[W:249]The Most Important Question About Abortion

[Logicman]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

You're a modern-day Pharisee.

Let me enlighten you on something from the Word of God. It's from Ezekiel chapter 33:

"When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. 9 But if you do warn the wicked person to turn from their ways and they do not do so, they will die for their sin, though you yourself will be saved."

I don't answer to you. I answer to God. If you don't like it then too bad.

 

[Cordelier]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

You're full of folly too.

Anyone who won't take a stand for God's moral laws isn't worth the spittle it takes to chew gum.

Besides, aren't you the judgmental one!!! Hypocrisy is alive and well in your postings!

*L* I certainly never claimed to be the fount of all wisdom... but I do always attempt to call things the way I see them. And if seems to me that you value the letter of God's word far more than you do it's spirit.

God is about Love. Love in all of it's shapes and forms. If two men or two women find Love with one another, then how can that be a bad thing in the eyes of God?

Similarly, I wish every woman could find it within herself to Love her unborn fetus. Unfortunately, however, that doesn't always happen... nor can we compel it to happen.

We don't live in a perfect world... and we can't make it "perfect"... not without destroying all that is good about it, for the perfect is always the enemy of the good.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

God is about Love. Love in all of it's shapes and forms. If two men or two women find Love with one another, then how can that be a bad thing in the eyes of God?

If it's all about love then two adulterers in love must be okay with God too. And if so, then why does God condemn adultery?

For the record,

"Love does not rejoice in iniquity" (sin) - 1 Corinthians 13

And,

"Love does no harm to a neighbor" - Romans 13:10 - (Love does no harm to a neighbor, like enticing one's neighbor into a sinful relationship for which there are negative temporal and eternal consequences)

 

[Lursa]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

There's no forcing. Just the promise of Judgment at the end of the line for those who don't repent (Luke 13:3).

Again, no concern of those not accepting your mythical beliefs.

 

[Cordelier]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

If it's all about love then two adulterers in love must be okay with God too. And if so, then why does God condemn adultery?

For the record,

"Love does not rejoice in iniquity" (sin) - 1 Corinthians 13

And,

"Love does no harm to a neighbor" - Romans 13:10 - (Love does no harm to a neighbor, like enticing one's neighbor into a sinful relationship for which there are negative temporal and eternal consequences)

Who are you to judge, though? I know you're going to say something along the lines of "it's not your judgment, it's God's", but seriously, your relationship with God only goes as far as you. It has nothing to do with anyone else.

I've never cheated on my wife, but before we met I was in a adulterous relationship with a married woman. I can't speak for her, but I know for myself that I loved her. Maybe that damns me to hell, I don't know... but I don't have any regrets, and I hope she doesn't either. C'est l'amour. We didn't make a secret about our relationship. Her husband knew about us... I used to talk to him all the time. Once he even invited me to a family BBQ at his parents' place. It's strange, I admit, but the plain and simple truth of the matter us that by the time I came into the picture their marriage had only existed on paper for years. It was pretty much only held together by force of habit.

I don't know what the whole point of this spiel is... I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though I wasn't looking to "hook up" with a married woman or to be the other man... it just kind of happened anyway. I'm not saying there wasn't a fair amount of lust involved, but there was far more to it than just lust. There was Love too.... it just happened naturally - we just fell into it. Maybe that was wrong or sinful or whatever else, I don't know... but it sure didn't seem so at the time. Still doesn't today, almost 20 years later. It was just human nature.

 

[Sweden]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

When you resurrect yourself from the dead after you tell people you're going to do it - as Jesus did - that's when you'll begin to have some credibility on it.

But there is no evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, just those same old 'scriptures', written in a pre-scientific age by people who knew less about things than today's average twelve-year-old.

 

[Sweden]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

Killing the innocent unborn is wrong.

In your opinion. Feel free not to carry out an abortion. Do not try to enforce your opinions on others, for they too are free.

 

[Logician Man]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

Again, no concern of those not accepting your mythical beliefs.

I certainly have a lot more respect for you as to how share your Christian faith than he does. You and my wife are very similar in how you convey your views.That's a sincere compliment.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

"Sensible" to the lunatic Left means uber Liberals who would rather the US become Communist.

Don't be silly.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

But there is no evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, just those same old 'scriptures', written in a pre-scientific age by people who knew less about things than today's average twelve-year-old.

Here's some material I suggest reading to deepen your understanding of the evidences for the resurrection:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas; "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell; "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler; "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

Again, no concern of those not accepting your mythical beliefs.

And once again, you're a full quart low on evidence to support your 'mythical god' rants.

 

[GregSamsa]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

Anyone who gives some open-minded thought to the question of theism would quickly realize that assertions about supernatural beings are based on faith, not scientific evidence. People can choose to believe or not believe, but there is no hypothesis about the existence or non-existence of God that can be tested. As Karl Popper, the philosopher of science pointed out, a valid hypothesis has to be capable of disproof, what he called "falsifiable." God can neither be disproved, nor proved. The whole question is really a red herring in a discussion about public policy in any nation which is not a theocracy. We are not a theocracy, and our Constitution disallows forcing your own metaphysical beliefs about souls being injected into embryos in any determination of legal personhood. No one is "pro abortion," but rather pro a woman's right to make medical decisions that do not harm a legal person. Obviously, abortion is the very WORST option for birth control, and is only chosen when other circumstances have left no other option. Making it freely and easily available would actually AVOID the unpleasant scenarios that anti-abortionists find deplorable, where a third trimester abortion kills a fetus that might be quite close to viability and legal personhood. Better access and reproductive counseling would actually DECREASE the chance of that happening and lead to abortions being almost entirely in the first trimester, when we are talking about an embryonic form that is no more sentient than a tadpole.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

Here's some material I suggest reading to deepen your understanding of the evidences for the resurrection:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas; "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell; "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler; "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

We know he was a real man.

And medical professionals even in our own time make mistakes declaring people dead.

While I'm sure that's not all that's covered in those books, I'm sure there's no actual physical evidence that Jesus was a supernatural being.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

And once again, you're a full quart low on evidence to support your 'mythical god' rants.

So you are tripling down on demonstrating your ignorance? Only the delusional would expect evidence of a myth after reading the following:

Myth: --a traditional or legendary*story,*usually concerning some being or hero or event, with*or*without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

--stories*or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

--any invented story, idea, or concept:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/myth

You have continually asked me to provide evidence of something that doesnt exist. Something which by definition, is not real.*

Now do you understand why there is no way to provide you with evidence? Were you able to understand the definition? I cant provide evidence of ghosts or fairies either.

So...where is your evidence that God does exist? If He's real...you must be able to prove it...right? Let's see it.​

 

[Logicman]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

We know he was a real man.

And medical professionals even in our own time make mistakes declaring people dead.

While I'm sure that's not all that's covered in those books, I'm sure there's no actual physical evidence that Jesus was a supernatural being.

Too bad you're unable to falsify the multiple, independent, historical Gospel accounts of the resurrection. You're all hat with your claims, but no cattle / evidence.

 

[Bassman]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

You're full of folly too.

Anyone who won't take a stand for God's moral laws isn't worth the spittle it takes to chew gum.

Besides, aren't you the judgmental one!!! Chanting "don't judge," and then you play the judge! Priceless!

I believe the operative word here is HYPOCRITE. Liberals love to justify sinful behavior and practice while at the same time telling US how to live? Priceless.

 

[Bassman]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

We know he was a real man.

And medical professionals even in our own time make mistakes declaring people dead.

While I'm sure that's not all that's covered in those books, I'm sure there's no actual physical evidence that Jesus was a supernatural being.

And therein you expose yourself as still being an unsaved wicked person, condemned to the Lake of Fire unless you repent. Scripture clearly states Jesus was, and IS God Almighty Himself.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

And therein you expose yourself as still being an unsaved wicked person, condemned to the Lake of Fire unless you repent. Scripture clearly states Jesus was, and IS God Almighty Himself.

I am going God's Work as we interact. I am at the very least attempting to moderate the hateful influence that you and LM project about Our Lord.

Only the Lord knows what is truly in my heart and your vile arrogance is an offense to God.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

Too bad you're unable to falsify the multiple, independent, historical Gospel accounts of the resurrection. You're all hat with your claims, but no cattle / evidence.

Your sources didnt prove anything, the Internet requires links. They are no more than hypothetical wishful thinking.

You failed, again.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

Anyone who gives some open-minded thought to the question of theism would quickly realize that assertions about supernatural beings are based on faith, not scientific evidence. People can choose to believe or not believe, but there is no hypothesis about the existence or non-existence of God that can be tested. As Karl Popper, the philosopher of science pointed out, a valid hypothesis has to be capable of disproof, what he called "falsifiable." God can neither be disproved, nor proved. The whole question is really a red herring in a discussion about public policy in any nation which is not a theocracy. We are not a theocracy, and our Constitution disallows forcing your own metaphysical beliefs about souls being injected into embryos in any determination of legal personhood. No one is "pro abortion," but rather pro a woman's right to make medical decisions that do not harm a legal person. Obviously, abortion is the very WORST option for birth control, and is only chosen when other circumstances have left no other option. Making it freely and easily available would actually AVOID the unpleasant scenarios that anti-abortionists find deplorable, where a third trimester abortion kills a fetus that might be quite close to viability and legal personhood. Better access and reproductive counseling would actually DECREASE the chance of that happening and lead to abortions being almost entirely in the first trimester, when we are talking about an embryonic form that is no more sentient than a tadpole.

Agree that God can neither be proved or disproved.

I just want to point out that over 91 percent of US abortions take place during the first trimester.

Also a woman does not abort a wanted pregnacy without a medical reason.

 

[Bassman]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

I am going God's Work as we interact. I am at the very least attempting to moderate the hateful influence that you and LM project about Our Lord.

Only the Lord knows what is truly in my heart and your vile arrogance is an offense to God.

Problem is you think only good works will do it. the Bible says that not one person is righteous and the ONLY way to Him is not through works, but through the Blood of Christ. Since you deny Christ's Deity, then you are NOT saved.

 

[Bassman]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

Agree that God can neither be proved or disproved.

I just want to point out that over 91 percent of US abortions take place during the first trimester.

Also a woman does not abort a wanted pregnacy without a medical reason.

And 100% of those abortions are out of pure selfish convenience. Sacrifice and duty are lost on Liberals.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

Problem is you think only good works will do it. the Bible says that not one person is righteous and the ONLY way to Him is not through works, but through the Blood of Christ. Since you deny Christ's Deity, then you are NOT saved.

I dont deny Christ's Deity. I believe in it based on faith.

OTOH, LM insists he can prove that God exists. That Jesus was His Supernatural Son.

And he has failed, over and over. It's a sad sad delusion.

 

[Bassman]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

I dont deny Christ's Deity. I believe in it based on faith.

OTOH, LM insists he can prove that God exists. That Jesus was His Supernatural Son.

And he has failed, over and over. It's a sad sad delusion.

Jesus is God the Son, second person of the Triune Godhead. Scripture declares this.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Prager is reliably Conservative

Jesus is God the Son, second person of the Triune Godhead. Scripture declares this.

And Lord of the Rings declares Hobbits exist.

The Bible is not proof.