the Almighty has given me life." Only God is the creator of life.

Matt. 12:31; Luke 12:10 - Jesus says blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Only God can be blasphemed.

John 4:24 - God is a spirit (the Holy Spirit) and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. Only God is worshiped.

John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7 - the Father and the Son send the Counselor, the Holy Spirit - Isaiah 9:6 - the Counselor is Mighty God.

Acts 5:3-4,9 - Peter tells Ananias that he lied to the Holy Spirit, and that he has not lied to men, but to God (the Holy Spirit).

Acts 28:25-27 - the Holy Spirit said "Go to this people and say, " - Isaiah 6:8-10 - the Lord said "Go to this people and say, "

Rom. 8:11 - the Spirit that raised Jesus up from the dead - Gal. 1:1 - God the Father raised Jesus from the dead.

1 Cor. 2:10 - the Spirit searches everything - Jer. 17:10 - the Lord searches the heart.

1 Cor. 3:16 - you are the temple of God - 1 Cor. 6:19 - you are the temple of the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor. 12:4-6 - there are varieties of gifts but the same Spirit, varieties of service but the same Lord, varieties of working but same God.

2 Cor. 3:6,17 - we are ministers of the covenant in the Spirit which gives life. Now the Lord (God) is the Spirit.

Heb. 10:16 - the Holy Spirit said this is the covenant I will make - Jer. 31:33 - the Lord said this is the covenant I will make.

1 Peter 1:2 - we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit - 1 Thess. 5:23 - the very God of peace sanctifies you wholly.

[size=14pt]V. Jesus Christ is Worshiped[/size]

Rev. 4:9-11; 5:8,12-14; 7:11-12 - both Jesus and the Father are worshiped. The Greek word for worship is "proskuneo" which always means the worship of God.

Matt. 2:2,11 - the magi who came to see the newborn Jesus came to worship Him.

Matt. 8:2 - a leper came to Jesus and worshiped Him without rebuke.

Matt. 14:33 - the apostles who were in the boat worshiped Jesus without rebuke.

Matt. 28:9 - Jesus' disciples took His feet and worshiped Him without rebuke.

Matt. 28:17 - Jesus' disciples saw Him and then worshiped Him.

Mark 5:6 - the man with the unclean spirit ran to Jesus and worshiped Him.

Luke 1:11 - Mary accepts Elizabeth's declaration "the Mother of my Lord" = the Mother of my God (Elizabeth used the word "Adonai" which means "Lord God".

Luke 24:52 - as Jesus ascended into heaven, the apostles worshiped Him.

John 9:38 - the blind man who was cured by Jesus worshiped Him.

John 20:28 - Jesus accepts Thomas' statement "My Lord and my God!" Literally, "the Lord of me and the God of me!" (in Greek, "Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou".

[size=14pt]IV. Jesus' Miracles Testify that He is God[/size]

Matt. 1:23; Mark 1:27,35 - Jesus was conceived in the virginal womb of the Blessed Mother.

Matt. 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; John 1:32 - God's Spirit descends upon Jesus and the Father declares Jesus to be His Son.

Matt. 4:23-24; 9:35;15:30; Mark 1:34; 3:10; 6:5; Luke 4:40; 7:10; 13:13; 14:4; John 4:52 - Jesus miraculously cures illness and disease.

Matt. 7:35 - Jesus cures a deaf person with a speech impediment.

Matt. 8:3; Mark 1:41; Luke 5:13; 17:14 - Jesus cures leprosy.

Matt. 9:21-22; Mark 5:27-34; Luke 8:44 - the hem of Jesus' cloak cures the woman with the hemorrhage. See also Matt. 14:36.

Matt. 8:13; 9:7; Mark 2:9; Luke 5:25 - Jesus cures those who are paralyzed.

Matt. 8:15; Mark 1:31; Luke 4:39 - Jesus cures Peter's mother-in-law's fever.

Matt. 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24 - Jesus calms the storm. Even the wind and sea obey Him.

Matt. 8:32; 9:33; 12:22; 15:28; 17:18; Mark 1:26,34; 3:11; 5:13; 7:30; 9:26; Luke 4:35,41; 8:33; 9:42; 11:14 - Jesus has power over demons.

Matt. 9:4; 12:25; Luke 6:8; 11:17 - Jesus knows people's thoughts.

Matt. 9:25; Mark 5:24; John 11:44 - Jesus raises people from the dead.

Matt. 9:30; 12:22; 20:34; 21:14; Mark 8:25; 10:52; Luke 7:21; 18:42; John 9:11 - Jesus cures the blind.

Matt. 12:13; Mark 3:5; Luke 6:10 - Jesus cures the man with the withered hand.

Matt. 14:19-20; 5:36-37; Mark 6:41-42; 8:7-8; Luke 9:16-17; John 6:11 - Jesus multiplies the loaves and fish and feeds the crowd of thousands.

Matt. 14:26; Mark 6:48; John 6:19 - Jesus walks on water.

Matt. 15:21; 16:21; 17:9,22; 20:18-19; 26:2; Mark 10:33-34; Luke 9:44; 17:25; 18:32-34 - Jesus predicts His passion.

Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:29 - Jesus is transfigured in glory.

Matt. 17:27 - Jesus miraculously has a shekel appear in the mouth of a fish.

Matt. 21:2-3; Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30 - Jesus predicts that a colt would be available for Him.

Matt. 21:19; Mark 11:14,20 - Jesus curses the fig tree and it withers.

Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:32 - Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 A.D.

Matt. 26:21-25; Mark 14:18-20; Luke 22:21; John 13:21,26 - Jesus predicts Judas' betrayal.

Matt. 26:26-28; Mk. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus changes bread and wine into His body and blood.

Matt. 26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34; John 13:38 - Jesus predicts Peter's denial.

Matt. 27:51-54; Mark 15:38-39 - supernatural events occur at Jesus' death.

Matt. 28:9; Mark 16:9,12,14; Luke 7:14-15; 8:54-55; 24:5,31,36; John 20:14,19,26; 21:1-14 - Jesus rises from the dead.

Mark 14:13; Luke 22:10 - Jesus predicts that a man carrying a jug of water will show them the furnished room for the Passover.

Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51 - Jesus ascends into heaven.

Luke 2:13-14 - the angels praise Jesus' birth.

Luke 5:7; John 21:6 - Jesus directs the miraculous catch of fish.

Luke 24:31 - Jesus has the ability to vanish out of sight.

John 2:9 - Jesus changes water into wine.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred in Rome around 67 A.D.

John 20:19,26 - Jesus has the ability to appear even when the doors are locked.

[size=14pt]III. Jesus Christ Claims to be God[/size]

Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12 - Jesus tells satan, "you shall not tempt the Lord your God" in reference to Himself.

Matt. 5:21-22; 27-28; 31-32; 33-34; 38-39; 43-44 - Jesus makes Himself equal to God when He declares, "You heard it said, but I say to you, "

Matt. 7:21-22; Luke 6:46 - not everyone who says to Jesus, "Lord, Lord." Jesus calls Himself Lord, which is God.

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20; 7:48 - Jesus forgives sins. Only God can forgive sins.

Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5 - Jesus says that He is "Lord of the Sabbath." He is the Lord of God's law which means He is God.

Matt. 18:20 - Jesus says where two or three are gathered in His name, there He is in the midst of them.

Matt. 21:3; Luke 19:31,34 - Jesus calls himself "Lord." "The Lord has need of them."

Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:70 - Jesus acknowledges that He is the Son of God.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus said He is with us always, even unto the end of the world. Only God is omnipresent.

Mark 14:36 - Jesus calls God "Abba," Aramaic for daddy, which was an absolutely unprecedented address to God and demonstrates Jesus' unique intimacy with the Father.

Luke 8:39 - Luke reports that Jesus said "tell how much God has done for you." And the man declared how much Jesus did.

Luke 17:18 - Jesus asks why the other nine lepers did not come back to give praise to Him, God, except the Samaritan leper.

Luke 19:38,40 - Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. If these were silent, the very stones would cry out.

John 5:18 - Jesus claimed to be God. The Jews knew this because Jesus called God His Father and made Himself equal to God. This is why Jesus was crucified.

John 5:21-22 - Jesus gives life and says that all judgment has been given to Him by the Father.

John 5:23 - Jesus equates Himself with the Father, "whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."

John 6:38 - Jesus says, "For I have come down from heaven."

John 8:12 - Jesus says "I am the light of the world." - 1 John 1:5 - God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.

John 8:19 - Jesus says, "if you knew me, you would know my Father also."

John 8:23 - Jesus says that He is not of this world. Only God is not of this world.

John 8:58 - Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Exodus 3:14 - "I AM" means "Yahweh," which means God.

John 10:18 - Jesus says He has the power to lay down His life and take it up again - Gal. 1:1 - God raised Jesus to life.

John 10:30 - Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." They are equal. The Jews even claimed Jesus made Himself equal to God. Jesus' statement in John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I," cannot contradict John 10:30 (the Word of God is never in conflict). Jesus' statement in John 14:28 simply refers to His human messianic role as servant and slave, which He, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, undertook in the flesh.

John 10:36 - again, Jesus claims that He is "the Son of God."

John 10:38; 14:10 - "the Father is in me and I am in the Father" means the Father and Son are equal.

John 12:45 - Jesus says, "He who sees Me sees Him who sent Me." God the Father is equal to God the Son.

John 13:13 - Jesus says, "You call me Teacher and Lord and you are right for so I AM."

John 14:6 - Jesus says "I am the way, and the truth and the life." Only God is the way, the truth and the life.

John 16:15 - Jesus says, "all things that the Father has are Mine." Jesus has everything God has which makes Him God.

John 16:28 - Jesus says that "He came from the Father and has come into the world."

John 17:5,24 - Jesus' desire is for us to behold His glory which He had before the foundation of the world.

John 20:17 - Jesus distinguishes His relationship to the Father from our relationship by saying "My Father and your Father."

Rev. 1:8 - God says He is the "Alpha and the Omega." In Rev. 22:13, Jesus also says He is the "Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end." The only possible conclusion one can reach is that Jesus is equal to the Lord God.

Rev. 1:17 - Jesus says again, "I am the First and the Last." This is in reference to the God prophesied by Isaiah in Isaiah 44:6, 41:4, 48:12.

Rev. 1:18 - Jesus, the First and the Last, also says "I died, and behold, I am alive for evermore." When did God ever die? He only did in the humanity of Jesus Christ our Lord and God.

Rev. 2:8 - Jesus again says, "The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life." When did God die and come to life? In our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[size=14pt]II. Jesus Christ's Witnesses Claim that Jesus is God[/size]

John 1:1 - John writes, "the Word was God." This is clear evidence of Jesus Christ's divinity. (Note: in the Jehovah's bible, the passage was changed to "Word was a god." This is not only an embarrassing attempt to deny the obvious divinity of Christ, but it also violates the first commandment and Isaiah 43:10 because it acknowledges that there is more than one God).

John 1:2-3 - He (the Word) was in the beginning with God and all things were made through Him (the Word who was God).

John 1:14 - the Word (who is God) became flesh (Jesus) and dwelled among us, full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 - the Greek word for "only-begotten" is "monogenes" which means unique, only member of a kind. It does not mean created.

John 1:51 - the angels of God - Matt. 13:41 - Son of Man's angels; 2 Thess. 1:7 - Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His angels.

John 3:5 - Jesus says without baptism one cannot enter into the Kingdom of God - Col. 1:13 - Paul says this is Jesus' Kingdom.

John 6:68-69 - Peter confesses that Jesus is the Son of God who has the words of eternal life.

Acts 2:36 - God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ - Acts 4:24 - Sovereign Lord who made heaven and earth. This means Jesus is God.

Acts 3:15 - Peter said the men of Israel "killed the Author of Life." This can only be God - Acts 14:15 - who made all things.

Acts 20:28 - to care for the Church of God which He obtained with His own blood. This means God shed His blood. When? When He died on the cross. This means Jesus is God.

Rom. 1:1 - Paul is an apostle of the Gospel of God - Rom. 15:19 - Paul preached the Gospel of Christ.

Rom. 7:22 - Paul says he delights in the law of God - Gal. 6:2 - Paul says fulfill the law of Christ.

Rom. 8:9 - Paul refers to both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.

Rom. 9:5 - Jesus Christ is God over all, blessed forever.

Rom. 11:36 - God for from Him through Him and to Him are all things - Heb. 2:10 - Jesus for whom and by whom are all things.

1 Cor. 15:9 - Paul says he persecuted the Church of God - Matt. 16:18; Rom. 16:16 - it is the Church of Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:28 - God may be all in all - Colossians 3:11 - Christ is all and in all.

Gal. 1:5 - God the Father to whom be the glory forever - 2 Peter 3:18 - to Jesus Christ be the glory both now and forever.

Phil. 2:6-7 - Jesus was in the form of God, but instead of asserting His equality with God, emptied Himself for us.

Col. 1:15 - Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the "firstborn" of all creation. The Greek word for "first-born" is "prototokos" which means eternal preexistence (it never means created).

Col. 1:26 - God's saints - 1 Thess. 3:13 - at the coming of Jesus Christ with all His saints.

Col. 2:9 - in Jesus Christ the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. He is the whole and entire fullness of the indivisible God in the flesh.

Titus 1:1 - Paul says he is a servant of God - Rom. 1:1 - Paul says he is a servant of Jesus Christ.

Titus 1:3-4 - God our Savior = Christ our Savior = Jesus Christ is God.

Titus 2:11 - the grace of God that has appeared to save all men - Acts 15:11 - through the grace of Jesus we have salvation.

Titus 2:13 - we await our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Titus 3:4 - 3:6 - great God and Savior Jesus Christ = God our Savior = Jesus Christ our Savior = Jesus is God.

Heb. 1:6 - when God brings His first-born into the world, let all the angels of God worship Him. Only God is worshiped.

Heb. 1:8 - God calls the Son "God." But of the Son He says, "Thy Throne Oh God is forever and ever."

Heb. 1:9 - God calls the Son "God." "Therefore, God, Thy God has anointed Thee."

Heb. 1:10 - God calls the Son "Lord." "And thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning and the heavens are your work."

Heb. 13:12 - Paul says Jesus sanctifies the people with His blood - 1 Thess. 5:23 - the God of peace sanctifies the people.

2 Peter 1:1 - to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

1 John 5:20 - "that we may know Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."

Jude 4 - Jude calls Jesus Christ our only Master and Lord. Our only Master and Lord is God Himself.

Rev. 2:8 - the angel of the church in Smyrna wrote, "The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life." See Isa. 44:6.

Rev. 22:6 - the Lord God sends angels - Rev. 22:16 - Jesus sends angels

ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT ANY 'GOD' THAT IS DEFENDED BY MAN IS NOT THE TRUE GOD.

Rubbish, we are asked to defend our faith.

@ Poster.

[size=14pt]I. Old and New Testament Parallels of God the Father and God the Son[/size]

Exodus 3:14 - God says "I AM who I AM" - John 8:58 - Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM" in reference to Himself.

Deut. 4:2; 12:32 - the Lord God commands that we not add or take away from His word - Rev. 22:18-19 - Jesus so commands us not to add or take away from His word.

Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6 - the Lord kills and makes alive again and raises up - John 5:21 - the Son raises and gives life.

Deut. 32:39 - neither is there any that can deliver out of God's hand - John 10:28 - nor shall any pluck out of Jesus' hand.

Deut. 32:43 - rejoice, ye heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him - Heb. 1:6 - the "Him" is Jesus the Son.

2 Sam. 22:3 - God is the horn of salvation - Luke 1:68-69 - Jesus is the horn of salvation.

Psalm 19:7 - the law of the Lord is perfect - Gal. 6:2 - fulfill the law of Christ.

Psalm 24:10 - the Lord is the King of glory - 1 Cor. 2:8 - Jesus is the Lord of glory.

Psalm 45:7 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. God calls someone else God. This someone else is His eternally begotten Son - Heb. 1:9 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. cf. Heb. 1:8, 10.

Psalm 62:12 - the Lord God renders to each according to his work - Matt. 16:27; Rev. 22:12 - Jesus so renders to each according to his work.

Psalm 71:5 - the Lord God is our hope - 1 Tim. 1:1 - the Lord Jesus Christ who is our hope.

Psalm 89:27 – I will make him the first-born, the highest (“elyon” which refers to God) of the kings of the earth - John 18:36-27 – Jesus is this first-born king.

Psalm 97:9 - the Lord God is above all - John 3:31 - Jesus is above all.

Psalms 110:1 - the Lord (Yahweh) said to my Lord - Jesus = Yhwh - Acts 2:34-36 - God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

Psalm 148:1-2 - the angels worship the Lord God - Heb. 1:6 - the angels worship Jesus. Only God is worshiped.

Prov. 3:12 - who the Lord loves He corrects - Rev. 3:19 - who Jesus loves He corrects.

Isaiah 7:14 - a virgin will bear a Son named Emmanuel which means "God is with us" - Matt. 1:23 - this Son is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

Isaiah 9:6 - the child to be born shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 25:8 - God swallows up death in victory - 2 Tim. 1:10 - Jesus abolishes death and brings life and immortality.

Isaiah 40:8 - the Word of God shall stand forever - Matt. 24:35 - the Words of Jesus shall not pass away.

Isaiah 42:8 - God gives His glory to no other - John 17:5; Heb. 1:3 - yet Jesus has the same glory as the Father.

Isaiah 43:14 - the Lord God is redeemer - Titus 2:14 - Jesus is the redeemer.

Isaiah 44:6 - the Lord God is the first and the last - Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13 - Jesus is the first and the last.

Isaiah 45:19 - I, the Lord God, did not speak in secret - John 18:20 - Jesus said "I have said nothing secretly."

Isaiah 45:23 - to God, every knee shall bow and every tongue swear. Phil. 2:10-11 - at Jesus' name every knee should bow and tongue confess.

Isaiah 48:17 - God is the Holy One - Acts 3:14 - Jesus is the Holy One.

Isaiah 60:19 - God is everlasting light - Revelation 21:23 - Jesus the Lamb is eternal light.

Jer. 17:10 - the Lord searches the hearts and repays us according to our deeds - Rev. 2:23 - Jesus searches the hearts and repays us according to our deeds.

Ezek. 1:26-28; Daniel 7:9 - God's glorious appearance - Rev. 1:13-16 - Jesus' glorious appearance.

Ezek. 34:11-31 - God the Father is the shepherd of the flock - John 10:7-29 - Jesus is the shepherd of the flock.

Ezek. 34:16 - God seeks to save that which was lost - Luke 19:10 - Jesus seeks to save that which was lost.

Ezek. 34:17 - God judges between cattle, rams and goats - Matt. 25:32 - Jesus judges and separates the goats from the sheep.

Ezek. 43:2 - God's voice was like a noise of many waters - Rev. 1:15 - Jesus' voice was like the sound of many waters.

Dan. 2:47 - the Lord is the God of gods and the Lord of Lords - Rev. 17:14 - Jesus the Lamb is the Lord of Lords

I think it is appropriate for the father to have a say, but ultimately it is the woman's body and time, and the final decision, in my humble opinion, must be hers.

But that's not the case in fact. She destroys another person's body. The fetus does have a body, it's not some invisible thing, it is visible, and it is living, and it is destroyed.

A spermatozoa and an egg are not potentials anything. They are simply spermatozoas and eggs.

Can you prove this from science?

Chrisbenogor:
An orange seed is an orange tree I must cut down on the weed

You smoke weed?

Now, I will grant you that a fetus is a human person from the moment of conception and does have a right to life. Your argument then becomes that A fetus is a person, every person has a right to life, so a fetus has a right to life. . . and even though a mother has a right to decide what occurs in and/or happens to her body, the fetus' (person's) right to life outweighs that. Am I correct? I just want to make sure before I deal with that.

Ofcourse it does, just like my right to life trumps your right to shoot a gun at me.

If you wish to do something to your body (which isn't fully a right, seeing that no one has the right to suicide) your right to do something to your body ends at my right to life. If doing something to your body affects my right to life, then my right to life trumps you doing something to your body. If this doesn't hold, then all hell breaks looose, and I can claim that my right to shoot trumps your right to life, do you agree with that?

There are also women who have had abortions and lived happily ever after. I don't think you can decide for everyone based on the few people you are familiar with. Just my opinion though.

And I never attempted to do such, but I've never come across a woman who wasn't affected by her abortion either mentally or physically.

You are pretty much arguing that a fetus is a person (or should be considered one) from the moment of conception, because it can potentially develop into a human being; but I don't think that quite does it

A sperm and an egg apart are potential human beings, a sperm and an egg infused is human life, I gave the definition of that already. It's not my made up definition it is biology's definition, it is science's definition.

It isn't an emotional appeal, it is an objective scientific fact.

An orange seed can develop into an orange tree, but an orange seed is NOT an orange tree.

By scientific definition, yeah it is.

While I do agree that a fetus develops into a human person before birth, I do not believe that a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is a human person, nor entitled to all the right a human person is.

Then what is it? and can you prove it from science?

In general, I will consider other variables e.g my safety, before I do anything. The life directly at risk will not be the only consideration

And that is fine, you cannot put one life in danger for the sake of another unless it is your life and you are making that sacrifice.

You should instead try every possible way to save the person without putting your life in danger. But then again, what do Police officers, fire fighters, military, and medical officials do? They put their life at risk for the sake of others.

A child is, IMO, entitled to moral consideration. A fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is not, IMO, entitled to the same moral consideration that a child is. What exactly is it about about a fetus that makes it entitled to the same consideration a child is?

It has the same genetics?
Morality is not the determination of the human being

<Your claim is based on being genetically human, and not being morally human. As I pointed out earlier, if what we are talking about is genetic humanity, I should be in jail for over-self-service. Having human genes, or DNA, or whateva is not the same as being a human being. And being human life does not mean all others must do all it takes to preserve your life, regardless of cost to them>

Well then if that's the case pedophiles, molestors, sexual abusers, murderers and such are not human beings. If only morality determine us to be human beings, actually by that logic none of us are human beings, bcus at some point in our life we have been immoral.

Infact you have it backwards, if we are only just moral genetic human beings then whacking off should land you in jail. But bcus we are genetic human beings by science/nature whacking off doesn't land u in jail, neither does adultery and the likes.

The only objective way to differentiate us from other mammals is through our genetics not bcus we are moral, take a look around, not a lot of people are moral.

I have never heard any scientist base proof on our humanity by citing morality as the main source, but rather genetics.
It is our DNA that proves us as humans, it is our genetic make up that proves us as humans.

When the scientists were trying to see if blacks were indeed human, they looked at our genetic make up rather than morality. Their morality was already screwed up. If it was mainly moral, they would've taken a look at the anatomy of the black male and black female and see that they have the same anatomy as that of the white male and female. But no they needed to check the genetic make up.

I don't know what science you're studying, but it's never used morality as the basis of humanity.

Going by this logic, Charles Dawkins would not be human.

No. In my opinion, they is not the same. Infants are sentient beings with relatively well developed brains and nervous systems. They are sentient beings, and sentience is, IMO, a fundamental criterion for moral consideration. A fetus without a functioning brain or nervous system is not eligible for the same moral consideration of a sentient being that can be harmed in ways that matter to him/her. And is IMO, definitely not eligible to the kind of moral consideration that will trump the consideration of a fully developed sentient human.

Even though it has a heart beat at week 4?
A well developed cardiovascular system at week 4, many women don't even know they're pregnant at this point.
But let me address your statement directly

1. Infants brain development at the time of birth are the same as when in the womb, after the embryonic stage not much development takes place, all that is needed to recognise it as a human is already in place. This is the science they refuse to tell ppl about. It is developed enough to cause the heart to beat. I saw this with my own eyes.
2. This brain development happens at week 8 and before even, because after this time, there are movements in the womb, neurons are already in place and function.
3. By week 12 you can already see the brain, and all things functioning properly.
4. The brain has to be developed enough, in order for the other body parts to develop and start functioning. So it is enough.
5. An infants brain is not well developed, it is still developing, what the infant can recognise is the same as it can recognise as a fetus.
6. Example, my Godson, when in the womb his mother called him Preston, when he came out she would call him Emmanuel, he wouldn't respond, but when called Preston, he responded, you will see him make movements that he recognises not just the voice but the name. This was recognisable from the womb.

As for pain "Pain pathways run from sensory receptors in the skin to those in the brain. Nerve endings that sense pain are at least as dense in the skin of a newborn as in an adult. Such receptors appear around the mouth in the 5th week after conception, and are present in the face, the palms, and the soles of the feet by the 9th week, spreading to the trunk, arms, and legs by the 13th week, and to all areas of the skin by the 18th week. The development of the neocortex, the largest part of the brain, begins at 6 weeks after conception, and by 18 weeks a full complement of nerve cells is present. The evidence thus suggests that by late in gestation the fetus has developed sufficiently to sense pain." - Pain and its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus.
K.J.S. Anand, M.B.B.S., and P.R. Hickey, M.D.,

@ Krayola

I will return, I have to take my 13 and a half weeks pregnant aunt to work.

Bye.

That someone's life depends of you does not mean you are OBLIGATED to preserve that life. If you are the only possible blood match for a dying accident victim who needs blood, it may be a really nice thing for you to offer blood, but for someone to call you a murderer for not keeping that person alive, I think, you would agree is kinda ridiculous, even if you caused the accident. So i think while your post may evoke some emotion from the reader, it, IMO, does little to make a case for the right of a fetus to override that of the mother

One more time, my right to shoot a gun ends at your body. My right to push a knife ends at your body.

The mother's right to do with her body whatever she pleases (no one really has that right actually) ends at the babies body.

The problem here is that the rights given to the mother is no right at all. It is not meant to be legal. The problem is with the law itself.
Just as the right to own slaves was wrong although legal. Just because something is legal does not mean that it should be legal.
The rights to own slaves was never supposed to be legal because black people are human beings. But how did they get it to be legal? By stating that blacks were not really human, if you are unaware of it please look up the Tuskegee experiment, where scientists carried out experiments on blacks to determine if they are human.

The same is being done to the unborn child. To give women the rights they are not naturally given, they've resorted to calling the unborn baby anything but human. What was done to blacks is being done to the unborn children.

With or without the law we all have the right to life, beginning at conception, ending at natural death.

as I was saying, every other right is limited.

The right to be angry ends at me taking out my anger.

But the right to life is not limited this is by natural law, it is called philosophy, plain and simple.

First and foremost I have the right to live, bcus if I do not live I do not have any other rights.

Even dead ppl have more rights that an unborn child. A dead person has the right to their property (well at least in the U.S. they do), they have the right to their lawyer.

They will never benefit the society again, they are dead and gone, they will no longer develop as humans develop, but those who can make a difference in our lives do not have the right to live?

On what planet does that make sense?

<Your claim that one (in this case the mother) has a duty to keep another human being alive, no matter what, is, IMO, flawed. It does not consider other morally relevant issues, such as the welfare/health of the mother, the source of the pregnancy, and is not grounded on anything that can stand much critical engagement. By this I mean that you have to show us that being a genetically human fetus is enough to be eligible for moral consideration, and also enough to over-ride the rights of a fully formed human person. >

How is it flawed?

As I have said, my right to throw a fist ends at your face. She damages another person's body. When the child is removed it is with fingers, a heart beat, a brain, it's own skin, it's own lungs. These things are usually developed BEFORE the woman is aware that she is pregnant. There is a reason I posted the developmental stages of the fetus in my first post.

Let's look at the other side of the coin. You're saying that a mother's welfare is much more important than her child, so basically you will not be opposed to me killing my child bcus I can't care for him or her?

Who are we to decide which human being's life is more important?

All our rights that we have today is dependent on our right to life. If I am not alive, I will not have to worry about my welfare. If I am not alive I will not have to worry about my right to vote, neither will I worry about my so called right to an abortion.

Every human right we have is based upon the right to life, so how is it that the other rights trump the right to life?

Funny enough every other right is limited. I have the right to vote if I am a responsible citizen, just bcus I am alive doesn't mean I even have the right to vote.

ok seriously this thing is bothering me, I will continue in the next post, sorry about this.

<Is a spermatozoa human life? What about an egg? Is male self-service murder?>

They are potential for human life, when they do come together, they develop into this person called a baby.

Wile male-service is wrong, it isn't murder, bcus the sperm in and of itself is not developing, and cannot develop until infused with an egg.

<Now let us even grant, just so we don't get bogged down, that once the spermatozoa touches the egg we have human life, there is a huge distance, IMO, between your claim that a human being has a right to life, and your claim (not directly made, but implied) that other human beings are morally OBLIGATED to do anything that is necessary to keep him/her alive. Because, IMO, pretending abortions are only about the fetus is both a distortion and an oversimplification of the issue.>

In direct answer to your statement that there is a difference between having a right to life and another human being being morall OBLIGATED to do anything necessary to keep him/her alive.
My question to you is that if you come across a mother cutting off her child's head will you turn the other way?
If you were standing by and watching a college girl being raped and brutally murdered by a man, you will walk away as if it is not your business?
If you know that someone is about to commit murder, is it not your responsibility to alert the authorities?

I agree it isn't only about the fetus, but my rights to throw a punch ends at your face. You have a right not to be hit by my fist.
As to the dangers of abortion to women, having known many women myself who've had abortions and the psychological problems it has caused for them, some of them even attemtpting to commit suicide, I know abortion does not benefit the woman.

Today there are women who are speaking out about their abortions and the complications in their life that has arisen from it.

Then again there is the father of the child.

I'll give a sory.

A couple becomes pregnant, and they were unmarried. The woman tells him she'll be getting an abortion bcus they were unmarried. So he proposes and starts making arrangements for the wedding. The woman goes ahead with the abortion stating that she doesn't want to be pregnant on her wedding day. The man refuses to marry her for killing his child. There are fathers who grieve in secret bcus if they speak up, society will call them sexist pigs. Not only are the rights of the human inside the womb taken away the rights of the father to grieve is also taken away, for him to seek justice for the murder of his child is taken away.

It amazes me that ppl think it is only the woman that has the right her, considering she didn't get pregnant by herself.

If she has the right to her ovaries, the man has the right to his sperm.

I have to post in several posts, I don't know what's wrong here, but I have trouble posting.

I find it hard to believe that Kunle said such a thing, but if true, Kunle please apologise if u haven't done so.

A ban is unnecessary, I've seen worse insults here, and have received them myself. People are human and are full of flaws and will do stupid things.

Just move on. You can't expect better on a public forum.

<What of those who are on birth control drugs is that murder? No>

Actually it can be murder bcus a lot of BCs are abortificients, meaning after conception they prevent the egg from implanting, development has already started.
So women thinking 'oh i'm on bc, i'm not pregnant' have actually become pregnant but their BC's have prevented their baby from implanting.

IUDs are the worst.

This is why the problem starts with BCs or artificial contraceptives. People expect these things to work and when they don't, they resort to killing the child.
It is a case of ppl not wanting to take responsibilities for their actions.

Planned Parenthood reported that 54% of the women who had abortions were using contraceptives that is 54% more than half of them were on contraceptives.

The problem is with the lack of self control. People need to start controlling themselves, and we need to stop teaching our kids that they're animals with no self-control. This is what distinguishes us from other mammals, we have self-control. We have a more developed frontal lobe, and can think. We don't hump every Tom, Dick, and Emeka just when we want to, or is it every Ngozi, Yemi, and Amina.

Is abortion murder?

Yes it is.

Why?

Because it is life, not just life, but human life. Those who say it is not human life are ignorant of biology and the developments of the child in the womb.

What is life?

"life" is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, functional activity and the continual change preceding death.

the fetus (latin for 'young one') grows, it develops, it is a living mechanism, it is life.

So what life is it?

Is it a human life, a goat life, a plant life?

well let's see, a human begets a human, a goat begets a goat, a parrticular pant's seed begets the particular plant.

Since the fetus is begotten of the human, it is human life. How many of you are comfortable with ending human life?

Women are well into their 4th week before they find out they're pregnant, sometimes they don't even know. My aunt is currently pregnant and she didn't know until the 8th week.

During the 5th week, the brain, spinal cord, and heart are forming. Seeing that women are just finding out they're pregnant when they get an abortion, they are stopping a heart and brain, how many of you are comfortable with that?

By week 6 the heart is pumping blood.

by week 8, u have fingers

by week 11 you have the genitals.

This is the first trimester. If by the first trimester, the baby is pretty much formed or everything is set in place to distingusigh the fingers, the toes, the head, the brain and all, what do u expect to find in the second trimester.

Not just that, but the fetus has its own DNA, it's own body. The woman isn't doing anything to her body, she is destroying the body of another person.
It is a human being, so taking its life is murder.

I mentioned my aunt is pregnant she is now 13 and a half weeks. She had a miscarriage scare (pls pray for her), so to make sure the baby is ok they did an ultrasound. I was there when this happened.

I saw a human body, with fingers, toes, a head. I also saw the brain, and most importantly, I saw the heart beating. He was actually sucking his thumb and had the other had in a waving motion, so I took it he was saying hello to me. He was also very restless, and was moving very much, doing flips and such, it was amazing.

Now some people say it's not viable, well that is called development.
We do not stop developing even after we're outside of the womb, and infants cannot survive by themselves outside of the womb.
Give birth to a child and leave it and see what happens. He or she will die. Why? Because they are not developed to the point of surviving on their own and are still dependent on the mother just as when they are in the womb.

Stating that bcus the fetus isn't viable at a certain time it can be aborted is like saying that bcus infants cannot care for themselves at birth until they develop to the stage of being able to take care of themselves which is what? age 7 maybe? or age 18?, that they can be killed by their mothers bcus she feels she cannot care for the baby or that it is too dependent on her.


point is, we are humans and we are still developing and we all go through different stages of life, just bcus we haven't gotten to one stage does not mean that we are less important at the current stage.

a 12 year old girl who just saw her first menses is not more important than a 2 year old who is no where close to seeing her menses, it is called development.

The difference between killing the fetus in the womb and killing a new born baby, a 2 year old, a 10 year old, a 15 year old, a 20 year old, a 40 year old, a 65 year old is location.


it can be in the womb, the car, the house, the school, and in the case of Andrea Yates the bath tub. either way it is called killing, it is called murder.

To the person who said that "ofcourse it isn't murder, if it was murder it wouldn't be legal". Your logic is highly flawed, here's how. Just because something is legal does not make it the right thing, does not make it humane, does not make it correct.

Case in point? Slavery. It was legal, but because it was legal does it make it right? It was still an afffront to human dignity, and the rights of the human to be counted as human.

To those who say well I won't do it, but who am I to judge another?

That logic is flawed.

Once again, slavery. Whites felt it was their right to own slaves, they felt there was nothing wrong with it.
by your thinking slavery should be legal and each person can make their own personal choice to own slaves or not to own slaves.

Why don't we apply that to logic to murder, stealing, rape, etc?

I personally would not kill, rape, or steal, but if someone else wishes to do so, who am i to judge them?

Does that make sense to you?

All too often ppl confuse judging ppl's souls with judging their actions.

We can correct another when they've done something wrong, we can judge the actions of others, we cannot judge whether or not they're going to hell or heaven.

Saying we can't judge the actions of others means our justice system is wrong and that we shouldn't have the court of law.

We can love the person and hate the sin. Stating that abortion is wrong and murder does not mean you are condemning the person, you are condemning the action, and until we start standing up for what is right, we will no longer be able to tell when someone does something wrong.

And no when it comes to right or wrong, there are no gray areas, it is black and white. Either the ending of innocent life is murder or it is not. It is not a matter of moral relativism.

Please stop spreading info on the sedevacants please. You will give ppl the wrong info on Catholicism and Our Lady of Fatima

Ask the Lord for your daily bread. Pray the Lord's prayer. Don't be greedy, just ask him for enough to take care of your needs and the needs of your family or those whom you're responsible for. So no it is not wrong, infact you are to rely on him. So ask away.

wow I see I've been gone for almost a year and ppl are still too foolish.

@ OP.

Why didn't u read the Bible as a Catholic?
Don't blame ur spiritual laziness on the Catholic Church.

@ Olaadegbu, I see ur still blind and touting ur own made up truth as the truth from God.

@ Chukwudi44

Those who are ignorant of history will be protestant, those who are knowledgeable are Catholics. To know what the early christians believed leads one to Catholicism.

@ OP.

Try finding out what the Church teaches in the first place.

I can also easily test to see whether u were truly Catholic in the first place.

Ahh, it's good to be back

No2Atheism:
@bobbyaf has answered you according, infact i could not have done it better with those answers . . .by the way hope the[b] in-fall-ible [/b]roman popish leader did not break to many in-fall-ible bones


And finally, at lady would you change that picture now i no wan see semeramis, abi u no wan make see dey see ur face again (do not even think about returning that old red dress picture, it is so 1960 . . . instead show something more recent - something that a roman catholic priest can use to commit sexual perversions and then sweep it under the carpet )

And you really expect me to have respect for you. Infact you really expect ANYONE to respect you and your opinions.

Bobbyaf:
You know what I am really happy about is the fact that we have witnessed to Catholics in this thread. They cannot say they didn't hear the testimony. Its either we or they are wrong. We both cannot be right.

In time as we draw closer to final events, I pray that their eyes will be opened. It is my desire that they truly understand what is at stake.

Anyway. I am off to take a nice cold shower, go to the Chapel, and then come do this dreadful homework. Come and do my homework for me PLEASE!!!

You'd say anything or pose any irrelevant question just to win an argument.

No you made a statement and I asked you questions based on that statement. That is how discussions go.

We are referring to graven images that are not to be bowed down to. Its that simple!

So which are those?

Not in every case is bowing a sign of worship, especially when applied to persons of high office. For example, when a person steps away from the queen of England it is natural to walk backwards and make a slight bow. The same is true when approaching the queen, or any monarchy for that matter. Even the governor general receives a slight bow when being approached. The above however is not to be construed as worship. Don't confuse showing respect for the high offices as being the same as worshiping the persons who hold those offices.

Exactly what I and other Catholics have been saying. Just because you see bowing does not mean it is worship. It has now become you and others assuming that if Catholics bow then it must be worship. Where does it say that if Catholics bow it must be worship?

I as a Catholic meet my babes parents and bow as a sign of respect does that automatically mean I am worshipping his parents?

So because the Jews back then might have done makes it right, heh?

No it means that if it was acceptable to God then, it would be acceptable now. God is not inconsistent.
He isn't confined to time and space as we are. He isn't looking at it as "oh well they did it then but that's then and now is now so I'll condemn the Catholics and not the Jews" He also doesn't look at it saying "well I commanded it then, but I change my mind, I don't command it now"

You're so desperate in your attempt to justify pagan practices in the catholic church that you'd rather twist scriptures to suit your argument. So because an object is placed in a temple its seen as an object of worship, or in worship?

According to you? Yes. That's what this has been all about. You saw and then assumed and then accused.
According to you because statues or objects are found in the Catholic Church it is worshipped. Or isn't that what your cry has been about?

God doesn't need your philosophies. He simply commanded "do not bow down to them, nor serve them"

Ok now you're contradicting yourself. Above you said not all forms of bowing is worship, but now you're trying to show that bowing is worship?

It doesn't matter what people did back then. What matters is what God commanded. If they disobeyed must you follow in disobedience. The bible has been silent on many of the ills that prevailed among God's people, but that doesn't mean we should now commit the same wrongs? An example would be multi-marriages that were practiced by kings and patriarchs. Besides, look at those instances when God raised up kings to restore God's law in the land and to demolish the idols that were established.

It does matter what people did back then, because back then foreshadows now. Not just that God commanded back then, if he was ok with something then he is ok with it now. He is not inconsistent as you are implying him to be. But there's no evidence of their disobedience because the "disobedience" is a command from God. So what God is now inconsistent? And this is a matter of commandment and we see it clearly elsewhere where God punishes the Jews for making a golden calf but commands them to make a bronze serpent and an ark and images of cherubims. The difference between them is that the calf was the focus of the worship and the others were not. Same with the Catholic Church, the images are not the focus of worship.

By whose standards are they not idolatrous? Simply showing how God's people erred due to uncontrolled emotional behaviour, doesn't justify what they did. These were humans who were prone like us to make grave mistakes.

By God's standard seeing that he did not punish them as he did with the calf, he would've been consistent don't you think?
So now King Hezekiah and the Israelites erred?
How about you go and read that chapter very well and see that Hezekiah did things pleasing to the Lord. Infact when they bowed before the altar they were doing it to cleanse the temple from the nuisances that had taken place. The burnt offering was to please the Lord and to consecrate themselves to the Lord.

So how did church members come to be bowing to statues in the first place?

Because bowing to statues are not wrong in the first place, the act of bowing doesn't mean worshipping. The statues themselves are not wrong either. It is when the focus is on the statue that it becomes wrong and the Church condemns that. The Jews always had statues in the temple and Christianity is a continuation from Judaism or the fulfimment of Judaism, and if you study the Bible well you will see that Judaism wasn't done away with it was given more meaning and fruitful meaning, a fulfillment. That's where it comes from. And last I checked Jews aren't Pagans.

And even if the RCC didn't suggest then why are the members not corrected?

You're still assuming that bowing down equates to worship even though you yourself have proven that bowing down does not equate to worship. So why would the members be corrected if they're not bowing down in the form of worship?

Yet these ancient symbols were never bowed down to.

Actually they were, I already provided scriptural proof of that. And you yourself already proved that bowing does not equate to worship.

Its one thing to have images and teach that they are used as illustrations, but its quite another thing to see people bow down to them, when God forbids any form of worship involving bowing down to graven images

Ok one more time, you already proved that bowing down does not mean worship so why do you still assume that our bowing down is worship of the object?

The ancient furniture in the temple, or the brazen serpent on the pole, were never once being bowed down to by those who knew better.

It doesn't have to be furniture, it doesn't have to be the bronze serpent, it doesn't have to be the ark, it just has to be an image, and I've already shown from scripture that they did bow down to those images. When the bronze serpent was erected the Israelites were prostrated on the floor and they had to look up to the bronze serpent for their salvation, that alone would be a form of "worship"

And even if anyone did bow down to them you and I know that that act in and of itself was wrong.

No it's not wrong if their focus is not on the image as gold or bronze or metal or mud in itself. If it was for the purpose of serving God it is not wrong, if God is the focus it is not wrong. You yourself alluded to that in your previous posts.

And as long as you fail to see God's command I will certainly make it my duty to constantly remind you Lady. Trust me on that.

How am I wrong when you're initially saying what I'm saying? We're just going in circles here. The only problem is that you refuse to believe that the Catholics aren't doing anything wrong even though by your statements were not wrong. But you absolutely refuse to see that you just vindicated Catholics.
You take it that Catholics must be wrong because that's been your belief for a very long time, even though you just defended the Catholic faith very well. Just the idea of admitting it kills you inside.

Its funny when people failed to acknowledge the mass they were killed.

What? Can you rephrase this so I can better understand you?

Are you now going to tell me what the mass entails? You the outsider looking in will now tell me what goes on in my home? Have you ever been to a mass?

Its funny that Jesus didn't utilize fermented wine when He celebrated the passover supper.

Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus didn't use fermented wine?

Do you realize how many priests have become alcoholics because they drink all that wine at mass? I am sure it isn't grape juice

I know it isn't grape juice, and thank God it isn't because Christ didn't use grape juice. No where in the Bible does it say that Christ used grape juice at the Last supper.
It is one of the crosses they have to bear just as I have to bear mine. There are even more Priests that have never become alcoholics from the wine.

What point?

The point you yourself continue to state.

I don't. I quote scripture, and explain what it means based on other references.

Ok you just contradicted yourself. There's no way you would say you explain what scripture means by not interpreting it. To explain it you interpret it, and if you do this on your own you are doing it privately.
And what references are these, you'll have to go deeper into that.

So how come you do not taste blood when you drink the wine if it were meant to be literal? Why not go all the way?

That's the whole point of it being Jesus in the form of bread and wine.

John 1:14 says "and the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us".

Last time I checked Jesus did literally dwell in the flesh among the disciples. Or is that not what John wrote?

Psalms 119:103, "How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!"

Psalms 34:8, "O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him."

Jeremiah 15:16, "Thy words were found, and I did eat them, "

Ok so the whole Bible should be interpreted symbolically?

So does that now mean that the commandments are symbolic?

In fact in verse 58 of John 6 we see Jesus even explaining to them that this "eating of bread" is not "as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead:" For Jesus to bluntly explain that the type of bread eating He is speaking of is in no way like "eating manna," is a blunt fact that sadly only a natural man void of Heavenly Truth can miss. Wasn't it you a few verses above that said we should not isolate a few verses out of their general context. How come you overlooked Jesus' own explanations concerning what He meant by what He said about eating His flesh, and drinking His blood?

Um actually the fact that Jesus mentions the eating of manna makes it even more literal because the Jews did literally eat manna

The "I AM THAT I AM"

It explains God fully. God IS.