As a rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth would have been familiar with the Book of Numbers which, in chapter 5, commands that a woman suspected of sex outside of marriage be given a concoction to induce abortion, to test whether or not she has been impure.
”Praise be to God.”
This is a nice example of an atheist plucking lines out of a book he's never read and assigning them meaning they don't hold.
Dude, I hear what you people say. Not what you post on message boards to look reasonable.
The kind of things you say when there’s only white people around yeah yeah I know you
Got it. So you are a minority. If you can just free yourself for one minute and realize not all white conservatives are racist? In fact, most of us never think about it until it is brought up. Pretty much always by a liberal. You hate Trump because he is white, is that correct?
That's not true. That claim above, and the criminal lawsuits underlying it, have been addressed endless times on this message board. There's no fvcking way you could have missed all the instances unless you wanted to.
Wanna keep talking in circles about it? "The criminal lawsuits." Again, more circles. Liberals did everything they could dishonestly to stop him and still couldn't. The Clintons, Bidens, Obamas are all more corrupt than Trump will ever be. I'm guessing you're a minority or something? LGBQT+? What's your ACTUAL beef? We all know he wasn't "rapin'" n "pillagin'." Give me a break.
You made the assertion (post #24467 on page 1224) that no one addresses your claims that "Biden weaponized DOJ against Trump and Capitol tourists." I corrected you and pointed out that those criminal lawsuits that YOU referred to ("DOJ against Trump and Capitol tourists") have been addressed and discussed in detail in dozens of threads on this board, including this one. And I'll say again that I don't know how a regular here, as you appear to be, could have missed all of those discussions unless you really wanted to miss them.
Also, your response (quoted above and, in part, below) to my correction looks spastic, triggered and confused ("I'm guessing you're a minority or something?"). Just because minorities beat you up periodically doesn't mean that everyone that thinks you're a twit is also a minority. It doesn't work that way. To extent it matters, I'm as WASP and straight as they get, and assuredly more than you are on both counts.
B!tch? No b!tching. Asking for clarification. Seems like someone who makes such a statement would be able to say in what way Islam is right about LGBT, no? Can’t articulate? Can only regurgitate?
Fine. Islam is right about women.
what are your thoughts on this statement?
Yes, women do have the right to obtain a divorce, as stated in Islam.
As a rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth would have been familiar with the Book of Numbers which, in chapter 5, commands that a woman suspected of sex outside of marriage be given a concoction to induce abortion, to test whether or not she has been impure.
”Praise be to God.”
This is a nice example of an atheist plucking lines out of a book he's never read and assigning them meaning they don't hold.
I’m not sure if you’re old enough to remember, but there was a time in the not so distant past that the Southern Baptist Convention considered abortion a personal matter. It didn’t conflict with their interpretation of scripture. Until it became politically expedient and advantageous to use abortion as a political lightning rod.
I am happy to discuss the above passage as well as Exodus 21, where the Holy Book discusses the penalty for physical harm inducing a miscarriage as having a different policy than causing a person’s death. If you’re at all interested.
This is a nice example of an atheist plucking lines out of a book he's never read and assigning them meaning they don't hold.
I’m not sure if you’re old enough to remember, but there was a time in the not so distant past that the Southern Baptist Convention considered abortion a personal matter. It didn’t conflict with their interpretation of scripture. Until it became politically expedient and advantageous to use abortion as a political lightning rod.
I am happy to discuss the above passage as well as Exodus 21, where the Holy Book discusses the penalty for physical harm inducing a miscarriage as having a different policy than causing a person’s death. If you’re at all interested.
Protestants interpreting scripture in whatever way they find convenient in the moment isn't anything new.
This post was edited 15 seconds after it was posted.
I’m not sure if you’re old enough to remember, but there was a time in the not so distant past that the Southern Baptist Convention considered abortion a personal matter. It didn’t conflict with their interpretation of scripture. Until it became politically expedient and advantageous to use abortion as a political lightning rod.
I am happy to discuss the above passage as well as Exodus 21, where the Holy Book discusses the penalty for physical harm inducing a miscarriage as having a different policy than causing a person’s death. If you’re at all interested.
Protestants interpreting scripture in whatever way they find convenient in the moment isn't anything new.
No, it’s not.
And what was the common view on abortion in Judea during the 1st Century CE?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.