The problem is self interpretation of the Bible by those with a certain agenda. To start a new off shoot you need scriptural backing so you find it.
There is one.
I block everyone who doesn't agree with everything I say verbatim. The conversations I have with myself are intellectually invigorating.
The term "emotional affair" is a way for people to feel a little better about their affair because there was no sex. You are right though, it's all the same in the end.
Agree. God should not be forced. He should be seen for His Goodness and Chosen for His Goodness.
Steve Harvey has never said such a thing.
Well, you certainly are a fanatic! And, I did NOT tell anyone that a part of the Bible is irrelevant. What is irrelevant is the fact that no punishment is mentioned. Learn reading comprehension.
Here's you, nothingburger:
Why should they treat Christian slaves any different than non-christian slaves? And they didn't persecute them because they were Christians.
exactly per my caveat you need to have no expectations
I agree with most of your post.
I agree. I just hope that she tests the waters before she jumps in.
Yes they are. But what they are really saying is that their mystical entity called 'science' agrees with everything the invoker claims.
Yes Francisco apologize for your marriage now
Rare because I am served best warm and moist.
Less violent than a gang.
LOL! :D :D :D Thanks for that.
As we can't actually locate the "beginning" of astrology in history, the relationship may actually be just the reverse - it may be that religion is a spin-off of astrology! The sun, moon, stars, and planets all figure pretty prominently in every primitive religion known to history and anthropology.
"I am not a crook!" Richard Nixon.
Impotent posthumous threats don't scare adults.
Just as I thought.
Cultural fascism is a set of beliefs about gender, god, and religion. Roy Moore is the prototypical contemporary cultural fascist.
The easy girl kind!
According to the article, the Pope spoke out against churches judging back in 2013.
How about all of it? You're giving us pseudo-philosophical crap that doesn't sound the least bit defensible, never mind you start all of your arguments by begging the question concerning terms with explicit definitions, terms that were properly used within the right context, but you wanted to act stupid in order to lead into this Rabbit-Hole-stream-of-consciousness you call a thinking process. To put it bluntly:
And is always provisional. New data can change a theory or even cause it to be replaced with a better one.
I imagine all those Js told her all about it too, huh? ??