Sheldon
Veteran Member
That's proselytising.Verily, dear Believer.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That's proselytising.Verily, dear Believer.
Here’s a list of biblical scholars:
A List Of Conservative And Liberal Bible Scholars
Modern atheists often say that “a majority of scholars…” say certain things regarding the reliability of the Bible. When we press these individuals on precisely who these scholars are, we find that they are most often liberal scholars who do not believe God exists in the first place.
TLegal abortion involves neither children nor murder, it usually involves an insentient blastocyst, or developing but still insentient foetus, so this is a risible false equivalence.
You can justify a developing human being by calling it by another name but when looking at the pictures of a developing baby in the womb, this shows a different picture and reality.Legal abortion involves neither children nor murder, it usually involves an insentient blastocyst, or developing but still insentient foetus, so this is a risible false equivalence.
Was this even addressed to you? Why do you bring that up? What’s the proselytizing part?That's proselytising.
I find it very accurateThat list has been debunked again and again, they're offering subjective beliefs, just because someone is a biblical scholar doesn't mean everything they believe satisfies the criteria for validating historical claims. The crucifixion and therefor an extant character called Jesus, and the only two claims corroborated independently and thus considered to likely be historically true, the rest is pure hearsay.
The rest of your post is risible, the idea that believers would be far less likely in general to find biblical claims unreliable than unbelievers, it's so trivially true as to be meaningless.
They are preparing another ban for a Christian, do not mess it up. I want to suffer more.Was this even addressed to you? Why do you bring that up? What’s the proselytizing part?
Under the disguise of Molech is satan.of sacrificing to Molech
Why do you want to suffer?They are preparing another ban for a Christian, do not mess it up. I want to suffer more.
We all will fight the Death at the deathbed. Why not during all life?Why do you want to suffer?
Why not do some change in your life so you not sufferWe all will fight the Death at the deathbed. Why not during all life?
We all will fight the Death at the deathbed.Why not do some change in your life so you not suffer
You are not deadWe all will fight the Death at the deathbed.
T
You can justify a developing human being by calling it by another name
but when looking at the pictures of a developing baby in the womb, this shows a different picture and reality.
How are abortions done? What’s the method at say 15 weeks?
So this is more along the lines of sacrificing to Molech or worse.
Was my post addressed to you? Why do you bring this up? You can look the word up in a dictionary.Was this even addressed to you? Why do you bring that up? What’s the proselytizing part?
I find it very accurate
So what?We all will fight the Death at the deathbed.
You were the one who falsely tried to claim another poster had violated the rules. Failed to explain which rule he had violated as he had not done so, and are now complaining when I point out that proselytising is against the rules, this is a debate forum.They are preparing another ban for a Christian, do not mess it up. I want to suffer more.
We all will fight the Death at the deathbed. Why not during all life?
A developing baby is not just clump of cells is it? That’s your view? So you’re saying the innocent in this case has no voice or rights and at which stage of the pregnancy is the developing baby more than a clump of cells? Is a beating heart just a clump of cells? Arms, legs, a brain, nervous system?That depends if you hold the bizarre notion that terminating an insentient clump of cells is comparable to killing a fully sentient human being, and since it is not remotely comparable, then your point is unclear? The fact remains it is a part of a woman's body, topologically connected, and using here immune system, metabolisms and blood for oxygen and nutrients, in order to develop, thus it is her decision to allow her body to continue to be used.
I see the facts one way you see them another, you have your interpretation of facts and I posted mine, which are accurate.So what, your ability to ignore facts, doesn't change those facts.