Pro-choice

BMS

Well-known member
Completely false and unsupported.


False again.


Only someone who knows they don't believe? What are you talking about?


No, nothing you've said indicates that atheists think they are god.

And atheists aren't angry at god, any more than they are angry at Sauron or Voldemort.
False again


. Oh and completely unsupported (I nearly forgot that 😉)
 

BMS

Well-known member
I interpret it as I believe is right. If you think it is a giraffe then I think you are bonkers.
Thats feelings again. Interpretation requires addressing what is said or written in context.

So it is strange that you choose feelings rather than meaning and then reject it as bonkers because you dont like it
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Thats feelings again. Interpretation requires addressing what is said or written in context.

So it is strange that you choose feelings rather than meaning and then reject it as bonkers because you dont like it
OK, you go ahead and produce the evidence that shows that the photograph is a giraffe.

Everything that a normal person does, says or thinks is processed through the brain, a process that you choose to call feelings. I am not surprised to hear that you, uniquely, have found a way of operating without using the brain. It explains the garbage you come up with.
 

BMS

Well-known member
OK, you go ahead and produce the evidence that shows that the photograph is a giraffe.

Everything that a normal person does, says or thinks is processed through the brain, a process that you choose to call feelings. I am not surprised to hear that you, uniquely, have found a way of operating without using the brain. It explains the garbage you come up with.
You missed the point. It cant be 'interpreted' as a giraffe anymore than the Biblical exclusions and condemnations of homosexual relations can be 'interpreted' to deny them, which is what ES does... and you.
You see 'not everyone agrees with you' doesnt attempt to address what the truth is
 

BMS

Well-known member
Same with the human being at foetal stage. Its a human being regardless of whether it is at foetal stage or not.
For a child sacrifice one would identify the human being at child stage to kill it then, and for pro-choice abortion one has to identify the human being at foetal stage
 

Temujin

Well-known member
You missed the point. It cant be 'interpreted' as a giraffe anymore than the Biblical exclusions and condemnations of homosexual relations can be 'interpreted' to deny them, which is what ES does... and you.
You see 'not everyone agrees with you' doesnt attempt to address what the truth is
No, neither @Electric Sceptic nor I interpret the Bible. We both of us note however that different Christians interpret the Bible differently. Take it up with them. When you have sorted out your differences, you can come back and say with confidence, "THIS is what Christians say." At the moment all you can do is say "This is what I say." You cannot claim Biblical authority for something other Christians disagree on. That would be arrogant and presumptive. They are as imbued with the Holy Spirit just as you are. If you see a giraffe where they see an elephant, don't blame me. I don't see anything but an out of date book that far too many people rely on far too much.
 

BMS

Well-known member
No, neither @Electric Sceptic nor I interpret the Bible. We both of us note however that different Christians interpret the Bible differently. Take it up with them. When you have sorted out your differences, you can come back and say with confidence, "THIS is what Christians say." At the moment all you can do is say "This is what I say." You cannot claim Biblical authority for something other Christians disagree on. That would be arrogant and presumptive. They are as imbued with the Holy Spirit just as you are. If you see a giraffe where they see an elephant, don't blame me. I don't see anything but an out of date book that far too many people rely on far too much.
Then you are in denial of what you have just said.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
You missed the point. It cant be 'interpreted' as a giraffe anymore than the Biblical exclusions and condemnations of homosexual relations can be 'interpreted' to deny them, which is what ES does... and you.
Why do you so consistently lie about my position? Despite being repeatedly corrected?
 

BMS

Well-known member
Why do you so consistently lie about my position? Despite being repeatedly corrected?
Why did you pretend the texts didnt mean what they said? There is no misreprestation. I told you, if you didnt think the texts meant what they say then how do we know what you write means what it says?
 

BMS

Well-known member
No, neither @Electric Sceptic nor I interpret the Bible. We both of us note however that different Christians interpret the Bible differently. Take it up with them. When you have sorted out your differences, you can come back and say with confidence, "THIS is what Christians say." At the moment all you can do is say "This is what I say." You cannot claim Biblical authority for something other Christians disagree on. That would be arrogant and presumptive. They are as imbued with the Holy Spirit just as you are. If you see a giraffe where they see an elephant, don't blame me. I don't see anything but an out of date book that far too many people rely on far too much.
So that is why I am doing the same with you, as you do to us. Having been shown what the Biblical texts say, you prefer to ignore the evidence and pretend to remain undecided.

We happen to note that certain transgender activists, as shown, dont believe in gender identity. When you have sorted out the differences then come back with arguments about it, but not until. Until then you cannot claim that gender identity exists, so stop doing it.

I will carry on debating the evidence with posters who are interested in getting to the truth.
 
Last edited:

BMS

Well-known member
Laws in some countries differ so you cant say abortion is legal because in one country where the limit is 24 weeks its actually illegal in another after 14 weeks. So when you have sorted out what it should be, come back and debate it.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Not all women agree that abortion should be allowed, and they disagree on limits. It is very arrogant and presumptious of you to as a man to prrsume to try and speak for some women as opposed to others. When you can agree with all women, come back and debate
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Why did you pretend the texts didnt mean what they said?
I did not.
There is no misreprestation.
There is constant misrepresentation. I have nowhere said what you claim, nor can you show where I have. More, I have repeatedly told you that I have not said what you claim (because you have falsely claimed it before).
I told you, if you didnt think the texts meant what they say then how do we know what you write means what it says?
Continued misrepresentation.

Why can you not be honest and address what I have repeatedly said, rather than what you imagine?
 
Top