Search results

And?

I figured that's what happened. No worries.

Coward. Then we'll assume you believe the Bible supports intentional murder of a person made in God's image. And because of that stance, you have no moral grounds for any stance you take.

Nope meaning you don't agree with him, or nope meaning you won't disown his wickedness?

You're representing the rabbi, and promoting his ideas--if you don't agree with him, please say so.

But that's not the real reason--That's merely their justification for wickedness, so they don't have to repent. If you disagree with them, please say so. It will do you good.

So what indeed. That's about all your post is worth. Why did you post in the first place?

1) You should. 2) That's odd. I was quite certain that you actually replied to the post where I linked to a refutation of your posted link (you have to click on it, as the image isn't of your post, but the URL is): https://theologyonline.com/threads/end-of-roe-vs-wade.56698/post-1852199 You...

But you didn't offer any refutation of it. If there is an immoral position that you reference, I recommend you at least explain that you don't agree with it, else we will think you are immoral.

Keep listening to your conscience, but test what your conscience is telling you by comparing to a trustworthy source of ethics, of which there are few. Consciences can become seared from too much ignoring. The Bible is the most trustworthy of all ethical standards, because it was inspired by...

You need better sources. Here's one: https://www.jewishlifeleague.org/pro-life-judaism/is-judaism-a-pro-life-religion

This might lead to a superficial agreement that falls apart when foundational truths are discussed. But it's a start. That's more than Jesus was willing to accept. Luke 6:46 (KJV) And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Because it is the only way to avoid just...

When I mentioned ivermectin to my lefty sister when my mother had covid, she sneeringly referred to it as horse medicine. I should try asking about this one.

As long as you don't recognize them as persons, it's ok to murder them, right?

You mean toxic feminists, right?

Me too. But as we've discussed elsewhere, the definition of "rape" appears to be up in the air.

Kind of like saying masculinity depends on the ability of men to rape women.

And you get to define "honest"? So you're willing to accept everything every atheist has ever said about morality? Disbelieving doesn't make it false, either. Second hand would be ok? With multiple witnesses?

And between two times of judgment.