Search results

I thought liberals didn't like the slippery slope argument.

Then we never began to exist, either.

False dichotomy. Like: If God didn't intend for people to steal, He would have told us to give the thieves everything they wanted.

It certainly appears that way.

Nuance is hardly justification for murder. Nor does it alleviate guilt of a nation. Jeremiah 32:29 (KJV) And the Chaldeans, that fight against this city, shall come and set fire on this city, and burn it with the houses, upon whose roofs they have offered incense unto Baal, and poured out drink...

But they have to believe they came from a higher authority than man to expect man not to eradicate or emasculate the rights.

Not everyone agrees it is better to exist than not to. So which is more correct, you, or the other guy? And why, since you are both basing your opposite conclusions on the same inputs? If it is a universal value to exist over not existing, and nature's normal course results in you not existing...

What, and who do you think those two types of judgement are focused on?

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