- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why is abortion so important to the Left?
Posted on 10/5/22 at 11:43 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 10/5/22 at 11:43 am to FooManChoo
quote:You still haven't understood my point. Let me try it again. This isn't about my interpretation of non-explicit passages. It's about you saying that a dedicated believer is ignoring the Word of God because he doesn't draw the same inferences from non-explicit passages that you do. Once again, I'm willing to allow for differences of opinion on passages where the Bible does not speak directly to an issue
Also, you still haven't provided your interpretation of those passages I cited. You claim the Scriptures are silent. I provided several Scriptures that lead to a necessary inference that abortion is murder, and you simply reply that the Scriptures are silent or that the issue isn't mentioned explicitly (as if that matters when it's consistently taught). They aren't silent. What is your specific response to those passages I provided, if you don't think they say anything about the life or value of the unborn children?
And your interpretation of Numbers 5 is predictable, yet disappointing. Under the oversight of a priest, a woman is ordered to drink a potion that can induce a miscarriage. That's an abortion. Your need to synchronize every passage in the bible according to your pre-determined POV is interfering with your rational thought abilities
quote:You're creating a false dichotomy between science and God. All truth is of God. Scientific truth, religious truth, mathematical truth, it's all from the same source. Truth is truth
Is your conclusion based on Scripture or science or both? What is your final authority? Is it God, or man?
So far you have made a reference to "science" as a source for believing that life begins at conception, but you haven't supported that claim from Scripture. Do you look to the Scriptures to be the only infallible rule for faith and life of a Christian, or do you look to science? If science said that life doesn't begin until a form of sapience was developed (let's say after a few months after birth), would you want Christians to change their view of when life begins to align with science?
quote:Once again, a very long list of non-explicit passages from which you have drawn inferences
The Bible does teach that life begins at conception. There is too much evidence to deny it. Here are some evidences:
1. There are many, many direct references to "she conceived and bore a son/child" (including conception as part of the birth in terms of importance)
2. Conception was understood as the start of life and is used as an analogy for sin, which begins at conception (Psalm 7:14; James 1:15)
3. Job wished that he wasn't born due to the suffering he was experiencing, but he actually spends more time wishing he wasn't conceived, because he realized that conception was the beginning of his life (Job 3)
4. David acknowledges his own sinfulness from birth, and even from conception (Psalm 51:2-5)
5. You have a reference to the Spirit coming to the bones of a child in its mother's womb in Ecclesiastes 11:5, which is said in the context of God creating all things
6. Joseph was told that the conception of Jesus was from the Spirit (a miraculous work of God), and in no way indicates that Jesus wasn't alive or valued until He was born (Matt. 1)
7. As was mentioned previously, both Jesus and John the Baptist were conceived miraculously (the miracle being in the conception, not just in the birth), and that John responded in the womb to being in proximity to Jesus, who was in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:39-44)
8. You've got the Nazarite vow or status where a Nazarite was considered an example of holiness to the people of Israel, and they were not supposed to eat anything unclean or drink any wine or strong drink from the beginning of the vow, yet both Samson and John the Baptist were under this obligation from birth, and both of their mothers were told by Angels that the mothers were not to drink any wine or strong drink while pregnant (from conception until birth) because that would affect the status of their child as a Nazarite (Judges 13; Luke 1)
9. Jeremiah was known (it means an intimate relationship, not just factual knowledge) to God before he was conceived, but he was also consecrated by God in his mother's womb to be a prophet, just like Samson and John the Baptist were consecrated to their roles in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5)
10. You've got Sarah (Abraham's wife) who received power by God to conceive a child, and conception was the miracle due to her old age (Hebrews 11:11)
11. Lastly (for this list), you have David having an affair with Bathsheba and she conceived a child. David was willing to have the father killed by sending him to the front lines in battle (2 Samuel 11), but he never seemed to even give a thought to covering up his sin by an abortion, which would have been the most discreet solution that didn't end a person's life (if they actually believed a child in the womb wasn't a person), given that the first recorded abortion occurred hundreds of years before David
There's more I could say in terms of what the Bible says about this, but needless to say, the Bible isn't silent on this issue.
quote:The doctrine of the trinity was invented by Tertullian as a response to Modalism. The church would debbate the idea for almost 500 more years before settling on a consensus. Do you really believe god to be such a poor communicator thatHe would teach us something as important as His essential nature, and 500 years later His people would still be trying to figure out what He meant?
Do you believe the Bible doesn't teach the Trinity? That Jesus is God but not the Father? That the Spirit is God but not the Father nor the Son?
We can debate the doctrine of the Trinity at another time, but I think you're missing the point: the Trinity is a doctrine that is taught from the Scriptures even though "Trinity" is not a word that exists within the Scriptures. It's a concept or doctrine that describes what the Scriptures teach.
The simple fact is that nowhere in the Bible is it said that Jesus is God. There is the one utterance of Thomas (John 20:28), but it is not given as a teaching point and is nowhere supported.
There are, however, passages where Jesus is expressly said not to be God.
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (John 5:30)
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Thimothy 2:5-6)
Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him. (Ephesians 1:15-17)
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17)
And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. (Luke 18:18-19)
1
Posted on 10/5/22 at 11:44 am to L.A.
Much of the left is under tremendous, demonic influence. By and large the left doesn't believe in demons (just like they don't believe in God) but they exist and they whisper into the ears of the leftists who then do their bidding.
Posted on 10/5/22 at 11:44 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The method of transmission (speaking vs. writing vs. typing vs. sign language, etc.) is irrelevant if it is inspired by God's divine decree and influence. The argument isn't whether or not man "wrote" the Bible, but whether or not what they wrote was what God had intended them to write in order to factually and truthfully relay His revelation to mankind. In that sense, the Bible is God's Word and objectively true.
Nothing could be more relevant. You claim that the Bible is "God's Word." That doesn't make it so, and certainly doesn't make it objectively true.
quote:
A claim by God makes it so due to His nature, but you're right that I don't expect someone to be convinced of something simply because it is claimed that God says so. That's not my point, though.
You incorrectly associated man's interpretation (that which is subjective) of God's Word with God's Word, itself (that which is objective), in the Christian worldview.
We don't have "God's Word." We have the word of men, who claim to have received the word of your god. You can believe that they're being truthful, despite evidence to the contrary, but that doesn't really matter. It still isn't the word of any god.
Posted on 10/5/22 at 11:46 am to Warfarer
quote:
Honestly, half of the left is rich that hate poor and the other half are poor that hate rich but are easily manipulated/stupid.
You could have replaced "left" with "people" and been just as correct.
Posted on 10/5/22 at 12:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
How's about if all of the jackass Dems just go ahead and abort themselves.......................problem solved.
Posted on 10/5/22 at 12:43 pm to L.A.
quote:I don't think I'm misunderstanding the point. I'm trying to get to the root of it. You are saying we can agree to disagree on "non-explicit passages", as if everything is up for debate if there isn't an explicit reference somewhere to some doctrine or principle. That's simply not true, because the underlying principle behind all of it is that God is teaching us something by His Word, and we are supposed to seek to understand what it is. Because God cannot lie, He cannot contradict Himself. Since God cannot contradict Himself, He cannot allow for equally valid competing views on what He says. God's Word includes both implicit and explicit commands and teachings. It's why we study the Scriptures to understand how to know what God is teaching us and how to apply it to our lives.
You still haven't understood my point. Let me try it again. This isn't about my interpretation of non-explicit passages. It's about you saying that a dedicated believer is ignoring the Word of God because he doesn't draw the same inferences from non-explicit passages that you do. Once again, I'm willing to allow for differences of opinion on passages where the Bible does not speak directly to an issue
"Abortion is sinful" and "abortion is not sinful" are two contradicting viewpoints. They both cannot be true at the same time, so which is the correct view? I have provided an abundance of evidence to support the teaching that abortion is murder, according to God's law. You have not provided any sort of rebuttal or justification for a competing view, but only have said that you allow for people to disagree. I know that people do disagree on many things, but the point is that to disagree over clear teaching (explicit or non-explicit) is a big problem and shows an issue with ignorance (if they haven't seen those arguments before) or downright sinful preferences (if they don't want to admit sin for what it is).
You seem to think that there is a valid competing view of abortion. Please justify what that position is and where that position is supported from the Scriptures.
quote:You continue to confuse these terms. An abortion is a specific act performed with the intent to kill a pre-born child. A miscarriage is when an act occurs that unintentionally causes the death of a pre-born child. Intent does matter. It's precisely why there are punishments for intentional and unintentional actions given in the Bible.
And your interpretation of Numbers 5 is predictable, yet disappointing. Under the oversight of a priest, a woman is ordered to drink a potion that can induce a miscarriage. That's an abortion. Your need to synchronize every passage in the bible according to your pre-determined POV is interfering with your rational thought abilities
In this case, the water is nothing by itself. It's not an abortive drug or concoction that will cause an abortion by itself. The passage in Numbers even says that nothing will happen if the woman has not lied about her infidelity (because she wasn't unfaithful). What makes this different is that the water doesn't do anything and the priest doesn't do anything: it's God who does the "doing" if the woman was lying about being unfaithful. In a sense, it's the woman who is causing her own abortion by continuing to lie about the matter before her husband, the priest, and before God.
I'm sorry you don't see the difference between a doctor who gives a drug or performs a procedure that has the explicit purpose of killing a child and a priest administering a test that is absolutely harmless in itself but is only effectual if the woman is lying to God, who is the one who is punishing the woman (and any child that may be in her womb, which is consistent with His prerogative as God).
quote:I'm not creating a false dichotomy because science is not truth, but a methodology that seeks to determine truth. This is an issue of authority: who is your final source for truth, scientists (not science, which is an immaterial concept) or God? Yes, the scientific method can be employed to understand how God's created world works naturally, but the problem comes when scientists interpret evidence with a materialistic worldview and come to anti-Biblical conclusions. Which conclusions should you abide by? God's or man's? That's my point, and it's why I posed the question to you. You seem to be looking to scientists to determine when life begins rather than God, even when God already provides the answer.
You're creating a false dichotomy between science and God. All truth is of God. Scientific truth, religious truth, mathematical truth, it's all from the same source. Truth is truth
quote:Once again, God's Word speaks abundantly on this issue. You are engaging in terrible hermeneutics if you claim that God's Word doesn't actually speak on issues if it doesn't do so explicitly (as you understand it).
Once again, a very long list of non-explicit passages from which you have drawn inferences
And where is your valid interpretation to the contrary? You keep implying that there are multiple, legitimate interpretations of the Bible on this point, and that Christians can have legitimate differences on this issue. If so, please provide your support. Where are the competing passages that show that abortion can be interpreted as a legitimate alternative to giving birth?
quote:This is truly a misrepresentation. The Trinity wasn't "created" 500 years after Christ. It was debated at that point precisely because the doctrine was under great attack at that point and the position need to be clarified. That was the point of Church Counsels anyway, to provide a clear positional teaching in response to attacks to it. The same thing happened with the Gnostic teachings on Christ's humanity. Attacks don't mean that the Scriptures aren't clear, only that there are people are are misled when they aren't in the Word.
The doctrine of the trinity was invented by Tertullian as a response to Modalism. The church would debbate the idea for almost 500 more years before settling on a consensus. Do you really believe god to be such a poor communicator thatHe would teach us something as important as His essential nature, and 500 years later His people would still be trying to figure out what He meant?
quote:I don't have an interest in debating the Trinity right now. I'll say the bare minimum at this point merely to address your heresy, but it's clear from the Scriptures that Jesus is God (He had the names of God, the attributes of God, the authority of God, performed the works of God, and was worshipped as God), and the Spirit is God. John shows Jesus' divinity from the first verses (Jesus is the Word of God and He is God).
The simple fact is that nowhere in the Bible is it said that Jesus is God. There is the one utterance of Thomas (John 20:28), but it is not given as a teaching point and is nowhere supported.
quote:The Christian (biblical) view of the Trinity is that there is one God with three distinct persons. The Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Son. Those verses only show the different persons of the Trinity, not that the Trinity doesn't exist.
There are, however, passages where Jesus is expressly said not to be God.
What this shows me, though, is that you are not a Christian (in the 'saved' sense of the word) if you are willing to argue that Jesus is not God or that there is no Trinity. I thought you were arguing from a Christian perspective, not an unbelieving perspective. No wonder you don't accept the Word of God on this matter. I'll pray for you.
This post was edited on 10/5/22 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 10/5/22 at 12:47 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:You seemed to be implying that because the Bible was transmitted through the writings of man, that it wasn't actually the word of God but the words of men. That's why I said the transmission is irrelevant to whether or not the content is God's Word. The Christian doctrine of inspiration doesn't discount that the Bible was written down by men, but it does acknowledge that those men were inspired (moved) by the Spirit to write precisely what God had intended them to write so that this revelation would go throughout the world. Man was an instrument, not the spiritual author.
Nothing could be more relevant. You claim that the Bible is "God's Word." That doesn't make it so, and certainly doesn't make it objectively true.
What makes it objectively true is that it's God's revelation. It's a message from a perfect and unchangeable God that cannot lie. This message is objectively true.
quote:OK, thank you for your opinion on the matter. God's truth isn't determine by opinion.
We don't have "God's Word." We have the word of men, who claim to have received the word of your god. You can believe that they're being truthful, despite evidence to the contrary, but that doesn't really matter. It still isn't the word of any god.
Posted on 10/5/22 at 12:48 pm to FooManChoo
The Bible is indeed the word of God. The prophet Ezekiel accurately prophesized the rebirth of Israel.
Ezekiel 36:24
English Standard Version
24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land.
Ezekiel 36:24
English Standard Version
24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land.
Posted on 10/5/22 at 12:57 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You seemed to be implying that because the Bible was transmitted through the writings of man, that it wasn't actually the word of God but the words of men.
I didn't imply it. I outright stated it.
Explain it away any way you like, but regardless of what you believe, The Bible was written by men. We do not have the word of any god, only the word of men.
quote:
What makes it objectively true is that it's God's revelation. It's a message from a perfect and unchangeable God that cannot lie. This message is objectively true.
That doesn't make it objectively true. Objectivity isn't possible.
You simply believe authority subverts subjectivity.
I do not, and certainly not based on the words of men.
quote:
OK, thank you for your opinion on the matter. God's truth isn't determine by opinion.
It isn't determined by the writings and interpretations of men, either, and that's all you have.
This post was edited on 10/5/22 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 10/5/22 at 1:38 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
It's the lynchpin to their cultural movement
Degeneracy and moral decay
If you can kill the most innocent thing in the world at will whenever you want... then the cultural Overton Window will always be shifted to your goals
Degeneracy and moral decay
If you can kill the most innocent thing in the world at will whenever you want... then the cultural Overton Window will always be shifted to your goals
Posted on 10/5/22 at 1:39 pm to L.A.
because they reframed "killing babies" as "women's healthcare".
Posted on 10/5/22 at 1:43 pm to loogaroo
quote:
It’s a few things, but mainly they get to play god.
If your answer makes your opponent seem clownishly foolish it is usually a wrong answer.
The actual answer is that after the First Wave Feminism subsided, and woman had the right to vote and participate fully in public life, the Second Wave Feminists were still concerned that women were not really taking advantage of all this. They concluded that until, and unless, women had the same reproductive freedom as men have - that is, the freedom to engage in casual sex without the specter of an unwanted pregnancy - they would not be able to be truly equal.
Remember, you asked what was their reasoning. It is my conviction that if you can’t accurately argue your opponents’ side of the issue then you are not competent to hold your own opinions on that issue. The paragraph above is their point of view in brief. I agree with it up to a point. Where I take exception is that reproductive freedom is a step toward making women identical, not just equal, to men. Also, to the extent their goals might be laudable, they must be weighed against the slaughter of the fetus/baby.
Posted on 10/5/22 at 2:37 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:If you're stupid enough to think you're smarter than I am, then you're even more stupid than I thought, and that's saying quite a bit.
Instead of being a pussy, you could've just answered the question so I could smack your small mind around a bit.
Posted on 10/5/22 at 2:50 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
If you're stupid enough to think you're smarter than I am, then you're even more stupid than I thought, and that's saying quite a bit.
I don't have any thoughts one way or another on that.
I can only go by what has happened previously.
Posted on 10/5/22 at 3:26 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I don't like to assume intent. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm glad you confirmed that my understanding of your words was correct.
I didn't imply it. I outright stated it.
quote:If what was written was precisely what God had wanted to communicate to us, then it doesn't matter if men wrote the words. The result is the same as if God Had miraculously zapped a book into existence: we have the Word of God.
Explain it away any way you like, but regardless of what you believe, The Bible was written by men. We do not have the word of any god, only the word of men.
quote:Objectivity is possible and God's Word is objectively true precisely because God is the standard for truth and that truth exists outside of humanity. The revelation was necessary because God is transcendent. He had to condescend to communicate with His creation in order for us to know this truth that exists outside of our own experience. This truth isn't determined by us, but by God, which is why I say it's objective.
That doesn't make it objectively true. Objectivity isn't possible.
quote:I do in the sense that God's transcendent nature allows Him to dictate truth in a way that our subjective experience does not allow. God being God means He has an authority over His creation that we don't have. We don't have the authority to dictate anything (what we view as 'truth', for instance) to God that He has not already determined, or which isn't already determined by His very nature. We can reject His revelation and reject objective truth all we want, but He has the authority to punish us for not conforming to that truth.
You simply believe authority subverts subjectivity.
The objective nature of God's Word comes from the fact that it is true regardless of our experience of it, because it comes from God who is apart or outside of His creation. The transcendent nature of God means that what is true is true regardless of my existence. It's true in all times, in all places, and for all peoples, even if it isn't accepted as such by us creatures.
quote:The Word of God corresponds to reality. Even man is not in a position to test God, we do have the ability to see the correspondence of His truth in our experience.
It isn't determined by the writings and interpretations of men, either, and that's all you have.
Posted on 10/5/22 at 3:29 pm to L.A.
I was thinking about this today...
If the left wants these abortions so bad, and they put no value on the "lump of cells" and call it a parasite, I wonder if the left would be okay with forced abortions one day when their party calls for it.
If the left wants these abortions so bad, and they put no value on the "lump of cells" and call it a parasite, I wonder if the left would be okay with forced abortions one day when their party calls for it.
Posted on 10/5/22 at 3:38 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If what was written was precisely what God had wanted to communicate to us, then it doesn't matter if men wrote the words.
If...
But, all we get is circular reasoning.
quote:
The result is the same as if God Had miraculously zapped a book into existence: we have the Word of God.
But he didn't.
quote:
Objectivity is possible
Not with regard to morality.
quote:
I do in the sense that God's transcendent nature allows Him to dictate truth in a way that our subjective experience does not allow.
You do in the sense that you believe that. In a discussion, you can't rely solely on what you believe. Not everyone believes as you do.
quote:
The Word of God corresponds to reality.
Says you.
Posted on 10/5/22 at 7:08 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:All axioms are circular, necessarily. Everyone must appeal for support for their reasoning to another authority or reason until you get to where there is no other support or authority to appeal to. I cannot appeal to anything beyond or greater than God because there is nothing greater than God.
If...
But, all we get is circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning isn't necessarily fallacious. I've said this many times in the past, but as an example: try proving logic exists without using logic. You have to appeal to logic in order to even show that it exists. You assume logic out of necessity.
quote:Correct. He worked in time (around 2,000 years) across many different individuals to provide His revelation and have it written down. God uses means to accomplish His purposes.
But he didn't.
quote:Of course it is. It's possible because God's character is the very source of objective morality. It's not an experience in God, or some whim or capriciousness that is the basis for moral reasoning, but an unchangeable righteousness that exists necessarily in the being of God. This righteousness is the standard for righteousness (morality) that extends to all creation through the moral law of God, which applies to all people in all times and in all places without respect to individual preference or interpretation.
Not with regard to morality.
And this corresponds with reality, as all people "know" right and wrong at a basic level, and act that out when they are the recipient of something they believe is immoral behavior. I've yet to meet someone who acts consistently with a belief that morality is subjective.
quote:I know that not everyone believes as I do, and that's exactly why I continue to participate in these discussions. My hope is that God would be gracious to use my weak words through His Spirit to change the hearts and minds of those reading them. I don't believe that I can convince anyone into salvation, but that it's entirely a work of God using the means of the gospel.
You do in the sense that you believe that. In a discussion, you can't rely solely on what you believe. Not everyone believes as you do.
What I'm doing is trying to remain consistent with my commitment to the highest authority I believe there is: God's Word. It would be a violation to appeal to something higher or greater than God's Word to prove God's Word.
With that said, I can use other arguments that show consistency between reality and God's Word because I believe that God's Word faithfully describes the reality we live in (it's not some mythical fantasy as many atheists describe it), and that reality should have marks of the truth of God's Word in it.
My job as a Christian apologist is not to convince anyone to be a Christian (that's the role of the Holy Spirit), but to remove the sword of my opponent and show how foolish his arguments are compared to the truth of God's Word. I am not an expert and so I don't do this very well, but that's my goal. I'm trying to show the foolishness of all competing worldviews to show that God's Word is true and that it's foolish not to agree with it.
I prefer the presuppositional apologetical method and in particular, the transcendental argument, as I believe that unbelievers have no rational basis for their own worldviews and rejection of God and that they must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of reality.
quote:Says God. Repent of your sins and put your trust in Jesus Christ before you die in your sins and are condemned for eternity.
Says you.
This post was edited on 10/5/22 at 7:29 pm
Posted on 10/5/22 at 7:59 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
All axioms are circular, necessarily.
That doesn't make them inherently useful. You feel a need to appeal to an authority because you think we must have all the answers. That's where gods came from. It was a convenient way to explain what we didn't know, and an absolute to establishing control over the uneducated masses.
We grow further away from needing a deity every day, not because of sin or whatever other bullshite you'll claim, but because of knowledge and education.
quote:
Correct. He worked in time (around 2,000 years) across many different individuals to provide His revelation and have it written down. God uses means to accomplish His purposes.
Must have been having an off couple of millennia.
quote:
Of course it is. It's possible because God's character is the very source of objective morality. It's not an experience in God, or some whim or capriciousness that is the basis for moral reasoning, but an unchangeable righteousness that exists necessarily in the being of God. This righteousness is the standard for righteousness (morality) that extends to all creation through the moral law of God, which applies to all people in all times and in all places without respect to individual preference or interpretation.
And this corresponds with reality, as all people "know" right and wrong at a basic level, and act that out when they are the recipient of something they believe is immoral behavior. I've yet to meet someone who acts consistently with a belief that morality is subjective.
bullshite.
Society establishes this, not any god. That's why we see different moral systems across different belief systems. It's entirely subjective because it can't be anything else.
quote:
I know that not everyone believes as I do
Then you should carry the discussion with that in mind. You can proselytize all you like, but at the end of the day, that's all you're doing. Your words have no value outside of your own beliefs.
quote:
Says God.
Says you.
Posted on 10/5/22 at 8:05 pm to L.A.
The left loves freedom that’s why.
Page 12 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News