Your Loving God

[Herd Fever]

The bible makes numerous references to a child in the womb of a mother. This shuts down your argument entirely.

Stop. Really. I can respect dumb people who know they are dumb. I get annoyed with dumb people who are too dumb to know that they are dumb, think they know something, and try to teach others.

Do you know who the Child in the Womb of Mother is supposed to represent?? How about the Mother??

 

[Herd Fever]

@extragreen God's appointed time is near for the 3rd Sabbath service of the Day but if you want to continue this, I'll gladly provide the scriptures for you in about an hour and a half.

 

[extragreen]

Read Matthew 5 verse 17

It says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I Have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For Truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore ANYONE who sets aside one of the least commands and teaches others accordingly will be called Least in the Kingdom of Heaven but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven."

You can also look at Relevation 22 verse 18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the Prophecy of this scroll: If Anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the Tree of Life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Eph 2:15 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

 

[sistersville]

You don't discover God, God is already in you. That is like asking when did you discover your mother and father.

The issue is for far too long Satan have deceived the Child of God. Making God Children's to believe you don't have to keep the Sabbath holy, you don't have to keep the Passover, you don't have to observes the prayer times of the Sacred Calender, that you don't have to be Baptized, and you don't have to take part in the Holy Fesitivals.

Only the deceiver will tell you, you don't have to follow God's commands and only commands of Man.

What Jesus did on the cross is why you csn obtain salvation. Its not we do but what he did on Calvary.all the praise to the Lord Jesus

 

[ohio herd]

Oh, I get it quite easily.

You stated that you were against abortion because of what I quoted you as having said earlier regarding conception.

But, for some odd and illogical reason, that same reason about conception doesn't apply for you for in vitro.

It's and inconsistent argument in that case; one that you have yet to explain.

Why does your reason for being against womb abortions not apply to the same exact thing with conception during in vitro?

Okay I will go real slooooooow for you. Since you ADDED to my point I will TRY to help you out. I never said any of what you said. I was never making that point. And your point about Aliens losing weight on a marshmallow diet doesn't make sense so defend it on here.
Since you seem to be all put out with asking me a question I never made here it is Rufus here is my response.

Because the fertilized egg is a living human, there are some moral implications to consider. Often, couples decide to harvest more eggs than they plan to use, which means that some of the embryos end up being destroyed, or frozen for later use. However, if the couple conceives immediately, they may never need to use the frozen embryos, which would then end up being destroyed. The Bible does not give us permission to destroy innocent human life—this would be murder.

One way to avoid this problem is to only harvest the eggs that the couple plans to implant in the womb. There is, of course, a high risk that at least some of the fertilized eggs will miscarry, but this way it would be a natural expulsion instead of purposeful destruction. This also means that the woman may have to go through additional procedures and expense to have more eggs harvested later on.

Several options are available to address these leftover embryos.An alternative is to generate only the exact number of embryos to be implanted, thus 1-2. This would be safest, although admittedly not cost-effective and more likely not to result in pregnancy The embryos can be thawed and implanted to give them a chance at life, either in the mother’s womb (the best option), or an adoptive mother’s womb.

issues like this are complex and not easily solved in a chat room . But to your point if a fertilized egg is destroyed it is the taking of life so for me i wouldn't go this route.

 

[Walden Pond]

You can lose weight on marshmallows. Hamburgers, ice cream, chips, lard, whatever. If you eat small enough amounts.

Drove around the mountains yesterday and noticed all the Easter services to be held today. Thought of how nice the music and singing was at church when I used to go. Leaning, leaning, they play that one on Andy Griffith too.

Even though I still believe I'm just going to die and rot with no afterlife, the music is still nice. And even though I can't stand to be around the people longer than about 3 seconds, they're nice folks and have a lot of good values. I respect them.

Damn rain. I'm not going down there to the ballgame and risking a rain delay.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Do you know who the Child in the Womb of Mother is supposed to represent?? How about the Mother??

You're arguing based on one reference to "womb" in the bible while avoiding the dozens of others? That is your problem. You are reading a blog which argues its point based on one reference, yet you aren't smart enough to realize it is references numerous other times.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Okay I will go real slooooooow for you. Since you ADDED to my point I will TRY to help you out. I never said any of what you said. I was never making that point. And your point about Aliens losing weight on a marshmallow diet doesn't make sense so defend it on here.
Since you seem to be all put out with asking me a question I never made here it is Rufus here is my response.

Don't turn this around and make it look like I am the one having trouble understanding. I didn't make a strawman like you are accusing me of doing in your example.

You argued that you were against abortion (in the womb) and gave your reason why. That same exact reason holds true with in vitro. You can argue all you want about being able to freeze them for later use, only harvesting the exact number desired, etc. But that doesn't happen. It makes the chances of an effective pregnancy too hard and too expensive. In other words, based on your argument about being against abortion in the womb, you are also against in vitro.

You should have just said that from the start instead of using an inconsistent argument and then having to back-out of your argument by claiming exceptions one, two, and three which rarely apply.

 

[ohio herd]

Don't turn this around and make it look like I am the one having trouble understanding. I didn't make a strawman like you are accusing me of doing in your example.

You argued that you were against abortion (in the womb) and gave your reason why. That same exact reason holds true with in vitro. You can argue all you want about being able to freeze them for later use, only harvesting the exact number desired, etc. But that doesn't happen. It makes the chances of an effective pregnancy too hard and too expensive. In other words, based on your argument about being against abortion in the womb, you are also against in vitro.

You should have just said that from the start instead of using an inconsistent argument and then having to back-out of your argument by claiming exceptions one, two, and three which rarely apply.

Don't turn this around and make it look like I am the one having trouble understanding. I didn't make a strawman like you are accusing me of doing in your example.

You argued that you were against abortion (in the womb) and gave your reason why. That same exact reason holds true with in vitro. You can argue all you want about being able to freeze them for later use, only harvesting the exact number desired, etc. But that doesn't happen. It makes the chances of an effective pregnancy too hard and too expensive. In other words, based on your argument about being against abortion in the womb, you are also against in vitro.

You should have just said that from the start instead of using an inconsistent argument and then having to back-out of your argument by claiming exceptions one, two, and three which rarely apply.

I'm still waiting for you to explain your view on Aliens eating marshmellos. My org response was to this statement : What you fail to understand is that pro-choice advocates believe that a fetus doesn't have human rights until it is born. It's a pretty easy.
I said that the baby is a human not a Fetus while still in the womb. So before you accuse me of making a straw man comparison you need to read. I never made a comment on In vitro. If you wanted to know my position on that subject all you had to do was ask.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

I'm still waiting for you to explain your view on Aliens eating marshmellos. My org response was to this statement : What you fail to understand is that pro-choice advocates believe that a fetus doesn't have human rights until it is born. It's a pretty easy.
I said that the baby is a human not a Fetus while still in the womb. So before you accuse me of making a straw man comparison you need to read. I never made a comment on In vitro. If you wanted to know my position on that subject all you had to do was ask.

I did ask you fvcking moron. Go back and read post #52 in this thread ("So you are also against in vitro because you believe microscopic globs of cells equate to a human being?"). But you already knew that since you quoted that question posed to you and responded to it.

You made a statement about why you oppose abortion in the womb. The reason for you being opposed to that also is a reason which would hold true in the in vitro process. Hence, I asked if you were also opposed to in vitro.

You then couldn't answer the question and tried reversing out by claiming exceptions which almost never exist in the in vitro process. The short answer to my question would have been "I don't support in vitro for the same reason I don't support abortions (in the womb) unless the in vitro is done with these exceptions to the norm . . . "

 

[ohio herd]

I did ask you fvcking moron. Go back and read post #52 in this thread ("So you are also against in vitro because you believe microscopic globs of cells equate to a human being?"). But you already knew that since you quoted that question posed to you and responded to it.

You made a statement about why you oppose abortion in the womb. The reason for you being opposed to that also is a reason which would hold true in the in vitro process. Hence, I asked if you were also opposed to in vitro.

You then couldn't answer the question and tried reversing out by claiming exceptions which almost never exist in the in vitro process. The short answer to my question would have been "I don't support in vitro for the same reason I don't support abortions (in the womb) unless the in vitro is done with these exceptions to the norm . . . "

I gave you my position. By the way after #52 I was responding to someone else not you. I did answer the question so are you in favor of killing the unborn?

 

[Walden Pond]

Since there is no absolute on whether or not this thing is a life, convenience rules the day. I'd say at least 71% of people have no real attachment to a baby until they name it anyway. Before then, it's fair game.

Abortion, here to stay.

 

[Herd Fever]

You're arguing based on one reference to "womb" in the bible while avoiding the dozens of others? That is your problem. You are reading a blog which argues its point based on one reference, yet you aren't smart enough to realize it is references numerous other times.

Do you even know what the womb represents?

Once you figure that out, then we will have this conversation. When it comes to the Bible, either you want to find out the truth and what the Word means to you. Or you let the Devil speak for you and you bash the faith. The Bible says don't give your fruits of knowledge to pigs. Useless Arguments with ones who deny the word is against God's teachings. So I'm not entertaining your petty arguments anymore.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

I gave you my position. By the way after #52 I was responding to someone else not you. I did answer the question so are you in favor of killing the unborn?

No, after #52 you were responding to me about this topic. You even quoted this user name in your responses. The other name you responded to later is also me with a different name. It doesn't matter who you are arguing with or who asked you the question; your argument should be the same.

So, after backpedaling and trying to find exceptions, you now have admitted that you are against in vitro (in almost every single case). That way, your argument stays consistent. It just makes you batshit crazy to think that in vitro is wrong.

 

[ohio herd]

No, after #52 you were responding to me about this topic. You even quoted this user name in your responses. The other name you responded to later is also me with a different name. It doesn't matter who you are arguing with or who asked you the question; your argument should be the same.

So, after backpedaling and trying to find exceptions, you now have admitted that you are against in vitro (in almost every single case). That way, your argument stays consistent. It just makes you batshit crazy to think that in vitro is wrong.

so I am crazy because I value life? Is that what you are saying? PS so you use 2 names here ....priceless