Search results

Once you are Born-Again, you just need to surrender to the Holy Spirit and repent at those times that you fail to do so. God uses the Bible in that process but the Bible is useless without Him.

My meaning for "Christian" starts HERE and just keeps getting better.

Agreed.

She's Markie Post.

You cannot show in the Bible that the pre-born are any less human than the rest of us. Until you can, deliberately killing them remains murder.

Another interpretation of that verse is that even when you stop living for Jesus, you get to "keep" the gifts. Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord...

Would that be a letterbox?

Since this is in the Christian Newbies sub-forum, have you been a Christian very long? If not, see if your church has a New Believers' class. If they don't, check nearby churches.

Man-bun? Maybe, but mullets are still out! ;)

And did I ever suggest that BC disqualifies one from being pro-Life? Non-abortifacient BC does not. Ignorance of abortifacient BC does not (but it's kind of hard to unsee it, once you see it).

They should certainly communicate the condom failure. Should they then be happy with "At least, we'll kill it in the next stage...?" Non-sequitur. Are you comfortable with a method that deliberately terminates a successful zygote, after-the-fact? Each couple must deal with this question before...

But you are glossing over the distinction between keeping the gametes separate (no fertilization) and deliberately terminating a zygote (post-fertilization). Though there are other problems associated with it,* #1 is ethically neutral. #2 requires breaching an ethical boundary. *One theory...

Are you proposing that that somehow justifies a deliberate effort on top of that? Or that a deliberate effort is just as innocent as a physiological malfunction?

As long as they didn't take any deliberate steps to make her uterus inhospitable, they are fine.

Being unknown, it is a moot point, but they are ethically the same. We had a known miscarriage. We even named her.

It is still an [unintentional] miscarriage of sorts, if no abortifacients were present.

All we do have is "But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him." Genesis 38:7 NKJV

Or... (see) Is it a sin to use contraception? #106

Deuteronomy 25:5-10 says that Onan should have only gotten a bad name, not have died. That he [and subsequent brother] died meant something more was going on (in this case).

That was unprecedented.