Search results

Did you answer the question of the OP?

If I provide a reliable source, will you change your mind on the evil of abortion?

No. I demonstrated your fallacy of equating relationships with beings. A single being have more relationships does not create more beings.

So, your argument is 2 wrongs make a right? Murdering innocent unborn babies for convenience sake says a lot about a society. Regarding your strawman arguments (So it's okay to let women die in childbirth), you must know >90% of abortions are due to convenience not life threatening situations...

No. Contradictions are not valid choices. A plant is a single life form no matter how many people enjoy its perfume.

Recognizing the flaws in KJV and KJV being an obsolete language is not a sin.

Not an answer to my question. However, you are ignoring the FROM as well as the TO in the translation process. Not only does our knowledge improve of what we are translating FROM, the language people speak changes TO something different over time. I don't goest too much these days. Saith thou?

Absolutely not! They are a living human being upon that moment. Review biology class. It's just that living human beings go through stages of growth. An early stage of growth is not a different species of life. If the impregnated egg is not a living human being, then what is it that is living...

The fallacy is to pretend relationships make new persons. You are praise_yeshua, the one and only praise_yeshua here. And this is true no matter how many people you are related to or associated with, which is certainly NOT limited to 3.

You deny that life begins at conception?

I'm not sure what you are just saying but it seems like you are proceeding with the God complex that led to Original Sin. See Ps 82:1. 'God did X so that makes it right for me to do' assumes one has the same authority of ones own Creator. Even to say one is a creator of their own children is...

Not sure where you get this but I hear this claim for all the modern translations. If you actually read the translators notes, you will find they go back to the original texts and translate from there. They do not make a copy of a copy. Modern translators have far better access to original...

And for no apparent reason, you deny God gave his true word to other generations who don't speak the King's Middle English?

LOL. Jesus is not called the Son of the Father. There is only one whose voice that could be and that is God, in his whole, unitarian, singular nature.

It is such a simple and profound use of language, definition and logic. Anything 'of X' is not X. I am a son of Massachusetts. This does not mean I am the State. You are a user of forums, this does not make you a forum. The daughter of mine is most assuredly, not me. And the son of God is most...

Scripture says a voice said, "This is my son, in whom I am well pleased." Who was speaking these words about Jesus?

Wow! Great point. I look forward to a thoughtful rebuttal from Happy Trails that does not invoke a fallacy, like our mind is too small to comprehend it.

The same with the impossibility of sitting at your own right hand.

Thanks AJ! I never knew this. I look forward to defenders of changing God's name to explain this.

What a great post! Wonder how many Christians correctly know the name of God.