RE: God Does NOT Condone Abortion

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: God Does NOT Condone Abortion

riverflows in The Kingdom • 11 days ago

I respect your ability to have children in a safe relationship. I also respect your emotional capacity to carry difficult pregnancies

Im just surprised you didn't refer to Christ if you call yourself a Christian. Surely, you have to take his view not just the old testament when you are considering morality?

The Bible is God's truth, and truth withstands the test of time

If interpreter didn't change Christians would still stone people. Literal interpretation has changed with time. You might see God's truth, but you yourself are using metaphor, and I bet you'd run to the Bible for answers if someone took out your eye because you hit the neighbours dog with your car. Surely Jesus adjusts things slightly. Justice is one thing, brutality another. If you are a Christian, you can't possibly draw only on the old testament to make your decisions.

However, the data you use still doesn't really say anything about morality, which is the argument you were using. I can conceded it's interesting and corrects my generalisation, but it doesn't support your view that woman are choosing this for a better life eg better jobs 😂 and it doesn't support your view of "sacrifice" as a metaphor. You're saying to look at the Bible LITERALLY but it's ok for you to use metaphor that doesn't make sense.

The whole God is dead thing doesn't work either - that's not at all what Nietzsche meant. He wasn't talking literally either and his metaphor meant something entirely different to your argument about women's agency.

I actually don't care what you believe, just your argument is hella flawed, which is what I'm interested in.

The whole "there was child sacrifice to deities" in the Bible has absolutely no link to medical abortion. It makes as little sense to me as your belief in God and what so called Christians have done in his name - war, murder, raping children.

I'm pretty sure Gods truth was meant to be love. Literal interpretation of the Bible is just dangerous. I'm sure even your beloved Christ would say that. Go talk to him. With respect.

11 days ago in The Kingdom by riverflows

0.00 ARCHON

Sort:

Trending

[-]

borderline.babe 11 days ago (edited)

With all due respect, you aren't being respectful, but smug in disguise.

And so that is where I will end our conversation! 😄🙏 It is no longer a conversation, but an opportunity to attack. I certainly don't need anyone belittling, yes, our BELOVED Christ, despite how condescendingly you meant for it to come across. Your true intentions are shown, and I do not need to entertain devil's advocates. The audacity to try and lecture someone on who Jesus was, when you have repeatedly proclaimed how you don't practice, is pretty high.

And because you are also misguided on who Jesus was, Jesus did not call us to "love everyone," contrary to your idea of Christ. Christ told us to acknowledge the sinner 3 times before simply allowing him to perish with his wicked ways. Apostle Paul told us not to be yoked with nonbelievers, because what good does it do light to be tied to darkness? But, of course, given your misconstrued idea of Christ, you already knew all this! 😄

With all due respect (as I actually understand the meaning of the word), please Unfollow as I have done, and absolutely refrain from commenting on any of my posts. Thank you so much, I ask this in God's name -- aaand AMEN! 🙏😄💛

0.00 ARCHON

[-]

riverflows 10 days ago (edited)

I’m not attacking Christ/Jesus, nor attempting to lecture anyone on faith. I engaged the text and its interpretation, because it is an ongoing debate, which Christians have done for centuries. If you write something so confident, surely you expect some rebuttal or discussion, but instead, you expect everyone to agree with your flawed argument. Since you’ve asked to disengage, sure, I'll still follow you as I find your arguments interesting.

0.00 ARCHON

[-]

borderline.babe 10 days ago

I already engaged you in discussion, explaining myself twice, once in extremely detailed length in the post. I can't spend my entire time arguing an age old debate. For example, I explained how a fetus is still human life. Let's say you won't accept THAT argument because YOU don't see it as human life -- like, what am I to do?

I gave examples how Moloch sacrifice is a reflection for what is ongoing today, and you have refused to accept those arguments. You act as if paragraph upon paragraph has not been exchanged between us! Child sacrifice was for rain and victory; abortion is child sacrifice because of women hope for after it happens, or why it even occurs in the first place. You can literally go and poll any woman: why don't you want kids? "Poor, in school, bad relationship, etc." So obviously we can conclude that abortions happen because of "hoping for better circumstances." I personally know a handful of women who have had abortion, then kid, then abortion again.

So likewise to writing a debate, if you're going to engage in one, you surely have a semblance of what's happening for abortion to take place to begin with. Otherwise, I can't be faulted for assuming instigating.

I hope this clears up my flawed argument and find support for said claims.

0.00 ARCHON

[-]

riverflows 10 days ago

I thought you weren't replying to me anymore? I find it fascinating that we can have some really nice exchanges, and then when I disagree with you, you go nuts and get annoyed, and call align me with Satan and call me smug, and condescending.

0.00 ARCHON