I am back

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

https://t.co/o2q7DqFBus

[Jo Jo🇳🇴 🇺🇸🏴‍☠️🌺 I’m totally a bot @Johanna_1254]

The way Johnny’s drug and alcohol problem was AH’s whole case.
AH’s perception of Johnny being “inebriated and high”

- well, he was 2 hours late to my birthday party. That was a sign.
- he didn’t socialize properly.
- he was so late to something that was so important to me.
- the normal behavior when you’re late is to say “I’m sorry and happy birthday”

Guys, I just needed to share this.

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@ElRodoJr @DennyFrisco @RandomTheGuy_ @dom_lucre So how did multiple random people manage to film the airplanes with their cameras?

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@14smoke4ever @AndySwan @meredith1_keith @RCdeWinter @GenoVeno73 The video clearly shows that there is no damage to the teleprompter after the shooting. ... Your post reminds me of Groucho Marx's famous quote: "Who do you believe? Me or your own eyes?"

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@ianmiles That is ridiculous. There are plenty of other people around her that also stay seated and don't duck their heads. Besides, the notion that everyone will be equally quick to perceive what is going on, and that everyone will react the same way, is just plain wrong.

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@jimjimmyjimjt @ianmiles What about all the other people who didn't stop filming with their phones and concentrate on their own safety? Did THEY also know? ..And which facial expressions and reactions are natural in situations like this? Do you have list? Did everyone know right away what was happening?

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@ted_patriot @NeverteIImeodd Jesus said: "I live because of my father." ... God would never say that about himself; he doesn't live because of someone else. Jesus used the analogy "son" (of God) because he owed his life to God. If Jesus had existed always, he would had used another analogy (like "brother").

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Nibbe72 @TheNotoriousBBV I respect that. I know it doesn't change your opinion on abortion. But at least we agree when it comes to the meaning of this particular text.

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Nibbe72 @TheNotoriousBBV Fact is that there is no distinction between mother and child when it comes to the potential harm an accident could cause. ... Did you seriously think that they were just told to brush it off like "Oh, well. Never mind. You're fine. And you can always have another!" 🤔 2/2

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Nibbe72 @TheNotoriousBBV "So that she gives birth prematurely and yet no harm follows". ... The Hebrew words that are translated to "gives birth" literally mean "THE CHILD comes out". .... So I don't know how you can claim that the last part of the sentence has nothing to do with the first part? 1/2

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Nibbe72 @TheNotoriousBBV Where does the text say that it only applies to the woman?

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Nibbe72 @TheNotoriousBBV "But if [any] harm follows, then you shall give life for life."

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Nibbe72 @TheNotoriousBBV Yes, and omitting verse 23 is not an "argument" - that's just dishonesty. ... So try again.

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Nibbe72 @TheNotoriousBBV "No, it doesn't." - What a fantastic argument ... 🙄

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Nibbe72 @TheNotoriousBBV Actually the original Hebrew text refers to both mother and child with regard to the risk of a fatal accident. So you couldn't be more wrong here.

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Diana35691339 @bobda @iamAtheistGirl Christians have the right to give birth to children. Thus it's not THEIR problem that others don't respect life and have weird, unscientific ideas about unborn children. Jesus didn't tell his disciples to seek political influence. They should only worry about their own morals.

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Nibbe72 @TheNotoriousBBV As you already know, I agree that Jeremiah's text is proof that God considers the unborn child a person. And as a matter of it's also scientifically correct to have this view, because many (not all) of the child's personal traits have already been determined through its DNA.

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Nibbe72 @TheNotoriousBBV ... 4th century isn't relevant, since the heads of the church had involved themselves with the political powers of Rome and had abandoned many of the basic Christian teachings and replaced them with pagan ideas and Greek philosophy. 2/2

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Nibbe72 @TheNotoriousBBV The Bible itself is consistent when it comes to establishing when a child should be considered a person. While it's interesting (but not crucial) what the first Christians had to say about the matter in the 1st and 2nd century, the opinion of the apostate church in the ... 1/2

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Nibbe72 @TheNotoriousBBV I doubt that anyone ever discussed this matter in the pre-Christian era, or that anyone argued that "a baby didn't get personhood until first breath after birth". Jeremiah's and David's texts showed God's faithful servants that he considered the unborn child a human or person.

[I am back @Iamback61078807]

@Nibbe72 @TheNotoriousBBV Not being able to choose (what to see and know) can hardly be described as "being all powerful".

Example: When God saw that all he had created, was good, it included Adam and Eve. In other words: He didn't see their future; that they would soon disobey him and ruin everything.