This "Dr. King"???
Oh good grief!
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
This "Dr. King"???
This "Dr. King"???
I contacted him about his two presentations on Seventh-day Adventists, and his errors therein. I have not heard back, but I did manage to post some material on his blog site. Also posting a differing video on an unrelated subject of "Dr. King" doesn't negate the information presented in his "Dr. King" video, does it?Oh so Steven Anderson is your new Prophet?
I'm sure he loves the sda's too Remember Alofa says this is reputable source
What I said was, in essence, 'it depends on context and definition and circumstance', but you ignored all what I said to make your claim seem valid. It wasn't ever valid.You can't say abortion is murder ...
By definition "miscarriage" is "abortion". That's why I asked you to define "abortion" several times, but always somehow manage to never do. As I said, you prefer your own SJW world. I prefer reality and truth....miscarriage an abortion. ...
Sorry brother read the SDA statement...... YOU LOSE.By definition "miscarriage" is "abortion". That's why I asked you to define "abortion" several times, but always somehow manage to never do. As I said, you prefer your own SJW world. I prefer reality and truth.
Yes utilyan, that is what I kept trying to get you to do when you asked the question. They defined their terms. I defined terms. You defined??? Therefore, when you asked, "Is abortion murder?" I presented to you the facts that miscarriage, etc are also classed as abortion, legally and medically and definitionally. So, that's why with your vague question, it could be 'yes', or 'no' in response, depending, as already stated.As used in this statement, abortion is defined ...
Those would be the parts where it is incorrect, as it does not represent all of the information available (ectopic pregnancy removal is not listed in their article, nor a few other things). The teaching is also already clear from scripture and the SoP/ToJ and written material already cited in this thread., and so to say there is not a clear teaching is in itself erroneous. Also, the "commandment keepers" do not represent the whole 'church', as there are sheep and goats, John's and Judas's. Therefore, to say that the remnant cannot be called "commandment keepers" because of what others do and say is also in error. It would be the same thing as attempting to say that Jesus was sinful through Judas's actions, words. Do you think that, really? Again, what an individual 'pastor' says is not necessarily what the whole of the body says. Individuals have said correct and incorrect things. You might say, "Aren't you an individual?". Yes, but I am not citing me, I cited the official statements from scripture and SoP/ToJ and pioneer material which is the actual position irrespective of individuals. The Bible says, Isaiah 8:20.Pastor who is part of the draft says THE CHURCH MUST NOW ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR FAULT OPENLY.
Also in 14:30 admits they can't be called commandment keepers telling folks to keep the sabbath when they have no clear teaching on abortion.
Those would be the parts where it is incorrect, as it does not represent all of the information available (ectopic pregnancy removal is not listed in their article, nor a few other things). The teaching is also already clear from scripture and the SoP/ToJ and written material already cited in this thread., and so to say there is not a clear teaching is in itself erroneous. Also, the "commandment keepers" do not represent the whole 'church', as there are sheep and goats, John's and Judas's. Therefore, to say that the remnant cannot be called "commandment keepers" because of what others do and say is also in error. It would be the same thing as attempting to say that Jesus was sinful through Judas's actions, words. Do you think that, really? Again, what an individual 'pastor' says is not necessarily what the whole of the body says. Individuals have said correct and incorrect things. You might say, "Aren't you an individual?". Yes, but I am not citing me, I cited the official statements from scripture and SoP/ToJ and pioneer material which is the actual position irrespective of individuals. The Bible says, Isaiah 8:20.
No, I cited actual Catholic teaching with Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. I cited the official CCC and CCE, Canon Law, etc.You have no problem ignoring actual catholic teaching ..
No, I cited actual Catholic teaching with Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. I cited the official CCC and CCE, Canon Law, etc.
Of course it is, as I defined, now all you have to do is just define "unborn children" and "abortion" and you will see what I have said from the beginning. For instance, an ectopic pregnancy, what think you? What about early pregnancy that ends in failure (though unintended as final result), though it was surgically done to save the mothers life? (for instance an early C-section (technically an 'abortion', for it aborted the full process), for a 'premie' who dies shortly afterward, though the pregnancy was already in complications, threatening the mother's life)?the willful killing of unborn children is a sin.
"... Q: Does the Catholic Church oppose abortion if it is needed to save a woman’s life?
A: ... the Church does permit morally neutral medical procedures designed to save a pregnant woman’s life that may have an unintended side-effect of causing a child to die in the womb, such as the removal of a cancerous uterus. ..." - [1]