That is interesting, that Moleoch and Cronus was one and the same.....thank you Blade, thank you.

Thank you for your post, however and apparently I must explain something to our liberal friends:

I am an honest man. I live and let live. However, if my life is threatened, I shall stand firm and fight for my own survival. This is not anti American nor anti Christian. This is the law of the jungle, the same law you guys force us to live by.

A hypocrite cannot hold thier fellow humans accountable to a rule or a law, they themselves will not follow. But there is one rule, they can't argue against that is if my life or that of my family and friends life is endangered, I can and will fight to survive, using wh**ever force is necessary.

In the past, I would not have to do that, for the government would do that for me, when the government was just. But when the government t fails to protect the people, it is the duty and right of the people to protect themselves.

That is the course of men since Cain slew Able.

I live on the border as my signature says, and I'll be damned if those damn migrants will take me or my family out!!!!

And migrants k**led a rancher near Portal, New Mexico, and Douglas, Arizona. Plus in Cochise County alone, there are hundreds of cases of migrants holding homeowners at gun point. To the extent there is a sign on federal land that says "use at your own risk" the area is known for human smuggling and drug t***sportation

It is about time citizens have a right to fight back!

What would you do, if migrants came to your door with guns and cartel members? The police can't help you.

I guess the GOP should kick biden off the b****t especially in Texas for treason....

Slatten, your holding a good debate however, if you are going to charge Trump with a crime, why not charge him with something biden isn't already guilty of?

Let's try some anti hypocracy here.

Or Hillarys in 2016....

Biden possibly sold access to immigration to the United States. Why didn't they deport sooner?

But is a private citizen. TRUMP holds no political office at this time. He doesn't really control the GOP cause if he did, don't you think Biden would have already been impeached. Little common sense here

Okay this debate just went over the cliff from reason to insanity, I agree with Blade Runner

That's a two way street bucko

Spot on Blade, let me add that Baal, Ishtar, had other names....but thier human name was

Nimrod for Baal

And Semiramis, who was Ishtar, and she was Nimrods mother and wife. Still looking for the origin of Molech though.

Liberals should take a closer look at this:

Now, there are some virtues directing the active life of man that do not deal with passions, but with actions: for example, t***h, justice, liberality, magnificence, prudence, and art.

Since, however, virtue derives its species from its object or its matter, and since the actions that are the matter or the objects of such virtues are not repugnant to the divine perfection, neither do these virtues, according to their proper species, have anything on whose account they are excluded from the divine perfection.

Again, these virtues are certain perfections of the intellect and the will, which are principles of operation without passion. But in God there are intellect and will, lacking no perfection. Therefore, these virtues cannot be absent from God.

Moreover, of the things that come into being from God the proper model is in the divine intellect, as was shown above. Now, the model in the mind of the maker of the thing to be made is art. Hence, the Philosopher says in Ethics VI [4] that “art is the true model of things to be made.” Art, then, is properly in God. And therefore it is said in Wisdom (7:21): “the artisan of all things has taught me wisdom.”

Again, the divine will, with reference to things other than God, is determined to one effect by His knowledge, as was shown above. But the knowledge directing the will to act is prudence; for, according to the Philosopher in Ethics VI [5], “prudence is the true notion of the things to be done.” There is, therefore, prudence in God. And this is what is said in Job (12:13): “With Him is prudence and strength.”

Furthermore, it was shown above that because God wills something He also wills those things that are necessary to it. But that which is necessary to the perfection of each thing is due to it. Therefore, there is justice in God, to which it belongs to give to each one what belongs to him. Hence it is said in a Psalm (30:8): “The Lord is just and loves justice.”

Moreover, as was shown above, the ultimate end for which God wills all things in no way depends on the things that exist for the sake of the end, and this either as to being or as to some perfection. Hence, He does not will to give to someone His goodness so that thereby something may accrue to Himself, but because for Him to make such a gift befits Him as the fount of goodness. But to give something not for the sake of some benefit expected from the giving, but because of the goodness and befittingness of the giving, is an act of liberality, as appears from the Philosopher in Ethics IV [1]. God, therefore, is supremely liberal; and, as Avicenna says, He alone can truly be called liberal, for every agent other than God acquires some good from his action, which is the intended end.” Scripture sets forth this liberality of God, saying in a Psalm (103:28): “When You open Your hand, they shall all be filled with good”; and in James (1:5): “Who gives to all men abundantly without reproaching.”

Again, all things that receive being from God must bear His likeness in so far as they are, are good, and have their proper models in the divine intellect, as was shown above. But it belongs to the virtue of t***h, as appears from the Philosopher in Ethics IV [7], for someone in his deeds and words to show himself as he is. Therefore, there is in God the virtue of t***h. Hence, Romans (3:4): “But God is true”; and the Psalm (118:151): “All Your ways are t***h.”

But, if there are any virtues that deal with notions belonging to subordinates in relation to their superiors, such cannot befit God: for example, obedience, worship, or something of the sort that is due a superior.

If, furthermore, some of the aforementioned virtues have certain imperfect acts, the virtues in question cannot be attributed to God according to those acts. Thus, prudence, according to the act of taking good counsel, does not befit God. For, since counsel is “a certain inquiry,” as is said in Ethics VI [9], and the divine knowledge is not inquiring, as was shown above, to take counsel cannot befit God. Hence Job (26:3): “How you have counseled him who has no wisdom!”; and Isaiah (40:14): “Whom has He consulted: and who has instructed Him?” But as to the act that consists in judging the matter of counsel and choosing what has been approved, nothing prevents prudence from being said of God. Nevertheless, counsel is at times said of God. This is either because of the likeness in privacy, since counsels take place in private, so that what is hidden in the divine wisdom is called by likeness counsel, as appears in Isaiah in the other version: “May Your ancient counsel be verified” (25:1 Septuagint); or in so far as He gives satisfaction to those who seek His counsel, since one who has understanding can, even without any discursiveness, instruct the inquiring.

In the same way, justice, as concerns the act of commutative justice, cannot befit God, since He does not receive anything from anyone. Hence Romans (11:35): “Who hath first given to Him and recompense shall be made him?” And Job (41:2): “Who hath given me before that I should repay him?” Through a likeness, however, we are said to give some things to God in so far as God looks with favor upon our gifts. Commutative justice, therefore, does not befit God, but only distributive. Hence, Dionysius says that “God is praised for His justice as giving to all according to their worth” [ De div. nom. VIII, 3]. And in the words of Matthew (25:15): “He gave... to every one according to his proper ability.”

We must observe, however, that the actions with which the above virtues deal, do not according to their natures depend on man; for to judge of the things that are to be done, or to give or distribute something, does not belong to man alone but to any being possessing an intellect. Yet, in so far as these are narrowed to the human sphere, in a manner they receive their species from them, as the curvature in a nose produces the species of the snub. The aforementioned virtues, therefore, according as they order man’s active life, are ordered to these actions in so far as they are narrowed to human affairs and take their species from them. In this manner they cannot befit God. But in so far as the aforementioned actions are taken in their generality, they can be attributed even to divine things. For just as man is a distributor of human goods, such as money and honor, so too God is the distributor of all the goods of the universe. The aforementioned virtues, therefore, are of a more universal extension in God than in man; for as the justice of man is to the community or the household, so the justice of God is to the whole universe. Hence, the divine virtues are said to be the exemplar virtues of ours; for the things that are contracted and particularized are the likenesses of certain absolute beings, just as the light of a candle is to the light of the sun. As for the other virtues, which do not properly befit God, they do not have an exemplar in the divine nature, but only in the divine wisdom, which contains the proper likenesses of all beings: this is the case with other corporeal beings.

---St. Thomas Acquinas

Thus, evils that occur are not the result of religion.

Shall we continue the religious debate...........

Now, since human virtues are those by which human life is directed, and human life is twofold, contemplative, and active, the virtues belonging to the active life, so far as they perfect this life, cannot befit God.

For man’s active life consists of the use of bodily goods, and hence the active life is directed by the virtues by which we make the right use of these goods. Such goods, however, cannot befit God, nor, therefore, can such virtues as far as they direct this life.

Furthermore, such virtues perfect the ways of men in the domain of political life. Hence, for those who do not take part in such a life the active virtues do not seem very suitable. Much less, therefore, can they suit God, whose conduct and life is far removed from the manner of human life.

Of the virtues that deal with the active life some, likewise, direct the passions. These we cannot posit in God. For the virtues that deal with the passions take their species from the passions as from their proper objects; and so temperance differs from fortitude so far as it deals with desires, whereas the latter with fear and daring. But in God there are no passions, as has been shown, and therefore neither can such virtues be found in Him.

Again, such virtues are not found in the intellective part of the soul but in the sensitive part, in which alone passions can be found, as is proved in Physics VII [3]. In God, however, there is no sensitive part, but only intellect. It remains, then, that such virtues cannot be in God even according to their proper natures.

Of the passions, with which the virtues deal, some exist according to the inclination of the appetite to some corporeal good that is delightful to the sense, for example, food, drink, and sex. For the desires of these passions there are sobriety and chastity, and, in general, temperance and continence. Hence, because bodily delights are absolutely foreign to God, the aforesaid virtues neither befit God properly, since they deal with passions, nor are they said of God even metaphorically in Scripture, because there is no available likeness of them in God in terms of a likeness of some effect.

Some passions, however, follow the inclination of the appetite to some spiritual good, such as honor, power, victory, revenge, and the like; and concerned with their hopes, their darings, and in general their desires there are fortitude, magnanimity, gentleness, and other like virtues. These, properly speaking, cannot be found in God, since they deal with passions, but in Scripture they are said metaphorically of God, because of a likeness in effects. For example, what is said in 1 Samuel (2:2): “There is no one as strong as our God”; and Micah [rather, Zephaniah 2:31: “Seek the just, seek the meek.”

Just to wet the appetite of those who do not understand religion, I propose the philosophy of the founder of Western Law. Here is what he wrote:
 
THAT WE ARE ORDERED BY DIVINE LAW TO THE LOVE OF NEIGHBOR

The next point after this is that divine law intends the love of neighbor.
For there should be a union in affection among those for whom there is one common end. Now, men share in common the one ultimate end which is happiness, to which they are divinely ordered. So, men should be united with each other by a mutual love.
Again, whoever loves a person must, as a consequence, also love those loved by that person and those related to him. Now, men are loved by God, for He has prearranged for them, as an ultimate end, the enjoyment of Himself. Therefore, it should be that, as a person becomes a lover of God, he also becomes a lover of his neighbor.
Besides, since “man is naturally a social animal,” he needs to be helped by other men in order to attain his own end. This is most fittingly accomplished by mutual love which obtains among men. Therefore, by the law of God, which directs men to their ultimate end, mutual love is prescribed for us.
Moreover, so that man may dev**e his time to divine matters, he needs tranquility and peace. Now, things that are potential disturbances to peace are removed principally by mutual love. So, since the divine law orders men in order that they may dev**e themselves to divine matters, it is necessary for mutual love to be eng****red among men by divine law.
Furthermore, divine law is offered to man as an aid to natural law. Now, it is natural to all men to love each other. The mark of this is the fact that a man, by some natural prompting, comes to the aid of any man in need, even if he does not know him. For instance, he may call him back from the wrong road, help him up from a fall, and other actions like that: “as if every man were naturally the familiar and friend of every man”. Therefore, mutual love is prescribed for men by the divine law.

Hence it is said in John (15:12): “This is my commandment: that you love one another”; and in 1 John (4:21): “This commandment we have from God, that he who loves God love also his brother”; and in Matthew (22:39) it is said that the second commandment is: “Love Your neighbor.”

THAT THROUGH DIVINE LAW MEN ARE BOUND TO THE RIGHT FAITH
From this it becomes clear that men are bound to the right faith through divine law.
Indeed, just as the origin of bodily love lies in the vision accomplished through the bodily eye, so also the beginning of spiritual love ought to lie in the intellectual vision of an object of spiritual love. Now, we cannot possess the vision of God, as an object of spiritual vision, in this life except through faith, because it exceeds the power of natural reason, and particularly because our happiness consists in the enjoyment of Him. Therefore, we must be led to the right faith by the divine law.
Again, the divine law orders man for this purpose, that he may be entirely subject to God. But, just as man is subject to God as far as will is concerned, through loving, so is he subject to God as far as intellect is concerned, through believing; not, of course, by believing anything that is false, for no falsity can be proposed to man by God Who is t***h. Consequently, he who believes something false does not believe in God. Therefore, men are ordered to the right faith by the divine law.
Besides, whoever is in error regarding something that is of the essence of a thing does not know that thing. Thus, if someone understood irrational animal with the notion that it is a man, he would not know man. Now, it would be a different matter if he erred concerning one of man’s accidents. However, in the case of composite beings, the person who is in error concerning one of their essential principles does know the thing, in a relative way, though he does not know it in an unqualified sense. For instance, he who thinks that man is an irrational animal knows him according to his genus. But this cannot happen in reference to simple beings; instead, any error at all completely excludes knowledge of the being. Now, God is most simple. So, whoever is in error concerning God does not know God, just as the man who thinks that God is a body does not know God at all, but grasps something else in place of God. However, the way in which a thing is known determines the way in which it is loved and desired. Therefore, he who is in error about God can neither love God nor desire Him as an end. So, since the divine law intends this result, that man love and desire God, man must be bound by divine law to bold a right faith concerning God.
Moreover, false opinion holds the same place in regard to objects of the intellect that vice opposed to virtue has in regard to moral matters, “for t***h is the good of the intellect.” But it is the function of divine law to prohibit vices. Therefore, it also pertains to it to exclude false opinions about God and matters concerned with God.
Thus, it is said in Hebrews (11:6): “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” And in Exodus (20:2) before the other precepts of the law are given, right faith concerning God is put in first place; moreover, it is said: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord Your God is one” (Deut. 6:4).
Through this consideration we exclude the error of those who say that it makes no difference to the salvation of man wh**ever be the faith with which he serves God.


I will tell you who wrote it after you read and understand it.