He was great in that movie.

Norm Macdonald with a recap of the coverage of the attempted hijacking of the Israeli plane.

This looks fantastic. I’m not afraid to say that I love romantic period dramas, especially Jane Austen adaptations. The 1995 version with Kate Winslett is my favourite Jane Austen adaptation, but this also looks really good.

Anyone, including the men, who are murderers or accessories to murder should be charged for murder.

Come on, bro. So if a Catholic cites the Bible as a basis for their rejection of homosexual marriage, you will say they are not being Biblical? You are talking to me, brother—not other pro-lifers. Just as I am talking to you, not some of the awful slanderous abolitionists I know. So make arguments against what I believe, not what others believe. I do not believe women are second victims in abortion.

I do not like that some pro-life organizations campaign against abolitionist bills. I also dislike that abolitionists campaign against incremental bills.

My brother, I am pro-life because of Biblical ethics. 🙂 Also, are you suggesting that Catholics do not have Biblical sexual ethics? I firmly reject Catholicism as another gospel. But that doesn’t mean Catholics like Lila do not have biblical views on some things—including sexuality.

This is such an important point. It shows that we cannot separate biblical sexual ethics from pro-life advocacy.

Thank you for your humble and kind reply, sir.

It’s a good question. But I don’t think it’s because of the pro-life/incremental mindset. Iowa is an interesting case because from what I I understand, the legislators are mostly pro-life. They have all the power. But according to polls, voters are strongly pro-abortion. I don’t have all the details, but it seems to me that the legislators are concerned that supporting an abolitionist bill (or even another incrementalist bill) would anger voters even more and backfire. I would do it, anyway. But if my assumptions are correct, as heartbreaking as it is, I understand. Iowa, I’m sure is looking at what happened here in Ohio, and they are probably treading carefully. I want them to be more courageous. But I also know that things can be more complicated than we think.

I am an abolitionist in the traditional sense. But since I do not believe that an immediate abolition is the only biblical option (I support incremental bills when people’s hearts are too hardened for immediate abolition), people who call themselves abolitionists today wouldn’t call me an abolitionist. I call myself a biblical incrementalist or a Wilberforcian abolitionist. I wrote about that here: slowtowrite.com/why-i-am-not… I also had the honour of debating Jeff Durbin on the topic a couple of years ago.

I am not an abortion “abolitionist.” But if women shouldn’t be punished for aborting their children, then Lindsey Clancy shouldn’t be punished for murdering her children. And to be honest, it wouldn’t surprise me if Christianity Today believes she shouldn’t be punished either.

You don’t follow my writing, do you, sir? I’ve been writing about that kind of nonsense for a while.

🙌🏿🙌🏿

My sin was this, that I looked for pleasure, beauty, and truth not in Him but myself and his other creatures, and the search led me instead of pain, confusion, and error. -Augustine, Confessions

“Because the Bible says so” is still a good, solid, and credible answer. Don’t be ashamed of it!

Candace Owens.

I’ve publicly criticized feminists and the LGBT crowd many times. But I never have more foul, vulgar, and degrading things said to me than when I criticize the CN crowd. Let that sink in!

😂😂

The quiet pastor faithfully preaching the Bible and counseling his church in truth and love is doing more for America and more importantly, more for Christ than thousands of Christians online who think it will profit them to gain worldly influence, even as they lose their souls.