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.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.
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.