>In context, Peter said, that God is no respecter of persons
>he was talking to Jews who did not believe that Gentiles could
>receive salvation through Jesus and the Good News and the Holy
>Spirit.
>
>So, if you're gonna quote the Word of God to make a point do
>it right.

I'll remember that when I come across any actual words given from any actual gods. That hasn't happened yet, in all of recorded history,

>>Does the sun shine and rain fall on the righteous and
>>unrighteous alike?
>>
>
>In Context, Jesus is telling his disciples and all that came
>to hear him how to be live better lives in accordance with the
>fullness of the Moral Law of God and to not fall short to the
>limits that they have placed on God's Moral Law

1. Is he specifically referring to the mosaic law? What's "the moral law", exactly?

2. What limits did they place on the law?

3. If all have, and will, fall short, why is he telling them not to fall short? He's literally giving them an impossible instruction, according to his entire existence.

Also, what limits did they place on the law?


>Matthew 5: 44-48 "44 But I tell you, love your enemies and
>pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children
>of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the
>evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the
>unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward
>will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47
>And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more
>than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect,
>therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."


In context, jesus makes a declarative statement about god:

"He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

The meaning of that statement is about god's character, and who he is speaking to is immaterial. You don't get to sit here and pretend that this is somehow only applicable to one specific lesson he was teaching to these specific people.

You also don't get to pretend that preaching takes passages like this and apply them to any number of situations. This is passage is used often to present the notion that life, even for the believer, will not always be what we want it to be, but that god is still in control, etc etc.

You're trying to take an academic slant, as though you're not actively proselytizing. your take doesn't hold water either way.

Particularly in the context of talking about how you're winning, with the implication that god is the reason why. That's prosperity gospel garbage, self help with a jesus fish on it, and you need to be able to account for those believers who aren't "winning".

The verse I alluded to does that, but your heretical prosperity implications absolutely do not, and your statements here expose significant contradictions.

>>The funny thing about your statement is that, hypothetically
>>speaking, your god (the character) could give lucifer (the
>>character) permission fuck your whole world up in horrible
>>ways, just to prove how loyal you are, to, again, the
>>character of lucifer.
>>
>>Think about that:
>>
>>Imagine being unshakably loyal to someone, and that person
>>allows a complete piece of shit, one who is such a horrible
>>person that they've been sentenced to life in prison, the
>>right to fuck your entire life up, just to prove how loyal
>you
>>are.
>
>
>Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him:

That's called Stockholm Syndrome.